Slashdot Mirror
Green Party Releases International Joint Statement Criticizing the TPP
Dangerous_Minds writes "The New Zealand, Australian, and Canadian Green Parties have released a joint statement on the secretive Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement (TPP). Among the concerns are the secretive nature of the talks and 'could hinder access to safe, affordable medicines, weaken local content rules for media, stifle high-tech innovation, and even restrict the ability of future governments to legislate for the good of public health and the environment.' ZeroPaid also notes that the statement is starting to appear in New Zealand and Australian media."
nice to see
work in progress
Hey, can't you fuckers take a joke ?
You could have knocked on my door instead of using the battering ram ...
How long before "the great unwashed" finally wake up to the fact that their governments are selling out their rights to the big corporations of the world?
Who keeps an eye on the post-political careers of these "negotiators" and reports on how many of them get "honorary directorships" of the companies they are selling the public's rights in favor of?
Surely, sooner or later, even the half of the population who are below the median IQ will have to wake up to the fact that governments and corporations are working in concert to strip them of their rights and their money.
Or have we devolved to the point where we no longer care -- so long as their is food on the table and a roof (however shabby) over our heads?
"The Intellectual Property Rights chapter of the TPPA was leaked in draft form in February 2011. We anticipate that unless a more moderate and balanced version is adopted, NZ, Canada and Australia's shoppers, schools and libraries would end up paying more for their books and DVD's because it would let copyright holders veto parallel importing. Small and medium-sized software and IT businesses would have their innovative visions stifled by constraining patent laws. Finally, large pharmaceutical companies could use the legislation to deny state drug-buying agencies like those in Australia and NZ access to reliable, low cost medicines."
It will help the rich get richer. Isn't that what governments are for?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
I had the same reaction when I read the first few lines of the headline, but no, the Trans-Pacific Partnership is a bad thing. It's the latest attempt by the US at legislative colonisation of sovereign countries' IP laws.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
Do you have the same reaction to EFF?
Speaking for myself... if the internet freedom comes only in green colours (i.e. no other parties would support them), I'm fully green then (possibly with the black-sail of the local pirate party)
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
This will totally make a difference.
We (the Internet community) have been rallying against
SOPA
PIPA
And the "IPR Chapters" in
ACTA
CETA
TPP
So it's nice to see some political parties to get involved, rather than the more easy "let's just not talk about it" approach.
Reasons to hate the TPP:
"latest attempt by the US at legislative colonisation of sovereign countries' IP laws."
Reasons to love the TPP:
Stick it to neo-religious enviro-nazi "green" hippy fanatics.
World spinning. Can't ... decide ... where .. to ... stand... gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah
Why is any of this surprising to anybody?
The Internet was designed to survive being broken up in parts and the parts mostly inaccessible to each other. The thinking was, in old Cold Warrior terms, 'Assume a nuclear war. How do we design a computer network that still functions in the aftermath?' The result? ARPANet, the parent of the modern internet. Being decentralised by nature it's resilient, and local networks can still function even in the face of 'great firewalls' through proxies.
The media companies were developed back in the day when duplicating media was expensive as hell. It took expensive cameras and sound recorders to create the media, expensive machines to edit that media, and expensive duplicating machines to create copies of it. Gradually, the media companies evolved to fill a niche between the content creators (the 'artists') and the consumers (the rest of us). They owned the expensive equipment to create 'modern media', to distribute and broadcast it, and dammit, they wanted paid. They got paid. Then they discovered that with all that money, they could make even more money by keeping the supply costs low (screwing the artists with 'Hollywood accounting' and such, and by guaranteeing their profits through 'campaign contributions' to maleable Congresscritters who in turn wrote legislation that helped the media companies stay in control of the artists who created content with contracts that anywhere else would be illegal as hell, and of course the 'sacred eternal copyright' that guaranteed their inaliable right to sue anybody anywhere for attempted copyright infringement.
The internet is a distribution system that's a wide open distribution chain. The media companies are a distribution system that demands heavily restricted supply chains or they go the way of the dinosaur. The equipment for producing 'content' has become dirt cheap and easily available. This scares the media companies shitless because it threatens their entire business model. Of course they're going to strike back. Even if nobody grabbed a torrent off the internet, they'd still be crying 'Pirates!! Pirates!' and they wouldn't be talking bout Johnny Depp. The media companies are scared shitless. They missed the boat to get on the ground floor of the internet because they didn't see it going anywhere. Now they're the distributors of buggy whips in a world where everybody is buying a Model T. Their only hope of survival is to legislate the clock backwards and kill the internet entirely to 'stop piracy' and turn it into cable tv 2.0. Otherwise, it's just a matter of time til they die & become oil for our Cadillacs.
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
Why is any of this surprising to anybody?
Who said this one came as a surprise? I understand why it happens, I even understand why (some/many of the) politicians do very little about it. What I don't understand is the reaction of the OP AC that cheers for TPP because the only parties that oppose the process are the Greens and s/he doesn't like them.
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
We need to get this on the commercial TV channels and in 'The courier mail', 'The SMH', etc.
Why the fuck do you care about copyright, when banksters have stolen 1.4 Quadrillion?
Perhaps it's time you stop treating us conspiracy theorists with such fucking contempt and focus your motherfucking contempt on the banksters and the treasonous officials who enabled and maybe I dunno, STOP them from stealing once and for all, right now?
Also no mention of sovereignty vaporization? God given rights squashing?
Na back to the same old bullshit, let's just keep arguing, while jack shit happens, DHS will be using those hollow points on us soon enough.
BTW guys, the page that I linked on the EFF site has a take action link down the page... (looks like it's a page for US citizens - asks for a simple ZIP code).
Now, in case you don't live in US (or don't like Greens but you may like some others)... .gov type of domains)
OpenMedia.ca and a good bunch of many others run an international site which sends the message to some of the ministers in govts of all the countries involved in the TPP negotiations (I've done it and received some auto-confirmation emails from the
Com'on guys, doesn't ask for that much of an effort, don't wait for a "Wikipedia blackout day" to take a minimal action.
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
Anyone that considers a Green party "far left" has no idea what "far left" actually is.
Yes, this is most definitely US sponsored. The biggest lobbying group in the world is pushing to remove the price control structures that have kept people here on either side of the Tasmin healthy for a very long time... big surprise that right wing governments are attempting to push this through without public scrutiny. We have had plentiful, low-cost medicine because we have kept the US-style pharmaceutical free-market away. Of course "Free market" translates to: Drug companies may limit what you have access to, and charge you anything they wish, you pay or suffer. Or both.
If we think Labor has sold us out, have a look at National.. they are harvesting your organs to raise the big pharma profit margins.
I wouldn't call myself a hippy tree-hugger... but I'm with the Green all the way these days.
Hence why the only major parties with policy platforms supporting their country's interests, rather than America's, are complaining about it.
The Greens aren't really a major party (at least in Australia). They're probably the strongest of the minorities, but they're nowhere near being able to hold government in their own right - and if they ever do get to that point, expect them to change their tune.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
The Greens (at least in Australia) are not so easily dismissed. They can't hold Government in their own right, but thanks to holding the balance of power they can and do set the agenda on issues that they happen to feel like.
GO AC!!!!
I am not just going to agree with the popular view. In other words I have bad Karma.
Actual-green parties (which is to say ones with a representation in parliament), rather than straw-man imagined green parties, are normally on the same side as the non-corporate libertarians when it comes to matters of government transparency.
I think most of the hate comes from people with no actual experience of living anywhere with greens in government, so not knowing they have actually been quite effective at pushing pro-open government, anti-corporate influence issues in a direction that suits most libertarians.
For the same reason the religious parties hold influence beyond their numbers. As I understand it, the major parties are in some sort of perpetual stalemate - almost perfectly balanced in power. That means that when the big parties differ, the otherwise-insignificent ones can easily be the deciding factor.
Am I the only one that thought "TPP" meant "The Pirate Party" for a second there?
Well, the Greens are typically in favor of regulations on emissions, taxes on polluting or otherwise environmentally harmful products and restrictions on destroying nature. That's usually enough to qualify as "far left" in American politics where ~50% is Republicans and Libertarians and oppose anything that remotely smells like government interference, it's more that if you go far enough right everything else looks like the far left.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
From TFA, here are their three examples of laws that are threatened:
1. Giant warning or generic packaging on cigarettes.
2. Requirements of labeling on genetically-modified food.
3. Laws requiring things like Canada's supply management system which "preserves farmer's livelihood."
The first, should it even come to pass, would just be reversing even more pointless government mandate. If cigarettes are that bad, make them illegal.
The second is rolling back unscientific scare tactics that certain political parties unscientifically make hay over.
The third is also rolling back laws that force some people to remain beholden to some of their inefficient fellow citizens.
There may be reasons to oppose the de facto creation of yet another layer of bureaucracy, which will enorably grow, competing for dominance, but those reasons largely revolve arpund preventng much of wjat people with this party's sensibilities want, "Me and my buddies being the deciders who permit things."
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
You're being too generous. The people who bucket the Greens come in three flavours. Those who genuinely understand and know what the Greens are about and disagree, they can be identified by having reasoned arguments and use evidence to push their point, this type is rare in public discourse. The second type don't like the Greens because they are threatened by them, but can't use evidence or reasoned arguments because they know if the facts are laid bare, the public will not agree. This second type is identified by their use of emotive language, deception and fanatical hostility. Fox News (or any Murdoch run media) and large corporations are prime examples. The third and most common are identified by their emotive parroting of the position of the second type, they also lack the resources of the second type. The third type are media consumers, you can see them on this page. So even if you do have a Greens in government, there will be corporate interests gunning for them, and there will always be plenty of ignorant consumers who will parrot the corporate line.
I should add that the second type of anti-Green includes religious organisations, religious people tend to dislike the Greens, mainly because of money, ie the Greens generally are not in favour of giving tax concessions or funds to organisations who want to use that money to promote belief in sky fairies. Religious types also resent that fact the green parties tend to be hostile to religious rules being forced on society.
Gentlemen, start your bongs!
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
That's usually enough to qualify as "far left" in American politics
Anything reasonably sane is enough to qualify as "far left" in USian politics. You don't have to qualify it by bringing examples of real-world leftist agenda.
The first, should it even come to pass, would just be reversing even more pointless government mandate. If cigarettes are that bad, make them illegal.
Why? So they can bring their own "war on smoke"? The rest of the world already knows that simply outlawing something is not the best solution to unwanted behaviour.
The second is rolling back unscientific scare tactics that certain political parties unscientifically make hay over.
How nice of you to use an unscientific scare tactic like straw man here. The parties advocating correct food labeling are simply enforcing free market values: a free market requires an informed market.
The third is also rolling back laws that force some people to remain beholden to some of their inefficient fellow citizens.
Fallacies are wonderful, aren't they? I suppose you don't grow your own food? Here's something to think about: food production is expensive. The production value remains relatively constant but the land value keeps rising, which implies increasing costs and diminishing returns. Your government is doing exactly the same, if they weren't, inflation would skyrocket.
Now I'll admit that I'm not an expert on green party policy, but you describe the greens as some form of libertarian leaning group. In Canada that couldn't be further from the truth. Our political spectrum at the federal level has the conservative party at one end, the liberals in the middle, the NDP at the other end... and then about 1000 miles further on is the green party. They make our most liberal, most nanny-state party, look like libertarians. Their platform in the last election was extremely socialist. (and yes, they did actually put out a comprehensive platform, not just on environmental issues)
Now don't get me wrong, I have a lot of respect for the green party, and I love the fact that our political system has allowed a new party to appear, and actually make progress toward becoming a serious national player. But you won't find me actually voting for them as their platform currently stands.
Oh please. We socialists are not going to eat your children.
I expected the greens to be in favour of lots of regulation on environmental issues, however I discovered in their last election platform that they were also in favour of lots of regulation on EVERY aspect of life. Canada as a whole is far more "left" than the most liberal of the american parties, but the Green party makes even our most liberal political party look libertarian.
And we libertarians aren't going to shoot them.
I didn't say that socialism was bad, only that I wouldn't vote for it.
Wow, some people have no sense of humor.
Stick it to neo-religious enviro-nazi "green" hippy fanatics.
That's more a matter of poor advertising on the green parties' parts. Have you actually seriously read the platform of your particular Green Party, or is it just word association of green=enviro-hippy=Greenpeace, etc?
In Canada, the Green Party is probably the most traditionally conservative party you can vote for. The Conservatives are busy selling the country off to trans-nationals and centralizing government power.
Heh. A perfect example of the 'third type' described a few posts above.
In the last federal election, the Green Party of Canada had the most fiscally conservative platform out of all of the parties. That's probably why the Conservative Party swiped a few of the Green's policies on income tax reform to claim as their own. (the Green platform was out and complete months before anyone else's)
The craziest policy I can think of for the Green Party is their position on wireless electronics. The Greens want it out of mandatory government-run schools until there's a thorough scientific study providing conclusive evidence about the long-term effects of Wi-Fi RF exposure on children.
The Greens in Canada have essentially no power but they do get media coverage. The best we could hope is that the NDP and Liberals will back this if it grows legs just to oppose the current Conservative majority. Tying health care and the environment to the IP issue won`t hurt either.
Because the Greens are the ones that passed a law/regulation that, if you sell/produce any sort of goods at home (ie farms, arts&crafts), allows Health Canada special inspectors to barge into your house and look at whatever they please on their own say so? The inspectors can also request police backup, so now you have a police officer in your house legally searching anything he/she can see, without a warrant. I didn't realize the Greens were the governing party in the commons with an appointed majority in the senate...
Oh please. We socialists are not going to eat your children.
...at least not until we can`t afford to eat anything else.
Fiscally conservative???? where on earth did you get that garbage from? their platform involved higher taxes on anything that could in some way be related to the environment (any fuel, electricity, etc), higher taxes on any food deemed not to be good for you, and higher spending on every single department of the government (with the possible exception of the military). They had no provision to reduce spending on anything, no provision to reduce deficit or debt and many many many places where they wanted to spend more money.
I don't know why you think I'm a corporate shill, I don't think corporations should have any influence in politics either. I just want to be able to run my own life instead of having the government tell me what I can and can't buy, what I can and can't eat, etc. I want the government to get completely out of the world of blocking imports to protect local industry. I want them to abolish all IP laws (far more harm than good) I'm all for protecting the environment, but give realistic solutions. don't tell us what we can't do, tell us what we CAN.
If the green party weren't so socialist, even the NDP are significantly more conservative than the greens, I would vote for them because I like the idea of the outsider party getting support. I just can't stomach their nanny-state politics.
Did I say the other parties were saints?? I hate all of them, that doesnt' make the green's policy palatable.
I'm libertarian leaning, unfortunately all our parties are socialist, but the greens far more so than any of the others.
I've given up on public things on the Internet. Encrypt everything and form private networks without advertising and corporate influence. Peer to peer share the information on how to produce your own medications, fair use content and trade with bitcoin. Leave the draconian US laws behind and wait for encryption to be totally criminalised. Develop and use peer to peer protocols to bypass all control. Use cloud only when you encrypt the data and posts.
In Australia they are so radically to the left, they're falling off the cliff. Their aim is to have global governance under the auspices of the UN. I'll leave that to your imagination. "http://greens.org.au/policies/human-rights-democracy/global-governance"
Nos Morituri te salutamus
It's been my experience that the Australian Greens are the only party here talking anything like sense.
They are certainly the only bunch who think morality and honor have any value whatsoever. The other parties would clearly throw their mother and yours under a bus if it got them ahead.
Of course, this sensible talking attitude offends the born-to-rule liberals and the gimme-my-slice labour fanatics. Hence the near constant flow of lies, misrepresentations and bad-faith analysis of Greens policies.