Lex Ferenda

Oh, Canada. Helped to write a UN declaration on aboriginal rights (it took about a decade) and then (after a change in government) was one of only four countries (in the General Assembly, as the 61st session comes to a close) to vote against it. More here. Joining with the US, Australia and New Zealand. Colonies United.

Bulletin from the General Assembly with a report of the vote. Here’s the declaration. And here’s the ambassador’s speech, if you’re able for it.

Updates: News from the CBC, sorrow from Lori at metislaw and a thoughtful Australian perspective from Nic.

Health Services and Support – Facilities Subsector Bargaining Assn. v. British Columbia
[2007] SCC 27

Human dignity, equality, liberty, respect for the autonomy of the person and the enhancement of democracy are among the values that underly the Charter: R. v. Zundel; Corbiere v. Canada; R. v. Oakes. All of these values are complemented and indeed, promoted, by the protection of collective bargaining in s. 2(d) of the Charter.

The right to bargain collectively with an employer enhances the human dignity, liberty and autonomy of workers by giving them the opportunity to influence the establishment of workplace rules and thereby gain some control over a major aspect of their lives, namely their work (see Alberta Reference, at p. 368, and Wallace v. United Grain Growers, at para. 93). As explained by P. C. Weiler in Reconcilable Differences (1980): Collective bargaining is not simply an instrument for pursuing external ends, whether these be mundane monetary gains or the erection of a private rule of law to protect dignity of the worker in the face of managerial authority. Rather, collective bargaining is intrinsically valuable as an experience in self-government. It is the mode in which employees participate in setting the terms and conditions of employment, rather than simply accepting what their employer chooses to give them …. [p. 33]
…
We conclude that the protection of collective bargaining under s. 2(d) of the Charter is consistent with and supportive of the values underlying the Charter and the purposes of the Charter as a whole. Recognizing that workers have the right to bargain collectively as part of their freedom to associate reaffirms the values of dignity, personal autonomy, equality and democracy that are inherent in the Charter.

The Canadian Supreme Court today recognises a right to (some elements of) collective bargaining as part of freedom of association, and strikes down some sections of ‘reforming’ labour law from British Columbia. It is a significant departure from past Supreme Court decisions on the interpretation of s 2(d) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (which deals with freedom of association) and is informed by a study of the history of work, unions and labour law, a perusal of the sources leading to the Charter, and significant reliance upon international law. Potentially a very significant decision.

(With apologies for the headline).

I have been meaning to write this story for some time, and I had all the links etc in a draft post. Those who know me and see me on a regular basis have heard me rattling on about this for a while. Seeing as Slashdot has picked it up (and the NY Times has a brief mention from a while back here), though, I may as well just point in their direction. (I was proud of myself for my dirtdigging, so I should be grateful that other great minds went the same way).

So, there’s a proposal from the New York City pension funds to require Google to be a bit nicer on freedom of expression issues. It’s being voted on at the shareholders meeting on the 10th of May. You can read the full thing in the definitive proxy statement (the relevant bit is here. Read with pride how Google (”Do No Evil”) and its board recommends to all shareholders to vote against the resolution. Note additionally that the Google founders (”Do No Evil”) control a substantial proportion of the votes so the resolution doesn’t even have much of a chance. And note of course that votes proxied back to the Board (”Do No Evil”) will be cast against the resolution.

The operative bit is as follows:

Therefore, be it resolved, that shareholders request that management institute policies to help protect freedom of access to the Internet which would include the following minimum standards:

1) Data that can identify individual users should not be hosted in Internet restricting countries, where political speech can be treated as a crime by the legal system.

2) The company will not engage in pro-active censorship.

3) The company will use all legal means to resist demands for censorship. The company will only comply with such demands if required to do so through legally binding procedures.

4) Users will be clearly informed when the company has acceded to legally binding government requests to filter or otherwise censor content that the user is trying to access.

5) Users should be informed about the company’s data retention practices, and the ways in which their data is shared with third parties.

6) The company will document all cases where legally-binding censorship requests have been complied with, and that information will be publicly available.

(The recitals mention the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and so on).

Terrible stuff. Do no evil and vote against this nonsense.

Don’t forget that the EU is writing to Google about its privacy practices, and that Yahoo! is! being! sued! Let the games begin.

Do no evil.

The National Critical Lawyers Group in the UK has announced further details of its 2007 conference. The topic is “Human Rights and Human Wrongs”; the schedule so far includes everything from mental health to ASBOs via the Middle East - not to mention the state of the legal profession.

The conference is open to all. It takes place in Canterbury on February 24th and 25th (a weekend!). The cost to students is fairly nominal, but others are of course very welcome to attend, and indeed to propose ideas for panels, workshops etc. Some accommodation will be available, including floor space, youth hostel beds and hotels/B&Bs - select according to budget and preference! I am hoping to travel over from Dublin for the weekend, and the good organisers are sending me some posters for display here in TCD. If you’re interested in contributing, attending, promoting or just finding out more, you can email the local organisers or fill out the registration form.

Freedom of expression sometimes seems to be a little out of fashion even among activists.  Freedom of speech won’t feed my children.  It’s only a Western value right? - we can’t force ‘our’ culture on ‘them’.  Google (’Don’t Be Evil‘) did evil. PATRIOTs understand that to protect our liberties, you must ignore them.  If you’re anti-war, then you can ignore the bad deeds of countries who are anti-US and thus On Your Side.  And we DEFINITELY can’t offend religious people, especially when they are Oppressed Groups and thus Always Right.  Got that?

The Euston Manifesto (officially published this weekend!) makes it very clear.

We reject the double standards with which much self-proclaimed progressive opinion now operates, finding lesser (though all too real) violations of human rights which are closer to home, or are the responsibility of certain disfavoured governments, more deplorable than other violations that are flagrantly worse. We reject, also, the cultural relativist view according to which these basic human rights are not appropriate for certain nations or peoples.

And later on…

We uphold the traditional liberal freedom of ideas. It is more than ever necessary today to affirm that, within the usual constraints against defamation, libel and incitement to violence, people must be at liberty to criticize ideas — even whole bodies of ideas — to which others are committed. This includes the freedom to criticize religion: particular religions and religion in general. Respect for others does not entail remaining silent about their beliefs where these are judged to be wanting.

So.  Why the lengthy quotes and the ranting?

Reason A is that I’ve been dealing with the Google-China issue in my current research.  So it’s on my mind.  Reason B is that I wrote an extended rant for a Labour newsletter defending freedom of expression in the context of the ‘cartoons’ hoohah (which I’ll add to the writings page soon).  But reason C, and the best of them all, is the shiny new box appearing in the sidebar.  It’s part of Amnesty’s new campaign, Irrepressible.info - launched today in the Observer newspaper, focused on online free speech.

Click on it, please

I want to be special.

The US government compiles wonderful ‘Watch Lists’ on intellectual property rights. The informative Canadian IP blog, Now, Why Didn’t I Think Of That?, proclaims that Canada is still listed due to a cocktail of issues, including failure to implement the WIPO “Internet Treaties”. Ireland isn’t listed as a separate ‘problem’ (unlike some other European countries), but the EU is, because of the following relatively trivial point:

The European Union (EU) will remain on the Watch List in 2006 because of concerns over EU rules concerning geographical indications (GIs). For instance, following an adverse ruling by the WTO Dispute Settlement Body in April 2005, the EU published a new regulation concerning GIs on March 31, 2006, and claimed full compliance with the WTO recommendations and rulings. But concerns remain with respect to this new regulation’s impact on the rights of trademark owners, which the United States continues to analyze; the United States looks forward to continued cooperation with the EU on this and other intellectual property matters.

Wonder if they would ever be satisfied?

Full information and naming-and-shaming from the US Trade Representative.

The International Academy of Linguistic Law’s annual conference is taking place here in Ireland this year - in Galway, to be more precise.  The programme has just been published, and I’m speaking on the first day alongside two others, Prof Lachman Khubchandani from Pune in India, and Tarlach McGonagle who’s ex-Galway but currently at the Institute for Information Law in Amsterdam.

From Amnesty International (Irish section):

Every year, throughout the world, more than half a million people are killed by armed violence - that’s one person every minute. Every government around the world is responsible. Their lack of control on the arms trade is fuelling conflict, poverty and human rights abuses - worldwide.

The Control Arms campaign is asking governments to toughen up controls on the arms trade. Our Million Faces petition is collecting photos and self-portraits from around the world to reach our goal of one million faces by June 2006. We will use these faces to send a powerful, global message of support to the world’s governments for an International Arms Trade Treaty.

Be one in a million. Join us today.

Add your face to the Million Faces petition. We urgently need 17,000 faces added to the petition from people in Ireland by 19th May 2006. Help us achieve this target by adding your face.If you blog, consider putting this message, or a version of it, on your own blog. If you have email-tolerant friends, forward the information to them. Add your own face, and look at what else you can do to support this campaign.

(adapted for blogging by Daithí)

International Conference on The Slobodan Milosevic Trial
29th/30th April 2006, NUI Galway

An assessment of the trial of Slobodan Milosević, bringing together leading international experts on the trial itself, and on international criminal justice. The conference will assess the strengths and weaknesses of the trial, and evaluate its contribution to justice and peace.

Confirmed speakers include:

Stephen Kay QC, Court-assigned counsel to Slobodan Milosević
Gillian Higgins, Court-assigned counsel to Slobodan Milosević
Michael Johnson, former Chief of Prosecutions, International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia
Professor Michael Scharf, co-author of Slobodan Milosević on Trial (Continuum, 2002), described by the London Times as ‘the best account’ of the proceedings.
Professor William Schabas, author of The UN International Criminal Tribunals (Cambridge, 2006).

A very useful blog from the UN Library, which specialises in highlighting new documents or sites related to the far-flung bits of the UN system.