In France and Greece consumers have a legal right to internet access. In Spain, Finland and Estonia it has been (or is being) enshrined as a human right. Earlier this year, the BBC commissioned a survey of more than 27,000 people in 26 countries that found that 79% of adults regard online access as a fundamental right.
This time the Sydney Morning Herald reports discussion initiated by Cyberspace Law and Policy Centre executive director David Vaile, backed by the former head of GetUp! Brett Solomon, who is now executive director of AccessNow.org in the US.
Red Alert ran a bit of a discussion on this issue last year. It is particularly relevant given the government’s intention to include a suspension of internet access clause into the new Copyright Bill about to come before the Commerce Select Committee. Labour supports the Bill (mostly) but opposes suspension.
I am interested to hear the Australian Human Rights Commission president Catherine Branson QC’s comments that:
while the Commission had not yet looked at internet access as a human right; it did recognise internet access may raise issues “relevant to the right to freedom of expression” as defined in a United Nation’s covenant on civil and political rights.
Agree A Mother, after re-reading the original declaration I can see where it might fit. Certainly a decent debate to be had over it… still would rather see us clear up abuse of children first
We dont have to Shane, the Government has volunteered our mony for us.
No, I was quite clear – volunteered. Not taken by force via taxation. There is a distinct difference!
And I only have slow dial up. Would love broadband so no. No money.
@Tracy. I would too, but that is on going unfortunally and don’t think it will ever be wiped out entirely. Wish it would, but don’t think it ever will completely go away.
Of course beaming fast internet into homes may increase child abuse
Radiation is child abuse. They even want to put wifi into cars now,
I mean sure the internet is fun, but the car was the one place where families didn’t have to compete with the net. 
Plus the radiation thing. Xrays, those perverted body scanners are supposed to emit radiation into people, wireless, tv, cellphones,
There will always be adults that abuse children and even children that abuse children. Wish that wasn’t the way. I look at my two and wonder how anyone could do that. It is wrong and yes that is a right violated.
but at the same time we need internet.
Again. No. I want broadband instead of slow dial up but cannot afford it, so not paying for anyone elses except via taxs maybe.
My point is IF something becomes a Human Right, it carries an obligation to uphold it…
Xrays, those perverted body scanners are supposed to emit radiation into people
Yes that is why you cannot get Xrays when you pregnant.
And yes Tracy that is true.
@Falafulu Fisi
Its not a human right, we agree on that, we seem to agree it is required participate in NZ society.
But where we depart is one of regulation. You argue that property right is paramount and exclusion is the right of the provider on any grounds they see fit. A bit like that bloke from West Auckland with the mullet who won lotto and went to buy a Porsche and the Porsche dealer said NO. Correct me if wrong.
My argument is regulation should occur to ensure access is not “unreasonable denied”. There are compelling reasons to deny access; pedophiles spring to mind. We are a small population in geographical remote location; we tend to be easily preyed upon by companies exhibiting monopolistic or duo-opolistic behaviors.
The infrastructural costs and cost of requiring the knowledge make it very difficult for competitors to enter the market or as you argue to set up yourself. Hence some activities by the incumbents around data speed, data capping, contract obligations, cost etc make reasonable access for some very difficult.
I argue that the use of market monopolistic or duo-opolostic power by a company is a type of force and the state has a role in regulating this. All markets have failures (J. Stieglitz) and those failures impact humans, not numbers.
I think the Somalia / Pacific Island argument does work…you can’t transpose different social milieu onto each to support arguments like this.
The irony of this is that I am on moderation for defending someone elses access to this political forum and questioning the inconsistencies in their moderation LOL!
Not to detract from any other human rights in any way I believe this is a valid issue and that discussion is warranted. Access to technology equitably across society is vital for our country’s social and economic future.
Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights1 does imply some symmetry in information rights when it states that everyone has the right to “hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media regardless of frontiers”.
Internationally, this obligation has been further articulated, expressing the right of all people to communicate freely and effectively, in instruments such as the European Convention for the
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms,2 the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,3 and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.4
http://www.du.edu/korbel/hrhw/volumes/2004/best-2004.pdf
I still don’t think internet access is a “new human right”. Those other rights you talked about like freedom of information, freedom to communicate and freedom to express ideas are the human rights and the Internet is the most important tool we have to uphold them these days.
For instance I think everyone should have access to the Internet but this isn’t because of their “right to the Internet”, it’s because of their already existing right to freedom of speech.
The way I see it the rights haven’t changed, but the way we give them to people has.
“Access to technology equitably across society is vital for our country’s social and economic future.” Agree 100%. I also agree with Nicola, the “right” is freedom of expression, right to education etc, Internet is a tool to achieve/deliver it, not a human right in and of itself.
@ Clare Curran
Would you personally support the NZ Bill of Rights becoming superior law?
If not why not?
There is probably a number of sections in the Bill of Rights that could apply to this issue.
Well, glad we settled this issue. To sum up, yes everybody in the world must have broadband access as a human right, but it must be delivered via fibre because wireless emits radiation.
Next…
@L abRat – Yes!!!
Somebody gets it!!! 
@ Richard Shaw THANK YOU!
Thanks Spud. I’m pleased to announce I am immediately launching a worldwide fibre rollout. Now if you can just make the initial deposit of 11 trillion dollars I’ll go get the ute and load up some spools of fibre.
That brings us around full circle as some towns in NZ don’t have broadband access…
@LabRat – great!
I’ll get started on my moonshine business, will bring in some cash to put on the stock market 
Good luck spud.
@ Clare Curran
Any thoughts on my question above, which was in your response to your posting of the various UN declarations on Human Rights.
The Bill of Rights is as close as we get here in New Zealand; T
Why are my posts being moderated and the post here where I asked this question “deleted”. My posts are still being moderated.
SPC there are varying reasons why posts are moderated. All your comments get approved as far as I can see. If you have a particular issue you can contact me directly. Clare
@Spud this is for you.
http://www.google.co.nz/search?q=how+to+make+moonshine+step+by+step&rls=com.microsoft:en-nz:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7ADBS&redir_esc=&ei=n0kGTL2eE4-fcdfVoeoB
Will be great for business and when the GST kicks in at the bars
You’re welcome Spud.
@Richard Shaw in response to your question to me:
Would you personally support the NZ Bill of Rights becoming superior law?
If not why not?
There is probably a number of sections in the Bill of Rights that could apply to this issue.
Sorry for the time it’s taken to respond. I’ve been thinking about it and have discussed with some colleagues. This is my response:
I believe that people want and need to be secure in their rights, and to know that the Government has an interest in expanding rather than cutting them back.
Some rights do need to be put beyond the ordinary reach of politicians. We are too casual with those rights. Whether this is done by entrenching them in the traditional sense – i.e. providing that they may be enforced by judges as higher law, even as against Parliament – or whether providing that they should be able to be overridden by only a special majority in Parliament – is something that should be publicly discussed.
An important question for discussion is whether there is enough of a rule of law culture in NZ? We may in time move to a system where The NZ Bill of Rights Act (NZBORA) does become higher law. If we do, there will need to be other changes, such as greater transparency over the selection of superior court judges, who will have the power to set aside laws.
With such a power it seems inevitable that their attitudes to legal policy will receive greater scrutiny in advance of their appointments.
But there is no robust debate on these matters at the moment. And what we need is more discussion. Mature discussion. I support having a NZ Head of State because I want us to consider, and take responsibility, for our own law and our own nation.
I am not a lawyer, but I believe that every law and every policy should be underpinned by strong principles, that link up.
And I have a number of colleagues in our Labour caucus who are thinking deeply about these issues. And who have provided me with very sound advice.
Thanks Clare
I thank you for your considered answer, Labour has always led in defining New Zealanders rights and I think this would be a great step forward in many ways.
I don’t know enough about it,hence my question to you, but have often pondered the lack of debate.
Clare, the thing about moderation is that it takes people out of the on-going conversation on the topic. It takes hours for the post to be visible to others, and if there is any response, further hours before my reply can be made.
And of course, on any active blog – posts virtually disappear up the blog roll before those active on the topic even see them.
Many partisan sites use the policy to award “second-class free-speech rights”.
We don’t. We do it to people who break the rules. If the Blowhole, Penguin and Prickly Woman can cope you should too. Don’t like it – don’t comment. Trevor
Trevor, care to prove you are telling the truth by citing what rules were broken – I have received no warning about any post and received no comment tags on any of my posts.
SPC I don’t know why you are in moderation. People sometimes end up there because a word or phrase they’ve used triggers an alarm. Generally it shouldn’t apply on an ongoing basis. I have taken you out. But beware of attacking us personally and making accusations. Clare
Clare, making personal attacks and making up stuff is not something I do. Thanks for sorting it.
Glad it has been sorted for you SPC
Sorry to resurrect an old thread, but I stumbled across this
: http://travel.msn.co.nz/airlines/news/8121353/pilots-boycott-full-body-scanner
Perverted AND bad for the cells!
This poor dude, I agree with him, how awful:
http://travel.msn.co.nz/travelnews/8170471/kiwi-comes-home-after-refusing-body-scan
I mean, this is the country that was going to consider letting under 18s off because it could be considered child pornography! What about adult rights?