Slashdot Mirror
British Coalition Partner Attempts to Block Web Censorship Powers
judgecorp writes "The Liberal Democrat party is attempting to repeal the controversial web-blocking powers allowed by Britain's Digital Economy Act. The move goes against the policy of the coalition government, and the tactic chosen is a roundabout one: Lib Dem MP Julian Huppert proposed an amendment to a different bill which would have had the effect of repealing parts of the DEA. The amendment was not discussed, but the proposal is a sign that the Lib Dems mean business on this policy, adopted at their party conference."
Well, let's see if the Lib Dems can keep at least one of their pre-election promises. Not holding my breath though.
...unless, for once Britain takes notice of what International observers are saying - that this Statutory violation of privacy, with no pretext needed, is against International Law and more to the point goes against Constitutional rights to privacy.
I would sure like to see them use such argument to keep themselves out of the papers for the wrong reasons, much as they use Constitutional privilege *now* to keep certain Parliamentary meetings behind closed doors - while at the same time claiming we in the UK *don't have a Constitution*. Reference to the British Constitution incorporating the Rights of the Subject, 1688, duly and willingly signed y William of Orange. We *do* have a written Constitution; Google it, it's out there.
Endnote: the precursor to Magna Carta, the Code of Alfred, was drafted in 870 at the behest and agreement of the King. Magna Carta was signed at the point of a sword, hence may well be invalid for that reason.
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
I'm on the 4th column at the moment, and so far all I've read are "Honourable Friends" thanking "right honourable Gentlemen" for introductions, support, thanking them for the thanks, offering support for other amendments which in turn gets further thanks for the support, and reciprocal thanks for their thanks!
Can't they just talk about sorting out these crappy laws instead of thanking each other?
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
From the Open Rights Group's Glyn Wintle who sometimes gets stories posted on /.
++
They time ran out in parliament so they did not get to the digital economy act clause. So it will not make it into the bill.
Julian tweeted "Thanks all who contacted their MP about my #deact amendment; lots of MPs talked to me about it. Sadly, we'll have no time to debate it." ... My #deact amendment wasn't reached in time, so wasn't taken. I'll keep looking for opportunities!"
"So
The minister did say it would be
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2011-10-10a.80.0&s=Digital+Economy#g87.3
Dr Huppert mentioned the Digital Economy Act 2010. He will be aware that the Government announced in August that they did not intend to commence sections 17 and 18 of the Act. There might not be time to debate his new clause, but we are now working on a wide-scale review of the communications sector with a view to publishing a Green Paper by the spring of next year, and a draft Bill by mid-2013. Policy on tackling online copyright infringement, including site-blocking, is being considered as part of that review and, given our intention to conduct that wide-ranging review, it would be premature to act now to repeal sections 17 and 18 of the Act in isolation from any other legislative changes that might be needed.
http://www.ispreview.co.uk/story/2011/10/12/uk-government-to-review-deact-isp-website-blocking-as-part-of-new-comms-bill.html
There was also a ammendment that was not reached that said some thing about charging for data, that could be interesting if any one has time to look at what it was about.
...an amendment to a different bill which would have had the effect of repealing parts of the DEA.
1. Law is put into effect.
2. New law is put into effect.
3. 'Prior fart' used to nullify 2.
Nice, people.
The Liberal Democratic party in the U.K. are actually Liberal Democrats? The colonies have soooo much to learn.
Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
..would be trying to ban porn!
Britain noticed, it's just that Britain's political options make the US two-party system look like a buffet of wonder. The last election came down to a choice between two identical groups of socially conservative douchebags with indistinguishable policies, and a liberal party that hadn't won an election in decades. And then at the deciding, decisive moment, the liberal party decided to throw in with the capital-c Conservatives without consulting its voters or setting out any ground-rules. Great job, guys! I really feel represented!
No, I'm not bitter.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Challange excepted.
from wiki (first result after googling as suggested):
"Unlike many other nations, the UK has no single core constitutional document. In this sense, it is said not to have a written constitution but much of the British constitution is embodied in written documents, within statutes, court judgments, and treaties. The constitution has other unwritten sources, including parliamentary constitutional conventions and royal prerogatives."
so when we say we don't have a constitution, we don't in the sense that there's no single source of document. which leads us on to what our constitution actually is...
"the bedrock of the British constitution has traditionally been the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, according to which the statutes passed by Parliament are the UK's supreme and final source of law. It follows that Parliament can change the constitution simply by passing new Acts of Parliament."
so any "Constitutional Rights to Prvacy" would be those granted by the very parliment you're riling against.
as for the international laws you're claiming are being broken i can't be arsed to show you wrong as i suspect you are.
maybe back you stuff up with some acutal links next time.
But the UK political options still make the US two-party system look like Stalinist Russia. There you have a choice between two extreme right wing parties, one with extra extreme.
Here you have a choice between several moderate right parties, with the extreme rightwingnut unable to get traction.
I feel represented. The Liberal Democrats are largely pushing policies I agree with, although they're limited by the government being bankrupt and the Tories having 3/5 of the seats that the coalition controls. My Labour MP (who I voted against) feels he has something to prove and has been very responsive since being elected. My Plaid Cymru MEP has been working hard to return IP laws to more sane levels.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
The Magna Carta is the first instrument of constitution. There are the Statutes that came later (1684, IIRC) that delineated much of the right to privacy. And the Statutes CANNOT be overruled by the Parliament, it requires the Crown accede to that statutes' removal.
You even stated yourself you'd found that there was no single document source.
Then issued a statement from one single source as the sole arbiter.
Hence: idiot boy
The "coalition" government in a parliamentary government is a group of parties, none of which gained a majority of seats, which agree to vote their seats together when the prime minister is elected from the candidates (each a parliament member). Together they pool into a majority that elects the prime minister, who is practically always a member of only one of the coalition's parties.
But there's no reason those parties should always vote together on every question in the parliament. In fact they should often, even usually, vote differently. If they always agreed, why remain separate parties? Likewise, they should often introduce legislation against the position of other coalition members, if they want to get what they want. Without their own votes, the rest of the coalition doesn't have a majority, therefore with their own votes the minority who voted against the PM they supported is the majority. In other words every party in a coalition is a swing vote, so it should have more power.
The fact that this kind of legislation introduction is remarkably rare shows how corrupting political parties are, in this case in the parliamentary model. In a parliament the parties are institutionally the power center, as parties pick the chief executive - the people do not. The parties conflict with both the democracy, interfering with the people choosing their representative in the prime minister, and with the republic, coercing parliament members into voting according to a party agenda instead of their constituents' interests.
Parties are private political clubs that take money and other things of value from interests who aren't constituents, or who are privileged constituents, to determine who is elected and what laws are passed. The institution is clearly a leading cause of bribery, secret betrayals, and other corruption. They should be exposed and outlawed, not institutionalized.
As George Washington warned in his presidential farewell address
--
make install -not war
JulianHuppert
All royal definitions of power were signed at the point of a sword, directed one way or the other. The only reason there ever has been for their validity is violent consequences.
Or "that's the way we do it", and "we haven't changed it since we became a democratic republic". Some of the swords from history weren't even anything but imaginary, as "divine right" was enforced by pure superstition for many centuries.
They're all invalid, except while they're accepted by the consent of the governed.
--
make install -not war
Yes, we have a constitution in the UK, but where do you find a provision on privacy that would be relevant in this case? For example, the Universal Declaration on Human Rights forms part of our constitution, but that only says "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation" (my emphasis). The government argues that this is not "arbitrary".
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
And then at the deciding, decisive moment, the liberal party decided to throw in with the capital-c Conservatives without consulting its voters or setting out any ground-rules. Great job, guys! I really feel represented!
No, I'm not bitter.
Because Labour refused to enter a coalition with them, and the numbers wouldn't have added up anyway. And where do you get the idea that they didn't set down any ground rules? There's a formal coalition agreement setting down the ground rules.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
They are only trying to stop the plebs getting at it. They don't need the internet for their porn, they get it delivered in person.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
Yes, Britain in a nutshell: self-congratulatory :)
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
That's Statute, my friend - those Acts of Parliament forming Civil Law and the Criminal Code. Common Law has basis in the ancient documents such as the Code of Alfred (870), Magna Carta (1215, 1225, 1297 etc.), the Constitution and Bill of Rights (1688/9). Full executive power was granted in 1911 by the passing of the Parliament Act, to Parliament, by virtue of the fact that it did away with the requirement of a Monarch placing her Seal on an Act to pass it into Law. Thus, the House of Commons (the Lower House) now acts as the first Arbiter of the Civil Code, the House of Lords (the Upper House) as the final Arbiter and those with the final say in what does and doesn't get passed into Law. As I have heard it described, the Monarch since 1911 is nothing more than the World's most highly paid bellhop (referring to the fact that she held the door open for a visiting dignitary some while back and somehow the papers missed it!)
I'm using the term "Law" very loosely here. An Act of Parliament is still a Statute, both of which are differentiated by the Statutory Interpretation Act 1978 and I forget the other one, which was passed in 1830-something which makes a very specific distinction between the two when referring to Oxbridge ordinances. Common Law, on the other hand, is not specifically written in what is termed "black letter" (sometimes used when referring to Statute), but rather it is based on Case Law (decisions made by Judges in criminal and civil proceedings which may or may not support or be supported by Statute, or in some cases such as murder, even predate the Civil Code and/or recorded and available judicial decisions).
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
And then at the deciding, decisive moment, the liberal party decided to throw in with the capital-c Conservatives without consulting its voters or setting out any ground-rules.
You mean "without consulting" in the sense of, for example, holding a special party conference at the NEC to get approval from its party members before signing up to the coalition? If that's not consulting, I'm not sure what is.
I know all that - though the world's richest woman has a lot more influence over Parliament than does a bellhop.
So? All of those "ancient documents" signed by various warlords were signed at the point of a sword. Whenever a sword wasn't pointed at the warlord to sign the document, the sword was pointed by the warlord as they signed the document.
If you're going to question the validity of the Magna Carta because its agreement by the king was coerced, you have to question every other royal agreement on the same basis.
--
make install -not war
You can't look at coalitions like that. Coalition relations are a major subject of political science. One of the key questions is the alternative that the coalition parties have.
In this case, the conservatives have no believable alternative, but the LidDems might bet on a Labour-LibDem coalition after new elections. That means that the conservatives benefit more from stability of the current coalition, and will make concessions to keep the LibDems from defecting.
It would be another matter if the Tories had reasons to believe that they'd win a majority of their own at new elections, in which case the tables would suddenly be turned.