No Indoctrination 2: No Outside Influences?

If these people had just come around earlier, some of us would have been speaking Gaelic or Irish--anything but English. But, they're active now. You will grow to love Big Brother and control ... protecting.

Manifold Ways That Societies Express Themselves --or here Le monde diplomatique [ http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/ ] November 2005

[....] A convention on the protection of the diversity of cultural contents and artistic expressions was approved by member states at the Unesco general conference last month. It intends to provide a legal framework for the universal declaration on cultural diversity, unanimously adopted soon after 11 September 2001. By making cultural diversity part of humanity's common heritage the declaration opposes "inward-looking fundamentalism" and proposes "the prospect of a more open, creative and democratic world" (1). Its key principle of diversity in dialogue [controlled by whom?]

Diversity of dialogue is the exact opposite of what this UNESCO convention is, which is to give CONTROL to those countries which wish to keep their populace from freedom and democracy through open access to knowledge via the internet. See the efforts to wrest control of the net away from what has been free via the US, to give it to the UN whose member states would exercise regulatory, tollgating, etc. controls so that only the rich and government-approved would have access to the tools for freedom. Note that the telcos--quebectel--are very very interested in this. (More on this later.) It is more about protecting industries and getting a firm foothold in controlling what may come in future, for those who instigated this.

Canada [ instigated by Quebec, in particular ] and France, which played a key role in framing the cultural exception doctrine, are the prime movers behind the convention. France mobilised countries in the Franco-phone world. Canada [activists in Quebec] set up its international network on cultural policy and succeeded in bringing together about 60 arts ministers and many NGOs for an informal discussion on promoting diversity. In September 2001 Ottawa, and the state government of Quebec, provided financial support for an international coalition of professional cultural organisations in favour of cultural diversity, backed by a network of Canadian groups. [ unions, the UN in Canada, CARFAC / RAAV, CBC/public broadcasting, telcos, etc. ]

The scope of the convention reaches beyond media and broadcasting to "the manifold ways in which the cultures of social groups and societies find expression". [. . . . ]

The World Intellectual Property Organisation [WIPO] is concerned by increasing private appropriation of knowledge and learning, depriving humanity of sources of creativity. Perhaps the weakest point of the convention is its inadequate provision for its implementation and sanctions should it be infringed. Nor is it clear how disputes will be settled.

[....] The WSIS has had difficulty mobilising public resources in large industrial countries to fund a Digital Solidarity Fund to combat unequal access to the net. But it has also become clear that charitable foundations sponsored by information technology giants (such as Microsoft) will gain by filling the gap left by governments.

It seems inconceivable to attempt to design cultural policies without raising the issue of policy on media and communication.

Blackmail? Punishment for business success? The business price for access to countries such as China?

Media diversity?

The final draft of the document contains two references to media diversity. The first affirms that "freedom of thought, expression and information as well as diversity of media enable cultural expressions to flourish within societies". The second includes "measures aimed at enhancing diversity of the media including through public service broadcasting" among forms of intervention. But it makes no attempt to explain what it means by diversity of the media. There is no mention of such sensitive topics as the concentration of media ownership. [ nor of government control, for that matter ]

[....] The international commission for the study of communication problems, appointed by Unesco's director-general, Amadou-Mahtar M'Bow, and chaired by Sean MacBride, winner of a Nobel peace prize, focused on the dialogue between cultures and harmonious development in diversity and mutual respect. The members of the commission were as diverse as Hubert Beuve-Méry, the founder of Le Monde, and the novelist Gabriel García Márquez. The MacBride report, endorsed by the Unesco general conference in 1980, and published under the title of Many Voices, One World, was the first document on the global imbalance of information flows published by an international body. It explained the urgency of considering the right to communication as an expression of new social rights (3).

Now that the convention has been approved despite US hostility, it will become a baseline and private and public players will have to come to terms with it. This is why it is so important for new players to become involved, to ensure it is implemented and to stretch its limits. [. . . . ]