Re: [hr-wsis] statement on terrorism

["L.D.Misek-Fallkoff" <ldmf@att.net>]

Dear Rikke and hello all,

Thank you very much for sharing this information with us.

At least as an initial reaction, I would as just one discussant be in accord
with the opposition to this proposed text for the reasons given - which I
find consonant with discussions observed at the U.N. itself, both as to
terminology and policies.

Aside, or at a slant but conceptually related - I do think the whole matter
of *ICT for all* (do we really mean it ???) comes into play as a major one
for WSIS and networks of all sorts, and this too has been recently discussed
in international fora.  It is just and helpful that it these discussions,
therefore, arise here, and very helpful that you share the material.  Again,
thanks.

P.S> I will add that I think I post as one rather conservative about net
traffic; if my own rather full background in CyberLibel (and CyberTorts - my
coinage) should prove of use in regard to fundamental Human rights - just
give a wave.

And sending very best wishes, LDMF.

For Identification here:
Online Communications Systems ARPANet forward. Active Member (Systems
Analyst, Designer, Staff Programmer) original GML (precursor to HTML markup
group). Legal Advocate for Persons with Disabilities, lower to High Court.
Founder, Persons with Pain International.
*Respectful Interfaces* Programme / Communications Coordination Committee
for the United Nations.  ACM ABA.  Member International Disability Caucus
for the Disability Convention (toward Treaty).
------------
Linda D. Misek-Falkoff, Ph.D., J.D..

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Rikke Frank Joergensen" <rfj@humanrights.dk>
To: <hr-wsis@iris.sgdg.org>
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 4:49 AM
Subject: [hr-wsis] statement on terrorism


> hi all
>
> pls find below the joint statement btw the Privacy and Security WG and
this Caucus, which was just read in plenary of SubComA.
>
> Rikke
>
>
> PrepCom-3
> WSIS Civil Society Privacy and Security Working Group
> WSIS Civil Society Human Rights Caucus
>
> Statement in Subcommittee A, morning session, 29 September 2005
>
> Yesterday afternoon Israel proposed a new paragraph 50bis. Because it was
introduced in a drafting group and not in the subcommittee, we will read it
for you for the sake of transparency:
>
> "We underline the importance of countering the manifestations of terrorism
at all its forms in the Internet. In particular, we condemn the use of the
internet for purposes of financing of terrorist acts, radicalization towards
terrorist acts, recruitment for terrorist acts, and glorification of
terrorist acts that may incite further terrorist acts."
>
> Civil society is impressed by the fact that it is possible to use the word
"terrorist" not less than six times in one single sentence.
>
> We are very concerned about this paragraph and strongly oppose it, for the
following reasons:
>
> 1. The international community has tried for years, but has not yet been
able to reach agreement on how to define terrorists or terrorism. The
Secretary General Report for the Millenium Summit again called for Member
States to adopt a definition of terrorism. Before this has happened, we want
to remind you of the old wisdom that "one country's freedom fighter is the
other one's terrorist". Therefore, this paragraph would introduce vague
language that is open to all kinds of interpretation and misuse.
>
> 2. The same argument applies to the language of "manifestations of
terrorism at all its forms in the Internet". It is totally unclear what
"manifestations" of terrorism on the internet would be. This language opens
a dangerous door to censorship and infringements on Freedom of Expression.
>
> 3. Likewise, mentioning "glorification of terrorist acts that may incite
further terrorist acts" is equally imprecise and vague. What acts of terror
can you not glorify? What is glorification? Which kind of internet use "may
incite" other acts, and which one would not? If CNN or Al-Jazeera report
about acts of terrorism and show footage of the attacks - as happened around
 the world, online and offline, on September 11, 2001 - it could be seen as
glorification. The terrorists' supporters surely loved it.
>
> 4. We are also uncertain what is meant by "financing terror on the
internet". Maybe this refers to websites that accept donations, but that
already falls under international rules on funding terror - the FATF rules
and other banking rules. This is well covered in other agreements and has
nothing to do with Internet Governance.
>
> 5. We get the feeling that some governments are using the debate around
Internet governance to sneak in all kinds of other issues that do not belong
here. In the Compilation of Comments received on the WGIG report, the
contribution from Israel - which includes reference to terrorism - is listed
under "other issues not directly addressed in the WGIG report".
>
> To make clear how imprecise and arbitrary the paragraph is, we want to
read it to you again with a minor change, just exchanging "internet" with
another public infrastructure:
>
> "We underline the importance of countering the manifestations of terrorism
at all its forms in the streets. In particular, we condemn the use of the
streets for purposes of financing of terrorist acts, radicalization towards
terrorist acts, recruitment for terrorist acts, and glorification of
terrorist acts that may incite further terrorist acts."
>
> Would you really want a paragraph like that in a UN summit declaration on
traffic and public transport?
>
>
> --
> Working List of the WSIS Human Rights Caucus
> Web site : http://www.iris.sgdg.org/actions/smsi/hr-wsis
> Public Archives: http://www.iris.sgdg.org/actions/smsi/hr-wsis/list
> To post a message to the list, send an email to: hr-wsis@iris.sgdg.org
> To subscribe/unsubscribe, send an email to: Meryem.Marzouki@iris.sgdg.org
>