english
français
Just two mails sent by a spanish and a french MEP: No comment.
1 The spanish Toubon
Mail from Guardans.
****Dear Colleagues,
I’m sorry to bother you with a collective email.
As it is happening more and more often when we have to decide on
anything related to the internet, you are receiving these days plenty of
emails regarding tomorrow’s vote on the telecomm package. I am convinced
you will reject that sort of pressure and threats, as you would do if
they were coming from fundamentalists of other sorts, or from some of
the business lobbies most of you critize so often. And vote whatever you
think is right, balanced and reasonable in the internet era. We may
disagree on some issues, but anybody lying about what the texts
submitted to vote really say, should not be taken into account.In this context of serioussness, let me underline the importance of
rejecting Amendment 138, fwhich bears the signature of a long list of
very respectful colleagues, starting with Guy Bono.
There is a principle we should consider: Internet may require sometimes
different rules from those which apply to our squares and streets. But
what can be called the “internet world” cannot be a less safer place
than the phisical world we live in.For whatever reasons, which is up to the signatories to explain, what
this amendment says is: no restriction whatsoever can exist in internet
to the “rights and freedoms” if it is not “previously” authorized by a
judge, with the only exception of criminal law, and this even in a
restrictive manner. If this was applied to our police forces in our
motorways and roads; to our school teachers and academic authorities at
schools and universities; to our urban planning authorities in our
cities and villages; to any of our state authorities in any field,and in
any level, what would the world look like? We would perhaps be under a
government by Judges, if that is possible. Judges are there to review
decisions, and to sanction unfair abuses of authority or power or
illegal acts. And, indeed, in certain cases, to suspend acts from the
competent authorities. But judges are NOT there to be permanentlyy
consulted by authorites before they do whatever the law allows them to
do!There will be an oral Amendment, which will restrict this text to
“fundamental rights and freedoms”. If the oral amendment is accepted,
the text would make perhaps some sense. If that oral amendement is not
accepted or approved, please vote against ethe three parts of AM. 138.Kindly, and respectfully yours
Ignasi Guardans, MEP
European Parliament
ASP 08G 152
60, rue Wiertz
B-1047 Brussels
2 The french Toubon
From: TOUBON Jacques
Sent: 23 September 2008 18:38
To: …
Cc: MEP-PPE-DE
Subject: In view of the group meeting: Telecom Package
Importance: HighDear …
I would like to share with you my concern about the amendment 138 of
BONO and the oral amendment of Trautmann.I consider that these amendments lead to:
* prevent effective sanctions against pedopornography online in
the name of the freedom of expression and information;
* introduce a distinction and a hierarchy between the different
categories of fundamental rights holders in privileging the ones of
end-users of electronic communications networks and services;
* Are contradictory with the directive 2000/31 on e-commerce.
