Slovenian Ambassador Regrets Signing ACTA Agreement

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Slovenian Ambassador Regrets Signing ACTA Agreement

Posted by timothy on Thursday February 2, 2012 @05:01AM from the seemed-like-a-good-idea-at-the-time dept.

metacell writes "Slovenia's ambassador to Japan, Helena Drnovek Zorko, writes: 'I signed ACTA out of civic carelessness, because I did not pay enough attention. Quite simply, I did not clearly connect the agreement I had been instructed to sign with the agreement that, according to my own civic conviction, limits and withholds the freedom of engagement on the largest and most significant network in human history, and thus limits particularly the future of our children.'"

27 of 149 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

We need an amendment.... by LostCluster · 2012-02-02 05:01 · Score: 4, Insightful

Can't get SOPA/PIPA passed? Just get a diplomat from the USA to sign ACTA and all you need is a 2/3 majority in the Senate with no need for the House or President to sign off. Still a tall burden but there's much fewer Senators you need to purchase versus half the House.
1. Re:We need an amendment.... by the+eric+conspiracy · 2012-02-02 05:05 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  The President has already signed it and is claiming the Senate doesn't need to ratify it because "executive agreement" is all you need.
  Handy theory because you only have to influence one person.
  This is why we need this to come before the Senate so it can be voted down.
2. Re:We need an amendment.... by Hatta · 2012-02-02 05:16 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  The President has already signed it and is claiming the Senate doesn't need to ratify it because "executive agreement" is all you need.
  So, when do we impeach Obama for violating his oath to uphold the Constitution?
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
3. Re:We need an amendment.... by NatasRevol · 2012-02-02 05:32 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  About the same time the last 6 presidents were impeached for similar behavior...
  
  --
  There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
4. Re:We need an amendment.... by the+eric+conspiracy · 2012-02-02 05:42 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  The precedent for agreeing to treaties this way goes back to George Washington's neutrality proclamation in 1793. You would have to retroactively impeach EVERY US President first to have a case against Mr. Obama.
  In actual practice due to the way the Constitution is written the only thing the Senate has is a veto power over treaties.
  http://www.press.umich.edu/pdf/9780472116874-ch1.pdf
5. Re:We need an amendment.... by Jackie_Chan_Fan · 2012-02-02 05:48 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Hell, Obama already signed into law the ability for the gov to take you away without a fair trial or even informing anyone of your disappearance.
  Obama signed it saying he would never use it and disagrees with it...
  So why did the dumb fuck sign it?
  This country is corrupt as shit. Fuck America in its mouth. The constitution is worthless.
  Btw a reporter was arrested in congress yesterday.
6. Re:We need an amendment.... by DJRumpy · 2012-02-02 05:52 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Because you would be considered an idiot for claiming this was unconstitutional. The executive branch can, and does sign international treaties. It is well within their authority to do so. There are three types of treaties in the U.S.
  Congressional-Executive Agreements
  Solo Executive Agreements
  Treaties
  If the president has signed one without the direct consent of congress, it is considered either a Solo Executive Agreement, or a Congressional Executive agreement. The U.S. also differs from most other nations in that they treat each of the above types of treaties as distinct classes and the treaty is incorporated into federal law, and as such, congress can go in and modify them after the fact, even though other signing nations would consider this a violation of the treaty in question. The Supreme Court can also hold a treaty as unconstitutional and null and void.
  The authority of the president to do this is well known. Congress has attempted over the years to limit this authority with various versions of the Bicker Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bricker_Amendment#Legal_background) but it has never been ratified by enough states.
7. Re:We need an amendment.... by Dahamma · 2012-02-02 07:30 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  It's trivial to find. In fact there is a whole section about it on www.senate.gov:
  Executive Agreements
  In addition to treaties, which may not enter into force and become binding on the United States without the advice and consent of the Senate, there are other types of international agreements concluded by the executive branch and not submitted to the Senate. These are classified in the United States as executive agreements, not as treaties, a distinction that has only domestic significance. International law regards each mode of international agreement as binding, whatever its designation under domestic law.
  The challenge of obtaining two-thirds vote on treaties was one of the motivating forces behind the vast increase in executive agreements after World War II. In 1952, for instance, the United States signed 14 treaties and 291 executive agreements. This was a larger number of executive agreements than had been reached during the entire century of 1789 to 1889. Executive agreements continue to grow at a rapid rate.
8. Re:We need an amendment.... by Nyder · 2012-02-02 07:40 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Except Clinton wasn't impeached for hooking up with an intern. He was impeached for lying to a grand jury about it.
  We all lie about doing the fat chicks.
  
  --
  Be seeing you...
9. Re:We need an amendment.... by pclminion · 2012-02-02 09:32 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Well to be fair, it depends on what the definition of "is" is...
Hanlon was right by gmuslera · 2012-02-02 05:03 · Score: 4, Insightful

Don't attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity
1. Re:Hanlon was right by cpghost · 2012-02-02 05:15 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  In this particular case, this ambassador may not have acted out of malice (she's just one little cog in a giant machine and couldn't have prevented it anyway), but the government that ordered her to sign it certainly intended to harm Internet. There's no doubt about this. After all, ACTA has been negotiated for a long time, and those responsible in the governments knew full well all the objections that have been brought against it. So Hanlon wasn't right here: ACTA was born out of malice, not out of stupidity.
  
  --
  cpghost at Cordula's Web.
2. Re:Hanlon was right by MozeeToby · 2012-02-02 05:19 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Sometimes stupidity is malice. Like when you're too uniformed, untrained, and unmotivated to do your very important job properly. Not admitting that and stepping down is malice.
3. Re:Hanlon was right by spidercoz · 2012-02-02 05:22 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  ... ACTA was born out of malice, not out of stupidity.
  Correct. But the people agreeing to it are stupid.
  
  --
  "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
4. Re:Hanlon was right by jamstar7 · 2012-02-02 05:22 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Yeah, that went over really well at Nuremburg, too, ya know.
  
  --
  Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
5. Re:Hanlon was right by countertrolling · 2012-02-02 05:35 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  ...the people agreeing to it are stupid.
  No, they are corrupt
  
  --
  For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
Read before you sign by GameboyRMH · 2012-02-02 05:05 · Score: 4, Insightful

Applies even more to politicians than it does to the average joe.

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
1. Re:Read before you sign by spidercoz · 2012-02-02 05:17 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  But it was SO LOOOOOONG! I'll just click "accept," what's the worst that could happen?
  
  --
  "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
2. Re:Read Before You Sign by Hadlock · 2012-02-02 05:26 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  I think all legislation should be read aloud by the leading party member of whoever introduced it, and all legislators must be present the entire time before voting on it.
  
  --
  moox. for a new generation.
3. Re:Read before you sign by cayenne8 · 2012-02-02 05:28 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  But it was SO LOOOOOONG! I'll just click "accept," what's the worst that could happen?
  Seems our politicians are too lazy to read anything these days.
  Wasn't it Pelosi, who said something to the effect with regards to Obamacare..."Let's pass it so we can see what it says..."?
  
  --
  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
4. Re:Read Before You Sign by spidercoz · 2012-02-02 05:36 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  ...and all legislators must be present the entire time...
  And awake.
  
  --
  "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
In other news.... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-02 05:09 · Score: 3, Informative

It's easier to ask for forgiveness then permission.
1. Re:In other news.... by jank1887 · 2012-02-02 06:56 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  but she had permission. Actually, she had 'instructions' from her government to sign it. And, it's disingenuous that now she's being the one taken to task for putting her name on the paper, when clearly others were responsible for the decision. Yes, she could have stepped down, someone else would have signed it after given other instructions, and we'd be right where we are, lambasting whichever other official put his signature on it. This avoids the source of the problem, and Slashdot is contributing to the confusion, by focusing on the Ambassador.
  FTFA:
  
  I signed the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) on behalf of the Republic of Slovenia, following the directive and authorisation of the Slovenian government. ... There has been a demonization of “some sneak”, that is me, who in far-off Tokyo secretly signed something on her own initiative...it is dangerous particularly because it conceals the responsibility of those who had the power to decide, and did in fact decide, that Slovenia would be a signatory of ACTA. This was decided by the Slovenian government and by the parliamentary committee for EU matters, and before that, Slovenia was for quite some time involved in coordinating the agreement. All this was done with too little transparency, judging by the outraged responses that have appeared following the signing. Back then, the Slovenian media did not demonise this decision to the same extent as they now demonise my signature. This I consider very dangerous for the continuous (non-)development of democracy in Slovenia.
It was peer pressure by sconeu · 2012-02-02 05:14 · Score: 4, Funny

Dudes, like... you know... all the cool countries were signing it, and they were like, you know... "Sign it, man! Go ahead! It'll be fun!"
So, like, I signed it but now I'm like, really sorry and everything, you know? So we're cool, right?

--
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
Light Applause by ackthpt · 2012-02-02 05:19 · Score: 3, Insightful

You recognised it was folly. Well done.
You recognised it a bit late. Not so well done.
Go void it.

--

A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Read Before You Sign by Jason+Levine · 2012-02-02 05:21 · Score: 5, Insightful

I thought the problem of politicians signing stuff before they read it was limited to the US Congress. Looks like it's a global phenomenon. Could you imagine if other people did that?
Pharmacist: "Yes, those drugs I dispensed killed people. I probably should have read the labels so I didn't give people the wrong dose or pills." (Said while handing a customer Viagra instead of antibiotics.)
Surgeon: "How was I to know that the patient didn't need a quadruple amputation? I didn't get a chance to read his chart before starting the surgery. Next patient! Pass the hacksaw!"
Air Traffic Controller: "Sure, a few planes collided in my airspace. It's not like it's my fault. I had no way of knowing that was going to happen when I instructed them to land without reading what was on the tracking computer. Ok, flights 54321, 31415, and 424242. You're all clear to land on runway (rolls dice) 5."

--
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
I'm a Slovenian and a Croatian... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-02 08:38 · Score: 5, Interesting

...so I speak as a citizen of a country that has been part of the EU for 7-8 years, and as a citizen of a country who has just joined the EU (signed the agreement, joining in 2013).
This is not malice, or stupidity. Slovenia is a new member-state of the EU. And, because of that status, I believe the government is compelled to follow EU instructions without much objection.
The EU has become a political union, controlled by an EU Commission (which no one elects) and the EU President, who is elected by the Commission. Oh yeah, and the members of the Commission are picked and appointed by the EU President.
EU uses political and economical (since they control how much each country is allowed to borrow, and in this recession it is important that countries get as much as they can) pressure to have countries to whatever the EU wants. For example, many countries were denied a referendum to see whether the people want to join or not. They had a referendum in the Netherlands and France (I believe) and both those peoples said "NO" to the EU. The EU and the respective governments decided to ignore those referendums. In other countries, like Croatia, there was a referendum, but there was so much disinformation and propaganda going on that it was clear that it would pass. Around 40% of Croatians came out to the referendum. According to our original constitution from 1991/2, to have a referendum count you have to have 70%+ people come out. This, of course, was changed so that referendums like these can pass.
It is clear that the EU wants this to pass and it did. The only country that hasn't signed it is Poland. But, unfortunately, there will be consequences for Poland because of that. The EU has made it clear (you can read on their website) that they will require every country to have "compatible" laws to the EU's laws, and that if a country doesn't, they will use political and economical means to force them to.
The Slovenian ambassador takes her orders from the Slovenian government, the Slovenian government takes their orders from the EU Commission. The EU parliament rubber-stamps any decisions of the Commission with little opposition. The Parliament is made up of 754 delegates. Out of those, Nigel Farage (and his cohort) and the Pirate Party will be against ACTA, everyone else will give their support under the watchful eye of the President. 378 people WILL NOT be against ACTA in the Parliament, you can be certain of that. And if the EU signs it, so must every EU country (Poland, too).
Thank you for reading.
captcha: faulted