Mobilisation 2days to save am138 and citizens rights in Telecoms Package

On Tuesday, April 21st at 20:00, the ITRE report of the Telecoms Package, rapported by Catherine Trautmann, will come to a vote in the ITRE (Industry, TRansport, Energy) committee.

It may reintroduce amendment 138 (now renumbered amendment 46), a crucial safeguard of user's rights on the Internet, and protection against the media industry private police and retribution called the "graduated response" or "three strikes" schemes. Am. 138 was approved by 88% of the European Parliament in first reading, on September 24th, 2008.

Yet rapporteur Catherine Trautmann is currently negotiating with the Council of the EU, which under the French presidency, and under very strong influence from M Sarkozy, deleted the amendment in first reading.

The Council may propose a compromise version of amendment 138 that is completely neutralized, or that may even become the opposite of the original by allowing the "three strikes" scheme instead of preventing it.

It is urgent to contact the members of the ITRE committee to advise them to reject compromise with the Council that failed to respect the intent of the original amendment. The best would be once again to approve the amendment.

Time is short, so we must act promptly.

Who?

Everybody should contact Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) sitting on the ITRE Committee.

Here is A list of the ITRE members indicating how they previously voted on amendment 138, and their global score on the 1st reading of the Telecoms Package.

Begin with the members from your country, then the substitutes from your country, then members and substitutes from other countries.

IMPORTANT:

• Telephoning is much more effective than email, especially on such short notice
• On Monday, MEPs will be reachable in Brussels. On Tuesday they will be in Strasbourg.

When?

The vote will take place on Tuesday, April 22, 2009, at 20h00. MEPs must be informed before that.

On the morning of Tuesday, April 21st, will be held a Coreper meeting (the diplomatic body which prepares the decisions of the Council) that will negotiate a compromise with Catherine Trautmann. According to our information, the compromise can only be bad. (Instead of an article, which requires implementation by the member states, they insist on making it a recital, that has only advisory value but does not become part of national laws!)

What?

Here are the major points you should explain to the MEPs and their assistants:

• ITRE MEPs must advise Catherine Trautmann to refuse a weak compromise with the council which neutralizes amendment 138, and they should vote for amendment 46 (which exactly restates amendment 138).

• Right before the elections, it's a perfect way to show the usefulness of the European Parliament, and its commitment to protecting the rights and freedoms of its citizens.

• Amendment 138 was approved by 88% of the European Parliament in first reading on September 24, 2008. It has been accepted by the Commission, and Mrs Reding herself said that "...."

• Amendment 138 is protective of users' rights. It reinforces a fundamental principle of European law: except where public security is directly threatened, only a judge can impose conditions -- a sentence under law -- that restrict a citizen's fundamental rights and freedoms.

The original amendment 138: Applying the principle that no restriction may be imposed on the fundamental rights and freedoms of end-users, without a prior ruling by the judicial authorities, notably in accordance with Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union on freedom of expression and information, save when public security is threatened in which case the ruling may be subsequent.

• It is directly opposed to "graduated response" (or "three strikes") schemes such as the one being deployed in France (yet it's not a purely French problem, because other EU states are considering such a scheme, and at some point it was sneaked into the Telecoms Package). It also opposes other forms of private, nonjudicial, parallel "justice" that would be dangerous for everyone's civil liberties.

• The Council removed it, with no justification, under heavy pressure from Nicolas Sarkozy, thus voiding a decision of 88% of the Parliament.

• No compromise should be accepted that doesn't protect civil freedoms as well as the original amendment does. As a recital instead of an article, it loses all protective power. (The current state of the compromise between the rapporteur and the Council is a weak recital.)

• It is a strong signal to the EU citizens at a time when EU institutions face a deep crisis of confidence.

How?

Arguments and counter-arguments

Here are arguments you will hear, and how to counter them:

• Going back to amendment 138 (46) would cause a direct conflict with the Council, thus bringing a "conciliation procedure" (sort of a third reading, where the text is negotiated between the Parliament and the Council), that would take some more months, and where we may lose what we gained already.

The role of the European Parliament is to protect EU citizens. Protecting citizens' rights and freedoms must be more important for the Parliament than merely keeping to a schedule. MEPs don't want to show that the European Parliament always yields to the Council. This would show that the Parliament is useless and that the Council always gets what it dictates.

• Amendment 138/46 is not legal under the law of some Member States. Some Member States such as France, UK, and Sweden won't accept it through the Council.

The Commission accepted the amendment, which means it is legal under EU law. Moreover, this amendment just restates EU law, as stated by Catherine Trautmann herself after first reading: "if 'graduated response' goes against the fundamental principle that we have only recalled, we must question the viability of the whole scheme". ("S’il s’avère que la riposte graduée va à l’encontre du principe fondamental que nous n’avons fait que rappeler, il faut s’interroger sur la viabilité même du système.")

Maybe these countries just want to implement "graduated response" / "three strikes" schemes, such as the disastrous French HADOPI law, or create some other system private police and parallel "justice" disastrous for citizens' rights. This would be intolerable.

• No one will approve it against the will of Rapporteur Trautmann anyway!

She knows this is the right thing to do to safeguard EU citizens' rights, and she needs a strong majority within the ITRE committee to support her.

A few weeks before the elections, with massive abstentions expected, rejecting strong protection for their rights and freedoms would be a terrible signal to send to the voters.

Contact us for feedback and help

If you encounter a question you cannot answer, DON'T PANIC. Say that you will call back, and contact us (contact AT laquadrature DOT net). We will be pleased to help you in answering all your questions.

Please also contact us to tell us how it went with your MEP, and what response you received.