Re: [wg-review] DOMOINIC BARONS LETTER

[Bret Busby <bret@clearsol.iinet.net.au>]

"Dr. Michael S. Gendron" wrote:
> 

<snip>

> I would rather have certain people think am retrogressive, than have them
> push their ideals on me.  The USG feels is has the right to intervene
> wherever it wants.  That is just not the case.  Nations have a right to
> govern the way they see fit.

So, human rights, come second to totalitarian rule? Hmmmm.

> Yes, some nations do not do things the way we
> like, and some are cruel, but we need to change those nations, not impose
> our information economy on them.  That is only part of the picture, you are
> pointing to root problems that go  far beyond the Internet.
> >
> >     That all the People are created equal within the internet.
> >
> > As are all governments.
> >
> >     That we the People are entitled to a proper and speedy redress of
> > wrongs committed against us.
> >
> > Through the coordinating body above.
> 
> What co-ordinating body? Do you mean the UN? If so, why should any
> country have the right of veto, on the Internet, the right of veto
> having been abused in the past, purely on political bases?
> 
> Suggest another body!

I have, already, in relation to the Internet.

> >
> >     That we the People have a right to make public our internet
> > positions.
> >
> > In a unified fashion, not just individually.
> 
> So, keep the dissidents quiet (and, oppressed)?
> No, but we do no need order.

That sounds to me, remarkably like the policy of one Adolf
Schicklegruber.

> >
> >     That no person shall be denied access to the internet
> >
> > True.
> >     That freedom of speech is to be protected.
> >
> > Only as it is protected within each nation. (I do not like this but
> believe
> > it is/should be fact)
> 
> In other words, you say that suppression of free speech should be
> allowed? Why have the Internet? Why not just have isolated country-based
> networks, with no communication between countries? That way, your
> parochial sovereignties could maintain their totalitarian rule. Welcome
> to 1984.
> The Internet can not solve everything, nor do I believe it should.

So, you believe it should give up, and, fall in a heap and die?

> >
> >     That access, reliability and security are to be protected against
> > intrusion.
> >
> > Only as it is protected within each nation. (I do not like this but
> believe
> > it is/should be fact)
> 
> In other words, maintain the oppression, and, kill the Internet.
> On, make the Internet cooperative, not run by some US non-profit corporation
> with its own agenda - namely what appears to be bug business.
> >
> >     That we have a fundamental right to be secure in our identity.
> >
> > Only as it is protected within each nation. (I do not like this but
> believe
> > it is/should be fact)
> 
> Once again, shut down the Internet, to support totalitarian, parochial
> soveriegnty.
> Governmental sovereignty. Like it or not, there are governments that are not
> like ours.
> >
> >     That we have a duty and responsibility to be educated and informed.
> >
> > Only as it is protected within each nation. (I do not like this but
> believe
> > it is/should be fact)
> 
> And, again, ...
> 
> >
> > I would kind of hope that whenever, however and wherever a true
> > individual group is formed, that the founders think about, correct and
> > impliment this type of finding.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> >
> 
> Why not just shut down the Internet and the UN? Then, your ideals can be
> attained.
> 
> The Internet, and, the freedoms that it is perceived to bring with it,
> are imperative, to improve the world, through communication and
> ediucation, both of which, which you seem to oppose.
> 
> I disagree strongly. But, then, I believe in human rights.
> 
> You take my comments out of context.  To re-emphasize - work within existing
> political structures to govern the Internet  and bring about change.  I
> believe in human rights, but believe it or not there are different
> definitions of what they are.  Rather than sarcasm, you should try and
> dialog and reach (should I dare say) consensus!
> --
> 

That remids me, of the ratification of the International Covenat on
Civil and Political Rights, by Australia. "We go along with this, but,
only with the parts that we want".

Either you have human rights, or, you don't. Either they apply to
everone equally, or they don't.

Why should women not have the right, to find, via the Internet, that
genital mutilation is not practised all through the world, and, is
regarded as unacceptable in most of the world, just because they live in
a country, that inflicts it on them? Why should people not have the
right to know how they are entitled to vote, just because a government
forbids such knowledge? Why should people not have the right to know
that the dogma that they have been taught, may be wrong, just because
they have a government that believes that truth is a pliable thing, to
be modified when it is convenient.

I am sorry; I strongly disagree with you. I believe in human rights for
everyone, and, independent of geographic location, as a matter of
paramount importance, and, not something to be taken so lightly.

And, I disagree with your proposition which effectively supports
ministries of truth in each country.

But, then again, retrogressive universities teaching tate the earth is
flat, and, if you get too close to the edge, you fall off, is quite
acceptable, isn't it?

-- 

Bret Busby

Armadale, West Australia


......................................
"So once you do know what the question actually is, you'll know what the
answer means."
 - Deep Thought, Chapter 28 of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
 - Douglas Adams, 1988 
......................................
--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html