Author Topic: Dutch parliament refuses ACTA secrecy  (Read 643 times)

Triple Zero

  • One-Armed Jizz Moppers
  • Deserved It
  • **
  • Posts: 25360
  • Horrible and Sexy Queen of Cheese
    • View Profile
    • Random BIP
Dutch parliament refuses ACTA secrecy
« on: November 25, 2011, 08:33:33 pm »
Dutch parliament refuses ACTA secrecy
November 23, 2011 By Ante

On the same day that the European Parliament had its first secret meeting on ACTA (Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement), the Dutch parliament decided it will not take ACTA into consideration unless all ACTA negotiation texts are published.

A few weeks ago, the Dutch House of Representatives’ committee of Economic Affairs, Agriculture and Innovation requested the ACTA negotiation texts (the earlier versions of ACTA). The minister of Economic Affairs, Agriculture and Innovation, Maxime Verhagen, sent the texts to parliament, adding a non disclosure obligation. In debates, Members of Parliament may not refer to the documents, nor quote from them.

Sunday, Bits of Freedom sent a letter to the committee, asking the committee not to accept the secrecy.

Committee member Kees Verhoeven (D66) proposed a message from the committee to the minister that no substantive treatment of any ACTA document can be made without publication of all relevant documents and above all that the committee can discus all documents in public. According to experts, the treaty has major implications for Dutch legislation (eg on copyright and Internet freedoms) and the House can’t at the moment consult experts nor can it inform the public about ACTA’s consequences, since ACTA is partly confidential. For this reason, the committee also requests the minister not to take irreversible steps, neither in Europe and nor in the Netherlands, in terms of ACTA. And towards the commission itself, the proposal to temporarily withdraw all ACTA related documents from the agenda until the minister discloses all documents.

Bits of Freedom reports a majority in the Dutch House of Representatives (D66, PVV, GroenLinks, SP and PvdA) adopted the proposal.

Meanwhile in Brussels, the European Parliament International Trade committee (INTA) held a highly controversial in-camera meeting to learn what the legal service of the European Parliament thinks of ACTA.

On 9 November, the FFII had send an open letter to the Chairman of the Committee on International Trade (INTA), in which the FFII objected to the planned in-camera meeting on the 23th. On 12 November the INTA chairman defended the secrecy in a letter to the FFII.

7 civil society groups asked for European Parliament transparency on ACTA on the 17th. On Friday the 18th, the Parliament refused to disclose the legal service’s opinion on ACTA, “disclosure would undermine the protection of the public interest as regards international relations”.

On Sunday, the FFII filed a confirmatory application for legal service’s opinion on ACTA. According to the FFII, the argument that disclosure of the opinion would undermine international relations is totally overstretched. The Parliament’s second reason violates the European Court of Justice case law (Turco case), and the third argument lacks substance.

On Monday 21th, sources in Parliament reported the meeting was postponed. But on Wednesday the 23th, the meeting was on.

Henrik Alexandersson, assistant to Christian Engstrom, reports on his blog:

- Controversial INTA meeting on ACTA held in camera today 23 November despite protests from Civil Society.
 - Previous decision to postpone the meeting annulled yesterday night by INTA Coordinators.
 - Vote on holding the meeting in public was denied.

After 4 European Parliament resolutions asking for ACTA transparency, the Parliament now took the decision to keep the legal service’s opinion confidential. And to meet in-camera.

This whole show will be repeated soon: the Legal Affairs Committee asked for a legal service’s opinion as well.

A partly secret ratification process… How deep do you want to sink?

The European Parliament should take a good look at the Dutch Parliament’s example.

Source: (original text has links for more info)
Ex-Soviet Bloc Sexual Attack Swede of Tomorrow™
e-prime disclaimer: let it seem fairly unclear I understand the apparent subjectivity of the above statements. maybe.



  • Infectious Projectile Faecalator
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 3398
    • View Profile
Re: Dutch parliament refuses ACTA secrecy
« Reply #1 on: November 25, 2011, 08:39:16 pm »
hooray for the Dutch!
You're a special case, Babylon.  You are offensive even when you don't post.

Merely by being alive, you make everyone just a little more miserable

-Dok Howl