Of course there are much contradiction among civil society, government
and private sector. But when we discuss, negotiate and then agree
something with governments and private sector, that will be called
"collaborative effort" :-) If you deny the "collaborative effort", how
do you improve our society? Of course we can discuss things with
Opposition parties and let members of Diet discuss in the Diet, but if
we have a chance to talk with government people, we have no reason not
to use it.
I know your uncomfortablebess on the word "collaboration" or
"partnership", because NGOs/CSOs in Japan are often forced to obey
Japanese Government or long standing LDP regime under the pretext of
these words, but the original meaning of "collaboration" or
"partrnership" is not bad.
SAKIYAMA Nobuo sakichan@sakichan.org
At Tue, 11 Feb 2003 11:48:05 +0900 (JST),
Toshimaru Ogura wrote:
>
> Dear patcha and all,
>
> From: "patcha" <patcha@patcha.jinbo.net>
> Subject: [communication 463] Re: Our Tokyo declaration
> Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 16:36:53 +0900
> Message-ID: <MDEILHAAFDBNGFGCEKHEEEFGCHAA.patcha@patcha.jinbo.net>
> >
> > "The information society should be regarded as a collaborative effort of
> > all the stakeholders including, civil society, government and private sector."
>
> From my own experience, in some very important cases, I feel
> difficulties of collaboration with government and private
> sector. Because civil society has different interest with government
> and private sector. As actors of civil society, we should recognize
> fundamental contradiction among civil society, government and private
> sector. Information society has nothing of predetermined harmony,
> rather it is influenced by present serious contradiction of social
> structure as global capitalism. For example, let's consider who should
> have responsibility of so called digital divide. We have to review of
> government, private sector and international organizations such as WB,
> ADB, WTO and so on whether their policies for information society have
> been contributing elimination of digital divide or not. We consider
> the ICT is also close relate to not only economic conditions such as
> poverty, gender and racial discrimination but repressive tool of
> political activities. It is important thing that government and
> private sector are major actors of serious violation of human rights
> by surveillance and censorship.
>
> We should make clear our own position as civil society which has
> different interest with government and private sector.
>
> I know my opinion seems to be minority of this group, but I hope you
> may reconsider the present social structure has a lot of
> contradictions which has strong negative influences to communication
> rights of ordinary people.
>
> About below issues, I support patcha. Original is better. Statement is
> an expression of our fundamental view point. We should not worry about
> trifles.
>
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > 13. Delete "never" and replace with not. Delete "any kind of".
> > This is too definite.
> >
> > =>The full sentence is below
> >
> > "Values of human rights, democracy and freedom of expression should
> > never be threatened by any kind of surveillance and censorship."
> >
> > It is difficult to understand why this expression is too definite.
> > Rather, I think this is clear attitude of civil societies
> > to the surveillance and censorship system.
> > Many asian civil societies already got many experiences of surveillance
> > and censorship system, and found out the danger of these systems.
> >
> > And I saw the expression, "any kind of" or "all forms of" etc. in other
> > civil society documents.
> >
> > I hope to keep the original sentence.
> > If necessay, I think we can discuss it more.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > PatchA
>
> regards,
>
> toshi
> ((((((((((^0^)))))))))
> toshimaru ogura
> ogr@nsknet.or.jp
> toshi@jca.apc.org
> ((((((((((^0^)))))))))