Reporters without Borders has called for a boycott of Wsis-2 in Tunis.

Renewed allegations of human rights violations in Tunis have been raised. Repression of those using the Internet, exercising a freedom of expression that we mostly take for granted in Canada, seems widespread.

I am not close enough to this situation to know what is accurate, and what is not, however there is significant evidence of violations, wrongful imprisonment, and worse, from respected human rights activists and some in Tunis. At Prep Com 1 in Tunis earlier this year, civil society groups were alarmed at the situation.
I also recall, as a civil society member of the Canadian delegation in Geneva for the Summit and prep Com 3 (2003), witnessing a shouting match between free expression-press advocates who questioned the wisdom of Tunis as a location for Wsis-2, and a Tunisian woman who rejected all such accusations. She called racists all those who made such allegations. They called her a government paid agent, (but I digress). The accounts of repression, which allegedly include torture, do not bode well for the effectiveness or success of any Wsis meeting in Tunis.

What do you think? Should Canada take part in Wsis 2 in Tunis when such a climate of human rights violation and repression exists? What about our previous committments to "human security" - have we abandoned these principles? The Wsis Declaration of Principles supports the UN committment to fundamental human rights, and Canada had to fight hard to make sure this principle remained in the final declaration. Can you imagine Canada and other nations having to compromise at a UN sponsored event ( led by the ITU) in order to keep human rights in the final statement?

It seemed to me in Geneva, as a direct witness from civil society, that Wsis and the Internet are providing a technological pretext for reopening all the committments that are basic to membership in the UN family. All of them. Gender recognitions were almost left out of the document entirely, and Canada played a key role in ensuring that this did not happen. "What is this thing called rule of law?" asked one of the national state delegates. Cultural diversity, so important to us as a multicultural multiracial society that strives for tolerance and mutual respect, was off the agenda rhetorically and in the document. "Culture" and its affirmation in policy, which is so important to Canada, meant something quite different from having your own TV shows, in societies where it is acceptable to deny women and ethnic minorities fundamental rights in the name of "cultural" and heritage rights.

Civil society can take much credit, for keeping Wsis 1 on track, to be sure, and the human rights advocates are especially effective (Diana Bronson, Deb Hurley are tremendous, splendid and graceful warriors in action). But key government allies are needed in order to actually accomplish work at these Summits, as those far more experienced than I can attest. Compromises get made, inevitably, but what are we endorsing by going to Tunis under current conditions?

What does it say to hold the next Summit in a country that stands accused of serious human rights violations, including the most recent (May 4) case of locking up a lawyer on charges that are said to be trumped up, ostensibly because he criticized government online? What signal does it send about the Internet and freedom of expression?

I do not think that this is a signal Canada should send. We do not want to reopen the Declaration of Principles, but nor to we wish to act like it does not matter! If the Summit 2 merely involves pious statements of principles, while progress on the Plans of action are on the agenda, and the real action focuses on the gigantic marketplace of ideas, goods and services in the ICT4D that Canada excelled in last time, what is gained? We can arrange a Trade show anytime! Surely we do not wish to engage in a Wsis 2 about Intelectual Property rights as the Americans have just put us on their bad pirate list, because we are showing some judicial and political independence as befits our own cultural and legal context on the crucial questions of the knowledge society. (In slightly more formal terms, Canadian policy makers have not adopted the US style digital millenium copyright act approach, and have not endorsed the WIPO IP Internet treaty clause, despite fierce US pressure, and Canadian courts are handing down rulings viewed as favourable to some degree to peer to peer and file sharing technologies, and against the protectionist stances of the major companies and rights holders. But I digress, and there is more on these complex and key questions for Wsis 2 elsewhere on this site, and everywhere online. :)

Canadian civil society should not go along with turning Wsis 2 into the sideshow of a Marketplace and Trade show, where Canada is busy selling itself and our technology to developing countries. Marketing and exporting is laudable, and whatever others in ngo-land think, I firmly believe in sustainability and small entrepreneurs and soncider that we should be doing much much more to link up the expertise of Canadian social entrepreneurs and the requirements of developing countries (our byDesign eLab was part of Team Canada trying to market our award winning e democracy platform in Geneva; there are aboriginal entrepreneurs I hope are all part of a Team Canada in the World effort ). BUT THAT IS SURELY NOT THE POINT of Wsis 2.

Sure, we have our own human rights cases at home: the Arar case, others, so we are not without blame, but this is not the point either, at least I do not think so. We are actively working to resolve these cases, we have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms that gets put in play by all sides, we have a legal and political and cultural framework, even if all parties are not satisfied (and O Mr Arar has reason not to be, after his time in a Syrian prison) My grad students from that part of the world have done recent work on new media and the prospects for democracy in the Mideast and there is simply no comparison. This is not racism, nor about disrespect for cultural differences, it is reality. Any rational observer will attest to this. The media, courts, opposition and civil society members like Bronson and Hurley and their Human Rights Watch group try their level best to get justice at home and abroad. This will always be a struggle, and so we struggle on, diversely, in all of our respective countries.

These are larger issues, and wider public debate and discussion should happen in canada on Wsis. More sustained political reflection is required on these questions. But on the mico scale, so far the agenda for Wsis 2 is happening in secrecy, with Industry Canada and Foreign Affairs making decisions on unknown grounds. Sadly, eCommons/agora has learned that some voices are being excluded without valid grounds from an invitational meeting between government and civil society set for Winnipeg on May 12 - 14. We are told that it is not possible to include all who should be there, but so far we cannot discover who set the final guest list, nor what the rationale is for inclusion and exclusion. But at least we have FOI legislation to try and find out!

That is surely a very poor route for Canada to travel to Tunis. We cannot preach transparency, accountability and responsiveness for all engaged stakeholders abroad, and not practice it at home. How can we preach to others about citizen and civil society inclusion in democratic governance in Wsis arenas, and not practice it at home in Winnipeg? Canadian civil society is small enough that all groups active on Wsis can reasonably be accomodated.

But I digress again from the larger questions. One thing experience has now shown convincingly is that the Internet will not automagically bring about freedom of expression. Canada, the US, and Europe all have their own takes on how to ensure free expression, press and association. There are cultural and political nuances for every society. What is acceptable in the UK will not work exactly as is in China, even should China decide to adopt a pro human rights and democracy stance in the world. I endorse freedom of expression Canadian style -- as existing within the limits of a free and democratic society, as our Charter section 1 has it -- with limits on hate speech, and room for pro Canada cultural policies; I do not accept the US style where free speech and the first amendment seems to trump everything. (For instance I do not accept that cultural policies designed to affirm Canadian expression and production on the airwaves are violations of free expression. Some of the more extreme US positions have argued this, and many US reps argue that all cultural policy is trade policy. This seems nonsensical, and Canada has up to now never agreed. )

You likely have your own preferred version of the meaning of freedom of expreession. Cultural conditions must be respected, and I am not arguing for some moral absolute that does not reflect an ongoing balance of individual and group claims within a rule of law and power of democratic legislatures, along with protection of minority rights. The Canadian way is to find a balance, and it is never easy. We certainly do not always get it right. But we keep on trying, and civil society has to keep playing that ethical role of promoter of conscience. Civil society does not always get it right either!

Wsis 2 seems to me significant in advancing some of these big questions for the Internet age, and a knowledge culture, even if I still believe it justified to call Wsis "the invisible summit." Most Canadians, even members of ngo groups who are members of Wsis, have never heard of it.

BUT I now wonder whether Canada should attend Wsis-2 in Tunis. Is this a good idea before there are tangible signs of full committment to the principles of fundamental human rights in the UN charter and in the Wsis declaration. These Human rights include freedom of expression on the Internet, and freedom of association at Internet cafes, which seem especially important symbolically and materially, since this is a Summit about development and the Internet.

Nothing against Tunis as a place. What concerns me is the idea, the symbol, the imaginary Wsis 2 in Tunis, the state of mind and the condition of rights and the reports of violations and people hurt and wrongfully imprisoned. What can we hope to accomplish if we as Canadians appear to ignore this? Now I must add that if support for human rights (with free expression, free press and freedom of association) is viewed as racist, or as developed world imperialism, well I think we have to ask ourselves an even more important question: does Wsis 2 need to get back to basics, and reopen the fundamental questions of human rights and other international obligations that supposedly all UN member countries endorse and practice.

Civil society has an ethical responsibility to ensure that these fundamental questions are not brushed away, in the rush to convene that gigantic Trade Market on Internet steroids. My worst fear is that in the Wsis-2 marketplace of ideas, at the exotic and gargantuan Marketplace in Tunis, the only significant question for valid haggling may very well end up being somebody's idea of Intellectual Property.

What do you think?

DrJ - Liss Jeffrey, PhD, is founding director of the not for profit eCommons/agora, the new media and policy byDesign eLab, and the McLuhan global research network. She teaches as an adjunct faculty member at the McLuhan Program at University of Toronto. Dr J was selected as one of three civil society members to serve on the Canadian delegation to Wsis 1, and attended Prep Com 3 and the Summit. Three members (inclduing Dr J) from the eLab took part in Team Canada's wonderful effort at ICT4D , where they had the unusual experience of marketing e democracy and the award winning eLab e dialogue platform and process. She is sorry that eCommons/agora has not been invited to Winnipeg, despite our active outreach on Wsis. We wish everyone a great confab, and look forward to the posting of reports accessible for the public on this civil society Wsis web site. eLab would also have liked to be invited to contribute its expertise in online public consultation.
Media inquiries welcome at ecadmin@ecommons.net
May 5, 2005