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)