Oppose new constituency

[Roger <lovesmtns@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hello,

Don't misunderstand, I am very much in favor of a safe Internet and a safe
world.  But there are good ways and poor ways to get there.  Religiously
controlled governmental bodies have a long history of persecution of those
who don't agree with them.  Governmental bodies which hold to ideals of
freedom of expression and thought, and to the separation of "church and
state" have a much better track record in supporting human rights and
minorities.

I think when people with religious agendas get in control, and try to impose
regulations and rules to further esoteric religious beliefs that are not
universally shared, we are on a slippery slope.  I think it is further
telling that these religiously driven people become devious when
straight-forward and above board communications do not get them their way.
If a clearly stated position, with clear and honest advocacy does not sway
the majority, then that is time to call it quits.  But that is not what is
happening here, the port80 group (Mormon religion) is organizing a letter
campaign that  "stuffs the ballot boxes" so to speak.  This does not lead to
good outcomes for the  world as a whole.

For these reasons, I am against the creation of a special-interest narrowly
supported group to "speak for us all"  on setting Internet rules.  I vote *
No* on the cyber-safety petition for a new "constituency".

Regards,
Roger Matthews