UK Pirate Party: ACTA Will Kill People

Of all the objections to the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) that we have heard, the United Kingdom's Pirate Party might have come out with the most outrageous one yet: "ACTA Will Kill People." But is it really all that outrageous when you consider how it would affect generic drugs? We'll let you decide.

"Criticism of ACTA has often focused on the harm it will do to the Internet, but that doesn't address one of the most important issues that ACTA presents: the fact that it will kill sick people in developing countries by denying them access to affordable generic drugs – whilst doing nothing to address the issue of unsafe counterfeit medications," said Phil Hunt, the UK Pirate Party's foreign policy spokesman.

"Medecins sans Frontieres have been expressing their concerns ever since the very first drafts of the treaty were leaked, and they have reiterated their concerns at the latest draft, saying that it will have 'fatal consequences on access to medecines.'"

He goes on to say that border seizures of generic drugs would multiply under ACTA and strong punishments will deter the production and trade of generic drugs.

"This should be more than enough to force governments and unions to rethink their stance on ACTA. It is time that the international community came together to deal with intellectual property openly and transparently, taking full account of the impact on developing states, innovation and civil liberties across the globe. We cannot sacrifice human lives to the interests of the rich world's IP monopolists."

Earlier this week the European Parliament announced that it had asked the European Court of Justice to examine if the text of ACTA violated existing European laws.

Source: The Inquirer

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on RedditEmail this to someone


  1. 0
    DorthLous says:

    Hardly. Out of the 3 people commenting before your post, one is for, one is against and the last is Canadian (me). You have not linked to a post proving the single individual you're mentioning his supposed previous position AND you use plural when only one person could theoretically match your definition. Be careful, your bias' showing.

  2. 0
    hellfire7885 says:

    You mean those doomsayers who don't want anything good to ever happen under the current president's administration? Ah, wait, he's a democrat, so it's a regime.

  3. 0
    jedidethfreak says:

    It's kind of funny – when this same result was brought up about ObamaCare (with actual examples of real people ObamaCare would have dropped and might have died), the same people on here vouching for this called those people insane biggots.

  4. 0
    DorthLous says:

    Errr, why do you call them crazy? The argument holds water and has been espoused by other people. It might not be true (or it might), but it's still a *good* argument.

Leave a Reply