High Speed Internet is a Human Right

Not everyone in Canada is e-connected. Shocking but true. In our Google universe, it is still possible to find people in Canada who are computer illiterate and suffering as a result. Worse, people are suffering because for some reason, Canada – proud member of the G7, elite club of the world’s most industrialized countries - can’t provide all Canadians with the means to access the digital universe. According to a 2008 Statscan survey, only 65% of residents living in small towns or rural areas accessed the Internet, compared to the 76% of urban residents that did so. What the survey figures don’t explain is that rural folks aren’t necessarily disinterested in Internet access, rather the telecommunications industry in Canada provides nothing but obstacles to those rural Canadians who wish to get plugged in.

This rant comes as a result of Internet service providers in “la Belle Province” and their complete failure to consider that while 80% of Quebecers live in cities, there is still 20% who do not. My mom happens to be a member of the second group of Quebecers. She lives in a small rural community and her current dial-up Internet connection is so slow that she reads, knits and tidies the house while she waits for a single page to load. Rip Van Winkle could sleep a lifetime before an attachment successfully downloads. This situation has real repercussions. As the historian Gerald Friesen explained in Citizens and Nation, “the way in which a society communicates shapes popular assumptions about how the world works.” The fact that rural Canadians are missing out on efficient communications technology means that there is a significant segment of the Canadian population that is out of the loop. This disconnect is a big problem.

After years of suffering with an archaic, hamster-driven computer setup, our family decided to take action and contacted several service providers in the area to see what our options were. It turns out they consist of bad, worse, none, and none. First, we called Bell and were told that high speed internet is not an option. I guess there aren’t enough people in Compton County for Bell to change the phone lines or whatever it takes to provide high speed. Then a neighbour mentioned using cable companies for Internet. Sweet. Or not. It seems the cable companies are no longer answering their phones. We could have e-mailed them…but it would have taken days for our dial-up connection to identify their web page and create a clickable link. Then we were told that we could buy faster technology for our modem, only to learn two days later (after it downloaded!) that it doesn’t work on Macs. The customer service agent I dealt with then informed me that it was our fault because most people do not have Macs so when buying software technology, we should be providing the companies with the makes of our computers. Somehow my “you are the one selling things” tirade didn’t resonate. (Never mind that Apple owns a third of the personal computer market according to a recent New York Times article, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/22/technology/22apple.html).

The worst part is that all of my interactions with these companies had to take place over the phone because our Internet connection is so slow that we couldn’t even browse the web to look for good deals. Attempting to talk to four different companies about the services they offered took 4.7 hours. I will never get those hours back and I am deeply resentful. But what really gets my goat (forgive me – I have been on the farm without Internet distractions for days now) is that this is an issue that is difficult to mobilize politically. People in urban areas can get high-speed Internet, if they have money. But even if they can’t afford it, at least they have the option. People in rural areas have other more pressing concerns to worry about. Weather and crop conditions come to mind. The sad thing is, awareness about issues that matter to rural people, might be greater if the rest of the country was more aware. I bet you if the melting ice floes and dying polar bears had been on YouTube when global warming first became a reality, urban Canadians would be engaged in a much more significant way. Knowledge is power people!

We talk about the death of the farm but I don’t think people appreciate that the farms wouldn’t be dying if people in fast-paced cities could actually connect with what is going on in the hinterland. Rural Canada is dying because we are shutting it out. And that is a shame. If it isn’t possible to provide every Canadian with the possibility of accessing efficient Internet services in the twenty-first century, then modern Canada is just a sham and this century, just like the last one, will definitely not belong to us.

And now that I have ranted, I am going to go back to the country where I won’t be blogging or communicating because I will be banging my head against a big wall (and not the firewall variety) until some Internet service provider thinks there might be profit in my plight. 

The politics/optics of apology

On November 16, Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd apologized for a long-gone immigration practice that resulted in the migration of thousands of British children to Australia and Canada in the 19^th and early 20^th centuries. With the apology for “not providing what was promised” British home children are the latest to join the ranks of the officially victimized. Ironically, given that the apology was intended to highlight the suffering of a particular group of migrants, the Australian government’s intervention, is a giant, flashing neon reminder that we are all victims of liberal democratic governments that care more about their own agendas, then those of their citizens and non-citizens. We don’t elect politicians to make apologies, and yet they do it anyways.

The past three decades have witnessed a flurry of apologies from Western governments for offensives as diverse as the Irish potato famine, African slavery, wartime internment in the United States and Canada and wrongful prosecutions.  Recently, the government of Alberta apologized for giving the Calgary Flames the swine flu vaccine before everyone else. Only in the last example did the same government responsible for the wrongdoing, actually assume responsibility with an apology. All the other governments were apologizing for somebody else. Yet no one has yet to apologize for the fact that is the very institution of government that leads to harm. It would be awesome to see someone apologize for being a coercive nation-state bent on nothing else but securing and safeguarding power. Somehow that seems like an unlikely possibility.

But if governments aren’t apologizing for the real thing, why apologize at all? More pointedly, why apologize for something your predecessors did? Why assume responsibility for something that you didn’t do? It’s akin to me apologizing for a racist ancestor. Politics is obviously a factor. Apologies are popular with interests groups representing the personally aggrieved, or people whose families were subjected to harm. The idea is that apologies can heal wounds. Campaigner Art Miki talked about finally feeling Canadian after the Mulroney government apologized for the wartime internment of the Japanese Canadians.

Certainly, apologies can put an end to potentially damaging political campaigns by pressure groups for redress. The Chinese Canadian community fought for decades for an apology for the punitive head tax that fed the coffers of the Canadian state full at the turn of the century.

But by apologizing for everything under the sun, governments are also trying to put an end to history, as championed by Francis Fukuyama in his book of the same title. Drawing on the philosopher Hegel’s work on the nature of history and historical practice, Fukuyama argued that liberal democracies are as good as it gets in terms of political systems and claimed that with the end of the Cold War, the great ideological battles were over. Liberal democracies had won and therefore history as progress had reached its ultimate pinnacle. Similarly, apologetic governments seem to be banking on the possibility that by making an official apology they can wash their hands of history. Notice the recently released Canadian Citizenship Guide. The document acknowledges that Japanese Canadians were interned during the Second World War and that aboriginal children in residential schools suffered abuse but the document also notes the government apologies issued in 1989 and 2008 respectively. It is all very neat and tidy.

Jason Kenney, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, has made it clear that his government will not be apologizing for the home children who came to Canada through government programs. Instead, Kenney is proposing a Year of the Home Child in 2010. What tone this year might take is unclear. It is a fine line between commemoration and celebration. If done properly, it will be an educational year. And as such, it won’t be about the end of history but about the very real impact of historical events on Canadians and Canada today. And there’s no need to apologize for that. 

Vikings to Blackberries: A Brief Look at Canadian Citizenship

After reading the new Canadian Citizenship Guide, all I can say is that I am so glad I was born here so I don’t have to go through the process of becoming Canadian. It’s tough and expectations are high.

For migrants to Canada, citizenship is one of many steps that government and society require to ensure that people are truly integrated and contributing members of the national body politic. The release of the new Citizenship Guide this week, coinciding with Remembrance Day, is a timely reminder of the inherently political nature of citizenship and the tremendous power the state exerts over rites of citizenship. Citizenship tests give the Canadian government an opportunity to mold people in a way that, ironically, it never gets to do with Canadian-born citizens. And granting citizenship makes people grateful in ways that do not occur amongst the native-born. There is a reason that books such as The Triumph of Citizenship, which celebrates the granting of citizenship for Japanese and Chinese Canadians after the Second World War, proliferate.

Because citizenship in liberal democratic societies offers protection and security, it is a truly powerful incentive for encouraging particular behaviour and views. This summer, the British government introduced legislation requiring ten years of residency and a decade of “British behaviour” before people can obtain citizenship. The Canadian requirements aren’t so demanding but a perusal of the Citizenship Guide reveals how hard the state (this is above and beyond Harper’s Tories) works to make sure that it gets the citizens it wants. To quote the guide, “The prosperity and diversity of our country

depend on all Canadians working together to face challenges of the future. In seeking to become a citizen, you are joining a country that, with your active participation, will continue to grow and thrive. What contribution will you make?” And by the way, “barbaric cultural practices” will not be tolerated. Ouch. Pressure is on.

Democracies require informed citizens to function well. Informed and educated citizens. The trick with the citizenship ritual is that it is the state that both tells people what they need to know to be good citizens and through citizenship tests determines whether they meet the grade. I don’t envy the bureaucrats tasked with putting together the guide. How do you decide what people need to know about to be good Canadians? History? Politics? Sports? Arts? Geography? Yes, all of the above. Can you get away with providing the “what” answers without tackling the “why” and “how”? Again, the answer is yes. Unfortunately.

The new Citizenship Guide is a 62-page mix of solid building blocks that emphasize the responsibilities of citizens above all else. Case in point: the rule of law is mentioned three times in the first four paragraphs of the guide lone. A significant portion of the document is devoted to the practicalities of voting, which given the recent voter turnouts, is probably something all Canadians should read. But above and beyond the instructions on nuts and bolts democracy, the guide instructs would-be Canadians on what it sees as the most important elements of Canadian history and society. From the perspective of value-transmission, it makes for fascinating reading. Military history such as the war of 1812 or the rebellions of 1837 fall appear next to the “Beginnings of democracy”, raising questions about the relationship between peace and democracy. Residential school abuse, the internment of the Japanese Canadians, and the Chinese head tax are all mentioned and the government’s recent apologies for these incidents is also noted. So Canada might do something wrong, but then it apologizes and everything is okay.

Ironically, one of the main points the guide does not cover is the history of citizenship in Canada. The 1947 Citizenship Act, which not only created the distinct category of Canadian citizenship but also inspired other Commonwealth countries to do the same is not discussed. This was a major innovation and sent London into a panic resulting in a compromise whereby where citizens of Commonwealth countries are also “British subjects.” More importantly, the 1947 Act enfranchised Chinese and Japanese people who had lost their right to vote in 1875. I happened to be at the Chinese Canadian Military Museum the day after the Citizenship Guide came out where many of the exhibits how important the Chinese soldiers’ sacrifice was to the Canadian war effort and how wartime service was a major factor in the community getting citizenship in 1947. I can’t think of a better way to demonstrate the nature of rights and responsibilities than by telling the actual history of Canadian citizenship. Maybe it’s too hard to test. 

Borders as theme parks?

This past week, thousands of people gathered in Berlin of celebrate the 20^th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. They may as well have been celebrating twenty years of burgeoning tourism. Travel agents beckoned prospective clients with promises of “revelations of the Cold War”. Borders are big business and with increasing frequency, governments around the world are exploiting contested divides for commercial purposes. In doing so, borders have become theme parks while the real life struggles of people living inside oppressive regimes such as North Korea or Burma are forgotten.

The twinning of history and the novelty of going where no one has gone before is the hook that transforms political borders into destinations of choice. It’s a formula that produces great commercial and political gains for the savvy.

Take divided Korea for instance. North Korea is seen a rogue state, closed to most of the world. We only get the tiniest of peaks into what goes on there, which is why it was big news when the first fast food restaurant opened in Pyongyang this summer (serving “minced beef with bread” rather than good ol’ fashioned hamburgers). And unless you are the former President of the United States on a humanitarian rescue mission, you can’t try the beef and bread for yourself. But what you can do is visit the demilitarized zone that keeps North and South apart.

Once called the “scariest place on earth” by the very same Clinton who swooped into the North earlier this year, the DMZ is a strip of land about 4 kilometres wide at the 38^th parallel that is heavily guarded by both sides. The South knows how to use the border. The American USO and the Korean Travel Bureau both run tours to the north, giving visitors a chance to look out over the other side. And they charge a pretty penny too: $42 US per person. More importantly, the tours give the South and the US an opportunity to present their views on the politics that keep Korea divided. For instance, the Panmunjon Travel Center offers tours with a real-life defector. Tourist dollars flow in and the public relations agenda flows out.

North Cyprus, officially known as the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, is another country that is now exploiting its border for political and commercial gains. Like North Korea, North Cyprus operates on the fringe of the international community. The North declared its independence in 1983 but only Turkey has offered it official recognition. In theory, you can’t even visit the North. Nevertheless, in the interest of acquiring the almighty tourist dollar both sides have developed a system to get around their own rules. Here’s how it works: when you go to the North your passport it is not stamped. Rather, you are handed a piece of paper that you can return, or keep as a souvenir, on your way back to the Republic. Your passport remains blank. You were never there.

Why the charade? Both sides benefit. The North is happy to get valuable tourist dollars (an eight day tour averages about $1000 Cdn, day trips from the Republic go for $100) while the Republic invites tourists to view an exhibit that at the entrance to the North that discusses the events of 1974 and the refugees who fled the violence of the Turkish invasion. And tourists can write home about their border crossing.

Many politicians see tourism as an important tool in the battle for international support. Aung San Suu Kyi, the imprisoned Burmese opposition leader, is hoping that if more people visit her country they will understand the plight of the Burmese people and lend weigh to the pro-democracy movement. After being sentenced to 18 months of house arrest this summer, she issued a statement through the National League for Democracy, that encouraging the growth of private sector tourism so that people could learn about the oppression of the Burmese first-hand. It was a complete turnaround from her earlier positions. But if Korea and Cyprus are any indication, tourism is hardly the path to great insight. Similarly, the nature of Communism in Cuba is complicated by tourist impressions of beautiful beaches and five-star resorts. In Cuba, official tour guides tell visitors about the free liposuctions available to Cubans but don’t explain why tourists are encouraged to bring syringes and other basic medical equipment into the country.

Celebrating the fall of the Berlin Wall is great because the Cold War is over and there is space to consider what the divide meant to the people of East and West Germany. But what is gained from commodifying current conflicts or divides? It’s great for novelty-seeking tourists but it is hard to see what tourism does for those behind the walls. Upon crossing the border into North Cyprus, one fellow traveler wanted “her money back.” “This is it?” she asked, as we had dinner on one side and drinks on the other. She seemed disappointed by the relaxed atmosphere. Apparently, she wanted to see tall towers and spotlights. Most shockingly, she was impervious to news that two guards had received two days of holidays for catching a would-be defector from the North the day before.

It’s a sad state of affairs when tourism blinds people to the realities of life in divided territories. The Berlin celebrations are a reminder of how wonderful tourism can be, once the divide is no more.

The Prague Spring: Forty Years On

Anniversaries offer the perfect opportunity to revisit the past and commemorate historical events.  This month’s fortieth anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia and the repression of the Prague Spring is proving to be no different. Media outlets and pundits have been looking to the heady of the Cold War for insights into the world that was, and the world that is now. Russia’s invasion of Georgia has been rendered all the more dramatic in light of the violence that was perpetuated four decades ago. It is a time for soul-searching for both the Czech and Russian peoples.

For countries who were not engaged directly in the conflict, remembering the Soviet invasion serves as an occasion to recall the actions they took on behalf of the victims of the invasion; the Czech intellectuals and innocent citizens who saw their dreams of blossoming democracy dashed and who fled in fear for their lives. Canada offered resettled 12,000 Czech refugees left the country. Most never returned home, choosing to put down new roots and make Canada their new home. As such, this week’s anniversary would seem to be a golden opportunity for self-congratulation and some heartfelt back patting on a job well done. The reality is that the decision to take in these refugees was far more self-serving than the government of the day, and historians since, have been willing to acknowledge.

In 1968, Pierre Trudeau was a fresh, new prime minister, determined to place his distinctive mark on Canada and the world. Shortly after assuming office, his government launched an ambitious and comprehensive foreign policy review that was to chart a distinct course for Canadian diplomacy. It involved re-prioritizing Canada’s international efforts internationally and finding a unique place for Canada in a world that had been wracked with the geopolitical divisions of the cold war for several years. It was obvious from the moment Trudeau assumed office that he was far more willing to accommodate the Soviets than many of his predecessors. The Soviet invasion came as a real blow and raised fears that, in fact, the world was about to plunge into another dark period of heightened tensions. But with a major foreign-policy review underway, one which might lead to the reduction of Canadian troop levels in Europe, officials in Ottawa were ill-prepared to respond to the crisis diplomatically.  As a result, according to government documents, the Liberals decided to adopt a policy of being as “unprovocative as possible.” The strategy was to avoid embarrassing the Soviets into any further actions while condemning the initial invasion.

This situation began to change when there appeared to be a growing humanitarian crisis in Austria, where many of the 150,000 refugees escaped. Here was a major dilemma: what would happen if Canada offered to resettle refugees? Would the demand be overwhelming? Would the Soviets be upset if mass numbers of refugees fled to the west? What to do?

History loomed large in. In 1956, in the aftermath of the Hungarian Revolution, Canada offered refuge to 37,000 people who fled the violence. In so doing, Mackenzie King’s government exploited the crisis to score propaganda points against the Soviet Union. The refugees were publicly praised for their bravery and commonly referred to as “freedom fighters”, noble warriors in the battle against communism. But Trudeau was trying to accommodate the Soviet Union. Not isolate it.

Economic interests proved to be the deciding factor. As refugees flowed into Vienna, reports from Canadian officials highlighted how talented they were. Young, well-educated…ideal candidates for resettlement. This attention to the quality of the refugees, whom government documents referred to as “good material”, was not all that surprising. Canada’s immigration policies shifted dramatically in the 1960s. The 1967 Immigration Act confirmed the importance of immigration to Canada’s labour needs by providing a points system for determining eligible migrants to Canada and stressed skills, education and adaptability as the main point-getters. The Czech refugees were deemed to be ideal candidates. But how could the government get the labourers it desired, without revealing that it was exploiting a humanitarian crisis for its own ends? The government needed a strategy that would avoid encouraging a mass exodus, which would upset the Soviets and liberal elements in Czechoslovakia, and yet would allow it to obtain the high skill refugees it so brazenly coveted. Canadian policy had to be selective, designed to facilitate the movement of only particular refugees.

On September 6, the government announced a limited program whereby it would issue visas for those Czechs interested in migrating to Canada according to the “relaxed standards traditionally offered to refugees.”  Normal requirements for sponsorship, potential employment and financial assistance were waived. The government also organized a special parliamentary delegation that included representatives from the Canada Council, the National Research Council and other professional bodies, to go to Vienna and assist with the recruitment and selection of refugees. The first group of two hundred refugees to arrive in Canada was composed of medical doctors, dentists, fifteen engineers, and two television set designers. Quite a coup. The historian Reg Whitaker has noted, that given the fact that it cost the government less than $1000 to resettle each refugee, “they were probably quite pleased with the return on their investment.

On this anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia, many victims will be remembered. In Canada, the only victim was the romantic notion of what it meant to be a refugee. What the 1968 Czech refugee movement revealed is how easy it is for governments to manipulate humanitarian crises for their own ends and that is a legacy that remains with us today.

Originally written in August, 2008.