|
There are no translations available.
Aliaa I. Dakroury
Was Jean d’Arcy, pioneer of the concept of the right to communicate, correct in his assumption that the wealth of humanity derives from its diversity rather than from any artificially imposed unity? Canada’s policy of multiculturalism offers a case study for the right to communicate in practice. Can the ideals of pluralism and good citizenship exist side by side?
The birth of the concept of the right to communicate (RTC) is marked by Jean d’Arcy’s 1969 European Broadcasting Union paper ‘Direct Satellite Broadcasting and the Right to Communicate’ in which he predicted that the communication rights as then outlined in the language of various legal documents would not be sufficient to accommodate future development of technologies, nor their social effects on the public. As he pointed out:
‘The time will come when the Universal Declaration of Human Rights will have to encompass a more extensive right than man’s right to information, first laid down twenty-one years ago in Article 19. This is the right of man to communicate. This is the angle from which the future development of communications will have to be considered if it is to be fully understood’ (d’Arcy, 1969: 1)
However, Richstad, Harms, and Kie contended that while d’Arcy launched this concept, in reality, he ‘did not specify in detail what he meant by the Right to Communicate... [instead, his article] inspired others to attempt formulations over the following years’ (1977: 114). In trying to ground a practical basis of the RTC, we can consider that the foundation of the RTC is pervaded by the expression of one’s thoughts, ideas, and culture. Following that, we have to question where and how we can achieve this idyllic principle.
Interestingly in 2005, Article (2-1) of the UNESCO Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions, clearly states that ‘Cultural diversity can be protected and promoted only if human rights and fundamental freedoms, such as freedom of expression, information and communication, as well as the ability of individuals to choose cultural expressions, are guaranteed.’
In this sense, and applying the former concept of cultural diversity to the multi-cultural and diverse reality of the Canadian society, it is interesting to examine the degree to which that society’s immigrants have a right to live as did before coming to their new homeland. For instance, to what degree does Canadian society welcome newcomers and immigrants to practice their right to communicate their cultural identity, such as wearing traditional clothes, speaking their native languages, enjoying the same celebrations, and keeping and expressing the same values of their homelands.
Additionally, what aspects of Canadian society either allow those rights to be practised freely or limit them? Is it only laws that dictate this? Or is there rather a set of values embodied in the society in which these rights are practiced? Here, I will argue that the back-bone of Canadian cultural diversity, as illustrated in the Canadian Multiculturalism Act (1985), is the practice of the ‘right to communicate’ (RTC) in different arenas, among them Canadian media.
The right to be ‘different’ in practice in Canada
Communication media are one of the significant indicators of the practice of pluralism, diversity, and a RTC in everyday existence in Canada. In this sense, a Canadian RTC signifies acceptance of ‘other’ points of view and a commitment to the diversity principle, or as McLennan specifies, the practice of ‘free and equal discursive exchange’ (1995: 54). Congruently, Article (12) of UNESCO’s Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions Preamble clearly outlines the importance of media in this context, arguing that ‘freedom of thought, expression and information as well as diversity of the media enable cultural expressions to flourish within societies’ (2005).
To illustrate this point, take broadcasting as an example. If a government in a given country is monopolizing and controlling all different forms of broadcasting, opposing opinions will seldom be heard in public. In other words, such totalitarian systems will limit broadcasting of opinions to those that conform to the system’s perspective; hence there will be few outlets for ‘other’ points of view. Therefore, based on their communication media, such a society could be considered as one that does not practice RTC in general.
Viewed in this manner, the right of minorities, immigrants, aboriginal people, etc., to self-expression and true representation of their opinions in the different media systems, and indeed, the right to their distinctive culture in general, are important to the practice of a RTC in real life. In response to three landmarks in the history of pluralism and diversity both nationally and internationally, the government of Canada adopted its Multiculturalism Act in 1985. It conceptualized this Act based on the Canadian Citizenship Act that confirms all Canadian citizens’ equality of rights, privileges and responsibilities; the Canadian Human Rights Act that grants individuals equal opportunities to life as members of Canadian society without any discrimination based on race, colour, ethnic or national origins; and finally, the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights that identifies the right of ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities not only to enjoy their own culture, religion and language, but equally importantly to practice them in real life.
‘[The government of Canada’s policy is to] . . . recognize and promote the understanding that multiculturalism reflects the cultural and racial diversity of Canadian society and acknowledges the freedom of all members of Canadian society to preserve, enhance and share their cultural heritage’ (Canadian Multiculturalism Act 1985, Article 3-a).
To help ensure rights are protected for these minorities, one opinion argues that the publicly owned media should dedicate at least a small percentage of its content to minorities in order to represent their opinions. Canada, through its Canadian Multiculturalism Act (1985), enforces what could be seen as ‘cultural mosaic’ policy in which immigrants and residents are encouraged to maintain their identities, cultures, languages, etc. within the Canadian context. This is the opposite of the idea of the American ‘melting pot,’ where immigrants and residents are expected to subsume their previous identities into a general sense of ‘Americanness’. On the contrary, the Canadian Act upholds the right to maintain one’s culture in practice.
Highlighting this point, Article (3-c) states that: ‘It is hereby declared to be the policy of the Government of Canada to... c) promote the full and equitable participation of individuals and communities of all origins in the continuing evolution and shaping of all aspects of Canadian society and assist them in the elimination of any barrier to that participation’ (Canadian Multiculturalism Act, 1985)
In other words, at the heart of Canadian culture a belief that its role is not only to recognize people’s differences, but its duty is to encourage the practice of ‘different’ cultures: ‘to foster the recognition and appreciation of the diverse cultures of Canadian society and promote the reflection and the evolving expressions of those cultures’ (Canadian Multiculturalism Act, 1985).
This point accords with the UNESCO Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions, which upholds in article (6) the importance of taking all necessary measures to ensure cultural diversity for the benefit of future generations: ‘Cultural diversity is a rich asset for individuals and societies. The protection, promotion and maintenance of cultural diversity are an essential requirement for sustainable development for the benefit of present and future generations.’
This example of the acceptance and inclusion of minorities in a Western country may be the exception rather than the rule. A model for assimilating immigrants – the ‘melting pot’ – has also been employed in the West. This technique was defined with reference to the United States in the late 1800s and early 1900s, as ‘a popular way of describing the assimilation process of European immigrants to the United States, [who]... within a relatively short period of time, cast aside their European identities, cultures, and languages as they forged or were forced to adopt the loyalties, customs, and languages of their new home’ (Wilson & Gutiérrez, 1995: 6).
Even in recent years, some criticism has been expressed toward American policies regarding minorities. For instance, Chan says of the treatment of the Chinese community that ‘public policy has affected the lives of Chinese Americans through discriminatory taxation policy, the passage of anti-Chinese laws, statutes, and states constitutional articles’ (1981: 5). Other countries may see the acceptance of minority cultures in social life, but fail adequately to represent them in broadcast or other media. In Hungary, for example, in the early 1990s radio broadcasts dedicated only 30 minutes every two weeks to gipsy languages (Gomien, 1992: 53-54).
Fostering multiculturalism in Canada
Contradicting these models, there are many real-life examples of the ideal of endorsing different ethnic cultures within the Canadian context, especially in the media. For instance OMNI-TV is dedicated to giving different cultures the opportunity to express their opinions, traditions, rituals, music, religion, etc. in their own languages.1 There are in fact two TV channels: OMNI 1 founded in 1986, broadcasts more than 15 languages to up to 18 communities, and OMNI 2 founded in 2002 serves more than 22 communities including Asian and African ones.
Another good example of the acceptance of the pluralism ideal2 in Canadian life is VisionTV.3 It is a Canadian multi-faith and multi-cultural channel aired on basic cable television that celebrated its 15th anniversary in 2005. Reading the channel’s principles as cited in its ‘code of ethics,’ it is clear that VisionTV seeks to support pluralism and the rights and freedoms of minorities: ‘VisionTV affirms that all eligible religious and faith communities have the right of access to its broadcast services. This right includes both the guarantee of freedom of expression and protection against comments that may incite or contribute to discrimination, hatred or violence.’
In addition Canada has approved various Acts supporting ethnic channels in Canada. For instance, the Federal broadcasting regulator, the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) recently approved the distribution of controversial channels such as Al-Jazeera for Canadian viewers of Middle Eastern origin4 despite many debates and contentious arguments about it being a tool of hate speech and propaganda (Dakroury, 2005).
Furthermore, in order to ensure the linguistic diversity which the UNESCO Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions asserts in Article (14)5 of its Preamble, the Canadian Multiculturalism Act maintains that Canada’s multiculturalism policy should ‘preserve and enhance the use of languages other than English and French, while strengthening the status and use of the official languages of Canada’ in real life (1985, Article 3-i).
One can see from these examples that the practice of the right to communicate, articulated within the right to culture, has been realized in practical ways in the Canadian context within the Canadian multiculturalism. However, while allowing foreign broadcasters is certainly a step in the right direction, a further step takes into account the need for a ‘big menu of choices.’ As Gvosdev argues, ‘the debate is no longer over whether citizens have a right to choose – but how many options should be made available to them’ (2002: 51).
Gvosdev goes on to say that these various international languages are only providing the ‘standard’ or the minimum degree of protection against the arbitrariness of existing systems. Therefore, it is up to the political system to ‘communicate’ these protections: ‘It is not people’s choices that need to change, but rather the ability of the institutions within societies... to reflect and process those choices’ (2002: 54).
Interestingly, within the discussion on the implementation of the right to communicate in real life, an excellent and somewhat ironic example of the restriction of this right can be seen. France, one of the first nations to realize and apply the principles of freedom of speech,6 is elevating the ideal of ‘secularism’7 and abandoning the display of any ‘religious symbols’. In this case individuals have been denied the right to freedom of expression through clothing, including the wearing of the hejab for young Muslim girls in schools. Ironically, the same notion might be applied to many non-Muslim traditions, such as wearing the yarmulke for Jewish men, and head turbans for Sikh men.
Thus, a question remains: Is it possible to exercise pluralism within the framework of human rights and not adopt a monolithic view of the ‘citizen’? Another question that remains unanswered is: To what extent is the ideal of pluralism in societies and the individual’s ‘right to be different’ applied? Viewed in this manner, one can argue that cultural rights are one example of the right to be different, especially if cultural rights are considered as ‘a community’s way of life... [or as] the rights of members of communities, especially minority communities, to preserve their distinctive culture’ (Donnelly, 1990: 55).
Alternatively, a right to communicate perspective fits Jean d’Arcy’s own belief that:
‘After millennia marked by cultural expansionism, by the successive attempts of empires and religions to impose their own civilizations . . . from China to Egypt, from Greece to India, from Rome to Islam . . . our present age is slowly learning to respect others and is gradually realizing that, for mankind as a whole, our wealth derives from our diversity and not from any artificially imposed unity’ (1982: 9).
This paper was presented at the Canadian Ethnic Studies Association 18th Biennial Conference – Toward Social Justice: Illusions, Realities, Possibilities, held 13-16 October 2005, Ottawa, Canada.
Notes
1. For more information see http://www.omnitv.ca/OMNI1/ and http://www.omnitv.ca/OMNI2.
2. It is interesting to mention here that this environment of pluralism can be questioned according to some multicultural perspectives. Recently, multicultural groups sought to confront and amend the Radiocommunication Act (first reading on February 5th, 2004), which among other things restricts the receipt of satellite signals. Arab and Latino Canadians are challenging this bill, arguing that it will prevent them from watching their favourite channels which, due to the relatively small potential audiences, are not offered by cable providers. Among these channels are Al-jazeera, ART, Dubai Satellite Channel, ESC-1, Future TV, LBC, Nile Drama.
3. For more information, see: http://www.visiontv.ca.
4. For more details on this decision, see Broadcasting Public Notice and decision CRTC 2004-51m 15 July 2005 available at: http://www.crtc.gc.ca/archive/ENG/Notices/2004/pb2004-51.htm.
5. It is stated that ‘linguistic diversity is a fundamental element of cultural diversity, and reaffirming the fundamental role that education plays in the protection and promotion of cultural expressions’ (2005).
6. It is argued that the first realization of the freedom of speech principle is grounded in both the American Bill of Rights, and in the Declaration of the rights of the man and of the citizen in 19th century France, after the French Revolution.
7. On 17 December 2003, the Washington Post published the following statement from French President Chirac: ‘Secularism is not negotiable. The schools will remain secular. The Islamic veil, whatever name it is given, the kippa [the Jewish skullcap] or the cross, if it is of manifestly excessive dimensions, does not have a place within the walls of public schools. Small, discreet signs, such as tiny crosses or Stars of David, should be allowed.’
References
Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), ‘Broadcasting Public Notice CRTC 2004-51’ 15 July 2004. Ottawa. Available at: http://www.crtc.gc.ca/archive/ENG/Notices/2004/pb2004-51.htm.
Chan, Sucheng. (1981). ‘Public policy, U.S.-China relations, and the Chinese American experience: An interpretive essay.’ In Edwin Clausen and Jack Bermingham (Eds.), Pluralism, racism, and public policy: The search for equality, (pp. 5-37). Boston: G.K. Hall & Co.
Dakroury, Aliaa. (2005). ‘Whose right to communicate: Al-Jazeera or CRTC?’, Global Media Jorunal, Volume (4), Issue (7).
d’Arcy, Jean. (1977). ‘Direct Broadcast Satellites and the Right to Communicate.’ In L. S. Harms, Jim Richstad & Kathleen A. Kie (Eds.), Right to Communicate: Collected Papers. Hawaii: The University Press of Hawaii.
d’Arcy, Jean. (1982). ‘The Right to Communicate,’ in Macbride Commission Papers of International Communications, Collection Zimmerman, CBC/Radio-Canada, List of Documents and Publications - Institut International De La Communication: UNESCO.
Department of Justice Canada. (1985). ‘Canadian Multiculturalism Act: (R.S. 1985, c. 24 (4th Supp.)’. Ottawa, available at: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-18.7/32217.html.
Donnelly, Jack. (1990). ‘Human rights, individual rights, and collective rights.’ In Jan Berting et al. (Eds.), Human rights in a pluralist world: Individuals and collectivities, (pp. 39-62). London: Meckler.
Gomien, Donna. (1992). ‘Pluralism and minority access to media.’ In Allan Rosas and Jan Helgesen (Eds.), The strength of diversity: Human rights and pluralist democracy, (pp. 49-70). London: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
McLennan, Gregor. (1995). Pluralism. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
OMNITV 1 and 2: http://www.omnitv.ca/OMNI1/ and http://www.omnitv.ca/OMNI2.
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization UNESCO, (2005). ‘Convention on the protection and promotion of the diversity of cultural expressions.’ available at: http://www.unesco.org/culture/culturaldiversity/convention_en.pdf.
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization UNESCO, (2001). ‘Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity’. Available at: http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/diversity.htm
Vision TV: http://www.visiontv.ca/Facts/Ethics_fr.html.
Wilson, Clint C. & Gutiérrez, Félix. (1995). Race, multiculturalism, and the media: From mass media to class communication. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Aliaa Ibrahim Dakroury is a doctoral candidate and a teaching assistant at the Communication Program at Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada. Her core research interest focuses mainly on creating a closer contact between the scholarships of human rights and communication studies, with particular interest in the history of the right to communicate in Canada. Her latest publications appear on Journal of InterGroup Relations, Journal of Culture, Language, and Representation, Journal of Reconstruction: Studies in Contemporary Culture, and Global Media Journal. Contact:
Esta dirección electrónica esta protegida contra spambots. Es necesario activar Javascript para visualizarla
|
