NGOs give EU commission a beating over anti-counterfeit pact (ACTA again)

EU Observer ^ | 2012.04.11 @ 17:58 | Nikolaj Nielsen

[Olog-hai]

Amnesty Intentional, Oxfam, Reporters without Borders as well as internet rights groups and the Council of Europe all spoke out against the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) at a European Parliament hearing on Wednesday (11 April).

"The vision set out by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is at stake," warned Marianne Mollmann, senior policy advisor of the London-based organization human rights group Amnesty International.

Mollmann said the trade agreement threatens the right to the freedom of expression, the right to health, the right to due process and fair trial, and the right of an author to benefit from the protection of moral and material interests resulting from any scientific and literary production. …

The NGOs raised a number of issues surrounding the controversial agreement, qualifying it as dangerous for promoting over-policing, unreasonable levels of surveillance, risks to privacy, and even development. …

The commission claims the agreement is in line with European fundamental rights such as the freedom of expression and information or data protection and the right to property including that of intellectual property.

But experts at Wednesday's parliament hearing, organised by Dutch Liberal MEP Marietje Schaake and Bulgarian Socialist MEP Ivailo Kalfin, all refuted the commission's claims, arguing instead that there is a clear imbalance in the favor of intellectual property rights rather than natural rights.

The treaty mentions intellectual property rights 43 times. Fundamental rights are not mentioned at all, while freedom of expression is mentioned twice as a principle rather than as a right, said Gabrielle Guillemin, a legal officer at the London-based NGO Article 19. …

[Track9]

Am I to believe that for the first time in my life, I’m on the same side as amnesty international? Yikes..

[Olog-hai]

Of course, their stance is not in the spirit of the US Constitution, but in that of the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which itself does not mention stuff like habeas corpus and has too many things in common with the USSR’s constitution.

(Ironic that one of the parties, not AI in particular, actually mentioned natural rights too) . . .br