Mobilisation vote Citizen Rights Amendments on May6 Telecoms Package 2nd reading : Différence entre versions

De La Quadrature du Net
Aller à la navigationAller à la recherche
(How?)
Ligne 1 : Ligne 1 :
<strong>[[Mobilisation_....|En français]] / [[Mobilisierung_...|Auf Deutsch]] / [[Movilizacion_...|En Español]] / ...</strong>
+
<strong>[[Mobilisation_....|En français]] / [[Mobilisierung_...|Auf Deutsch]] / [[Mobilizatione...|En italien]][[Movilizacion_...|En Español]] / ...</strong>
  
  

Version du 3 mai 2009 à 21:13

En français / Auf Deutsch / En italienEn Español / ...


Two days to call all Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) to ask them to vote again for the "CITIZEN RIGHTS AMENDMENTS", in the 2nd reading of the Telecoms Package, which include all the safeguards that were removed in the "compromise amendments", and crucial safeguards against "net discrimination" (original amendment 138/46, amendment 166 and others).

MEPs are in Strasbourg on Monday 4th (they may arrive from Brussels around 12 or 13:00), Tuesday 5th, Wednesday 6th of May.

On Wednesday, 6 May at 12:00, both ITRE (rapported by C. Trautmann) and IMCO (rapported by M. Harbour) reports will be voted in the second reading of the Telecoms Package.

In last minute opaque negociations with the Council of EU, both rapporteurs agreed to water down the crucial safeguards for fundamental rights and freedoms of EU citizens out of their reports :

  • In the IMCO/Harbour report, amendment 166 was replaced by a nullified version that has no protective value anymore. Some very light protection against "net discrimination" (where operators can choose what content, services and applications may be accessed or used through their networks, the only protection being customer information through the contracts...) was also completely neutralized.
  • In the ITRE/Trautmann report, amendment 138/46 was turned down into a weaker version (yet still a clear political sign and legal reminder against the french "three strikes" HADOPI), that may require interpretation from a justice court, and years of challenge, to counter "graduated response"/"three strikes" schemes.

The Citizen Rights Amendments correct all these problems. They reinstall amendment 138/46, amendment 166, remove any open door to "three strikes" policies and protect against abusive "net discrimination" practice by operators.

It is urgent to contact ALL Members of European Parliament (MEPs) to advise them about these issues, and advise them to follow La Quadrature's voting lists (Voting list for IMCO/Harbour report and voting list for ITRE/Trautmann report). Tell them that a few weeks before the elections, EU citizens are watching, recording and scoring their votes in Political Memory.

Time is short and stakes are crucial.


Who?

Everybody should contact all Members of the European Parliament (MEPs).

Here is A list of all the MEPs and a list indicating how they previously voted on the Telecoms Package first reading.

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

IMPORTANT:

  • Telephoning is much more effective than email, especially on such short notice
  • MEPs will be reachable in Strasbourg on Monday (from 12/13:OO), Tuesday and Wednesday morning.
  • Don't send mass mailing, but personnal mails
  • Always stay polite, even if you are sad or angry.

When?

The vote will take place on Wednesday, 6 May, 2009, at 12h00. MEPs must be informed before that time.


What?

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


  • All MEPs must vote for the "Citizen's Rights Amendments", because safeguarding EU citizens fundamental rights and freedom is the most important mission of the European Parliament. No compromise shall be accepted on Freedom, even if it is for making the EU procedure go faster.
  • A direct opposition with the Council of EU is preferrable to a regression on fundamental rights and freedoms, especially when Internet, which is structuring the future of our societies, is concerned. Moreover the Citizens' Right Amendments do not directly oppose to the compromise negociated with the Council, they strenghten it.
  • Right before the elections, it's a perfect way to show the usefulness of the European Parliament, its commitment to protecting EU citizens, and to send them a strong signal.
  • "Net Discrimination", where operators get the right to limit access to content, applications, and services over the internet, is NOT just a market and competition problem, because Internet is essential for the usage of fundamental rights.
  • The failure of competition laws to regulate the behaviour of mobile operators is a blatant example that we need a strong regulation to protect the structure of the Internet against "net discrimination".
  • 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 “The Commission considers this amendment to be an important restatement of key legal principles of the Community legal order, especially of citizens' fundamental rights.”. It has been accepted again in ITRE committee by 40 vote to 4.
  • 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.

(the notion of "prior ruling by the judicial authority" is crucial, and not as clear in the compromise amendments)

  • Opposing to "graduated response" (or "three strikes") schemes is not only a frenchy problem, because other EU states are considering such a scheme, and at some point it was sneaked into the Telecoms Package. It is also about opposing to other forms of private, nonjudicial, parallel "justice" that would be dangerous for everyone's civil liberties.
  • It is a strong signal to the EU citizens at a time when EU institutions face a deep crisis of confidence.

How?

Example phone call

  • You : _"Hello, i am ... , living in ..., I am calling you today regarding the vote in second reading of the Telecoms Package."

(let your correspondent introduce herself, give her opinion and infos on the question, etc.)

  • You : _'The "Citizen Rights Amendements' are a strong set of amendments for protecting EU citizens. They are protective of fundamental freedoms, when media industries want to impose their private police and parallel, arbitrary justice over the Internet, like what they are trying to do in France and in some other Member States. They are also protective against 'net discrimination', where operators want to limit the ability to access content, applications or services to maximize the revenues of their own services."
  • Interlocutor : "Mrs/Mr MEP is concerned with this topic, but she/he will follow the instructions of the political group."
  • You : _"The compromise amendments removed essential protections: they weakened am. 138/46 in ITRE, and completely netralized article 32a (am.166) in IMCO and recital 26 that was vaguely protective against 'net discrimination'. You cannot tolerate such a step back on fundamental freedoms!"
  • Interlocutor : "It is complicated. We need to reach an agreement in order to avoid the conciliation procedure with the Council."
  • You : _"Is reaching an agreement more important than protecting EU citizens' fundamental rights and freedoms? It is important, before the elections, to show that the Parliament is useful, that it protects its electors, and that it doesn't bend under the pressure a few member states apply through the Council!"
  • Interlocutor : "There are many other important issues in the Telecoms Package, industries are waiting..."
  • You : _"We need Europe to protect citizens before industries. Please tell Mrs/Mr MEP to vote for CRA amendments in the name of its electors who will be very attentive to the outcome of this vote. I am available if you have questions about these issues, or other issues related to civil liberties in the digital environment. (leave your contact infos). Have a nice day, thank you for your time!"

See below for counter-counter-arguments...

Other example phone call to begin the conversation

  • You : _"Hello, my name is ..., I live in ... . I call you regarding 'Citizen Rights Amendments' of the Telecom Package. Mrs/Mr MEP XXX will have to vote on wednesday about these amendments. I just wanted to tell you my support for having them adopted."
  • Interlocutor : _"Mrs/Mr MEP is concerned with this topic, but you know, it's not as simple. There is a lot of pressure and it would be a pity to make the telecom Package 'fall' because of this amendment"
  • You : _"You are right, and I understand this delicate situation. But I feel that the council tries to invert the responsibilities. It would be natural, I would say indispensable, to save an amendment that had been supported two times by 90% of the parliament, and to keep other essential safeguards for EU citizens. If the council doesn't accept that, the council will be the unique responsible for the Telecom Package 'failure'. I would like to add that this pressure looks like 'bluff'. The Telecom Package represents 3 years of work from a lot of parliamentarians. The council will not decide to put the Telecom Package in danger."
  • Interlocutor : _"Ok, but you know ..."
  • Conversation
  • You : _"Thanks a lot for having listened to me and thank you for your work to you and to Mrs/Mr MEP XXX. If you can tell him/her my call I would appreciate it. And you can tell him/her also that he/she can call me at (phone number) if he/she wants to talk about that"
  • Interlocutor : _"Of course, no problem."


Arguments and counter-arguments

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

If you are given other arguments that you cannot counter, please add them to the list or send us an email (contact AT laquadrature DOT net), we will try to counter them as soon as possible.


  • There is no problem of "net discrimination", as the compromise amendments force the operators to provide clear information to the consumers on any limitation to access to content, services, and applications over their internet services.

Using one's freedom of expression, of information and of education is not a matter of consumer or competition law. Malcolm Harbour cannot pretend that competition law by itself will solve the bad behaviours of telecom operators, when the EU took 10 years to sanction Microsoft with no result, and when nothing was done against mobile operators (in most member states they are structured in cartels and agree on banning voice-over-ip, peer-to-peer and streaming software from their so-called "mobile" internet!)

  • Going back to amendment 138 (46) or pushing the CRAs amendments 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.

  • If we go to a conciliation procedure, everything will have to be renegociated, and we will lose many important and good things that are in the package already.

On the matter of protecting citizens' rights, there are not many good things in the package right now. Plus reaffirming for a second time its commitment to protecting citizen's right would mean for the Parliament to be in a position of force in the negotiations with the Council... also we don't know how strong the Swedish democracy may weight on the Swedish Presidency... (+ previous answer)

  • 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 (The Commission considers this amendment to be an important restatement of key legal principles of the Community legal order, especially of citizens' fundamental rights.”), 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 amendments against the will of rapporteurs anyway!

Rapporteurs know this is the right thing to do to safeguard EU citizens' rights, and they need a strong majority within the Parliament to support them.

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.

Example letters

Please keep in mind that it is most of the time counter-productive to cut/paste emails. Personalized mails are always better (and phone calls even better!). Here is a list of messages that were sent to the MEPs.

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.