Star: Toronto's United Church to boycott Israeli goods

Wednesday June 28, 2006, Toronto Star, Stuart Laidlaw, Faith and Ethics Reporter, Toronto's United Church to boycott Israeli goods,

Wants exit from occupied lands, Decision follows move by CUPE

The United Church of Canada's Toronto branch will today unveil a boycott of Israeli products and companies doing business with its military to end what it calls the illegal occupation of Palestinian lands.

The move comes on the heels of a similar controversial move by the Ontario wing of the Canadian Union of Public Employees, which last month voted to support an international boycott campaign against Israel to protest its treatment of Palestinian refugees.

"We want to commend that position," said Frances Combs, co-chair of the Toronto Conference of the United Church of Canada's task force on Israel.

The boycott is being undertaken only by the 300-church Toronto conference of the United Church, not the church as a whole.

Combs's task force was asked three years ago to devise a plan for implementing a resolution passed by the Toronto conference to pressure Israel to leave the occupied lands. That resolution has never been made public until now.

The plan will call on Ottawa to require that products originating in the occupied territories be labelled differently from those coming from the rest of Israel.

The group will then ask that occupied-territory products be boycotted by church members.

"This is not a boycott against Israel," Combs said, adding that only occupied-territory products are to be targeted. "We affirm the right of Israel to exist."

The group also wants the church and its members to divest from companies supplying the Israeli military, and will be pushing for the church as a whole to adopt similar measures at its general council meeting in Thunder Bay in August.

A 20-page resolution to be debated in Thunder Bay also calls on the church to invest in Palestinian companies.

Bruce Gregersen, who heads international programs at the United Church's national office, said the occupation of parts of the West Bank and Gaza since the Six Day War in 1967 has had a destabilizing effect on the entire region.

The church has few investments that would have to be sold off, Gregersen said, since it tends to avoid military suppliers. But a policy of targeting Palestinian companies for investment could have a positive impact on the lives of people in the occupied territories, he said.

Ontario CUPE president Sid Ryan said he welcomed the United Church move.

TC/UC: Seeking Peace Through Justice

Toronto Conference of The United Church of Canada, undated, Ethical Investment In Palestine and Israel - Seeking Peace Through Justice: Ethical Investment In The Middle East

MOTION that Toronto Conference call on the presbyteries, churches, mission units and associated bodies such as the Toronto United Church Council) within its bounds, as well as our membership, to:

* Reaffirm the United Church's commitment to the right of Israel to exist in peace and security within internationally- recognized borders and the right of Palestinians to exist in peace and freedom in an internationally recognised homeland and state;
* Recognize that the path of peace is dependent on the ending of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, including the withdrawal of Israeli settlements there;
* Commit itself to:

1) Join the World Council of Churches international boycott of goods produced in the illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied territories;

2) Divest itself of investments in corporations whose activities in the Israeli settlements and/or the Palestinian Territories including East Jerusalem serve to encourage the continued existence of these illegal settlements;

3) Boycott the goods and services of corporations whose activities in the Israeli settlements and/or in the Palestinian Territories (including East Jerusalem) serve to encourage the continued existence of these settlements;

4) Direct the World Affairs Committee of Conference to provide resources to assist congregations to take action to divest and boycott goods and corporations related to Israeli settlements in the occupied territories.

Motion passed at the 79th Annual Meeting of Toronto Conference in 2003

The Committee Members:
CO-CHA - The Rev. Frances Combs
CO-CHA - The Rev. Lawrence Pushee
CTE - Jean Lee
CTE - Karen Krothers
CTE - David Wurfel
CTE - Judith Wiseman
STF - Desmond Parsons

CJC: The left must confront its anti-Semitism

December 06, 2002, Globe and Mail, No more double standard, The left must confront its anti-Semitism, Phil Berger, Jeff Rose and Clayton Ruby

For decades, the three of us have been active in progressive causes in Canada. Now, an increasingly vocal part of the Canadian left has, over the issue of Israel and Palestine, made our position untenable. We are being asked to choose between our support for Israel and our credentials as leftists.

This covert test of loyalty provides for no nuance, little context, relative silence on the historic persecution of Jews and insufficient recognition of Israel's right to protect its citizens from deadly attacks. Similar tests of fidelity have been imposed on Jews in centuries past when they have been called on to declare their allegiance to a secular or religious authority -- forfeiting their identity as Jews.

We won't be bound by this invidious choice. Neither will we shirk our responsibility to criticize Israeli policies when it's deserved. Along with many others, we've called for a suspension of settlement expansion. We've called for a negotiated end to occupation and the establishment of a democratic independent Palestinian state to exist side by side with Israel, with security for both states.

But the singularity of focus on Israel, which is increasingly common within the Canadian left (for example, equating Israel with apartheid South Africa), raises our fears that anti-Semitism has emerged as a powerful force in the polemic.

The infamous non-governmental organization forum at the UN World Conference Against Racism held in Durban last year produced a climax of international hostility to Israel. Hatred rained down on Jewish delegates, and anti-Semites didn't even refer to the differentiation between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism, which in the past provided them with moral cover.

The forum established a new permissiveness for anti-Jewish expression, whether on the streets at antiglobalization demonstrations, at polite social functions or in college classrooms. In Canada, "Death to the Jews" has now been chanted at Palestinian-organized protests and coins have been tossed at Jewish students, raising the old canard of Jewish usury. Just this week, the Concordia University Student Union moved to freeze the budget of the campus chapter of Hillel, the international Jewish student group, and suspended its right to set up campus information tables.

Meanwhile, a vocal part of the Canadian left has persisted in making the artificial distinction between Israel and Zionism, on one hand, and Jewish identity on the other. For the vast majority of Jews -- leftists and others -- Israel, Jews, Zionism and Judaism are inextricably bound and not so conveniently separable by terminological sleight of hand. The Jewishness of Israel is central, not irrelevant, to the debate on the Mideast.

A balanced analysis of the Middle East should be based on universally accepted, measurable standards of conduct. Israel should be held accountable, but no more accountable than other nations, including Palestine. Such balance has not always been apparent.

Despite Israel's functioning democracy and independent judiciary (which frequently finds in favour of Palestinian appellants), despite its freedom of elections, religion, speech and press and the protection of labour, homosexual and women's rights, Israel has been cast as one of the world's most evil nations. Meanwhile, vicious anti-Semitic propaganda and widespread detention of peaceful political opponents remain a hallmark of most of Israel's neighbours.

Some of these neighbours have even engaged in the mass killing of their own people. The behaviour of repressive regimes does not, of course, justify the harshness or recklessness of some Israeli policies. Ever. But it is disingenuous and hypocritical to disregard the brutality of large numbers of undemocratic nations. Yet only Israel is labelled "pariah state" and is subject to calls for economic sanctions and academic boycotts.

While criticism of Israeli policies obviously does not, in itself, constitute anti-Semitism, we reject any allegation that our historical and moral responsibility to speak out against the demonization of Israel represents an attempt to censor critics of Israel. It is the refusal to consider the anti-Semitism present in the Middle East debate that represents the most dangerous form of political prohibition.

Not just Jewish leftists, but all leftists, have a right and obligation to denounce anti-Semitism wherever and whenever they see it. That includes the debate about Israel and Palestine. We reject as anti-Semitic the shameful double standard applied to the only Jewish state. We call on the Canadian left as a whole to reject this double standard as well.

Philip Berger is a physician, Jeff Rose is a trade unionist, Clayton Ruby is a lawyer.

Globe: CUPE and Israel

Thursday June 29 2006, Globe and Mail Editorial, CUPE and Israel

When the Canadian Union of Public Employees, Ontario branch, voted last month to support an economic boycott of Israel, it went well beyond simply taking sides in a complex dispute. The first part of its resolution makes clear CUPE Ontario's intention to delegitimize the Jewish state. "With Palestine solidarity and human-rights organizations, develop an education campaign about the apartheid nature of the Israeli state and the political and economic support of Canada for these practices." (Emphasis added.)

This is a message that harks back to the notorious Zionism-is-racism resolution at the United Nations in 1976. It is similar in its thrust to the long-running boycott by the Arab League aimed at Israel and anyone who did business with Israel. It rejects Israel for what it is -- a Jewish state.

It thus brings to mind an article published in these pages four years ago by three prominent Jewish Canadian leftists: trade unionist Jeff Rose, medical doctor Philip Berger and lawyer Clayton Ruby. The three were fed up with what they perceived to be anti-Semitism in the left. "The singularity of focus on Israel, which is increasingly common within the Canadian left (for example, equating Israel with apartheid South Africa), raises our fears that anti-Semitism has emerged as a powerful force in the polemic." The three went on to say: "A balanced analysis of the Middle East should be based on universally accepted, measurable standards of conduct. Israel should be held accountable, but no more accountable than other nations, including Palestine." CUPE Ontario has not called for the boycott of any other country.

Adding insult to injury, the Toronto Conference of the United Church publicly commended CUPE Ontario yesterday and revived a three-year-old motion calling for an end to investment in Israeli companies with dealings in the West Bank or East Jerusalem. That motion, narrower than CUPE's, is regrettable at a time when the elected Palestinian government refuses to offer an open, direct acceptance of Israel's existence. More regrettable is the church's support for the CUPE resolution, a throwback to a time when the Arab world insisted that Israel could never belong to the community of nations.

Of course Israel should not be immune from criticism. But by the same token, those such as CUPE Ontario that would treat the Jewish state as a pariah will raise legitimate fears, as Messrs. Rose, Berger and Ruby put it, that anti-Semitism is a powerful force in the left-wing polemic.

Globe: The shame of the United Church

Thursday June 29 2006, Globe and Mail, Margaret Wente, The shame of the United Church

Rev. Frances Combs is a slight, polite, soft-spoken woman with snow-white hair and sensible shoes. You can tell she wouldn't hurt a fly. Too bad that such a nice lady has become an apologist for Hamas.

Rev. Combs, a minister with the United Church, co-chairs the Task Group for Ethical Investment in the Middle East. Yesterday this group, which represents around 300 congregations in Ontario, held a press conference to announce that they stand in solidarity with Sid Ryan to bring the rogue state of Israel to heel.

"We are very pleased to commend CUPE Ontario for advocating economic pressure to end the illegal occupation of Palestine," she said. They're calling on church members to boycott goods and dump stock. Don't buy GE light bulbs, because GE is a war profiteer. They also want Ottawa to demand identifying labels on all goods imported from Israeli settlements in the occupied territories.

But wait, I asked. If the United Church believes in peace and nonviolence, then what does it have to say about Hamas, whose goal is to extinguish the Jewish state?

In answer to my question, I got an impassioned harangue from Judith Wiseman (yes, she's Jewish), another member of the church's task group. "The questions you are asking can only be asked by someone who refuses to see what's going on," she lectured me. "It's time to condemn Israel as a rogue state."

There'd be something risible about this, if it weren't so appalling. The United Church is the largest Protestant denomination in Canada. Three million Canadians claim it as their religious affiliation. And now, the church has joined the shabby parade of left-wing extremists bent on demonizing Israel as the root cause of all the problems in the Middle East. These groups include the largest teachers union in Britain, which, to the disgust of many of its members, has voted to boycott Israeli academics and universities that don't dissociate themselves from the government's "apartheid" policies.

Apartheid is a favourite word among this crowd. It evokes the glory days of Nelson Mandela and the boycotts against South Africa. "The South African apartheid regime never engaged in the kind of repression the Israelis exert against the Palestinians," said Richard Lee, a U of T professor who showed up at the press conference. He didn't mention Israeli-Arabs who make up about a fifth of Israel's population, ride on the same buses, shop in the same malls, vote in the same elections, get blown up by the same bombs, and are stitched back together in the same hospitals.

The Palestinians lead a miserable life, that's for sure. But they have rejected negotiating their own state time after time. And the only conditions that would satisfy CUPE and the United Church are the same ones demanded by Hamas. Israel must abandon all its settlements and let all the descendants of the displaced Palestinians return to reclaim their ancestral lands. That, of course, would mean the end of Israel.

Last year the Israelis came to the conclusion that the settlements in Gaza were, indeed, a bad idea. So they withdrew. In return, the Palestinians elected Hamas and fired a thousand Qassam rockets at Israeli border towns. This too, I learned, is all Israel's fault. One very angry woman, from the Jewish Women's Committee to End the Occupation, denounced "the Jewish lobby, but I guess I'm not supposed to say that" for their efforts to brainwash the Canadian public. She also denounced the Canadian government for siding with Israel. Obviously, demonizing Israel is a thoroughly ecumenical affair.

This August the national body of the United Church will meet to vote on a motion condemning Israel. Rev. Combs is optimistic that might include a boycott. To educate congregants, her group plans to hold as many workshops and information sessions as they can.

Meantime, thousands of CUPE members, of all denominations, are outraged at Sid Ryan and their Ontario local (the largest in the land). Perhaps the United Churchgoers of Canada will be outraged at their leaders too. Perhaps they'll decide that instead of boycotting Israel, they should boycott their own church. One can only hope.

Globe: One by one, sisters earn Harvard honours

Monday June 26 2006, One by one, sisters earn Harvard honours, Anthony Reinhart & Jane Armstrong, Globe and Mail

TORONTO AND BERESFORD, N.B. -- As much as he liked to impart knowledge to his five daughters, Dr. Samuel Briar Maxwell never told them why he cut his own hair in the upstairs bathroom at home in Beresford. He never mentioned the time he was turned away at a barber shop after he arrived from Ghana in 1949, or how he felt when hospital patients told him they didn't want to be treated by a "nigger."

When it came to parenting, Dr. Maxwell and his wife Irene, a white nurse from New Brunswick, set their hard-earned frustrations aside and resolved to ensure their girls never lacked for opportunity, by serving them a steady diet of encouragement along with dinner every night.

If he were alive today, Dr. Maxwell could safely say it worked: All five daughters -- Cindy, 35; Linda, 32; Rita, 29; Ada, 26; and Dina, 21 -- went on to earn undergraduate degrees at Harvard University, an unprecedented feat at a 370-year-old institution long seen as a bastion of white American privilege.

"They are the reason why we are here today," said Cindy Maxwell, herself an doctor now, at Toronto's Mount Sinai Hospital. "We were the priority; we were the focus of our parents' lives."

At a recent gathering in Cindy's office overlooking University Avenue, the Maxwell sisters explained how their father's stern but positive guidance, combined with their mother's warm and protective support, made them the women they are today.

On paper, they're impressive enough. Cindy, in addition to delivering babies, is an assistant professor of maternal-fetal medicine; Linda, also a doctor, is an ear, nose and throat specialist with an interest in reconstructive facial surgery; Rita is an assistant Crown attorney working the courts downtown; Ada is articling at Borden Ladner Gervais, one of the country's largest law firms; and Dina, who graduated from Harvard earlier this month, is bound for law school at McGill University.

In person, it becomes clear that their parents valued more than mere academic achievement, central as that was. Unfailingly polite and accommodating, they carry themselves with grace and good humour, and show as much respect to each other as they do to people they don't know.

These qualities left an impression on Harvard, where faculty and staff still talk about the Maxwell sisters from New Brunswick.

"They have generated more goodwill at Harvard, as a family, than hardly anyone we can remember," said S. Allen Counter, a neuroscience professor and director of the Harvard Foundation for Intercultural and Race Relations, a cultural institute on the Cambridge, Mass., campus.

"If you meet them, your first impression is their warm, honest, innocent smiles. You see in their eyes human decency and respect for humanity," Prof. Counter said.

All five Maxwell sisters worked part-time at the Harvard Foundation to help pay for their education. Scholarships, loans and contributions from their parents covered the rest. The academic achievements, combined with their charming personalities, prompt the question: What kind of home produced such accomplished women?

The literal answer is: A modest house in a small, seaside town in northern New Brunswick, where the blue shimmer of the Bay of Chaleur can be seen if you look east from the front yard. The only oversized items in the modestly furnished split level were the dreams Samuel and Irene Maxwell held for their girls' futures.

Today, the bookshelves in the living room are crammed with trophies won by all five sisters throughout their high-school careers. There are awards for debating, essay prizes and plaques from the televised brainteaser Reach for the Top.

Irene Maxwell says she and her husband did not set out to produce academic superstars. At times, Ms. Maxwell, who was the 10th of 15 children, was awed at her girls' intelligence and depth of character.

"You know how daughters look up to their mothers?" she asked. "Well, I looked up to my kids. They're really nice. I'm very proud of the people they have become.

"I had an exceptionally interesting life, being the mother of these girls," she continued. "They all had such inquisitive minds."

And yet, it was Ms. Maxwell who first raised the subject of an Ivy League education as she drove Cindy, her eldest, home from Bathurst High School one day. Up to that point, Cindy had only considered applying to two Maritime universities.

"She planted that little seed and it went from there," said Cindy, who became the first Bathurst student to apply to Harvard. Still, she wasn't out of the woods yet -- she first had to write two Scholastic Assessment Tests, or SATs, in Moncton, a 2½-hour drive away.

On the day of the tests, in early winter, Ms. Maxwell and her daughter set off in the car, but a snowstorm forced them to turn back.

Prodded by her mother, Cindy wrote back to Harvard and explained the situation. She was allowed to take the tests at her high school, alone in a room with a teacher standing by.

Weeks later, she cried when Harvard's assistant dean of admissions called with the good news.

In the fall of 1987, Samuel Maxwell slid behind the wheel of the family vehicle, a little blue Plymouth Reliant K-car, and drove Cindy off to her future, with Linda and Rita along for the ride. Boston was the first big city the girls had seen, and its bustle was like a "wall of sound," Cindy said. "It took me a while to get used to that."

Needless to say, the Maxwells and Harvard soon got used to one another, although each sister insists she made her own decision to attend, free of pressure from the others or their parents.

Ada recalls being a teenager and her mother turning to her, while they were washing dishes, and saying, "You don't have to go to Harvard. Be yourself and do whatever you want."

In late November of 1995, Samuel Maxwell fell ill with pancreatic cancer and died two months later. Even then, he insisted his girls return to their classes after Christmas holidays, rather than stay by his side.

"He didn't want his illness or his passing to interfere," Cindy said.

But his presence in the house is palpable. More than a decade after his death, Ms. Maxwell quotes him in nearly every anecdote.

Her late husband's quiet, smiling demeanour masked a fierce will and an unquenchable thirst for knowledge, she says. He had a penchant for quoting African proverbs and metaphor-laden parables, which the girls ate up, Ms. Maxwell recounts with a laugh.

"The children were always mesmerized by what he had to say."

Despite his own academic pedigree, Dr. Maxwell's career was stalled by racism, a fate he endured mainly in silence.

"They saw his black face and they'd make up their minds about him," Ms. Maxwell said of her husband's patients and colleagues. "My husband did not get a fair shake in Canada."

Yet these setbacks never embittered the African-born doctor. Instead, he poured his heart into teaching his daughters his own love of learning.

"Here's where it all happened," Ms. Maxwell said, pausing in the doorway of the dining room.

"He'd go around to all the girls and ask them, 'How was your day? What did you learn at school today?' " she said. "He didn't accept 'nothing' for an answer. He'd say, 'Well surely something must have happened. You spent the whole day there.' " Life wasn't all work. On Sunday, Dr. Maxwell played his music -- everything from jazz, blues and reggae to rock, country and classical -- while the girls read.

By the time the Maxwell sisters reached junior high school, they were all top students. Ms. Maxwell says she remembers a junior high teacher telling her there was nothing more she could teach Cindy. Instead of allowing her to bask in her success, Dr. Maxwell told his daughter to read more. "If you know everything your teacher is saying, get another book on the subject," he said.

Stern as such lessons might sound, the sisters say their father delivered them selflessly; he wanted them to set high expectations for themselves, not simply meet his, or each other's.

The fact that all attended Harvard speaks more to their closeness and their cumulative familiarity with the institution than a sense of obligation or competition.

So, when they gathered in Cambridge earlier this month for Dina's commencement ceremony, they did so as friends.

"We root for each other always," Rita said, her sisters nodding in agreement. "We want each other to do well, so whatever we can do to make that happen, we will."

Darfur and United Nations bits & pieces

June 19, Globe, China's Wen kicks off African charm offensive in Egypt, Salah Nasrawi, (Source).
June 20, Globe, Sudan's president rejects UN peacekeepers in Darfur, (Source).
June 20, NYT, No. 2 State Department Official Resigns to Join Wall Street Firm, Helene Cooper, (Source).
June 20, Globe, Goldman grabs Washington insider, Barrie McKenna, (Source).
June 24, Globe, Where patience and persistence trump perfection, Allan Rock, Shawn McCarthy, (Source).
June 26, Globe, Forget a UN army, Lewis MacKenzie, (Source).
June 26, Globe, Sudan accuses world body of aiding rebel leader, Mphammed Ali Saeed, (Source).
June 26, Chron, Sudan Lifts Suspension of U.N.'s Work, Edith M. Lederer, Mohamed Osman, (Source).


Monday June 19, 2006, Globe, China's Wen kicks off African charm offensive in Egypt, Salah Nasrawi, (Back).

Prime Minister signs agreements on energy, industry, telecommunications

CAIRO -- China is making inroads into Africa with huge investment projects -- filling the void left by U.S. and European businesses -- as it looks to reap not only financial profits, but political ones as well.

Yesterday, Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao wrapped up a two-day visit to Cairo, the first stop on a regional tour, after signing 10 agreements in the fields of oil, natural gas, telecommunications and industry.

After meeting with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak earlier in the day, Mr. Wen said China was ready to increase investment in Egypt, particularly in the energy and communications sectors.

China also agreed to give Egypt a $50-million (U.S.) loan and a $10-million grant to build a centre to facilitate investment in an industrial area northwest of the Gulf of Suez.

On the political front, Mr. Mubarak assured Mr. Wen of Egypt's policy of recognizing one China, spokesman Suleiman Awwad said, alluding to Taiwan. Other African countries have also yielded to Chinese pressure to shun Taiwan.

Trade between Egypt and China topped $2-billion in 2005 -- a fourfold increase since 2002. And it has 186 projects in Egypt, with a total investment of $220-million.

On Saturday night, Mr. Wen and his Egyptian counterpart, Ahmed Nazif, attended celebrations at the Great Pyramids to mark the 50th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between the two countries.

In 1956, Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser recognized China -- making Egypt the first Arab or African nation to do so, in defiance of U.S. efforts to discourage other countries from dealing with the Communist state. The United States established diplomatic ties with China after 29 years on Jan. 1, 1979.

Mr. Wen is expected to sign additional economic agreements during the other stops on his tour.

While critics contend that China's headway into the continent unjustly rewards nations with poor human rights records, an analyst suggests that other factors have greater prominence in Beijing's calculations.

"This is not its concern. Business is," said Khalil al-Anani, a political analyst with al-Siyassah al-Dawliyah, a political quarterly published by the semi-official Al-Ahram daily newspaper. Mr. Al-Anani also noted that China's investments in African countries are mostly in state-run infrastructure projects.

"These are long-term investments into which Western businesses probably do not want to venture," he said.

Other critics have said China's arms exports to some war-torn African nations have helped fuel conflicts, including that in the Darfur region of Sudan, which has claimed at least 180,000 lives and forced more than two million people from their homes over the past three years.

But Chinese officials defend their expanding relations with the African countries as "mutually beneficial."

China's assistant foreign minister He Yafei said Friday, a day before Mr. Wen started his African tour, that Sino-African relations help to improve those nations' human rights records.

In Cairo, Mr. Wen also faced accusations that his country was doing little or nothing to support the Arabs in the conflict with Israel.

"We think that the key solution is to implement the United Nations resolutions and the roadmap peace plan and to encourage both sides to pursue a peaceful settlement on the basis of 'land for peace,' " he said.

Mr. He described his country's relations with the Jewish state as "good and normal and important to both peoples as well as for the Arab world, because these relations help China to work with both parties to achieve peace."

After Mr. Wen's two-day visit to Egypt, he left yesterday for Ghana on a tour that will also take him to Angola, South Africa, Tanzania and Uganda.



Tuesday June 20 2006, Globe, Sudan's president rejects UN peacekeepers in Darfur, (Back).

KHARTOUM, Sudan — Sudan's president vowed Tuesday to never allow UN peacekeepers into Darfur and said he would lead the “resistance” against any foreign force, his strongest rejection yet of the United Nations plan for halting violence in the war-torn region.

Omar al-Bashir's comments were likely to escalate tensions with the United Nations, coming as a joint UN and African Union team was in Sudan to plan for deployment of a possible peacekeeping force.

“This shall never take place,” Mr. al-Bashir said at a news conference alongside South African President Thabo Mbeki. “These are colonial forces and we will not accept colonial forces coming into the country.

“They want to colonize Africa, starting with the first sub-Saharan country to gain its independence. If they want to start colonization in Africa, let them chose a different place.”

U.N. officials want to send a beefed-up peacekeeping force to replace 7,000 African Union soldiers that have largely been unable to stop the fighting in Darfur.

After Sudan's government signed a peace agreement with the main Darfur rebel group May 5, it gave some indications it might allow a U.N. force. But Mr. al-Bashir's government has since backtracked and Tuesday's comments were the president's most direct rejection.

Nearly 200,000 people have been killed and more than 2 million displaced in Darfur since rebel groups made up of ethnic Africans rose up against the Arab-led Khartoum government in early 2003. The government is accused of responding by unleashing Arab militias known as the Janjaweed who have been accused of some of the worst atrocities, but it denies any involvement.

Last month, the U.N. Security Council gave Khartoum a week to accept the U.N. peacekeepers, though it put off the deadline to allow for further diplomatic efforts. A high-level Security Council delegation returned last week from a tour of the region.

The assessment team currently in Sudan is led by the top U.N. peacekeeping official, Undersecretary-General Jean-Marie Guehenno. In response to Mr. al-Bashir's comments, he plans to meet with the president and hold a news conference before returning to New York, where he will report to the Security Council.

“There is a lot of momentum in this process going on now,” U.N. spokeswoman Marie Okabe said. “Let's wait until Guehenno's team comes back and see what he has to say.”

But Mr. al-Bashir has toughened his rhetoric.

Late Monday, he denounced any foreign deployment in Darfur while speaking to his ruling National Congress party. He said he would lead “the resistance against foreign international military intervention if it ever takes place in Darfur,” the state news agency SUNA reported Tuesday.

Sudan has argued that the Darfur conflict is an African problem that should be handled by troops from the continent.

In his comments Tuesday, al-Bashir said that instead of sending U.N. peacekeepers, the United Nations should increase funding for the African Union forces and improve its capabilities.

The AU force has been severely hampered by a lack of manpower, equipment and funding.

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan has repeatedly urged Sudan to accept the U.N. force. Sudan has allowed U.N. peacekeepers into southern Sudan to monitor a separate peace deal there.

Mr. Guehenno's staff is still a long way from choosing the troops that would go to Sudan, but officials have studied the possibility of sending only soldiers from African or Muslim countries to avoid the impression that they are colonizers.

It is considered highly unlikely that Britain, Sudan's former colonial master, or any other major power would send troops. The soldiers would probably come from the main U.N. troop contributing countries, which include Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, India, Nigeria and Ghana.



Tuesday June 20 2006, NYT, No. 2 State Department Official Resigns to Join Wall Street Firm, Helene Cooper, (Back).

WASHINGTON, June 19 — Deputy Secretary of State Robert B. Zoellick said Monday that he would be leaving his post as the State Department's second in command, as expected, to join the Wall Street investment house Goldman Sachs Group Inc. as a managing director.

[photo] Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick attended the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, in January 2006.

Bush administration officials said the search was now on to find a replacement for Mr. Zoellick, a six- year administration veteran who spent his first four years as the United States trade representative.

R. Nicholas Burns, the under secretary of state for political affairs, who is the department's third-ranking official, would be the logical front-runner for the job. Administration officials say Robert M. Kimmitt, the deputy Treasury secretary, is also in the running.

Mr. Burns, while close to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, is a career Foreign Service officer whose rise accelerated during the Clinton administration, when he served on the staff of the National Security Council, as State Department spokesman and as ambassador to Greece. He was appointed the American representative to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization during President Bush's first term.

Mr. Kimmitt, a former American ambassador to Germany, served in several posts in the administration of President Bush's father, including under secretary of state for political affairs.

He is widely respected in Washington, but some administration officials worry that Senate confirmation might be made difficult by his role in a decision this year to allow a company owned by the emirate of Dubai to take over operations at five American ports. The company, Dubai Ports, pulled out of the deal after it was denounced by Congressional Republicans as well as Democrats.

The departure of Mr. Zoellick has been widely anticipated. He was considered for Treasury secretary, but President Bush nominated Henry M. Paulson Jr., chairman and chief executive of Goldman Sachs.

During an interview on Friday, Mr. Zoellick said he had wanted the Treasury job but added that he understood why Mr. Bush had made the decision he did. "If it were a choice between Hank Paulson and me, I'd choose Hank Paulson," he said.

As Ms. Rice's deputy, Mr. Zoellick was the primary architect of the administration's policy toward Sudan and particularly the response to the crisis in Darfur. In May at talks in Abuja, Nigeria, he pushed Darfur's rebel leaders to sign a peace accord.

He was known in Sudan for understanding the many facets of the country and its people, reciting tribal names, affiliations and political leanings.

He is widely considered to be one of the administration's most experienced foreign policy hands.

But Mr. Zoellick's years as trade representative are regarded as more notable than his time at the State Department. He successfully managed the start of the world trade negotiations, still under way, that are meant to lower tariffs on manufacturing products and, more significantly, to reduce agriculture subsidies.

Mr. Zoellick also successfully managed the deeply divisive fight in Congress to obtain "fast track" authority for Mr. Bush to negotiate trade pacts that Congress can approve or reject but not amend.

As the trade representative, Mr. Zoellick worked closely with officials from developing countries. One of the first things he did in the job was to reaffirm a late policy shift by the Clinton administration that put the need for access to cheaper AIDS drugs in poor countries above the desires of American drug companies seeking to protect their patents.

Mr. Zoellick said he expected to stay on the job at the State Department until the middle of July.



Tuesday June 20 2006, Globe, Goldman grabs Washington insider, Barrie McKenna, (Back).

Zoellick, the No. 2 at State Department, will take key role in firm's global affairs

WASHINGTON -- Top Bush administration official Robert Zoellick is taking his vast experience in trade and China to Wall Street, joining a long list of Washington insiders to work at investment dealer Goldman Sachs Group Inc.

The news of Mr. Zoellick's impending departure comes just weeks after Goldman Sachs chief executive officer Henry (Hank) Paulson went the other way on Interstate 95 -- leaving the New York-based company to become U.S. Treasury Secretary in Washington.

But Mr. Zoellick, 52, Deputy Secretary of State and former U.S. trade representative, denied reports yesterday that he was quitting the No. 2 job at the State department because he was passed over for the Treasury Secretary job.

"I certainly knew I'd always be a contender [for Treasury Secretary]," he told reporters. "But . . . if I were the President and I had a choice in Hank Paulson, I'd pick Hank Paulson. So there was never any sense of like I must get this or I'm going to do that."

White House spokesman Tony Snow said Mr. Zoellick "has been wanting to pursue opportunities in the private sector for some time and now he's going to do it."

At Goldman Sachs -- the most international of the major U.S. investment dealers -- Mr. Zoellick is expected to help expand foreign markets, chair its international advisory group and represent major investors overseas.

Mr. Zoellick, a cerebral and intense free-market thinker, has made a mark in the Bush administration -- first as the architect of a series of bilateral free-trade deals while he was trade czar, and more recently as the leading adviser on touchy issues, including China and Darfur.

Mr. Zoellick, a frequent foreign traveller, played a key role in striking the recent tentative truce between the main rebel groups in Sudan's war-ravaged Darfur region. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice yesterday praised Mr. Zoellick as "an experienced policy maker, a seasoned diplomat, a masterful strategist and an intellectual leader, someone who was known and respected in every foreign capital around the world."

Mr. Zoellick will now exploit that expertise in his second stint at Goldman Sachs, perpetuating what has become a revolving door of officials shuffling between Washington and Wall Street.

After working in the administration of Mr. Bush's father, President George H.W. Bush in the 1980s, Mr. Zoellick worked as a senior adviser for Goldman Sachs. He also served as a vice-president of mortgage finance company Fannie Mae and as president of the Centre for Strategic and International Affairs, a Washington-based think tank.

Over the years he has worked in the White House, State, Treasury and the trade representative's office.

He follows a well-trodden path of top administration officials to do time at Goldman Sachs, and vice versa. Goldman Sachs vice-chairman Robert Hormats was assistant U.S. Secretary of State from 1981 to 1982. The late Robert Fowler, Treasury Secretary under Lyndon Johnson, also went to Goldman Sachs.

More recently, the investment dealer has sent several top executives to Washington, including former treasury secretary Robert Rubin and Stephen Friedman, former White House economic adviser.

Goldman Sachs has become an enthusiastic investor in large infrastructure investments, including privatized airports and ports -- deals that often require sensitive negotiations with national and local governments.

A Goldman Sachs-led consortium is considered the front-runner in the current bidding war for Associated British Ports Holdings PLC. It lost out in an earlier bid to buy BAA PLC, the world's largest operator of airports.

In the Bush administration, Mr. Zoellick was regarded as an innovative thinker who wasn't afraid to challenge the status quo.

But he is also intensely partisan and wasn't shy about speaking his mind.

His appointment is part of a broader reshaping of the executive ranks at Goldman Sachs, triggered by the departure of Mr. Paulson. Lloyd Blankfein, the new chief executive officer, yesterday named Gary Cohn and Jon Winkelried as co-presidents.

Mr. Cohn, 45, is a former commodities trader who spent the past three years overseeing equities. Mr. Winkelried, 46, is an investment banker who ran fixed-income trading for five years.

In Goldman we trust

The announcement yesterday that U.S. deputy secretary of state Robert Zoellick will quit his No. 2 job at the department next month and join Goldman Sachs Group Inc. should come as no surprise. The firm has long had a revolving door to the corridors of U.S. power

Incoming

Mr. Zoellick, 52, will advise the firm on global issues and chair its 25-member international advisory group.

Biography

Confirmed as deputy secretary of state on Feb. 22, 2005.

Before joining the State Department was U.S. Trade Representative from 2001, where he completed negotiations to bring China and Taiwan into the WTO.

Served during President George H.W. Bush's administration as undersecretary of state for economic and agricultural affairs.

Held posts in the U.S. Treasury Department From 1985 to 1988

Served during the Clinton administration as executive vice-president at Washington-based Fannie Mae, the nation's largest mortgage finance company.

Outgoing

Henry Paulson: Goldman Sachs chief executive officer Henry Paulson, 60, was last month nominated by President George W. Bush to become Treasury Secretary.

Robert Rubin: The former co-chairman of Goldman spent four year as U.S. Treasury Secretary before quitting in 1999.

Stephen Friedman: Another former co-chairman. He was President George W. Bush's chief economic adviser from 2003 to 2004.

Jon Corzine: Another former Goldman leader. He was elected to the U.S. Senate before becoming the governor of New Jersey.



Saturday June 24 2006, Globe, Where patience and persistence trump perfection, Allan Rock, Shawn McCarthy, (Back).

As UN ambassador, Allan Rock learned to work within, not against, the system.

NEW YORK -- Operating in the maddeningly frustrating environment of the UN, Allan Rock has learned over time to celebrate small advances in the battle against geopolitical inertia.

For 2½ years as ambassador to the United Nations, Mr. Rock has not only represented Canada's interests at the world body, but has thrown his considerable energy into personal causes, usually related to violence against women and children in war-ravaged Africa.

Early in his tenure, Mr. Rock would privately echo the concerns of UN critics and mutter about the glacier-like speed of the world body's processes and the naked national interest at play when members blocked efforts to protect civilians in places such as Darfur and northern Uganda.

But as he prepared to end his term at the UN next week, the former Liberal cabinet minister sat down in a one-on-one interview to voice a more nuanced view -- that diplomacy, like politics, is the art of the possible, and perfection can be the enemy of the good.

From the divisive issue of UN reform, to peace in Darfur, to Israel's role at the world body, Mr. Rock argued that by stubbornly standing on principle, countries can stymie the incremental action that is needed to make any progress at all.

Criticized for his impetuous action as a federal cabinet minister, he has learned the art of pragmatism at the UN.

"There cannot ever have been a place where more and better use was made of committees and studies and commissions to slow things down. It's extremely frustrating," Mr. Rock said in an interview.

"But if you choose your spots, if you pick your issues, and focus like a laser on those issues, build coalitions, work with NGOs [non-governmental organizations] and are persistent, you can use the process to make, albeit modest, progress on some of these issues."

His incrementalist approach stands in stark contrast to that of U.S. Ambassador John Bolton, whom other UN representatives view as an ideologue who would rather spark a crisis than compromise a position. In both cases, the ambassadors reflect their countries' approach to multilateralism: Canada as a middle power seeking influence from the margins; the United States as embattled superpower, looking to impose its will.

Next Saturday, Canada Day, Mr. Rock will return home, leaving behind the Park Avenue residence, the Town Car and driver and the diplomatic dinners. After 13 years in public life, he and his wife, Debbie Hanscom, will move to Windsor, Ont., where he will join Sutts, Strosberg, the law firm of his long-time friend, Harvey Strosberg.

But he is not walking away from the UN completely. This fall, at the request of the Secretary-General's special representative for Sri Lanka, he will visit that country to prepare a report on the use of child soldiers.

Mr. Rock arrived at the UN rather reluctantly in January of 2004, after the new prime minister Paul Martin signalled that his former leadership rival would not play a prominent role in a Martin government.

In taking up the assignment, he became one of the few political appointees to serve Canada at the UN -- the last non-diplomat being Stephen Lewis, who was appointed by Brian Mulroney in 1984, after serving as leader of the New Democratic Party in Ontario.

UN watchers say Mr. Rock became an effective advocate within the system, applying his political skills to advance his own causes within Canada's human-security agenda, as well as Ottawa's positions on UN management reform, support for Israel's deeper integration into the UN family and Security Council expansion.

"He proved that a political appointee, with no diplomatic experience, can be quite a refreshing voice and an influential one around the institution," Columbia University professor Ed Luck said.

Mr. Luck credited the Canadian ambassador with succeeding, in the lead-up to last year's leaders summit, in preserving language in their declaration that established the principle that the UN has "responsibility to protect" civilians in countries where their own governments cannot or will not.

Darfur is something of a test case for that principle, and so far, it appears the UN is unwilling, and perhaps unable, to act in the war-ravaged region of Sudan without the agreement of the government in Khartoum.

For critics, Darfur is a glaring example of the UN's impotence and its preoccupation with process over results on the ground.

This spring, Mr. Rock participated in negotiations in Abuja, Nigeria, that led to a fragile peace agreement between the government of Khartoum and the main rebel faction in Darfur. While the agreement was widely criticized, Mr. Rock defended the effort.

And then, in a nod to pragmatism, he noted that without Khartoum's agreement for a peacekeeping force, the UN would have to "fight its way in" to Darfur, and there is little appetite among members for going to war there.



Monday June 26 2006, Globe and Mail, Lewis MacKenzie, Forget a UN army, (Back).

Retired major-general Lewis MacKenzie was the first commander of United Nations peacekeeping forces in Sarajevo.

A collection of well-meaning academics and security experts recently proposed the creation of an international rapid reaction force that could be deployed within 48 hours of a green light from the United Nations. It's a bad idea.

In 1945, at the founding conference for the UN in San Francisco, it was agreed that the military resources of the self-appointed permanent five members of the Security Council - the United States, the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union, China and, shortly thereafter, France - would be available as required by the UN.

The original film produced by the UN to sell the concept of the new world body to the public shows the military commanders of the Perm 5 in an art deco headquarters on a hill discussing an emerging international threat in a faraway country. Within days, a UN force of 200,000 soldiers, 4,000 aircraft, 1,000 ships and one atomic bomb are launched in the direction of the threat, returning a few weeks later having sorted out the bad guys in the interests of mankind.

The military commanders of the Perm 5 were to regularly meet under the title Military Staff Committee. That was 61 years ago, and the committee has yet to have its first meeting at the commander-in-chief level.

That brings us to this month, when academics and security experts raised the idea of a standing professional UN army numbering 15,000 military, police and civilian staff, including logistics and nation-building specialists. Details of the concept are found in the book A United Nations Emergency Peace Service: To Prevent Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity, which was presented at the UN.

The authors opine that such a force would accelerate the UN's glacial response to the myriad of peace and security problems that cry out for intervention, and they cite Rwanda and Darfur as prime examples. They suggest that the UN force could be on its way to a trouble spot within 48 hours and perhaps even be pre-deployed to nip an emerging crisis in the bud before it blossoms.

As attractive as the concept might sound, it will not improve the UN's record of untimely and inadequate crisis intervention.

The popular myth and chronic excuse offered when the UN fails to respond to an obvious security crisis is a lack of resources. In reality, this is merely a convenient way to let the Security Council's Perm 5 off the hook and mask the dominant role played by their own national self-interests.

When the Security Council authorizes interventions, it might not be easy finding the necessary soldiers. But the $150 (U.S.) per soldier per day paid by the UN to the governments of the contributing countries has certainly helped find a good many of the 80,000 troops currently deployed around the world. In the vast majority of cases, the soldiers actually stand by for months waiting to deploy on a particular mission while the Security Council "is seized of the crisis" but can't get an authorizing resolution watered down enough to satisfy all of the Perm 5 members.

In 1945, when the Perm 5 gave themselves a veto whereby any one of them could thwart approval of any resolution dealing with peace and security issues, they didn't stop there. It is a little advertised fact that their vetoes also apply to the procedures that govern the conduct of the Security Council - in other words, the rules dealing with membership, voting and the use of the veto.

To suggest that the existence of a UN army would have helped stop the genocide in Rwanda or could be used to take on the current genocide in Darfur is naive. The stumbling block for both was and is not a lack of resources but rather a lack of commitment beyond national self-interests by some of the Perm 5 members. In the case of Rwanda, there were no self-interests strong enough to authorize intervention; in Darfur, the self-interests of at least two members (related to oil production) mean their vetoes stand in the way of any forceful action. If a UN army did exist, it would still be sitting on its hands far away from Darfur.

I would not be the least bit surprised if the Security Council itself would veto any attempt to create a UN army. If one exists, there would be pressure to use it - and the Perm 5 wouldn't like being backed into a decision-making corner.

If the international community is serious about dealing with security crises as they develop, forget the overworked idea of creating a UN army and concentrate on changing the rules governing the self-appointed 1945 "superpower" club. Adding more members, permanent without the veto and rotating, would just extend debate time. Until the veto is jettisoned and majority rules - as in all other Security Council issues except peace and security and procedure - nothing will change.



Monday June 26 2006, Globe, Sudan accuses world body of aiding rebel leader, Mphammed Ali Saeed, (Back).

KHARTOUM -- The UN's bid to gain backing for its Darfur peacekeeping plan suffered a fresh blow yesterday when the Sudanese government accused the world body of providing cover for a rebel leader who has rejected a recent peace deal.

A demonstration was also organized in Khartoum during which thousands of young people backing the regime chanted slogans against the world body and its plans to deploy peacekeepers backed by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to the war-torn western region.

The ministry said it has suspended all United Nations operations in Darfur until further notice, except those of the World Food Program and the UN Children's Fund.

Foreign Ministry spokesman Jamal Mohammed Ibrahim said UN envoy Jan Pronk has been summoned today to give an explanation of a helicopter ride alleged to have been given to Darfur rebel leader Suleiman Jammus.

The ministry said Mr. Jammus, a member of a dissident faction of the rebel Sudan Liberation Movement, was taken Saturday from the main Darfur town of El-Fasher to the state of South Kordofan.

"It was clear that the act was planned to take place behind the back of the Sudanese authorities," Mr. Ibrahim said in a statement issued late Saturday.

Mr. Ibrahim said the rebel leader had his face covered during the transfer, calling it a clear indication that the UN officials travelling on the same flight were trying to hide the man from government authorities.

The Foreign Ministry said it considered the incident "a flagrant violation of the country's sovereignty and a violation of the agreement under which the UN operates in Sudan."

UN spokeswoman Radhia Achouri could not confirm that the rebel leader had indeed travelled on a UN flight and refused to comment on Khartoum's outraged reaction.

Mr. Jammus belongs to the wing of the SLM that opposes the fragile peace agreement signed between Minni Minawi's faction and Khartoum in Nigeria last month. His holdout faction condemned the UN suspension, saying Khartoum was determined to continue killing the people of Darfur.

Rebel spokesman Jaffer Monro called for the world body to expedite the deployment of UN peacekeepers.

The United Nations wants to replace the cash-strapped 7,000-strong African Union contingent that has attempted in vain to maintain peace in Darfur over the past two years. The plan, supported by the United States, has met fierce opposition from Sudanese President Omar al-Beshir, who has warned against any unilateral deployment.

The world body has stressed that it never intended to send troops without Khartoum's consent, but has warned that improved security in Darfur is vital for the success of the May 5 peace deal.

After completing a mission aimed at getting Khartoum's support for a UN deployment, undersecretary-general for peacekeeping operations Jean-Marie Guehenno reported no breakthrough.



Monday June 26, 2006, Chron, Sudan Lifts Suspension of U.N.'s Work, Edith M. Lederer, Mohamed Osman, (Back).

UNITED NATIONS — The Sudanese government has lifted its partial suspension of United Nations work in conflict-wracked Darfur, the U.N. said Monday.

[photo] Sudan's President Omar El-Bashir delivers a speech before the signing a cease-fire agreement by head of the Islamic Courts Union delegation Mohamed Ali Ibrahim and Somalia's foreign minister Abdallah Sheikh Ismail, both unseen, during a signing ceremony that was attended by Somalia's transitional President Abdullahi Yusuf and Arab League Secretary General Amr Moussa in Khartoum Sudan Thursday, June 22, 2006. Somalia's foreign minister and a representative of the faction that controls the country's capital signed an agreement that calls for an immediate cease-fire and recognizes the interim government.

The government ordered the suspension, except for humanitarian activities, after the United Nations in El Fasher in North Darfur permitted a U.N. helicopter on Saturday to transport a rebel leader from one of the armed groups "bent on wrecking peace," according to a Foreign Ministry statement quoted Sunday by the official news agency SUNA.

The Sudanese government signed an agreement May 5 with one rebel faction of the Sudan Liberation Army but another faction of that group and the Justice and Equality Movement have refused to sign the accord.

U.N. spokesman Stephane Dujarric said the U.N. Mission in Khartoum reported Monday that "all these restrictions that had been called for by the government have now been removed."

"The crux of the matter was related to flight manifests, and the regulation by which the U.N. needs to communicate to the Sudanese authorities the manifest on its flights within Sudan," he said. "I think there were some issues with a particular flight and we're looking into it."

Dujarric refused to say whether a rebel leader had been aboard a U.N. flight. The U.N. Mission in Sudan "said it would look into this issue of the flight manifest," he said.

The flap came as tensions between the U.N. and Khartoum have been building over the deployment of a U.N. peacekeeping force in the troubled western region of Sudan. The U.S. and the U.N. want U.N. peacekeepers to take over from an African Union force. But last week, Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir vowed he would never allow that.

According to a statement by the Sudanese Foreign Ministry on Sunday, Sulieman Jamous, the leader of a Sudan Liberation Army faction who did not sign the May 5 Darfur Peace agreement, purportedly flew from El Fasher to Kordufan on a U.N. helicopter.

The ministry's order affected all U.N. operations in Sudan except activities carried out by the U.N. children's agency, UNICEF, and the World Food Program.

"I don't think it had any specific effect on the (U.N.) operations due to the short time lag between the announcement and the fact that the situation's now been reversed," Dujarric said.

The Darfur conflict began in early 2003 when members of ethnic African tribes rose in revolt against the Arab-led Khartoum government. Sudan's government is accused of responding by unleashing Arab militias known as the janjaweed who have been blamed for the worst atrocities. Khartoum denies any involvement, but has committed to disarm the janjaweed under the peace deal.

Nearly 200,000 people have died since the conflict began, some 2 million have been rendered homeless, and the fighting has spilled across the border into Chad.

On Friday, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said he plans to meet the Sudanese president at upcoming African Union summit to press for a U.N. takeover of peacekeeping from the African organization.

The African Union has said it cannot handle a long-term peacekeeping operation and wants its 7,000-strong force replaced by U.N. peacekeepers. The U.N. has envisioned taking over in early 2007 and wants to beef up the poorly equipped AU force in the interim. But the handover is contingent on approval by the Sudanese government.


(Back)

BBC: Floating atomic plant for Russia

Wednesday, 14 June 2006, BBC, Floating atomic plant for Russia

Russia is to build the world's first floating nuclear plant, designed to provide power for remote areas.

Under a contract signed on Wednesday, the plant will be built at an Arctic site where atomic submarines are made.

Work is expected to start next year on two nuclear reactors and the 144m (475ft) platform for them, despite environmentalists' concerns. Nuclear industry leaders said fears about the safety of the $336m (£183m) facility were unfounded.

Under the agreement between the state-controlled Rosenergoatom consortium and the Sevmash shipyard in the far northern port of Severodvinsk, the power station is due to begin generating in 2010.

It will provide heating and electricity for the Sevmash naval facility.

'Absolutely unsafe'

Rosenergoatom chief Sergei Obozov said the plant was the ideal solution for providing power to remote Arctic sites. He said Russian authorities were looking at 11 other possible sites for such reactors, and that customers from abroad were already interested in the technology.

Environmentalists have been highly critical of the proposals. Charles Digges, editor of the Norwegian-based Bellona website, told the Associated Press that floating nuclear plants were "absolutely unsafe - inherently so".

"There are risks of the unit itself sinking, there are risks in towing the units to where they need to be," he said.

But Sergei Kiriyenko, head of Russia's Federal Atomic Power Agency, dismissed such concerns, saying the country had more experience of building nuclear submarines than any other in the world.

"There will be no floating Chernobyl," he said, according to the Russian Itar-Tass news agency, referring to the the world's worst ever nuclear accident, which took place in 1986 in Ukraine.

Russia currently generates up to 17% of its electricity from 31 reactors at 10 sites, and President Vladimir Putin has said he would like to increase the figure to a quarter.

Spiegel: Danger at Sea - Russia To Build Floating Nuclear Power Plant

June 23, 2006, Spiegel, Danger at Sea - Russia To Build Floating Nuclear Power Plant, Ulrich Jaeger

Russia is constructing a floating nuclear power plant for remote regions that could provide energy for coastal cities. Environmentalists warn of a catastrophe at sea. And nuclear proliferation experts point out that the ship would use weapons-grade uranium to generate electricity.

[photo A computer model of the world's first floating nuclear power station in Severodvinsk.]

The concept is amazing. The new ship could be anchored along any coastline where there is no threat of a tsunami or hurricane. All local engineers have to do is attach a few cables and then the magic arrives: "the reactors are activated -- and there is light." Voilá, the world's mobile, boat-based nuclear reactor for the production of civilian power. That, at least, is how an enthusiastic Evgeny Kuzin, who works for the Russian utility company Malaya Energetika, pitches the ambitious project.

Last week the Russian nuclear energy company Rosenergoatom and the Sevmach military shipyard in Severodvinsk on the Arctic Sea signed a contract to build the world's first floating nuclear power plant. At a cost of €270 million, a 140 meter long by 30 meter wide ship will be fitted with two reactors on its keel. Combined they will produce 70 megawatts of electricity, almost a twentieth of that produced by land-based plants. The Severodvinsk nuclear ship is expected to go online in 2010, but that could be just the beginning. Countries including China, India, Indonesia and states in the Persian Gulf have apparently already expressed interest.

The Russians' plans promise a flexible solution to energy problems: The ship provides space for 55 crew members, a reactor control center and storage for nuclear fuel rods. However, tugboats will be required to bring the floating power plant to its site, as the 20,000 ton boat doesn't have its own engine. Russian experts claim that the ship could supply the energy needs for coastal cities with up to 200,000 residents.

But what may sound like a groundbreaking project triggers nightmares for international nuclear experts. The Norwegian environmental organization Bellona has described the project as an "absolutely sick idea." The Norwegians are backed by the environmental group Green Cross Russia. The organization's spokesman, Vladimir Kuznetsov, former head of the Russian nuclear regulatory agency, believes the floating plants are "a threat to the world's oceans and to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty."

Weapons-grade uranium

The problem is the fact that reactors of the KLT-40C variety are to be used on the ship. Plants of this type are also used to power Russia's nuclear-powered icebreakers. Sure the reactors would be modified for their use as energy suppliers, but that doesn't change their delicate, accident-prone design. The reactors are run using fuel rods, 40 percent of which consist of the easily fissionable Uranium 235. That type of uranium is weapons-grade and could be used to construct dozens of nuclear warheads. Soldiers would be needed to protect the ship from terrorists.

The operational safety is also far from certain. Although reactor accidents on board Russian ships are kept secret, information about several serious incidents on board nuclear-powered icebreakers have reached the West. On at least two occasions, nuclear meltdowns almost occurred on ships after there reactor cooling systems failed.

Because the plant will be cooled using sea water, a reactor incident could lead to the contamination of entire maritime regions. According to the Swedish nuclear expert Oddbjörn Sandervag, the effects of a normal tanker accident would be negligible in contrast.

The concept remains unconvincing economically, too. The price per kilowatt hour would be six cents, according to the project leader. Gas power plants produce energy for 2 cents. And that doesn't take into account the costs for insurance, security or the disposal of the nuclear ship after its estimated 40 years lifespan. Of course, cynics could easily point out that Moscow has a pretty effective system for getting rid of its rotting nuclear fleets: The disposal of the Russian nuclear submarines on the Artic Sea was paid for by neighbor Norway and the United States.

Globe: Day to look into Ian Bush case

Tuesday, June 20, 2006, Globe and Mail, Day to look into Ian Bush case, Gloria Galloway

OTTAWA -- Public Security Minister Stockwell Day says he will ask why it has taken so long to investigate the shooting of a young man in a police station in northern British Columbia -- but not before the investigation has been completed.

It has been nearly eight months since Ian Bush was killed in a scuffle with RCMP Constable Paul Koester while the two were alone in the detachment in Houston, B.C.

"It's a very tragic incident that took place and we want to find out all the reasons for that, and the details," Mr. Day said in response to a reporter's question yesterday.

The investigation "is being done carefully and it's not being rushed and I think it's appropriate that time is being taken. When it's complete we will look at that. And one of the questions I'll ask is, 'Were there ways to expedite it without in fact compromising the detail that's needed in an investigation like this?' "

After seven months, the Bush family has been told nothing by the RCMP about what happened on the night of Oct. 29, 2005, that left the 22-year-old mill worker lying with a bullet in the back of his head.

The RCMP's investigation into the shooting was turned over to the New Westminster police department on May 10. New Westminster Deputy Chief Mike Judd, who is personally working on the case, said three weeks ago that he anticipated it would probably take another couple of weeks before it was finished.

Some have questioned the impartiality of the review because the RCMP is simultaneously looking into the actions of a New Westminster police department officer involved in the death of Kyle Tait, a 16-year-old who was shot while sitting in a stolen SUV.

But Mr. Day is not worried about that situation. "There's a number of oversight mechanisms in place regarding complaints against RCMP or inquests into what takes place in any given situation," he said, "and the fact that they have put this into the New Westminister police so that it's arm's length from the RCMP I believe is appropriate. There are many times where one police body will look into what's being done by another police body."

If the RCMP recommends charges be laid against Constable Koester, the matter would be referred to Crown counsel and it would be several more months before the Bush family finds out what happened that night.

Globe: Margaret Somerville bits & pieces

June 15, Margaret Wente: Another day in the life of a burka-bashing white oppressor, (Source).
June 17, Margaret Wente: Campus diversity -- yeah, and I'm Queen of the May, (Source).
June 17, How Ryerson failed Margaret Somerville, (Source).
June 20, Ryerson faculty turn backs on 'homophobic' degree, (Source).
June 21, Margaret Somerville, Letter to the Editor, (Source).

January 6 2005, Margaret Wente says ... Oh Danny Boy, pipe down, (Source Blocked).
January 7 2005, We're mad as hell by Danny Williams.
January 9 2005, Our beef with Canada by John Crosbie.
January 11 2005, Transcript of commentary by Rex Murphy broadcast on Canada Now.
January 10 2005, Maple Leaf flies again over Newfoundland by Allison Dunfield.

June 24, 2006, Rex Murphy, Conduct most unbecoming of Ryerson, (Source).
June 24, 2006, John Frazer, The toxic tower, Three For Thought: What You Need To Read About ... Academic Intolerance, (Source).


Thursday June 15 2006, Globe and Mail, Another day in the life of a burka-bashing white oppressor, Margaret Wente, (Back).

My week started well enough. I stopped by the local newsstand and had a long chat with the Muslim guy who runs the place. I asked him what he thought of the alleged terrorist plot in Southern Ontario. At first, he said he was worried about a backlash. Then he said that, in his opinion, most Canadians are reasonable people and won't blame all Muslims for the actions of a few. He told me that complete strangers often offer assistance to his hijab-wearing wife when she goes grocery shopping with the baby. Then he told me how angry he is at the young men who were arrested. "The people they hurt most is the Muslim community!" Then we shook hands. "I normally don't shake hands with women," he said, "but we are friends."

It went downhill from there. By noon, I had been exposed as a racist hatemonger. Maybe you heard it on the news.

That morning, I had been invited to speak at a symposium at the University of Toronto. The subject was the impact that the arrests of 17 people on terrorism charges might have on multiculturalism in Canada. The other speakers included three academics and two moderate Muslims.

Campus events such as this are iffy propositions, especially when the subject is the Middle East, U.S. politics or Islam. The audience invariably includes people whose sole purpose in life seems to be to grab the mike and launch into denunciations of Western imperialism. Every time this happens, I vow to skip the next one. But then time passes, and I forget.

I got up and said I didn't think the alleged plot had much to do with multiculturalism at all. Muslim extremism in Canada can't be explained by something we did wrong (although we should do some things to minimize it). It's part of a global phenomenon from which we're not immune. I said our immigrant experience has been overwhelmingly positive (unlike Europe's), and that was unlikely to change. I said I thought the values of most Muslim and non-Muslim Canadians are aligned, and pointed out that there'd been virtually no backlash. Having said that (I said), it would be a good idea for us to robustly assert that some values are better than others. I added that it isn't racist to believe that burkas don't belong in Canada.

The other speakers agreed that Islamic extremism -- not multiculturalism -- is the real issue. The most aggressive was the Muslim Canadian Congress's Tarek Fatah, who warned that too many imams are dripping Wahhabist poison into young men's ears.

Then came question time. One man attacked the panel for not uttering a word about Caledonia, where First Nations people have joined the global struggle against white oppression. (Big applause.) A gorgeous young student insisted there really is a backlash. Her evidence was that she felt people were looking at her because she was a Muslim. (Big applause.) She was outraged by my remarks about the burka, which, she insisted, women freely choose to wear. She herself was dressed in a sleeveless tank top with spaghetti straps and, in dress and skin tone, resembled a third of the young women in Toronto.

But the best was yet to come, in the person of Rinaldo Walcott, who holds a Canada Research Chair in Social Justice and Cultural Studies. With his tight T-shirt and long black dreds, he made for an impressive sight. He denounced the entire proceedings as a racist exercise in colonialist discourse that objectified the "other" (or something like that), and he denounced me in particular as a monger of hate speech. Then he stalked dramatically from the room. (Big applause.) So much for free and open debate on campus.

After the session, several people came up to talk to me. "That's what it's like these days," said a woman who identified herself as a U of T professor. "You can't dissent. It's not tolerated." There was a note of desperation in her voice.

Not for the first time, I thanked the Mother Goddess that I'd passed on a career in academe, where the children of the middle class now flock to pursue degrees in social justice and cultural studies. There, they spend their parents' hard-earned money to learn that Western civilization is the root of all evil, and that the real oppressors of burka-clad women are people like me. Later on, I left a message for Prof. Walcott asking whether we could discuss what he had said. But he never called back.



Saturday, June 17, 2006, Campus diversity -- yeah, and I'm Queen of the May, Margaret Wente, Globe and Mail, (Back).

Our universities are supposed to be bastions of free thinking and reasoned debate. But, these days, nothing could be further from the truth. Sometimes, it seems they'll celebrate every kind of diversity except diversity of opinion. That kind of diversity must be stamped out. And dissent from the prevailing ideology will be interpreted as hate speech.

So it is in the Margaret Somerville affair, which is turning into the biggest stink on campus since Henry Kissinger last came to town. Alas, Dr. Somerville is not "the evil mastermind of American imperialism" who napalmed helpless Third World children. She is a simple ethicist who tackles the medical-moral issues of the day and tries to figure out intelligent ways to think about them. In our headlong race toward the brave new world of stem-cell research, stealth eugenics, active euthanasia, and assisted reproductive technologies that allow a 63-year-old woman to give birth to a non-genetically related child, she's that still, small voice who says, "Hey, can't we slow down and talk about this stuff?"

Dr. Somerville's job is to provoke thought. Presumably, that's why Toronto's Ryerson University decided to give her an honorary degree. Ryerson used to be just a college but eager to let everyone know it's playing in the big leagues. Perhaps that explains why many of its students and faculty are determined to be as dogmatic and obnoxious as the ones at the University of Toronto. They've tried to block the degree. They say Dr. Somerville is guilty of homophobia and hate speech. And they're going to show up at Monday's ceremony to protest. Monday is the kickoff of Pride Week, so there could be quite a turnout.

"I have no objection to people saying it's a bad idea to give me a degree," says Dr. Somerville, who's on the faculty at McGill University in Montreal. "But I do say it's wrong when people say you can't say what you honestly and genuinely and respectfully think."

Dr. Somerville is opposed to gay marriage. She arrived at this position because she thinks that having same-sex parents isn't all that great for kids. She thinks kids do best with two parents, one of each gender, to whom they're biologically related. All other arrangements in her view are second-best.

"If you put your adult spotlight on this, and only adults were involved, then of course same-sex marriage is fine," she explains. "But kids need and want a mom and dad, and they want their own biological parents."

Does this position make her homophobic? Evidently so. Ryerson has come under heavy pressure to revoke her honorary degree. Toronto City Councillor Kyle Rae says that, if it goes ahead, it must clearly dissociate itself from her loathsome views. Others have said her views are tantamount to hate speech. "If this was any other kind of hate, I would expect that the university would be very, very quick to rescind this degree," said Mandy Ridley of the university's RyePride.

"I'm pro-gay rights," says Dr. Somerville. "I did a lot of work to uphold them. I think it's unfortunate that the debate's been structured so that there are only two positions -- either you're for same-sex marriage or you're homophobic."

For what it's worth, gay-rights issues are not the focus of Dr. Somerville's work. Instead, she focuses on ethical minefields such as the impact of genetic testing (should we really abort fetuses with club feet?). Another of her concerns is the ethics of assisted reproductive technologies. Access to fertility has now been enshrined as a fundamental human right for anyone -- gay, straight, single, partnered or decades past menopause -- who wants to be a parent. But should it be? What about the rights of the reproducees?

Well, that's a minefield, too. The first generation of donor-conceived kids are now donor-conceived adults, and a lot of them aren't that happy. In fact, they think society has done them a terrible wrong. "These people are starting to call themselves genetic orphans," she says. "They say, 'I get up every morning and look in the mirror, and half of me is missing.' " Same-sex marriage, she argues, institutionalizes the idea that there's nothing wrong with creating genetic orphans. "It affirms that children have no rights to their biological or natural identity."

Personally, I'd never thought about that issue before. I don't think it's going to change my mind about same-sex marriage (I'm for it). But the importance of biological ties to parenthood is certainly worth exploring. It's about time we were reminded that parents' rights aren't the only rights there are.

Sadly, nuance doesn't count in the culture wars. You're either with us or against us, and there's no tolerance for anything in between. It's inconceivable to certain people that some of us could both march in the Pride Day parade and approve of Margaret Somerville. But I guess that thought is too complex for academics.

Ryerson should have told the protesters to get a grip. Instead, it wavered and waffled and utterly embarrassed itself. Eventually, it decided to go ahead -- but only after the people in charge of honorary degrees said they never would have picked her if they'd been aware of her shocking views. (Since her views are no secret -- she has shared them with a parliamentary committee -- I'd say they could use a refresher course in basic research.)

And instead of apologizing to Dr. Somerville, the president apologized to everyone who felt offended. "Ryerson is an open and tolerant community that celebrates diversity," he explained.

Yeah. And I'm the Queen of the May. Not for nothing have modern universities been called islands of repression in a sea of freedom. If you're really interested in diversity, you'll have to look somewhere else.



Saturday, June 17, 2006, Globe and Mail, How Ryerson failed Margaret Somerville, (Back).

If there were a medal for the year's limpest defence of free speech, Ryerson University would take it in a walk.

The Toronto institution is under fire for giving an honorary degree to Montreal ethicist Margaret Somerville. Opponents say Prof. Somerville is unworthy because she opposes same-sex marriage, a position held by roughly half the population of Canada. Student politicians and gay activists have called her homophobic and accused her of spreading hate. A university that truly respected free expression would have issued a ringing retort, defending Prof. Somerville and its decision to honour her. Instead, a Ryerson committee came forth with a press release saying, in effect, that it was stuck with giving the professor her degree.

On the one hand, Ryerson defends free expression. "If we withdraw the award, then we demonstrate that as a university we show tolerance for some contestable views but not others," said the awards and ceremonial committee of the university's academic council. "Consequently, to rescind the award would raise basic issues of freedom of speech in an academic environment." Not exactly Edmund Burke, but so far so good.

On the other hand, the committee goes on to say that "many of us disagree strongly with some of her opinions" and that they had been "unaware" of her views when they decided to give her the degree. If they had known those views, it would have given them "serious pause before approving the award."

Imagine the position this puts Prof. Somerville in. If she appears at the university's convocation ceremony on Monday, she will be accepting an honour from an institution that has said publicly it is not really sure it should be giving it to her in the first place. "Why would you let a university confer an honour on you that thinks you're a bad person?" Prof. Somerville said earlier this week, agonizing about whether even to attend the ceremony after Ryerson's mewling statement.

Prof. Somerville is not a bad person. Far from it. A professor of medicine and law at McGill, and founding director of that university's Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law, she is a leading thinker on ethical issues who has published thoughtful articles, essays, books and newspaper commentaries on issues ranging from euthanasia to reproductive technologies to whether it's wrong to kill baby seals. This year she is to deliver the prestigious Massey Lectures at the University of Toronto.

Her views on the sanctity of life are strict. She opposes assisted suicide, embryonic stem-cell research and late-term abortion. But there is no trace of hate or bigotry in her carefully argued writings. She opposes same-sex marriage (but not same-sex civil unions) because she thinks it erodes the role marriage plays in child-rearing. "I believe children have the right to a mother and father, and preferably their biological parents," she says. That may strike liberal-minded people as off-base -- many same-sex couples make excellent parents -- but it hardly makes her a raging homophobe.

The reality is that many Canadians have qualms about same-sex marriage. This newspaper happens to strongly support it, but it is an earth-shaking change, and people should be allowed to question its implications without being dismissed as bigots. That is what Prof. Somerville's critics are trying to do to her by protesting against her honorary degree: to silence her by making her out as a hatemonger. Their campaign is the essence of political correctness, the campus movement that makes targets out of those who dare to express "incorrect" views.

Receiving a previous honorary degree from the University of Waterloo in 2004, Prof. Somerville warned graduates that the plague of political correctness on university campuses "can make people fearful to speak out as they should for what they believe." Now she herself has become the victim of that plague. Shame on Ryerson for failing to defend her.



Tuesday June 20, 2006, Globe and Mail, Ryerson faculty turn backs on 'homophobic' degree, Scott Roberts

Professors, activists protest ethicist's opinions on same-sex marriage

TORONTO -- As Margaret Somerville stood to accept an honorary doctorate in science at Ryerson University yesterday, several faculty members on stage behind her turned their backs in protest.

Donning rainbow flags and necklaces, the professors lifted a banner that read "My Ryerson honours equal rights," a silent but strong message against the controversial ethicist for her opposition to same-sex marriage.

It was also condemnation of the downtown Toronto university for honouring her, one protester said.

"We were turning our backs on honouring homophobia," said image arts professor Lila Pine, one of two instructors holding the banner. "Nobody's opposed to her right to express her own views; we're opposed to honouring those views because they're really against the core values of Ryerson, which embraces human rights."

When Dr. Somerville took the stage, a lone voice yelled the only vocal condemnation heard at the convocation ceremony, "You should be ashamed of yourself."

A steady applause began in the packed auditorium as Dr. Somerville was hooded, although it wasn't clear if it was meant for her or the demonstrators standing quietly in the middle of the stage.

In an interview shortly after the ceremony, Dr. Somerville said it was a difficult experience. She said it was sad to see her opinions cause anguish but she remained unbowed.

"It's been a roller-coaster ride, a lot of anxiety on the part of Ryerson and for myself," the McGill University professor of medicine and law said. "I really don't like hurting people and I'm sad it's come to that. But I believe I must stand behind my views."

The timing of yesterday's bestowal added to the controversy: It was the first day of Pride Week festivities, striking a sensitive chord in an institution bordering the city's gay village. About 100 activists for gay rights lined Gerrard Street as the procession of graduates entered the university's theatre. Decked out in rainbow apparel and some carrying placards, protesters delivered their message calmly and orderly.

Dr. Somerville rejected critics' labelling of her as homophobic. She said she fully supports gays' rights to civil union but opposes same-sex marriage. It erodes the role marriage plays in child-rearing and can increase the risk of children never knowing their biological parents, she said.

The ethicist's appearance in Toronto put to rest speculation she might not attend the ceremony amid the controversy and the university administration's wavering on whether to bestow the honour.

"I seriously considered not coming," she said. "I didn't want them conferring a degree on me while holding their noses up."

Ryerson president Sheldon Levy praised Dr. Somerville and defended the university's handling of the situation and its policy on awarding doctorates.

"This degree was never ever meant to make anyone feel badly or hurt," said Mr. Levy. "What I do believe is that Professor Somerville has got the credentials and the credibility that validated her honorary degree."

The honorary degree is the fifth for Dr. Somerville, renowned internationally for her work on research ethics in science and medicine, and for having published numerous articles, essays and books on issues ranging from euthanasia to stem cell research.

Mr. Levy said the committee that awards honorary degrees will be evaluating its procedures but that he doesn't expect its policy to change.

Some students felt the faculty's protest was over the top and took away from the real reason for the convocation.

"I had no problem with her getting the degree," said Michael Cleste, a 22-year-old graduate of architectural science.

"When the teachers hoisted the banner and turned their backs it was a bit disrespectful. We're here to graduate, not to protest."



Dr. Somerville's reception, Margaret Somerville, McGill Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law (in her own words), Letter to the Editor, June 21 2006, (Back).

Montreal -- Re Ryerson Faculty Turn Backs On 'Homophobic Degree' (June 20): Your reporter writes, "A steady applause began in the packed auditorium as Dr. Somerville was hooded, although it wasn't clear if it was meant for her or the demonstrators standing quietly in the middle of the stage."

My experience of it was as an overwhelming, standing ovation from the vast majority of the audience. I'm not sure how long it lasted, but I would guess at least two minutes. If the members of the audience wanted to express disapproval of me, surely one would expect them to join the faculty demonstrators on stage by booing me.

Ryerson president Sheldon Levy took it as support for me, saying: "This is the one possible response that never entered my mind," and told me to turn and look at the faculty behind me. A very substantial number had joined in the standing ovation, so it seems they also interpreted the audience's reaction as the president and I did. I finally signalled to the audience to stop applauding and sit, which they did.

Would they have done that if they were protesting against me?

Likewise, their response to the lone voice that then shouted, "Shame on you!" was a loud "Shhhh!" that swept across the audience.


Thursday January 6 2005, Globe and Mail, Margaret Wente says ... Oh Danny Boy, pipe down, (Back).

In Newfoundland and Labrador, Danny Williams can do no wrong. These days, he's more popular than God. Following his lead, the people of the Rock have banished the Maple Leaf from their dominion. Angry citizens are flooding open-line shows and threatening that, unless they get what's owed to them by Canada, Newfoundland should go it alone.

My grandpa had a saying for moments like this. He would have said, "Here's your hat, what's your hurry?"

I like Newfoundlanders. I really do. But their sense of victimhood is unmatched. And their flag protest isn't winning them much sympathy on this side of the Gulf of St. Lawrence. In fact, the sensation on this side is of a deep and painful bite to the hand that feeds. Mr. Williams reminds me of a deadbeat brother-in-law who's hit you up for money a few times too often. He's been sleeping on your couch for years, and now he's got the nerve to complain that it's too lumpy.

The ins and outs of the current squabble between Newfoundland and Ottawa would baffle any normal human being. Technically, the fight is over the esoteric details of equalization payments and offshore revenues. But according to Mr. Williams, it's really about treachery, deceit and betrayal.

Peter Fenwick has a different view. Mr. Fenwick, a long-time Newfoundland political commentator, says it's about having your cake and eating it, too. "He's going to end up with a cake and a half," he says. "And he's got 95 per cent of the province behind him."

Over the years, those of us not blessed to be born on the Rock have sent countless cakes its way in the form of equalization payments, pogey, and various hare-brained make-work schemes. (Who can ever forget the hydroponic cucumber farm?) In return, the surly islanders have blamed us for everything from the disappearance of the cod stocks to the destruction of the family unit, because if people had to work more than 10 weeks before they could collect EI, they might have to move away.

This hallowed policy of siphoning money from the haves to the have-nots, so that everyone can be equal, has turned Canada into a permanently aggrieved nation, in which every region of the country is convinced that it's being brutally ripped off by every other region. No one is better at this blame game than the Newfs, egged on by generations of politicians. The only way to get elected there is to pledge to stop the terrible atrocities of Ottawa (i.e., not sending enough money). If you should make the error of suggesting that people might have to become more self-sufficient, your political career is dead. Politicians like to get elected, which is why things never change.

Newfoundland's population has dwindled to something less than that of Scarborough, Ont. Because of stupendous political malfeasance, it is at least $11-billion in debt. But it still has seven federal seats. And so we send more money so that people can stay in the scenic villages where they were born, even though the fish are gone and there's no more work and never will be, unless they can steal some telemarketing from Bangalore. Rural Newfoundland (along with our great land north of 60) is probably the most vast and scenic welfare ghetto in the world.

But who can blame people for wanting to stay put? Not me. No one will ever gobble down a plate of cod tongues and pen an ode to Scarborough. Scarborough is not romantic. It is filled with ugly high-rise towers of immigrants scrambling to gain a foothold in a new land far from home. The difference is that, when they do it, we congratulate them and call it enterprise. No one will ever buy a scenic picture postcard of a strip mall. But Scarborough supports itself, and Newfoundland does not, and I wish Danny Williams would explain why it's a good idea to keep picking the pockets of Chinese dry cleaners and Korean variety-store owners who work 90 hours a week in order to keep subsidizing the people who live in Carbonear, no matter how quaint and picturesque they are.

I like Newfoundlanders, I really do. Where would we be without Rex Murphy and Mary Walsh and Rick Mercer? On the other hand, they left.

As for you other people of the Rock, maybe we can strike a deal. You can keep all the oil and gas revenues. And you can pay us back all the money we've sent you since you joined Confederation. Fair enough?

I thought not.



Friday January 7 2005, Globe and Mail, We're mad as hell by Danny Williams, (Back).

It is with a heavy heart that I write in response to yesterday's commentary by Margaret Wente, "Oh Danny Boy, pipe down." As Premier of the great and proud province of Newfoundland and Labrador, I found Ms. Wente's column to be more than insulting. I found it very, very sad.

If people around the country wonder why we removed the Canadian flag to protest against the treatment of our province by the federal government, I suggest they look no further than Ms. Wente's column. Her comments perfectly demonstrate why Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have to take such firm action to get the attention of the people of this country. Her paternalistic and condescending attitude serves only to further ignite the passion of our people at home and abroad.

While Ms. Wente goes on at length to speak of federal moneys flowing to our "vast and scenic welfare ghetto," she fails to mention the resources -- human, cultural and, no less important, vast natural resources -- that our province brought with us to this federation, such as our fishery, our forests, our farms, our clean hydroelectric resources, our iron ore, nickel, copper, cobalt, gold and other minerals, and our oil and gas.

Yes, Newfoundland and Labrador has benefited as a partner in Confederation, as has each and every other province and territory. That is what Confederation is about, after all. But make no mistake: This country has reaped untold billions from our natural and human resources as well. Ms. Wente may be tired of hearing us complain about how the federal government mismanaged our fishery; being sick of hearing about it, however, does not make the reality go away. Canada permitted foreign overfishing off our coast to continue, to our detriment, in order to secure trade agreements that benefited other regions of our country. Great for the rest of Canada, but certainly not great for the tens of thousands of fisheries-dependent Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who left our province -- their homes -- to live and financially contribute to the economies of other provinces.

As you read through Ms. Wente's column, it also becomes very clear that she is completely uninformed on our province's position. She says, "If you should make the error of suggesting that people might have to become more self-sufficient, your political career is dead." I only wish that Ms. Wente had been paying greater attention to what I have been saying for the past six months. Our government's primary goal in pushing the federal government to implement Prime Minister Paul Martin's commitment of June 5 (100 per cent of our provincial offshore revenues) is to provide our province with the necessary tools to finally become self-sufficient: a strong, contributing partner to the federation.

That is what this is all about, Ms. Wente. It is about the province of Newfoundland and Labrador finally achieving our true potential -- the potential that comes from having some of the most precious, bountiful natural resources in the world. We are not asking for the federal government's share of these resources -- a share that accounts for more than 50 per cent of total government revenues. We are asking only for our provincial share. We are asking only for a chance. A chance we deserve.

Ms. Wente wants us to stop complaining. Maybe we will stop complaining about being a victim when those who share her opinions recognize and address the historic pattern of abuse and mistreatment we have suffered. We are a proud people. Proud of our "quaint and picturesque" communities. Proud of our resilience in difficult times. Proud of our giving and kind-spirited disposition that comes so naturally. And we are proud to support other provinces and territories that benefit from the largesse of the federal government. But we are not too proud to demand from the same federal government that they fulfill the clear and unequivocal commitment of the Prime Minister.

When Ms. Wente faults Canada's "hallowed policy of siphoning money from the haves to the have-nots, so that everyone can be equal," she forgets Section 36 of the Constitution, which obligates Canada to promote equal opportunity for all Canadians in all regions. Throughout Canada and the world, the Maple Leaf symbolizes fairness, justice, compassion and co-operation in the quest for equality of opportunity for all people. Our province removed the Maple Leaf, not to reject those values, but to draw attention to the fact that the Martin government's broken commitment to Newfoundland and Labrador frustrates those values. While it is true that we have only seven seats in the House of Commons and barely more than half a million residents, we are an equal partner in Confederation, and we have a small window of opportunity to turn our bountiful petroleum resources into long-term opportunities for our people and our province to stand on our feet. We do not deserve to be accused of wanting the fine people of Scarborough, Ont., to subsidize us, or being compared to "deadbeats."

We are equal partners of a great country that accepts and supports our province's aspirations to achieve equality of opportunity and self-reliance. You should be ashamed of your comments.

Danny Williams is Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador.



Sunday January 9 2005, Globe and Mail, Our beef with Canada by John Crosbie, (Back).

Today, I will try to explain what causes the intensity of the feeling in Newfoundland and Labrador over its offshore oil and gas resource dispute with the government of Canada.

Last June 5, Prime Minister Paul Martin, in a phone conversation with Premier Danny Williams that was confirmed later on Signal Hill before the press, committed to make sure that the province was "the primary beneficiary of its resources." Martin stated: "I have made it very clear that the proposal that (Williams) has put forth is a proposal that we accept."

The failure of Martin since June 5 to carry out his electoral commitment to Newfoundland and Labrador comprises the third major betrayal of the province's vital interests by Canada, with respect to the major assets Newfoundland brought to Confederation when it joined on April 1, 1949.

In addition to our strategic geographical position essential to the defence of Canada, we Newfoundlanders brought with us a claim to most of the Atlantic Continental Shelf, comprising millions of square miles later recognized by the UN as part of the Canadian 200-mile economic zone.

If Newfoundland had not joined Canada, Newfoundland would have controlled the fish resources and the oil and gas and mineral resources in that huge area, as well as the iron ore and hydro power resources of Labrador.

The 56 years since 1949 have seen the vital interests of Newfoundland and Labrador ignored by Canada, with the resources either poorly administered and depleted -- as in the case of the cod and other fish species -- or with the province's economic and revenue needs ignored, as in the development of the offshore and hydro power resources.

Shamefully ignored

The promise that it should be the primary beneficiary of the offshore resources -- in accordance with the Atlantic Accord on offshore oil and gas resource management and revenue sharing -- has been ignored shamefully by Canada while Newfoundland continues as a "have not" province, its fiscal capacity per capita still only 68.5% of the national average.

This is why most people in the province back Williams' position in the Atlantic Accord negotiations with Martin -- and why they are so upset that they also support his decision to remove the flag of Canada from provincial buildings.

This all results from Canada's three major betrayals, the details of which should be known to all Canadians:

• Hydro: The hydro-electric development of the Upper Churchill River in Labrador was initiated in 1953 when Brinco entered an agreement with the government of Newfoundland. Because of geography, Quebec either had to be the customer for the huge quantity of power developed or had to permit the energy developed to be transmitted across Quebec to other purchasers. The result was torturous negotiations with Quebec that continued for 14 years.

Canada refused to use its constitutional power to declare this a work "for the general advantage of Canada or two or more of the provinces" which would have prevented Quebec's objections. Instead, Canada believed it to be in the national interest not to aggravate the threat of Quebec separatism. This federal decision was largely responsible for the onerous 65-year contract forced upon Newfoundland and Brinco by Quebec that severely limited prices.

During the years since 1974, Quebec has received economic rent from the Upper Churchill Project of $800 million per year while Newfoundland, as the owner of the resource, receives $20 million per year. The development of the Lower Churchill did not proceed and despite seven major negotiations between the two provinces in the 30 years since, two major sites remain undeveloped, with the water running to the sea and Newfoundland and Labrador losing hundreds of millions of dollars of economic rent. How would the people of Ontario or other provinces feel if Quebec was aided by Canada to impose such a deal on them?

• Fish: The northern cod were fished off Newfoundland by Europeans from 1481 onwards. In the 100 years from 1850 to 1950, an average catch of 250,000 tonnes of northern cod was taken each year with no diminution in the fish stocks or any threat to the survival of the species. However, in 1992, Canada, within whose jurisdiction the fishery is constitutionally placed, had to announce the cessation of the cod fishery off the east coast of Canada and the fishing for other species cut because the stocks had been so vastly reduced, thanks to modern fishing technology and overfishing. The northern cod stock is still in danger, with other stocks overfished and in a parlous state as well, although Canada instituted generous programs of assistance to the 30,000 fishermen and fish plant workers affected.

Fierce battles

• Oil and Gas: The discovery well at Hibernia was drilled in 1979, but it was 20 years before oil was produced and revenues began to flow in 1999. The first deep well had been drilled off Newfoundland in 1966. Fierce battles raged over these resources and how the revenues should be divided until 1985, when the Atlantic Accord was entered into by the administration of then-PM Brian Mulroney (in which I was a cabinet minister).
In 1974, the Supreme Court of Canada decided that Canada owned the oil and gas resources offshore, just as it had owned the oil and gas resources in what were known as the Dominion lands that came into Canada in 1867, and which became the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba as well as Northern Ontario and Quebec. The sub-soil resources were owned by Canada clearly, but in 1912 the sub-soil rights to minerals in Northern Quebec and Northern Ontario were granted to those provinces by Canada. In 1930, the sub-soil rights to oil and gas and other minerals were confirmed to Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba by Canada -- without any compensation to the then maritime provinces.

In fairness, Canada should grant to Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and the other maritime provinces full right, title and property in offshore oil or natural gas. But Canada has refused to treat offshore resources as they treated onshore resources.

The long disputes over the offshore resources were settled by the Mulroney administration with the Atlantic Accord, which states "the right of Newfoundland to be the principal beneficiary of the oil and gas resources off its shores."

But because of the way Canada's equalization program works, there is a clawback so that Newfoundland loses up to 70% of its equalization grants, deducted from provincial oil and gas revenues received through the Atlantic Accord. The result is Newfoundland receives only 14% of the total government revenues from the offshore resources, while Ottawa receives 86%.

Last chance

It is Paul Martin who, since 1999, has led Canada's opposition to Newfoundland and Nova Scotia being the principal beneficiaries of offshore revenues. This is their last chance to become "have" provinces.

Last June 5, when Martin made his commitments to Williams, naturally Williams thought the issue settled, with Newfoundland and Labrador to receive 100% net of provincial revenues from offshore oil, without clawback of any kind.

You can well imagine how the weaseling of Martin and his ministerial minions, Ralph Goodale and John Efford, have aroused the distrust and revulsion of the people of the province, who see the commitments made to them after years of bitter disappointment snatched away once again by a totally untrustworthy and dishonourable government of Canada.

Newfoundlanders need their fellow Canadians to understand what has happened, how they have been betrayed.

Hundreds of millions lost on the Churchill River hydro developments, up to $1 billion that could be lost over 16 years on provincial revenues from offshore oil, and many hundreds of millions since 1992 lost by our fishermen and plant workers and rural Newfoundlanders: Surely enough is enough.



Tuesday January 11 2005, Transcript of commentary by Rex Murphy broadcast on Canada Now, (Back).

The tradition of slagging off Newfoundlanders has been around for a long time. There has always been a select few that are ready to poke a stick in our collective eye. In that sense, the column of Margaret Wente last week is but one more installment in a long, sad list of jibes and condescension from the distant centre.

The take is always the same. We're a nice folk, as long as there's no bother. Nice, but short on IQ, a set of peasant North Atlantic half-wits, fawned over for our folkways in normal times. But, when an issue gets serious, why, then we were essentially - to this point of view - God’s simpletons.

It's the Newfie joke viewpoint - the unfunny harnessed to the unoriginal.

The animal rights crowd slammed us without mercy since the ‘60s, preferring the white blubber on the ice to the poor people on the shore, tyring to to earn an honest dollar in one of the most perilous occupations in the history of the world.

Others, more various and tiresome, have followed.

Now, we're not hypersensitive, not a bunch that wilts under the first negative portrayal of who we are, or what we want. But the notion that has occurred since Miss Wente, who charms Newfoundlanders with much the same delicacy that Carolyn Parish charms the Americans, since she did her little jig last week, that we are the very last bunch in North America that can be attacked with crudeness and insult - with impunity.

Someone should point out the miles of difference between "being able to take a joke" and being treated as one.

We also know a few other things: that if Quebec was losing a billion dollars a year
to us, for decades, over one of ITS resources, then the great cabinets in Ottawa and
prime ministers galore would, long ago, have fixed the deal.

Thirty thousand Newfoundlanders lost their living in a single day in 1992. Well if 600,000 Ontarians (that's the proportionate number) had on a single day seen their defining industry shut down the Parliament of this country would have been sitting every day for years to see what could be done to remedy the crisis.

There ARE two standards in this Confederation, and no amount of glib smirk will make this point go away. The provinces which have the numbers and the teeth don't get treated this way. The laws of gravity bend when Alberta, Quebec and or Ontario are upset.
I don't think that the attitude behind Margaret Wente's column is widespread, but I do think the complacency with which such a gratuitously condescending set of not very original one-liners and wisecracks are accepted in so many parts of Canada, means that Newfoundland does have a problem.

"It's only the Newfs, after all" is the idea - break out the jokes.

We have some slackarses in Newfoundland, but we didn't originate the breed. There are slackarses all over this great and vast Dominion.

But it passes irony, and goes somewhere into the territory of the surreal, that when an effort is being made, to, finally, put the province on some sort of economic self-sufficiency, the enlightened chorus from some parts of the mainland, amounts to something very close to, ‘Why don't you just shut up and take what you're given?’

We deserve better - and so incidentally does the Confederation of which we're a part.

I’m Rex Murphy.



Monday January 10 2005, Globe and Mail, Maple Leaf flies again over Newfoundland by Allison Dunfield, (Back).

Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Danny Williams restored the Canadian flag to all provincial government buildings Monday, a little over two weeks after he ordered them removed as a sign of his province's anger with Ottawa over the offshore-resources dispute.

The Premier sent out a statement Monday in which he appeared to attempt to cool off the war of words between himself and Prime Minister Paul Martin.

Mr. Williams made no apologies, however, for his original decision to take down the Maple Leaf flags from buildings in protest.

"The decision to remove the flag was made after thoughtful consideration, as a clear statement to the federal government that their treatment of Newfoundland and Labrador was simply no longer acceptable," Mr. Williams said in a statement.

He said he is still unhappy with the federal government's response to his province's request for a larger share in offshore revenues.

"The issue of offshore revenues is the singular most important issue in this province, and we have gone through six months of discussions with the federal government with one result. They are not living up to their commitment."

Later Monday, Mr. Martin said that while he was willing to speak to the Premier about the issue again, he was opposed to the use of the Canadian flag during negotiations.

"I don't believe that the Canadian flag should ever have been part of any differences of opinion or debate or discussions between the Government of Canada and the province of Newfoundland and Labrador," Mr. Martin said.

Mr. Williams said in his statement Monday that he reversed his decision because he ultimately agreed that he has concerns about using the Canadian flag as a negotiating tool.

On Monday at 1 p.m., at the Newfoundland and Labrador legislature, two Maple Leaf flags were hoisted flanking the Union Jack and the provincial flag.

Mr. Williams ordered the flags removed on Dec. 23 after failed talks in Winnipeg to amend the formula under which funds from the richest provinces — mainly Alberta and Ontario — are redistributed to the other regions of the country. Newfoundland and Nova Scotia want to exempt all of their oil revenues from the equation, but they have failed to reach a deal with the federal government on the matter.

Mr. Martin countered during the week leading up to Christmas that the federal government made a proposal that respects Newfoundland's wish to have access to all of its offshore oil and gas revenue. Under the current formula, federal transfers decrease by about 70 per cent of the province's oil revenue, a situation that Mr. Martin had promised to reverse in the last federal election campaign.

Mr. Williams insisted that Ottawa was being unfair and demanded that the flags be taken down, causing an uproar among the Canadian public and in newspaper editorials across the country.

A number of Newfoundland and Labrador municipalities supported the cause and also removed their flags.

"History has proven that the only way to get the attention of the federal government in Newfoundland and Labrador is to get the attention of Canadians. This is exactly what we achieved when we removed the flags," Mr. Williams noted in Monday's statement. "Not everyone may have agreed with our decision, but we were able to focus the attention of the country on our issue."

Mr. Martin said Monday that he has made a new offer last summer in terms of Newfoundland's offshore resources and has remained "faithful to that commitment." He said he continues to be willing to speak to Mr. Williams on the matter but ultimately, discussions on offshore resources must take place between Mr. Williams and federal Finance Minister Ralph Goodale.

Mr. Williams said he is hopeful he will be granted another meeting with Mr. Martin — soon.

"I've written the Prime Minister and I have yet to hear back from him," the Premier said. "It appears that the Prime Minister is not in any rush to write back to address our province's issues, and, to me, this is a very clear signal that Prime Minister Martin indeed does not intend to fulfill his commitment to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador."

He said that his province had made its point but that now it is time to show Canada that Newfoundlanders are proud Canadians.

"We will still, however, continue to fight the federal government for what is rightfully ours, and we will continue to push Prime Minister Martin to fulfill his promise to this province," Mr. Williams said.



Saturday, June 24, 2006, Globe and Mail, Rex Murphy, Conduct most unbecoming of Ryerson, (Back).

In the pristine understanding of an honorary degree, its awarding is intended to signal the excellence of the recipient, as manifest in his or her work. The work is being singled out for the quality of intelligence and industry that supported it, and for the benefits to the community and the world at large.

An equal part of this understanding, but one not as generally recognized, is that the "honour" of an honorary degree flows both ways. The university honours the individual, but it, in turn, is honoured by his or her acceptance of the distinction. What university would not want the honour of honouring Einstein?

Certainly, when after his mighty labours on the Dictionary of the English Language, Samuel Johnson was summoned to Oxford University to receive an honorary Doctor of Civil Laws, the gratification on both sides was mighty and mutual. Oxford is still basking in the glow of honouring the father of English lexicography, the not so "harmless drudge" whose life and writings remain a glory of English literature.

Times have changed. The honorary degree these days may serve more banal purposes than disinterested homage to great minds or great work.

Honorary degrees are often honey traps for plutocrats, a way for universities to soften the hearts and unlock the bank accounts of the very rich. Corporate titans are favourite targets for university selection committees. Pass "Daddy Warbucks" a Doctor of Laws (honoris causa) and tap him up a year later for a donation.

And celebrities get honorary degrees by the dozen. It glamorizes convocation and generates "buzz," which lately, in the competition for student enrolment, is seen as a plus. Though, when one realizes that Kermit the Frog has received an honorary degree, and given the commencement address on the occasion of its award, one may be entitled to ask whether certain convocations are in any meaningful sense to be distinguished from The Gong Show.

The honorary degree most Canadians are aware of this week is the one that Ryerson University, in a clumsy and graceless manner, awarded the distinguished ethicist Margaret Somerville. Ryerson, facing some agitation from gay activists for Ms. Somerville's position on same-sex marriage, opined prior to the awarding of the degree that "had it known" of those views, perhaps the offer to honour her would not have been made.

Evidently, from Ryerson's perspective, and that of the activists, the "progressive" position on same-sex marriage is an infallible one, and "dissent" from it heresy or -- ring the tocsin-- homophobia.

Which is, at best, tosh.

Fortunately honorary degrees, especially to practising academics, are not given to salute a perfect harmony between one individual's opinion on one topic and that of the university concerned. The awarding of an honorary degree, whatever else it is, is not meant to be a bonding experience for ostentatious and self-styled progressives.

Mainly, it is a signal from the university, an institution dedicated to thought, to the idea of human reason, and all efforts to develop that power to its highest and most disinterested exercise, that it has selected a person who exemplifies that pursuit and that priority in a truly noteworthy fashion. The disciples of true reason are not abundant in a hectoring age, and it is good that universities invite them to be honoured. Good for all of us.

In Ms. Somerville's case, the record surely speaks for itself. She is a professor in both the faculty of law and medicine at McGill University, a lustre in itself. She is the founding director of the McGill Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law. She graduated from the University of Adelaide with First Class Honours and the University Medal. She has consulted to the Global Program on AIDS of the World Health Organization. She has been consulted more widely and by more distinguished and worthy groups and causes than I have space to write.

In other words, her excellence is acknowledged far and wide. She thinks about the most delicate and intricate issues of our time. She has a trained mind, the industry to exercise it scrupulously, and the courage to apply it to matters that require all the discipline, power and intelligence that reason has to offer.

That is why any serious university would choose her as a candidate for an honorary degree, because she is an exemplification of disciplined reason engaged in great and sometimes tormenting questions.

It was truly unfortunate that a bit of activist politics, and Ryerson's stammering response before the actual convocation on Monday, shaded the honour she deserved and the honour Ryerson itself received from her acceptance of it.



Saturday June 24 2006, Three For Thought: What You Need To Read About ... Academic Intolerance, John Frazer, Globe and Mail, (Back).

The toxic tower

In the aftermath of a flap over the awarding of an honorary degree to a prominent scholar, John Frazer says, political correctness remains a scourge of campus life today

'She should have told them to stuff it," my colleague said, his tenure security wrapped securely around his learned shoulders. He was talking about Margaret Somerville, the distinguished McGill University ethicist who this past week saw her "honorary" degree celebration at Ryerson University in Toronto turned into something of a conclave by the elders of Salem during witch-hunting season.

You have to hand it to Ryerson. When it bestows honours, it is a comprehensive exercise: DSc (Doctor of Science), BH (Branded Homophobe) and POM (Pariah of the Month). The process was not entirely negative, though: Bloodied as she was, Somerville was able to return to Montreal wiser than when she arrived.

Personally, I hope she keeps her courage up, because in a few months I will have the great honour of introducing this remarkable and challenging academic as the 2006 Massey lecturer, when the whole country will have a real chance, in a civil forum, to listen directly to her and debate her views. I so admire the direction she has provided contemporary Canadian society on abortion and terminal illness, and so disagree with her on the subject of same-sex marriage, that I am longing both to learn from her as well as to question her about her wrong-headed views on gay marriage (versus gay civil unions, of which she approves).

In preparation for that fine day, there are useful books out there that feed directly into an understanding of the ivory tower of academe. When Petrified Campus: The Crisis in Canada's Universities (Random House) was first published in 1997, the screed by David Bercuson, Robert Bothwell and Jack Granatstein was received with both enthusiasm and more than a smattering of turned-down thumbs. Well, it was bound to have its enemies, since it was ferociously attacking what many believe is the principal scourge of campus life today -- political correctness.

Their critique of the forces of intellectual intolerance in Canadian universities (a critique, of course, not restricted to Canada) remains devastating. An emblematic observation points out that whenever there is a battle royal on campus over race, creed or gender, and there is no hard evidence of discrimination, the word "systemic" is sure to be wheeled into the fray. Once "systemic" is deployed, all counterarguments are automatically trumped. The more you argue against the point, the more you are thought to expose your pre-conscious intolerance. As an argument in a post-faith age, it is unbeatable and chilling.

Yet political correctness has honourable enough roots within our universities. Big battles have had to be fought. There are many people still living today, for example, who remember when Jews in Canada were subject to discreet quotas in medical and law faculties. As for women's rights, as recently as three years ago, illustrious teachers and researchers such as Ursula Franklin and Phyllis Grosskurth of the University of Toronto were still having to prove, during a vicious pension struggle, that they deserved equal treatment with their male colleagues.

So academics have had to fight for justice within the campus and that struggle has often preceded reform in society at large. On the other hand, the struggle on campus can become endlessly more toxic than on the outside and the reasons for that are both complex and alarmingly obvious. Perhaps the single most devastating account of campus life gone seriously amok is The First Stone: Some Questions About Sex and Power (Pan Macmillan Australia, 1995), Helen Garner's scorching account of what happened to an Australian academic administrator at the University of Melbourne accused of sexual harassment by two women students.

Garner is a noted Australian novelist, journalist and front-line, pioneer feminist who reported how the master of an illustrious college, found innocent of all charges of impropriety or harassment -- in other words an innocent man -- was hounded out of his high office as well as academic life by misplaced persecution and an appalling conspiracy of silence in which fellow academics felt too terrified to join in the fray for fear of the accusations that might come their way.

The First Stone caused a major controversy in Australia when it came out, and was a particular focus of enmity among younger feminists, who were accused by Garner of misusing the positions of strength and power delivered to them by vanguard feminists.

It remains a hugely gripping tale and anyone interested in the kind of hysteria that can be whipped up on the campus -- like that which greeted Margaret Somerville -- will profit from reading it. The role of the media in reporting the case also added to the general misery of everyone involved and probably did as much to undermine the victim at the centre of the tale, and secure his unhappy fate, as anything his accusers managed.

At its worst, campus controversies can be so totally debilitating and vicious not, as Henry Kissinger is supposed famously to have said, because "the stakes are so small," but because they leach out of the university and into everyday life. This is the dark side to all the extraordinary gifts and breakthroughs the academy has always bestowed on our ever-aspiring society. Yet even the dark side has its uses, and sometimes you just have to shake your head and laugh at the abounding absurdities. For this, you cannot find a more brilliant satirical work than Tom Sharpe's comic novel, Porterhouse Blue (Secker, 1974).

Through Sharpe's merciless gaze, political correctness becomes a vehicle for scholarly promotion and an excuse for scoundrel academics to cite "reform" for unconscionable acts of intellectual impiety and dishonesty. His depictions of lazy senior scholars and vapid, stupid administrators are as wicked and hilarious as any that exist in the English language, although no funnier than the statement of the Ryerson awards committee that if its members had known about Prof. Somerville's views "as presented to Parliament and reported in the media," they would never have recommended the honorary degree.

It is getting increasingly difficult to write good satire these days.

John Fraser is master of Massey College in the University of Toronto.


(Back)