Slashdot Mirror
The Netherlands Rejects ACTA, and Does One Better
New submitter Peetke writes "The Dutch House of Representatives unanimously accepted a motion to urge the Cabinet to reject ACTA [Dutch original] (if they ever get the change to do so; it may already end in the European Parliament). Additionally, an even stronger motion was accepted to reject any future treaty that may harm a free and open Internet. This is a good day for the Internet."
I writhe with jealousy at the enlightened governments in the EU. Compare that to our clueless Indian government that wants to control the Internet despite not knowing how, and you can sympathize with me.
As long as ACTA(or any furture replacements) require changing the treaties establishing the European Union(which the current implementation would almost certainly require) every single Member State must ratify it for it to be recognized and thus any single parliament or public vote can strike it down.
Another thing is that valid decisions at EU level does not automatically translate into law in the Member States, they just require the Member States to enact laws in accordance with that decision(for example the Data Retention Directive), failure to do will result in fines but on the other hand if a major national Parliament is clear that it is completely unwilling to enact such a law the Commission/European Parliament is much less likely to enshrine such decisions.
As for the EU: I agree with the other poster they'll just pass ACTA later as some other form (probably through the unelected politburo or apparatchiks).
What a bunch of bullshit. If the Netherlands put criteria into their constitutions that prohibit ACTA-like legislations, it will be impossible to introduce it, unless you have a large majority to retract the amendment to the constitution. http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-13886440
Look how the EU overruled the French Assembly's banning of GM foods within its juris diction.
That's not what happened. France asked the EU to also apply their ban EU-wide, which was declined, as most other states allow it and there is no evidence was provided that that particular food being harmful. GM is prohibited or restricted in plenty of European countries. In fact, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_the_release_of_genetic_modified_organisms#Europe starts with "The European Union (EU) has possibly the most stringent GMO regulations in the world.", a thorn in the eyes of the US.
If there had been evidence of harm, it would have stood a chance of being prohibited EU-wide.
The EU countries agreed that ACTA was a good idea, now they (or some) realise it isn't, so they have to find a way to retract from their agreement. But if you come together, agree and shake hands, and later change your mind, you better have a process to re-negotiate.
That is true on the one side inside the EU, but also if the EU now finds that they want to decline ACTA, they have to retract their signature they gave to the other countries in the world (again, process needed).
EU countries are doing better than those countries around the world that agreed to ACTA, as they managed to get a discussion going and get momentum of their citizens. It very much looks like ACTA is going to be declined, because our politicians (state and EU level) see and react to what the citizens want.
The 25 nations are not even states anymore. They are EU provinces. They have less power than a US state. Sad, sad times for our European cousins.
Do US states have their own army? Do they have diplomatic relations with foreign countries? Do they sign trade agreements with foreign countries? What happens if one US state doesn't implement or follow the legislation given by the federation?
US states are more like the counties in Germany than countries. EU legislation (actually directives) rarely does more than summarize common laws between countries, and then it is voted for by those countries, not some foreign entity.
NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
So DMCA lets suposed copyright holders act without due process. Great, we never needed due process anyway, right? If someone sends a notice, it must be right, there's no way it can be mistaken.
Also, making my own program to view DVDs I legally buyed is surely a bad thing, so it's ok if I'm banned from developing and distributing my own.
The MAIN reason Canada is on there is because Wikileaks cables revealed The Harper gov asked to be put onto this list. http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/09/07/canada-to-u-s-please-blacklist-us/ That's right the same Harper Gov that is about to introduce an one sided Copyright Law favouring non Canadian corporate entities.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
If you just want to get stuff related to the self repairing wireless mesh darknet, go take a look at darkpi.com
Other than that...the blog or twitter is the best way to keep up on what I do. Updates may be scarce in the next month-ish, as I'm getting married in late June, and planning a wedding is a task I would not wish on my worst enemy.
Bits of code, random ramblings: jakimfett.com
(I studied Politics in The Hague, and did pass the Constitutional Law exam)
The Dutch Constitution (Grondwet) is without doubt a constitution that Americans would recognize. In fact, whereas the US constitution Article One does define institutions, Article One of the Dutch Constitution states unambiguously that all citizens shall be treated equally before the law (which is the 14th Amendment to the US constitution).
Furthermore, the Dutch constitution has special political protection: It can only be changed by repeated votes with an intermediate election, and requires a supermajority (2/3) on the second vote. This intermediate election gives electors sufficient chance to vote in a blocking minority.
Constitutionality of other laws is certainly relevant in Dutch courts, but the primary decision is left to the Chambers of Parliament and not a Supreme Court. However, these ordinary laws have to be interpreted in context of the constitution. Any ambiguity has to be resolved in favor of constitutional law. (This is called lex superior, and is part of a set of ambiguity rules which also include lex specialis and lex posterior)