Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
A NEW REPORT has found that around the world, the majority of people feel that affordable access to the internet and free online expression are human rights.
The study, published this week by the Centre for International Governance International, asked 23,326 internet users in 24 different countries a range of questions about the importance of the internet.
For the survey, information was collected through Ipsos’s internet panel system in 20 of the countries, while in the other four it was collected via telephone interviews.
The information was collected in just over a month between October 7 and November 12.
In each country around 1,000 individuals were asked to give feedback – with the span of nations reaching across six continents.
Human right
In their responses, 83% of the survey’s recipients felt that affordable internet access should be a basic human right.
The country that put the least importance on the internet as a human right was Japan, where 62% of those asked agreed it should be a basic human right, although only 13% of these ‘strongly agreed’.
In the Middle East and Africa there was strong feeling for access to the internet as a human right. Across the region 90% of people agreed that it should be – with 72% of these strongly agreeing.
Internet importance
Respondents were asked a range of questions aimed at measuring the mood on internet usage.
People around the world were asked how much trust they invested in their government’s role in internet usage. Across the nations, just under half (47%) of people would trust their own government with running the internet.
Distrust was lowest in South Africa, where only 28% of people would trust their government in the running of the internet – and highest in India, where 77% of people would trust their government with the running of the internet.
The trust numbers dropped off again when people were asked if they would trust the United States to run the internet. Just over one third (36%) said that they would trust the internet in the hands of Uncle Sam.
Nigeria were found to be most trusting of America (62%) while Germany were found to be the least trusting (13%).
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Well considering we can’t even have water acknowledged as a hunan right good luck with that statement
There are many good arguments against the water charges, but this is not one. If you think water is a human right and should be free, then start leaving out the buckets to collect water. That water is free not the water from the tap.
Water isn’t a human right anymore than electricity is.
Derek and Dee,
Sorry, that’s incorrect.
UN Resolution 64/292, signed in July 2010 states that “The United Nations Recognises the right to safe and clean drinking water and sanitation as a human right that is essential for the full enjoyment of life and all human rights.”
Who cares what they say. Provision of any service is not a human right, it might be a good thing yada yada but its not the same thing as freedom to associate, political freedom etc.
Sure Derek apparently you have to ask irish waters permission to collect rain water. It’s in the small print!
So, the UN says it’s a human right, but sure what would they know? They’re only the body we joined who help us decide and determine this stuff.
Dee4 says that it’s not and clearly knows more about human rights than the UN. So let’s all just ask Dee4 what they think and then do that. Feck the UN.
the UN didn’t invent the concept of a human right , processing water and running it down pipes is a service utility
I didn’t say they invented the concept.
Nor did they invent the concepts of, freedom of association, political freedom (whatever that is?!) or pretty much any of the other human rights we enjoy today. But then again, that’s irrelevant.
They did however deem that they (along with access to clean water) are human rights. So the only difference I can see between the two you mentioned and water is that “you said”.
This “service utility” has been elevated to the level of human rights, because of how important it is. Do you believe that access to clean water is not a fundamental need of people?
Jayo,
That’s fair enough. But I didn’t say anything about cost.
At no point do I mention free access. I simply said on a point of clarification that access to clean water is in fact a human right, which Dee4 and Derek have said that it is not.
sure its a fundamental need and so it food and electricity. It would only become a “right” if the government put a gun to your head and said you cant drink water or use the internet. A standard of living is not a “right” as by definition an equal reduction of rights would need to occur to whoever is providing the resources.
“UN” and “human rights” are two concepts that don’t belong in the same sentence. These are the people who decided that there was a right against “defamation of religion” i.e. the right of mad mullahs to imprison people for insulting their paedophile warmonger prophet. Be that as it may, Resolution 292 calls for access to *affordable* water, not free water. Doesn’t look as good on a placard, though.
Clean water could mean that it is clear water, doesn’t mean that it has to be treated with chlorine and fluoride etc. and it doesn’t mean it has to be free either, it has to be provided for. In theory, if one’s bucket was clean, the water collected from the rain would also be clean, and safe to drink. But I haven’t heard of any water charges protestors turning to bathing themselves in rainwater. Clean water is a right, treated water is a utility.
if access to utilities (for free) is a right then by definition I could build a house wherever I want on top of a mountain say, then clap my hands and demand all the utilities connect me and service me for free. It makes a nonsense of the term ” a right”
In terms of the internet, censorship would be a rights issue , actually having a connection is a market issue.
Dee4,
That’s not how rights work. Governments are supposed to use the “guns” (proverbial and literal) to protect the rights, not prevent them.
Whomever is providing the resource is in this case a nation who signed up to and agreed to classify clean water as a human right to which people should have access.
I’d also argue that people can and do live without electricity… therefore not making it a necessity.
Emily, you’re right about 292, but the definition of affordable is so nebulous that it’s pretty much pointless.
Derek, clean doesn’t mean clear. That’s just utter nonsense, a total attempt to keep moving the goalposts, just enough to not have to say “actually yeah according to the UN (and by proxy our government) access to water is a human right.”
Rain water is not clean. That’s just rubbish.
Why would the protesters bathe in rain water? That makes zero sense.
Clean water is a right. Thank you. This is the first time the word “treated” has been used.
Sean , I don’t agree with your basis of rights, voting something a right doesn’t make it so. In that case, being allowed to be gay, get a divorce just become public whims depending on which way the wind is blowing.
Dee4,
Those examples are kinda irrelevant. If people don’t vote for rights, how do they get them?
(Bearing in mind that divorce as an example, was voted for). It’s also a lot easier and more likely in an evolving society to grant (or recognise) rights, rather than to take them away.
You mention that rights (and laws) become public whims. I personally, with the obvious deplorable exceptions (like say, Russia and Uganda) don’t really know of many instances of rights being taken away. I would however say that laws (and the rights they deny/grant) are there to serve the people, it’s archaic laws which hold our societies back, so in that sense yes laws do and should evolve to reflect the needs of the people who they are written to govern and protect.
But this is all an aside. The UN recognises (which means the Irish government, acting on behalf of the people of Ireland recognises) that access to clean water is a fundamental Human Right. Which was the original point, you said it wasn’t. I said it was, and after all that I’ll repeat it, because access to clean water IS in fact a human right.
Sean, rights do get taken away , how many drugs have been banned where in the past the law wouldn’t have had an opinion on them or any number of things I am not allowed to buy as an adult? Essentially we are self owning beings from which certain rights ought to flow , the fact that they don’t mean they have to be fought for etc. talking about water or the internet reduce rights to the concept of something akin to a service level agreement, a different ting alltogether
There are things which people aren’t allowed to buy for their good and the good of those around them, e.g. certain drugs can make people violent, the risk of which is greater to public good, than the restriction of those.
The provision of water is in no way akin to an SLA. If you’d like to frame it differently, people have the right to life. No water = No life, therefore it is integral part of the right to life.
Either way it doesn’t really matter, because the right to water still exists, whether you want to view it in isolation (as you seem to) or look at the reason behind why it’s there, which is to preserve life (as stated in the UN Resolution I posted earlier).
no food=no life , whatever you say about water should apply to food
Yup, I agree.
Which is why the UN have ratified right to food initiatives.
but then it just becomes fluffy words , in global terms to turn these “rights” into reality I wouldn’t be allowed any more calories then anyone else on the planet. In terms of Ireland we have a social welfare system so it is presumed that no one starves unless they choose to, same with water. If someone wants free water they should also be demanding free food but nobody is making such points.
Ugh,
I’m not gonna bother anymore.
You said access to water isn’t a right, I showed it is.
You said rights aren’t supposed to be an SLA, I showed how it relates to a the human right to life
You said food isn’t a right, I showed that it is
You said it’s not enforceable and rights are essentially meaningless.
I’m just going to bow out now, but I wanted to show here, that you’ve just moved the goalposts a number of times. But going back to the first point again. the right to clean water is a right and unlike others, in Ireland it’s a right that can be delivered on.
Nice chatting with ya.
Knowledge is power and with the interent we have a vast library of knowledge at our fingertips, enpowering the little people. Remember the days when we had to borrow books just to gain a few scraps of knowledge. Those days are long gone, than goodness.
Nigeria…trusting…internet
The internet has been a double edged sword. On it’s good sides it’s helped the citizenry be more educated and hold politicos more accountable.
At the same time though it’s magnified the voice of every idiot, conspiracy theorist and whackjob. The Ebola scare was a prime example where ill informed fools posing as informed people preyed on the fears of news readers; 911 Truth an even bigger example (a college student thinks he knows better than 1000s of the best engineers because he watched some youtube clips…)
Were also living in an era where the tech-knowhow (choosing genetics of your baby/govt being able to record every keystroke) is moving faster than the laws to regulate it because most of our leaders grew up in an era where it took you 6 months to get a phone.
Its also very good for looking at pornography.
I don’t get why we’re spending so much rolling out high speed broadband to the whole country. There are pro and cons to where people choose to live, for example in rural areas house prices are next to nothing, trade off no or slow broadband. There are more important things we should be spending on rather than high speed broadband for every farmer!
The majority around the world? FFS the vast majority (60% approx) don’t even have access to the internet.
Free speech is,so if the net helps that, why not ? Then again so is water, food and education, but unfortunately that’s only a right for some !
Shhhhhh…. Don’t tell that to the socialists or they’ll all decide they can just stop paying their DSL and mobile data bills!
As far as I’m aware internet access in Finland is already a human right, no matter where you live in that country.
The inevitability of a universal internet levy looms large. All the reasons given as to why we need to pay over and over for water and it’s infrastructure will be applied to broadband and it’s infrastructure. They will force the collection of the levy onto the likes of UPC and SKY. And it will happen very soon into the life of the next government.
After the water charges they’ve abandoned the idea of a broadcasting charge, hopefully as more younger FG and Labour people get moved to the front that idea will go permanently, nobody under 50 thinks a tv lience or a broadcasting charge belongs in the 21st century.
If we’ve no problem privatizing an air line and the braodband network then why can’t we privatize a TV station?
The govt should run basic services the private sector does not do a comprehensive high quality job running like hospitals schools public transport infrastructure, not TV and entertainment.
Wow. They’re so trusting of their government in India. That’s amazing. They must have a very good democracy.
Does anyone know what the figures are for Ireland? I’m guessing it would be like 1% completely trust the government or 0% even.
More than two out of three people in the world currently don’t have Internet access.
Human blight more like, becoming slaves to a feken microchip, better off when it didn’t exist.
No to internet censorship yes to internet education its our right to keep it as platform for freedom of speech..Can’t depend on main stream media any more….
have your say