Acta is an international agreement created by the United States and Japan – and in some cases signed without public consultation – but excluding some European countries like Germany, Latvia, Poland and the Czech Republic and negotiated in secret with main international companies.
Maltese legislation to counteract the negativity of Acta is not a solution- Anthony Licari
The declared intention of Acta is to have an international structure enforcing intellectual property rights. However, it would, if Acta had its way, be done basically by obliging internet service providers to practise big-brother supervision on online content and apply punishment.
Acta could have been a piece of progressive legislation if it presented arguments proving more good than harm but it chose an attitude of imposition to correct what could have been amended by persuasion and rational legislation rather than aggressive deterrence. Enthusiastic deterrence often uncovers intentions behind a particular legislation to the advantage of one structure as opposed to that of others. And legislation without balance is administrative intolerance.
Pro-“Actavists’ objecting to the word “censorship” explain that Acta is a control and punishment exercise meant to protect you from the harm that may come your way from people imposing art and information on you. Acta is a clean way of protecting you from yourself. And if you insist on not allowing me to offer you protection, you will leave me no choice but to punish you – for your own good.
History shows that lovers of limitation of information and artistic expression regularly try to choke the artistic and intellectual freedom of the individual. Coincidentally, they never say that their intention is to place a bandage over your mouth, ears and eyes, resulting in covering up your mind after making you look like a helpless mummy.
A relevant argument I have heard about Acta is that we must look at who is promoting it, whether it is artists, journalists, teachers, writers, researchers and intellectuals of all types or whether it is big companies that usually state they wish to stay away from politics but who, in reality, want to govern from outside Parliament, from a safe distance with strings leading to the decision-making structures of the country. It reminds me a little of trapping.
Acta is in reality a form of promotion of censorship but we are told that it is good for us, that it is for our own peace and harmony. Maybe the author of 1984 had Acta premonitions in mind and, like so many artists, including Leonardo da Vinci, foresaw human “inventions” well in advance.
Who is basically and staunchly in favour of Acta? Oh! Not too many people but see if you can notice a common trait in the following regimes:
Far right regimes. These claim that rigid discipline must be exercised by the government. Man is there to produce and obey. Any activity that is not productive is sin (pun intended as rightist regimes claim devotion to religion as a camouflage and they describe God as a merciless and good being at the same time). They favour extreme capitalism as the right of a few “superior” individuals to live lavishly while protecting the state from crumbling through altruism and humanitarianism.
Far left regimes. These are not much different from rightist regimes. They have different hymns, different ways of saluting but they both consider censorship as healthy for the state – and for you. Anti-Acta protests have been strongest in ex-Communist countries who do not want history to repeat itself.
Monarchies. Traditional monarchs claimed a divine right to govern you, to tax you, to punish you and to prevent you from saying anything they don’t like. Because, you see, if you said anything against them, it would automatically also be against yourself.
Oligarchies. We are rarely told that oligarchies start from democratic structures. But you know what happens to democratic structures when allowed to gaffe with impunity – though it’s for your good. They become restricted in human numbers to a few arrogant, corrupt people. If you dare point out this corruption, you are the one who is a corrupt troublemaker, once more deserving physical and psychological punishment for your ingratitude.
Fundamentalist confessionalism. It suffices to consider the clumsy “legislation” promoted by fundamentalist structures like the Taliban and the Inquisition to understand that intolerant initiatives do reappear even across religions.
And the intolerance of Acta is too historically transparent. Acta is, by its very nature, incompatible with modern European political tendencies. While social democracy hangs on to its traditional ideology, Christian democracy became EPP, adopting the leftist expression “popular”, which partially explains why the Nationalist Party’s youth movement proposes further discussion on Acta.
Acta is a hiccup in a popularist European mentality that promotes art and education for the worker. Maltese legislation to counteract the negativity of Acta is not a solution. It is best relegated to the limbo of European political history.