Free expression in the Americas: consultation for 2008-09 campaign

Update report – August 2008

The following is a summary of the main points from the consultation for the proposed Americas campaign/ focus 2008-09, carried out at the International PEN Latin American and Caribbean Centres Regional Conference and Meetings in Bogotá in May 2008, and subsequently with other PEN Centres within and outside the region. A total of 36 PEN Centres were invited to contribute – the 25 Centres located in the Americas and 11 Centres from other regions who have expressed a particular interest in campaigning on the Americas, i.e. are members of the PEN WiPC Americas Free Expression Network, or AmFEN (see Appendix I for full list of Centres). Input was received from the following 16 Centres:

Latin America and the Caribbean (13): Argentina, Bolivia, Colombia, Cuban Writers in Exile, Guatemala, Mexico – Guadalajara, Mexico - San Miguel de Allende, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay and Venezuela
North America (2): America and Canada
Other regions (1): Denmark

The contributions were gathered using a questionnaire sent out in English and Spanish (see Appendix II).

Improvement/ deterioration of freedom of expression in the Americas in the last 5-10 years

Most Centres in the Americas felt that that freedom of expression had deteriorated in their countries in recent years (9 Centres: America, Bolivia, Colombia, Cuban Writers in Exile, Mexico - Guadalajara, Mexico – San Miguel de Allende, Nicaragua, Peru and Venezuela).
Two Centres felt that there had been an improvement in their countries (2 Centres: Panama and Paraguay)
One Centre thought the situation in its country had remained relatively constant (Canada)


Looking at the Americas as a whole, what do you see as the key free expression issues and trends of repression?

Impunity, i.e. the failure to bring to justice and punish the perpetrators of violations of the rights of writers and journalists, and the need for more accountability on the part of the authorities (8 Centres: America, Bolivia, Canada, Colombia, Denmark, Mexico – San Miguel de Allende, Mexico – Guadalajara, Peru).
Increasing concentration of the media, whether in private or state hands, making it difficult for journalists to maintain their independence from editorial lines, leading to biased information, a ‘brainwashing’ effect and the creation of a subjective reality which limits public opinion. (7 Centres: Bolivia, Colombia, Guatemala, Mexico - Guadalajara, Peru, Uruguay and Venezuela).

One example of this is the control exercised over people’s expectations about the possibility of social and economic development (example given by Mexico – Guadalajara).

Increasing political polarization and lack of tolerance/ closing of spaces for writers expressing dissent from the view of the governing party (6 Centres: America, Bolivia, Colombia, Mexico – Guadalajara, Peru, Venezuela).

For now this mainly affects the press and mass media but there are fears that alternative media and literature are heading in the same direction (2 Centres: Peru and Venezuela).
In countries like Colombia and Venezuela, journalists associated with opposition views are labelled ‘terrorists’ by the state (2 Centres: Colombia, Venezuela)
In the USA, international writers and academics with views unpopular with the government have been barred entry to the country since 9/11, limiting debate (1 Centre: America)
In countries like Colombia where this climate of confrontation creates a very real threat to writers’ personal security, self-censorship can result, e.g. not writing about certain topics or avoiding referring to certain situations directly (1 Centre: Colombia).

Criminal defamation (5 Centres - Colombia, Denmark, Mexico – Guadalajara, Panama, Peru).
Lack of access to information, particularly about government activities and corruption (5 Centres: America, Argentina, Panama, Paraguay and Venezuela)
Government repression – direct (imprisonment, attacks, threats) and indirect (closing media outlets, low level including legal harassment) (6 Centres: America, Bolivia, Colombia, Cuban Writers in Exile, Nicaragua and Venezuela)

Danger/ fear of Venezuelan model of repression of freedom of expression, particularly as President Chávez is known to be financing media initiatives in certain politically aligned countries (4 Centres: Bolivia, Nicaragua, Panama, Venezuela)
One particular concern was the control of importation of foreign books and currency in Venezuela (2 Centres - San Miguel de Allende, Venezuela)

Non government repression was also mentioned as a concern in countries where organized crime groups, particularly drugs trafficking, is strong, such as Colombia and Mexico (3 Centres: Colombia, Cuban Writers in Exile and Mexico – San Miguel de Allende)
Self-censorship due to fear of reprisals (4 Centres: Bolivia, Colombia, Nicaragua, Venezuela)


Other issues mentioned:

Inappropriate/ irresponsible use of freedom of expression, particularly by some journalists (2 Centres: Guatemala and Paraguay)
Security issues for writers covering free expression issues in their own country (2 Centres: Colombia, Mexico - San Miguel de Allende)

o In Colombia in particular, there is widespread fear that expressing one’s opinion will result in reprisals. Freedom of expression exists in Colombia in part due to the bravery or ‘daily heroism’ of some journalists, who are in fact a kind of human rights defender but not are often recognized as such (1 Centre: Colombia)

Low salaries for journalists, increasing their vulnerability to bribes/ corruption (2 Centres: Colombia, Mexico – Guadalajara)
Denial of government advertising to publications seen as too critical of the authorities (2 Centres: Argentina and Denmark)
Authorities’ attempts to obtain the research material of journalists and authors and identify their confidential sources through prosecution or intimidation (2 Centres: America and Canada)
The impact of antiterrorism laws, for example, the US government’s increasing power under the Patriot Act and related legislation and unilateral executive orders to: monitor the activities of US citizens and collect information on their personal associations, reading habits and opinions; weaken the power of Americans to monitor government activities; restrict the free flow of information and ideas; and sponsor a shadow legal system that undercuts basic human rights and due process protections (1 Centre: America PEN)
Expanding controls on the media, especially in Venezuela (1 Centre: America)
Replacement of ‘culture’ with ‘entertainment’ and as a result the presence of the discourse of celebrity/ show business and the exclusion of the language of writers (1 Centre: Colombia)
Signature but non ratification of international treaties (1 Centre: Canada)
Murder and other kinds of physical repression (1 Centre: Denmark)
The expansion of federal and provincial human rights commissions and the interpretation of their mandate on freedom of expression (1 Centre: Canada)


How do you think PEN should be responding to these concerns?

Advocacy/ lobbying of governments, IGOs, NGOs, corporates, etc. (4 Centres: America, Canada, Denmark, Mexico – San Miguel de Allende) – using external pressure, building strong regional advocacy networks. This should include expanding PEN’s involvement with the Organisation of American States (OAS) and United Nations (UN) (2 Centres: America and Canada).
Denouncing repression of freedom of expression, e.g. via RAN actions (2 Centres: Cuban Writers in Exile and Denmark)
However, in addition to campaigning against abuses of freedom of expression, PEN should campaign for freedom of expression, promote freedom of expression - and more generally, a culture of human rights - in a positive way, not always accuse and denounce abuses (2 Centres: Nicaragua, Paraguay). Similarly, Denmark also felt that one of PEN’s focuses should be providing information and raising awareness (1 Centre: Denmark).
PEN should promote tolerance - of others’ opinions, for dissenting views (4 Centres: Colombia, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay), and the peaceful expression of dissent (2 Centres: Colombia, Peru).
PEN should ‘resist repression via writing’ and ‘creativity’ (2 Centres: Paraguay, Uruguay), e.g.

More work with media – members should be encouraged to write more articles, essays, etc. in order to promote freedom of expression and raise the profile of WiPC (3 Centres: Bolivia, Mexico – San Miguel de Allende and Nicaragua). Colombian PEN thought this should include the use of mass media.

o ‘Alternative literatures’ – creation and support of alternative editorial lines within the traditional and electronic book market and via interest groups and internet opinion groups (1 Centre: Peru)

Producing a report on freedom of expression in the Americas (1 Centre: America)
Campaigning on specific countries and issues (1 Centre: Denmark)
Supporting writers suffering repression (1 Centre: Cuban Writers in Exile)
Exploiting contacts with Latin American writers in exile in North America and Europe etc. as sources of information and potential advisers (1 Centre: Canada)
Improving communication and interaction between members of different PEN Centres (1 Centre: Mexico – Guadalajara)
Working for freedom of expression in conjunction with PEN’s work in translation and publication (1 Centre: Mexico – Guadalajara)


What would you like to see as the focus of the proposed Americas campaign in 2008?

Main suggestions:

Countries where (state and non state) repression is currently most severe, i.e.

Mexico (International PEN and 7 Centres: America, Argentina, Canada, Denmark, Mexico – Guadalajara, Mexico - San Miguel de Allende and Nicaragua)
Cuba (International PEN and 5 Centres: America, Cuban Writers in Exile, Denmark, Nicaragua and Venezuela)
Venezuela (5 Centres – America, Argentina, Mexico – Guadalajara, Mexico – San Miguel de Allende, Venezuela)
Colombia (International PEN and 3 Centres: Colombia, Mexico – Guadalajara and Nicaragua)
Peru (International PEN and 1 Centre: Peru).

Countries using new, subtler forms of repression (or reviving old ones), e.g. Venezuela, Central America (2 Centres: Nicaragua and Venezuela)

Influence of Chávez/ Venezuelan model. A number of delegates expressed concern that the repressive measures being used in Venezuela may spread to/ be adopted by other countries in the region, especially those sympathetic to the Chávez regime, e.g. Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua (2 Centres: Bolivia, Venezuela)

Fight against impunity (4 Centres: Bolivia, Denmark, Mexico – San Miguel de Allende and Peru)
Concentration of the media and the danger posed to freedom of expression (2 Centres: Colombia and Guatemala)
Safety to write throughout Latin America and a reduction in the number of writers and journalists under physical threat (2 Centres: Denmark and Mexico – San Miguel de Allende).


Others suggestions included:

Criminal defamation laws (1 Centre: Denmark)
Promoting tolerance and respect for dissenting opinions and of the work of journalists (1 Centre: Colombia)
Responsible exercise of freedom of expression by press (1 Centre: Paraguay)
Raising awareness of the future of natural resources in Latin America in the context of global warming and food and energy crises, particularly in view of the US’ and other powers’ need to gain access to or appropriate these resources, and the need for sustainability (1 Centre: Peru)
Freedom for writers in prison (1 Centre: Colombia)


General comments:

The situation of freedom of expression is very diverse in different Latin American countries, and this diversity and complexity should be borne in mind and reflected in the campaign (4 Centres: America, Mexico - Guadalajara, Panama and Paraguay).

Although recognizing the importance of international solidarity in campaigning for freedom of expression (3 Centres: Panama, Peru, Uruguay), some Centres in Latin America are very keen to focus on issues in their own countries, expressing a belief in the need for local solutions to local problems (2 Centres: Panama, Uruguay).
A number of Centres thought it important that the campaign should be genuinely Americas-wide, either that the issues or themes selected for the campaign should be relevant for all countries in the region, e.g. impunity, terrorism (3 Centres: Guatemala, Nicaragua, Paraguay), or that there should be reporting and actions on issues and threats in North America, particularly the United States, as well as Latin American and the Caribbean (1 Centre: America)

The campaign must have very clear objectives (2 Centres - Mexico - Guadalajara, Nicaragua)


What form would you like the proposed campaign to take? (suggested actions, models, strategies, etc.)

Key strategies/ tools suggested

Use the press/ media to raise awareness of freedom of expression and PEN/WiPC in a positive way as well as via protest letters, by writing articles, letters to the editor, etc. (5 Centres: Bolivia, Guatemala, Mexico- San Miguel de Allende, Nicaragua and Peru). Colombian PEN suggested that use should also be made of the mass/ audiovisual media.

Bolivian PEN suggests that PEN could have a regular newspaper column focusing on freedom of expression issues and WiPC’s concerns and actions in the Americas, focusing on a different country each week, with different PEN Centres in the region contributing articles. This could either run in one country, or simultaneously in a number of different countries. NB – since the meeting in Bogotá and the last report, Bolivian PEN has secured such a column with a Cochabamba-based daily newspaper.

Actions to raise awareness of freedom of expression and PEN/WiPC, aimed at the general public as well as writers and intellectuals (4 Centres: Bolivia, Colombia, Denmark, Uruguay).
Advocacy/ lobbying of governments, IGOs, NGOs, corporates, etc. (4 Centres: America, Canada, Denmark, Mexico – San Miguel de Allende) – using external pressure, building strong regional advocacy networks.
Protesting/ denouncing individual cases of repression by governments/ other bodies, e.g. via RANs, etc. (2 Centres: Cuban Writers in Exile and Denmark)


Other strategies suggested

Use emblematic cases to highlight situation for all journalists/ writers in a given country or region (1 Centre: Colombia)
Use well known writers in the campaign as spokespeople/ figureheads (1 Centre: Uruguay)
Use PEN’s presence at book fairs, particularly international ones like Guadalajara (1 Centre: Mexico- San Miguel de Allende)
Identify large/ international events in the Americas and use as ‘hooks’ for campaign actions (1 Centre: Mexico- San Miguel de Allende)
Collect and use writings for which people have been persecuted (1 Centre: Uruguay)
Work in collaboration with other organisations, e.g. UN, OAS, Amnesty, etc. (1 Centre: Mexico - San Miguel de Allende)
Exploit North America’s proximity to / vested interests in Latin America – use PEN members in North America to raise issues and get media attention (1 Centre: Mexico- San Miguel de Allende)
Carry out a simultaneous campaign throughout the Americas (1 Centre: Colombia)
Using the following vehicles/ materials: visual aids such as posters and video clips (1 Centre - Colombia), theatre (1 Centre - Uruguay), petitions (1 Centre - Guatemala and innovative approaches, e.g. campaign-specific web sites, other new forms of exposure (1 Centre: Mexico – San Miguel de Allende)


Suggestions for campaign format/ projects:

Regional:

Producing a comprehensive and authoritative report on the situation of freedom of expression in the Americas, defining the key issues, to be based on strong research, including interviews with PEN members and writers in exile, which can be sent to governments, international organizations such as the OAS and NGOs. This will provide a base-line measurement for the impact of subsequent campaigns and help build an advocacy network (2 Centres: America and Canada).
A campaign consisting of several steps, e.g. documentation/ research (which must be thorough and kept up to date), information (feed findings to the media, institutions and organizations within and outside the Americas), public protests (based on findings, with the support of well known figures e.g. writers, celebrities, human rights spokespeople, musicians, etc), direct protests by PEN Centres (RANs, etc.), missions (on specific cases or situations PEN wants to highlight, e.g. Mexico, Cuba (1 Centre: Denmark)
PEN should set up an annual award for a threatened writer or journalist - or group of writers and journalists - who has defended freedom of expression by broaching important subjects in their work with intelligence and daring despite threat to their personal safety. Such an acknowledgement would help the writer/ journalist in question become a figure of authority with the capacity to influence the public, and help to change the status quo that many existing prizes serve to maintain. The award would probably be based in Europe or North America (1 Centre: Colombia).


Country-specific

Mexico: joint Centre Project (2 Centres: Mexico - San Miguel de Allende and Denmark): Propose to set up a website to campaign against violence and impunity against writers and print journalists in Mexico. The website would consist of a digital map of Mexico showing where attacks on individuals have taken place and providing details of specific cases as well as more general information and analysis on the situation in the country, and how to take action. It would be aimed at both PEN Centres and the general public and would probably be housed within the International PEN website. Ideally the website would work in conjunction with a physical publication called the “Black Book” or “Libro Negro” (working title), based on the same information but with more focus on analysis, which could be sent to governments and IGOs, etc., in order to raise awareness, lobbying, etc. Both the website and the book would be published in Spanish and English (and possibly French depending on resources). Possibly to be used as a pilot project/ model for other countries/ issues in the Americas region.
Mexico: Guadalajara PEN proposes to use its presence at the Guadalajara International Book Fair in November 2008 to highlight the need to fight against impunity and to promote a culture of freedom of expression and human rights in Guadalajara and Mexico, using the case of Lydia Cacho. This event will also serve to reactivate the Centre’s WiPC.
Colombia - Colombian PEN: There is a need to base campaigning in Colombia on careful research. It is important to use and incorporate into the campaign data from the debate on freedom of expression in Colombia planned for Congress in Bogotá in September. Suggests possibility of establishing a ‘laboratory’/ observatory to monitor and carry out research into the situation of freedom of expression in Colombia, particularly the ‘propagandisation’ of information.
Peru: Peruvian PEN suggests setting up a Committee of Writers for the Sustainable Future of Humanity, to work closely with the Peace Committee, to produce and disseminate essays and articles by Peruvian scientists in collaboration with writers and journalists.


Previous/ current PEN actions mentioned as possible models:
· Revival of interest in and use of existing WiPC mechanisms could comprise or play an important part in the campaign (3 Centres: Cuban Writers in Exile, Mexico – San Miguel de Allende, Venezuela), for example it was suggested that PEN should make use of one set day in the year where all PEN Centres take action (which effectively already exists in the form of the Day of the Imprisoned Writer on 15 November) (2 Centres: Cuban Writers in Exile and Venezuela), and that Centres in Latin American and the Caribbean should be encouraged to elect Honorary Members in Cuba (1 Centre: Venezuela). NB - A number of Centres expressed or displayed a need for general information about WiPC work, rules and procedures; this was reiterated by Gloria Guardia of the Ibero American Foundation.
· Poetry Relay: supports threatened poets via poetry rather than protests, is ‘subtle’/ ‘elegant’ and touching, uses new technology, has an international aspect that is not just freedom of expression-related (Olympics) (1 Centre: Paraguay).
· Anti-terrorism report: allows members to know what’s going on regarding freedom of expression in all countries in Americas and not just the ‘worst offenders’, and to find out about PEN members’ opinions about the situation in their own countries (1 Centre: Paraguay).
· Ken Saro-Wiwa: asked members around the world to take action all on the same day, making them feel involved as part of a PEN network (1 Centre: Venezuela).


Appendix I

List of PEN Centres consulted
Centres with a WiPC are marked with two asterisks (**); those interested in setting up a WiPC are marked with one asterisk (*).

Americas

America**
Argentina
Argentina – Salta
Bolivia*
Brazil
Canada**
Chile
Colombian**
Costa Rica
Cuban Writers in Exile**
Guatemala**
Jamaica
Mexico**
Mexico – Guadalajara*
Mexico - San Miguel de Allende**
Nicaragua**
Panama
Paraguay**
Peru**
Puerto Rico*
Quebecois**
Uruguay
USA**
US Writers in Exile**
Venezuela**


Other regions

Belgian Flemish**
Catalan**
Denmark**
English**
Finnish**
German**
Italian**
Macedonian
Scottish**
Swedish**
Sydney**


Appendix II – Questionnaire

Free Expression in the Americas – Questionnaire


Part 1

Free expression in your country

How would you describe the state of free expression in your country?

Is freedom of expression protected under national legislation?

What are currently the main obstacles to freedom of expression for writers and journalists in your country? What are the most common violations of writers’ and journalists’ right to freedom of expression? (e.g. repressive laws, censorship, self-censorship, arrests and detention, physical attacks, criminal/ civil defamation (very high fines), other legal challenges, low salaries and vulnerability to bribes/ corruption, etc.)

How has this situation changed over the last 5/ 10 years (improvements/ deterioration)? Can any trends be seen?

What changes do you think are most needed in your country? (e.g. fighting against impunity, decriminalizing defamation, repeal/ reform of other legislation, etc.)
Are you aware of any individual cases of writers/ journalists under attack in your country now who are not included in the latest WiPC case list (July – December 2007)?


Free expression in the Americas

Looking at the Americas as a whole, what do you see as the key free expression issues and trends of repression?
How do you think PEN should be responding to these concerns?
What would you like to see as the focus of the proposed Americas campaign in 2008?
What form would you like the proposed campaign to take?
How would your Centre like to contribute to the proposed campaign?


Part 2

About your WiPC and its work (for PEN Centres with a WiPC)

When was your WiPC set up and what was the motivation behind its establishment?
What is your current level of activity?

What type of actions does your WiPC engage in? (e.g. RAN/ letter writing, lobbying government/ international bodies, publicity, events, electing honorary members ).

Which regions do you campaign on? (Americas/ elsewhere)

How many PEN members are involved in your WiPC work?

Approximately how many actions does the WiPC undertake each year?

Are you happy with your current level of activity? Why (not)?
What has been most/ less successful about your campaigning work (in the last year or few years)?
What obstacles do you face in your campaigning work? (e.g. human resources, time, security risks, etc.)
What are your plans for campaigning for the coming year?
Is there any work that you would like to be able to carry out but are not currently able to? Give details.
What would help your WiPC to engage more effectively in campaigning work? (E.g. human resources, tools, support from International PEN, etc.)

We are planning on updating the WiPC handbook. Do you find it a useful tool in your campaigning? Do you have any suggestions for improving it?
How do you obtain information on the cases you work on? (information from WiPC HQ, direct contact with writers in trouble in your country, press, etc)

Are you currently in direct contact with any writers in trouble in your country? If so, how has this contact come about? (If not, why not?)

Are you in touch with other PEN Centres in Latin America and the Caribbean and elsewhere regarding WiPC work?

Would you be interested in being part of a WiPC Latin American and Caribbean Freedom of Expression Network to share information and ideas?

Do you have any contacts or work in partnership with other organizations working on freedom of expression issues in your country/ region (e.g. NGOs, unions, etc)? If so, please name and briefly describe the organization and your relationship. If not, are you aware of any organizations with whom it could be useful to cooperate?

Does your Centre have any members who are willing and able to write and place articles in the press as part of campaigning?



About your plans for a future WiPC (for PEN Centres that do not currently have a WiPC but are interested in setting one up)

When did you become interested in setting up a WiPC and what motivated you?
What stage are you at in the process of setting up WiPC? (e.g. contact with PEN Capacity Building Programme, concrete steps taken so far, timeline envisaged before becoming operational)

Are you currently in direct contact with any writers in trouble in your country, or have you been in the past? If so, how has this contact come about?

Are you in touch with other PEN Centres in the Americas and elsewhere that could advise you on setting up?

Do you know of or have any contact with other organizations working on freedom of expression issues in your country/ region (e.g. NGOs, unions, etc)? If so, please name and briefly describe the organization and your relationship.

What type of actions does your WiPC envisage engaging in? (e.g. RAN/ letter writing, lobbying government/ international bodies, publicity, events, electing honorary members).

On what issues?

Do you envisage working on any specific regions? (e.g. all, the Americas)

Does your Centre have any members who would be willing and able to write and place article in the press as part of campaigning?

Do you have a copy of the WiPC handbook?

print