It seems to me that there is a disconnect between what is happening in society and what leadership is actually exercised in society. This past week, there was a horrible murder in Sweden where a man with a sword went into a grade school and killed children and a teaching assistant. The murder was racially motivated, and has gained international notoriety.

It's also sparked a mild domestic debate about whether racism is systemic in our society, and whether this murder can really be seen as an isolated event committed by a single lost soul.

On the other hand, it's less than a week ago that a leading Swedish publication called the European Court of Justice "privacy huggers" who "kidnap the EU" - without further notice. We're not really in a good time for protecting the human rights of everyone politically - freedom of speech, privacy, the right to vote and many other rights fundamental to a democratic state of law are persistently put into question by leading political figures.

It seems to me, that if political leaders and thought leaders in societies are not able to follow the ideal that human rights are important, why would we believe that people in general would follow those ideals?

It can be argued that it's different to take someone's life with a sword, from surveilling them or curtailing their abilities to, let's say, publish a blogpost. It would be correct that the right to life might be seen as even more fundamental than many of our other fundamental rights in democratic societies and up until now, politically mandated restrictions on our fundamental rights and freedoms have been limited to restricting and violating those rights that are not the right to life.

After four years, next week on Wednesday July 16 at 13:00, the court in Stockholm will investigate if Julian Assange should be kept under suspicion for the sexual offenses of which he was accused in August 2010. This means Julian Assange, after the court hearing, could potentially be a free man - at least with respect to Swedish sexual offense law, mind.

Some folks in Stockholm are gathering outside of the court house, and will try to enter the court room and follow the proceedings real-time. Those of us not in Sweden can perhaps not be there in person, but we will also have a gathering outside of the Swedish permrep in the park in front of de Meeûssquare 30 at 12:30 (see directions). There will be light snacks - then we stay until our lunch breaks are over.

For more information on the trial against Julian Assange in Sweden see this infographic.

For a longer account, also check out the film We Steal Secrets: The Story of Wikileaks (2013).

I've received what I assume must be a first batch of e-mails with stakeholder consultation documents on the new telecoms package. Please see my previous post for more details. First of all, find the reply of the European Commission here. And these are the consultation documents the Commission has so far wished to reveal:

UPDATE (2014-05-22) : better mapping of the disclosed document stakeholder identities.

Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales has said that the Pirate Party simply must change its name to the Internet Party, to be more conformant with MegaUpload owner Kim Dotcoms vision for the future of the digital space in New Zealand. Far be it from me to arrogantly dismiss the ideas and opinions of my internet policy elders, but in this case Mr Wales misses a big point and additionally generates harm to a healthy future debate about internet policy.

First, the internet is a distributed place where everyone can exist of all different opinions, backgrounds, religions, ethnicities, commercial interests or idealistic spirits. This means an internet party can't actually represent any particular vision for the world or for the internet. The Pirate Party has ideals and goals with its policies – the mere fact that the MPAA exists on the internet does not give them the right to decide technical means to control web browser users or sue grandmothers and kids off the planet, for instance. Similarly, merely owning a nation-wide fibre-optic cable network does not give you the right to decide for everyone else which video streaming services they prefer.

For me, being a pirate means I take the view that politics and technology should conspire to create opportunities for individuals and their good relations with other individuals. I believe the internet is a fundamentally nice and useful place which we can use to make everyone happier and find new friends. Something akin to a tool for world peace, rather than mega-corp domination.

Since my nomination by the European Pirates as their candidate for the Commission Presidency after 2015, I have made my utmost efforts to be represented in each of those debates where European top-level politicians present their visions for the future.

I usually don’t like to be seen as a victim, but for first time I feel censored by being forbidden to participate in the First European Presidential Debate organised by the City of Maastricht, Maastricht University, Connect Limburg and the European Youth Forum. They have decided to gather candidates for the presidency of the European Commission from different European parties in a debate held in front of 700 young people, broadcast on Euronews.

The organizers and apparently the other participants (?) have decided that I should not be there. Their decision is based on the fact that I have worked with the Greens in the European Parliament, so since the Green candidate participates, I should not. What is the logic behind this reasoning?

What is this if not discrimination?

It smells like something is rotten. Have I been blocked from independent pan-European media just because I am a nominee of a non-mainstream party, the European Pirate Party?

The email exchange with my official reply is available below.

The European Parliament has proposed a lot of good remedies for the present ICT procurement practises of European institutions in its discharge reports yesterday.

Some concrete proposals that went through with large majority include:

The Data Retention Directive has been torn up! While normal friends of human rights from both left and right celebrate, and telecom operators count their savings and better profit margins, the police is worried. Because it is of course so that the lack of data retention, just like the preservation of net neutrality, will benefit child pornography.

Hypocrisy bothers me.

Here's the deal:

The text that authorises the automatic storage of all electronic communications of everyone in Europe for a certain period of time, in order to make it possible for law enforcement bodies to access electronic information for detecting and prosecuting criminal offences, has been declared invalid by the European Court of Justice. The reason is that such storage enables the blanket mass surveillance of every citizen in the EU in an unnecessary and disproportionate way, without being based on a proper suspicion of criminal behaviours. This is a victory for our fundamental rights, our privacy and the protection of personal data in Europe.

After the recent Moraes report on the NSA adopted by the European Parliament that clearly condemns mass surveillance, we have eventually a legal decision backing this condemnation.

The Swedish government needs to immediately vote for the abrogation of the Swedish national implementation law of the data retention directive that took effect on 1^st May 2012, as well as the stop of all actions and expenditures related to it.

Press release from the court (English)

Press release from the court (Swedish)

Judgment (in English)