[A2k] Net Freedoms in Europe: Recapitulating the capitulation

[Ludovic Pénet]

On lun., 2009-11-02 at 17:35 +0100, Philippe Aigrain (perso) wrote:
> Ludovic,
>
> I am surprised to read you stating that the protection of the right to
> access the Internet, recognized by both our constitutional court and the
> Lambrinidis report of the European Parliament as a practical condition
> for the exercize of freedom of expression and communication in our times
> has nothing to do with the European regulatory framework for the
> telecommunications in Europe.
Philippe,

I do not say that this subject is not important. I say that it was not
discussed in the "Telecoms package" before attempts to introduce "three
strikes" in it.

>
> Even if you believe it, this does not authorize you to misrepresent the
> position of La Quadrature du Net. We always defended amendment 138
> because -despite some weaknesses in wording- it instantiated long
> affirmed rights (such as the right to a fair trial recognized in ECHRC,
> the European Charter of Fundamental Rights) in a specific context. This
> context is both regulatory (the telecom packet) and political (the will
> of (still) powerful lobbies and several large European countries to
> introduce three-strikes laws or private procedures that create mass
> sanctions on the basis of weak evidence). Yes, the rights we stand for
> have been defended for long; but yes also, they need a new translation
> in our times. It may look less essential for France because of the
> decision of Conseil constitutional, but we receive strong messages from
> the civil society groups of the UK, Germany, Italy or Sweden not to drop
> support to amendment 138 or an efficient replacement.
I know, and share, your opinion on the need of positive legislation on
this topic. I also know that this fight lasts for a long time.

It does not change the fact that not adopting 138 is not a treason, a
capitulation or any other such word. Quadrature even wrote : "As they
proved it already with the rest of the Telecoms Package Catherine
Trautmann and her colleagues, the whole European Parliament now marches
in line against its previous positions and against its citizens and
electors. Where will they stop? It's up to us...."

Words used are very strong : "the whole European Parliament now marches
in line *against* its previsous positions and *against* its citizens."

We are very far here from a bit of positive law that we would have
enjoyed, but will not finally have (this is also my reply to Claude).
In fact, the Parliament obtained something. Less than you initially
wanted but, well, it does not have the power, so... It would have been
quite interesting to provide a link to the (long) explanation from the
rapporteur.

Maybe I am a bit slow or stupid, but when I read that the Parliament is
now marching in line *against* its previous positions, I understand that
it is marching in line *against* 138 and *for* three strikes. This is
just plain wrong. And can be used against us in the next *political*
battles.

Regards,

Ludovic