ACTA: Worse Than SOPA and PIPA

ACTA: Worse Than SOPA and PIPA

by Stephen Lendman

January 28, 2012 Internet freedom's on the line. SOPA and PIPA threatened Net Neutrality and free expression. So does ACTA. More on it below. For now, the largest online protest in Internet history got Congress to abandon SOPA and PIPA but not permanently. Expect resurrection in modified form. Language may change but not intent. ACTA's worse. Launched on October 23, 2007, America, the EU, Switzerland and Japan began secretly negotiating a new intellectual property enforcement treaty - the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). Other nations got involved, including Canada, Australia, South Korea, New Zealand, Mexico, Jordan, Singapore, and the UAE. Ostensibly for counterfeit goods protection, it's about fast-tracking Internet distribution and information technology rules at the expense of Net Neutrality, privacy, and personal freedoms. It establishes unrestricted supranational global trade rules. In the process, it tramples on national sovereignty and personal freedoms. Moreover, negotiations were secret until WikiLeaks reported in May 2008: "If adopted, (ACTA) would impose a strong, top-down enforcement regime, with new cooperation requirements upon (ISPs), including perfunctionary disclosure of customer information." "The proposal also bans 'anti-circumvention measures which may affect online anonymity systems and would likely outlaw multi-region CD/DVD players. The proposal also specifies a plan to encourage developing nations to accept the legal regime." Those opting out face retaliatory measures. On April 22, 2010, Electronic Frontier Foundation writer Gwen Hinze headlined, "Preliminary Analysis of the Officially Released ACTA Text," saying: "The text (leaves no doubt) that ACTA is not just about counterfeiting." It's far more. It covers copyrights, patents, and other intellectual property forms, including the Internet. It's also about the ability of users to "communicate, collaborate and create" freely. In addition, it imposes obligations (on) Internet intermediaries (and), requir(es) them to police" cyberspace and its users. As a result, it raises serious questions about open affordable access, free expression, personal privacy, and "fair use rights." On May 27, 2011, the Foundation for Free Information Infrastructure (FFII) said the European Commission published a final ACTA text with few changes from its last known version. Since introduced, major media scoundrels reported little about its destructive provisions. Last October, Washington, Australia, Canada, Japan, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore, and South Korea signed ACTA. US deputy trade representative Mariam Sapiro hailed the occasion, saying: "As with many of the challenges we face in today's global economy, no government can single-handedly eliminate the problem of global counterfeiting and piracy. Signing this agreement is therefore an act of shared leadership and determination in the international fight against intellectual property theft." Public Knowledge attorney Rashmi Rangnath called the deal the Obama administration's "attempt to foist US law on other countries." It also broke another candidate Obama promise to "(s)upporte the principle of network neutrality to preserve the benefits of open competition on the Internet." In fact, doing so lawlessly circumvented Congress. On October 1, 2011, Obama acted by "executive agreement." He falsely claimed ACTA's not a treaty requiring Senate approval. Constitutional issues remain unresolved. By law, executive agreements apply only to sole presidential authority issues. Treaties must be ratified by a two-thirds Senate supermajority. As a result, a circulating petition demands Senate consideration. By February 21, 25,000 are needed. So far, thousands are recorded. Dozens of legal scholars support it. So far, the administration's stonewalling. It's circumventing the law like it always does and breaking a campaign pledge in the process. Post-SOPA/PIPA, Obama diktat authority rammed it through illegally. In contrast, the Mexican Senate rejected it in a non-binding resolution. On January 26, Poland's Japan ambassador, Jadwiga Rodowicz-Czechowska, signed it. It's yet to pass parliament. Public anger raged across the country against it. The hacktivist group Anonymous targeted signatory countries' official web sites. It threatened to reveal sensitive information about officials in countries passing it. Anti-ACTA sentiment affected Poland's parliament. Opposition MPs wore masks to reflect their refusal to back it. Poland's Prime Minister Donald Tusk said he'll submit the treaty to parliament and sign it provided "the government is sure Polish law guarantees freedom on the Internet...." On January 26, infojustice.org headlined, "EU Signs ACTA, But Treaty Remains in Doubt," saying: The European Parliament (EP) has final say. Consideration begins late February or early March. Committee voting follows in April or May. In June, Parliament decides. After SOPA and PIPA's derailing, expect a close vote. On January 23, 2012, FFII headlined, "EP (European Parliament) legal service consistently overlooks known issues with ACTA," saying: In a letter to members of the European Parliament, FFII said: "The legal service fails to see major issues with damages, injunctions and provisional, border and criminal measures. The legal service consistently overlooks known issues." Clearly, "ACTA goes beyond current EU law, the acquis." According to FFII's Ante Wessels: "ACTA will negatively impact innovation, start up companies, mass digitization projects, access to medicines and Internet governance. ACTA threatens the rule of law and fundamental rights." FFII asked Parliament to reject ACTA. Issues cited included: (1) Violating EU law. (2) Unjustifiably discriminating. Threatens access to generic drugs and local foods. (3) Criminalizes "everyday computer use." Liability extends to private individuals, newspapers, web sites, office workers forwarding files or documents, and whistleblowers revealing information in the public interest. (4) Civil measures also apply to the digital environment. ACTA pressures ISPs to preemptively censor online communications. It also "incites privatized enforcement outside the rule of law." "The ARTICLE 19 organization" said ACTA's "fundamentally flawed from a freedom of expression and information perspective. If enacted, it will greatly endanger the free-flow of information and the free exchange of ideas, particularly on the internet." (5) Endangering public health by restricting access to medicines. It cracks down on generic drugs, makes food patents more extreme, enforces global standards on seed patents, empowers agribusiness, and threatens small farms and food independence. (6) Global pricing and cultural life issues aren't addressed. (7) Violates Article 21 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), stating: "The Union's action on the international scene shall be guided by the principles (of) democracy, the rule of law, the universality and indivisibility of human rights and fundamental freedoms...." Negotiations were conducted secretly. Civil society, public interest groups, and legislatures were entirely shut out. Major decisions were made extralegally. They violate established laws and fundamental freedoms. On December 27, 2011, the Electronic Frontier Foundation said: ACTA threatens personal and digital freedoms. It creates an extralegal "global IP enforcement institution to oversee its implementation." It turns ISPs into enforcers. The agreement requires signatories "promote cooperative efforts within the business community" on issues regarding copyright and trademark infringement. As a result, Internet access, censoring, and lost freedom may result. "ACTA suffocates collaborative creativity and innovation, and less explicitly, but just as gravely, threatens free speech through provisions that may lead to Internet access restrictions for the 'sake' of combating 'imminent violation' of intellectual property laws." Worst of all, secret negotiations facilitate similarly drafted future international agreements, benefitting powerful interests at the expense of personal freedoms. For ACTA, heavy-handed Washington pressure forced through draconian provisions. Civil society organizations are outraged. In addition, some nations exposed gross political treachery in back-room dealmaking. For example, Brazil called ACTA "illegitimate." The Dutch Parliament refused to consider it. India strongly opposes it. So do other emerging economies saying it stifles their development. Other nations are undecided. They all have until May 2013 to vote up or down. As a result, Washington's exerting immense pressure to bring opponents on board. EFF calls back room dealmaking "an affront to a democratic world order." It's committed to work with other anti-ACTA groups to defeat ACTA. The Inquisitr calls the agreement worse than SOPA and PIPA. It "takes a fairly bland idea - the right of companies to profit from their own intellectual property - and turns it into a governmental power grab and an excuse to weaken" Internet privacy. La Quadrature du Net (Internet & Libertes) says ACTA "has absolutely no democratic legitimacy." Unelected bureaucrats drafted it. It urges mass actions to defeat it. A Final Comment ACTA potentially criminalizes almost anything online. It lets government and corporate predators censor, shut down sites, and prosecute owners if they object to posted content. Imagine the effect on free thought and opinion. Criticize government or corporate lawlessness and be silenced behind bars. That's why stopping ACTA is crucial. SOPA and PIPA outrage was round one. ACTA's the main event. A truth emergency exists. So far, it's mostly below the radar. Exposing it widely is crucial. Now's the time to act before it's too late. Internet freedom's on the chopping block for elimination unless mass public outrages stops it. EFF cites other plurilateral deals like the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP). It's more draconian than ACTA. Secret negotiations again drafted it. Bureaucrats alone were involved. Civil society, public interest groups, and lawmakers had no say. Internet freedom's on the line. The stakes are immense. Jefferson understood by saying that: "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." Now's the time to assure it doesn't happen. Spread the word! Mobilize! Agitate! Involve Congress! Stop this monster! It's our Internet! Get in the fight to save it! Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

Emirates 'has security links with Israel'

Emirates 'has security links with Israel'

UPI

January 29, 2012 ABU DHABI, United Arab Emirates (UPI) -- The United Arab Emirates, an economic giant and rising military power in the Persian Gulf, is reported to have discreet ties with private security companies in Israel to protect its oil fields and borders. The Intelligence Online Web site reports that the country's Critical National Infrastructure Authority has had business dealings with several Israeli firms since it was established in 2007, even though the emirates has no diplomatic relations with the Jewish state. "Trade between the two countries, principally in the area of security, amounted to nearly $300 million last year," Intelligence Online reported Jan. 12. CNIA is based in Abu Dhabi, the main oil-rich emirate in the federation. It's the capital of the United Arab Emirates and handles the federation's military and security affairs. "The Israeli businessman most active in Abu Dhabi is Mati Kochavi, owner of the Swiss-registered company AGT, which sold the emirates surveillance cameras, electronic fences and sensors to monitor strategic infrastructure and oil fields." That contract was reportedly worth $800 million. But these ties may be threatened because of a dispute between Abu Dhabi and Israel's Aeronautics Defense Systems, founded in 1997 and which has been involved in several international arms scandals in recent years. This centers on a 2011 deal between CNIA and ADS under which the Israeli outfit would sell the infrastructure authority combat-capable unmanned aerial vehicles like those used against Palestinian militants in the Gaza Strip. But the deal turned sour when it was found that ADS had failed to secure approval from the Israeli Defense Ministry's military sales division, known as SIBAT, to export the UAVs to an Arab state. The dispute has "infuriated the emirate, which had paid a $70 million advance on the contract," Intelligence Online reported. "Fearing irreparable consequences for its relations with Abu Dhabi, the Israeli Defense Ministry is trying to come up with a solution." Intelligence Online said Israel's ImageSat satellite operator has had a Satellite Operating Partner contract since 2006 with the emirates' Space Reconnaissance Center to provide it with program access to the Israeli firm's Eros B commercial satellite launched in April 2006. The emirates is developing its own satellite program, with an eye to acquiring surveillance craft capable of spying on gulf rival Iran. ADS is headed by Avi Leumi, a former officer in Israel's Military Intelligence who has secured contracts with Russia and Azerbaijan, a Muslim state and former Soviet republic on Iran's northern border where Israel has established deep intelligence and military ties over the last decade. Intelligence Online reported several defense and security concerns such as France's CS Systems, which supplied the emirates' military command and control system, and the European Aeronautic Defense and Space Co. "are hoping to benefit from the Israeli group's woes." EADS, with headquarters in Leiden, the Netherlands, comprises Aerospatiale-Matra of France, DaimlerChrysler Aerospace of Germany and Construcciones Aeronauticas of Spain. The emirates' judicious ties to Israel's security industry, which operates in close proximity to the country's secretive security establishment, have emerged despite decades of Arab-Israeli hostility. Kovachi's AGT, like many of Israel's private security companies, employs retired military generals and other senior officers who have access to the Defense Ministry. Among Kovachi's consultants is Maj. Gen. Amos Malka, who headed Israel's Military Intelligence from 1998-2001. Since the 1993-94 Oslo peace accords between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization, Israel has established discreet diplomatic and trade ties with several gulf monarchies. They have also found a common adversary in Iran, whose expansionist policies and contentious nuclear program are viewed as a major threat by the Arab states in the gulf and by Israel. The Jewish state's circumspect ties to the emirates were badly jolted when Mahmoud al-Mabhouh, a senior leader of the Hamas Palestinian groups in the Gaza Strip, was assassinated in Dubai, part of the United Arab Emirates, Jan. 19, 2010. Dubai police blamed Israel for the killing. Bahrain, Oman and Qatar have all been reported in recent years to have conducted secret talks with Israel. Indeed, their intelligence chiefs have reportedly met several times to discuss the Iranian threat. Last May, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu reportedly met secretly with Qatar's premier, Sheik Hamas bin Jassim bin Jabor al-Thani, in London and discussed the possibility of buying Qatari natural gas.

HOLLAND-the Islamists break through to the power!

Islamists dying for power in Holland

30.01.2012 12:36

For the first time in the history of Europe, Islamic organization can participate in the elections. Party For Muslim Netherlands  wants to get into parliament in 2015. The Netherlands could become the first country on the continent where the Islamists will participate in the legislature. The far-right sentiment is increasing in the country as well.

The party program leaves no doubt about its nature. Let's start with the fact that only Muslims can be members of the organization. Its aims are to fight against abortion, homosexuality, abuse of religion and religious texts and all kinds of discrimination. It proposed to prohibit all kinds of drugs, including recreational. The main authority in the Netherlands should be the Shura (Islamic council).  

There are also no doubts with regard to foreign policy. Activists of the Party for Muslim Netherlands insist on the cessation of support for Israel, withdrawal of Dutch troops from Afghanistan and Iraq, an early admission of Turkey into the EU. Party members are promoting their ideas through the members of city councils of Amsterdam and Rotterdam. Many Muslims live in the major cities of Holland, so Party for Muslim Netherlands has enough voters.

Some of the demands of the organization are shared by the conservative Dutch (there are still some of those). Many residents of the country do not like the open sale of marijuana, gay marriage, and "red light" neighborhoods - in short, everything that made modern Netherlands famous. However, the topic of discrimination and harassment of religious texts is quite slippery. The indigenous people are unlikely to be thrilled with the idea of life under Sharia law under the authority of the Shura.

What are the chances that the Islamists will get into the parliament? The threshold for getting into the States General of the Netherlands is five percent. The number of adherents of Islam is approximately one million people (out of 16), or over six percent. It is not a given that all followers of Islam will vote for the Party For Muslim Netherlands. But even participation in the election of such an organization is a significant event. Never before has Islamist party "stormed" the parliament of a European country. And then, everything is possible: the birth rate in Muslim families is high. The time may soon come when the Islamists break through to the power.

What made one of the oldest democracies in the world talk about creating an Islamic Shura? The first meetings between Muslims and the Dutch occurred at the turn of 16^th - 17^th centuries. Then they began the conquest of vast Indonesia - a predominantly Muslim country. Some of its inhabitants were transported to South America, the Dutch colony of Suriname. After the Second World War, Indonesia gained independence. In the early 1960s, followers of Islam have appeared in Holland.

Fifty years ago, Europe was faced with a shortage of unskilled labor force. Many countries have decided to attract immigrants from Asia and Africa, and Holland was no exception. In 1970s, hundreds of thousands of Suriname residents, including Muslim immigrants from Indonesia, moved to the former colonial power. Later, Kurds, Afghans, Albanians, Bosnian Muslims, and immigrants from other Arab countries came to the Netherlands.

In the mid-1970s, the government began to subsidize the construction of mosques and prayer houses. As a result, there are over 400 mosques with minarets in the Netherlands today. Against the background of the fact that Christian churches are getting closed and emptied, the growing number of mosques is particularly impressive. Besides, immigrants from the mid-1970s have the right to establish schools with instruction in their native language. It is not hard to guess what was often taught in these schools. In recent years the autonomy of these schools was limited. However, nearly 30 private Islamic schools are still operating.

For many years the government encouraged the creation of Islamic organizations. In the 1990s, the Islamic Council of the Netherlands was created that included three largest Muslim communities in the country - Moroccan, Turkish and Indonesian-Surinamese. Then there were three other organizations. They are fighting for leadership of the flock. There are mosques not controlled by any one of them, and often these are the places that conduct radical Islamist propaganda.

In 2003, the Government of the Netherlands allowed the activities of the European Arab League. The head of the Dutch branch Jamil Jawad immediately declared that Israel must be destroyed. He demanded that the Netherlands recognizes the constitutional status of the Arabic and Turkish languages and Muslim holidays. In 2008, a native of Morocco, Ahmed Aboutaleb, became the mayor of Rotterdam. Although he did not participate in any Islamist propaganda, indigenous Dutch got scared.

They have good reasons to be frightened. In 2004, a native of Morocco born in Holland murdered filmmaker Theo van Gogh, who was filming a movie about the plight of women in the Muslim world. Two years earlier the leader of the "List Pim Fortayna" party Pim Fortayn, advocating for a total ban on immigration from Muslim countries, was murdered. Although the crime was committed by a native Dutch, its shadow still fell on the Muslim community.

In the upcoming in three years parliamentary elections the main opponent of Islamists will be the Party for Freedom, led by Geert Wilders. The Party received nine seats in the States-General for the first time in 2006. Four years later, over 15 percent of the Dutch voted for it, and today it has 24 seats in the parliament. In many respects it was the law proposed by this party that banned headscarves in schools.

Wilders was not particularly shy talking about the Muslims. There are moderate Muslims and many Muslims in the West are law-abiding citizens. But there is no such thing as "moderate Islam. "Islam is a totalitarian ideology. I would have kicked the Prophet Muhammad from the country, if he had lived in our time." "I say - stop Muslim immigration immediately. If we do not stop immigration because of political correctness, we will lose Europe." This attitude finds increasingly more supporters.

The Muslim community (and others) more than once tried to bring Wilders to trial. First time it happened in 2008 for his film "Fitna", where the politician compared Islam to Nazism, and the Koran with "Mein Kampf" by Adolf Hitler. There was no appropriate article in the Criminal Code. A year later, a new process was started where Wilders was accused of inciting ethnic hatred. The trial continued for 18 months, but eventually he was acquitted.

"Multiculturalism has failed. The Dutch no longer feel at home in their own country," said last year a far more moderate Vice-Premier of Netherlands Maxime Verhagen. The existence of an openly Islamist party on the political sky of Holland once again confirms this. If it gets even three percent of the vote and does not get into the Parliament, it will be a great success and the most serious warning to the Dutch society.

Certainly, the participation of the Party For Muslim Netherlands in the election will add votes for Wilders and his Party for Freedom. Other parties also began voicing "right" statements. The prospect of living under the authority of the Shura does not appeal to either conservatives or liberals, or socialists, or "green." Strictly speaking, this process is already underway. Some immigrants from Muslim countries, too, are unwilling to live under sharia law. Hundreds of thousands of them have been fully integrated into the Dutch society.

One way or another, but the specter Islam is looming over the Dutch. 

Vadim Trukhachev

Pravda.Ru