Tag Archives: Canada

Has the university become intolerant and close-minded?

This article by prestigious McGill University ethicist Margaret Somerville is worth reading. (H/T Commenter ECM) She is one of the leading defenders of traditional marriage in Canada. She is a moderate social conservative. Here is a brief summary of her case against same-sex marriage. Her short article in the journal Academic Matters is about the intolerance of the leftist university elites against their opponents.

Here is the abstract:

In this edited excerpt from her Research and Society Lecture to the 2008 Congress of the Humanities and Social Sciences, ethicist Margaret Somerville argues that universities are becoming forums of intolerance. Keeping the university as an intellectually open and respectful place is critical, she says, to finding the “shared ethics” essential to maintaining healthy, pluralistic democracies.

And here is an excerpt in which she discusses the impact of moral relativism on moral disagreements:

That is where political correctness enters the picture. It excludes politically incorrect values from the “all values are equal” stable. The intense moral relativists will tolerate all values except those they deem to be politically incorrect—which just happen to be the ones that conflict with their values.

Political correctness operates by shutting down non-politically correct people’s freedom of speech. Anyone who challenges the politically correct stance is, thereby, automatically labeled as intolerant, a bigot, or hatemonger. The substance of their arguments against a politically correct stance is not addressed; rather people labeled as politically incorrect are, themselves, attacked as being intolerant and hateful simply for making those arguments. This derogatorily -label-the-person-and-dismiss-them-on-the-basis-of-that-label approach is intentionally used as a strategy to suppress strong arguments against any politically correct stance and, also, to avoid dealing with the substance of these arguments.

It is important to understand the strategy employed: speaking against same-sex marriage, for example, is not characterized as speech; rather, it is characterized as a discriminatory act against homosexuals and, therefore, a breach of human rights or even a hate crime. Consequently, it is argued that protections of freedom of speech do not apply.

She illustrates with some examples:

We need to look at what “pure” moral relativism and intense tolerance, as modified by political correctness, mean in practice. So let ‘s look at the suppression of pro-life groups and pro-life speech on Canadian university campuses. Whatever one’s views on abortion, we should all be worried about such developments. Pro-choice students are trying to stop pro-life students from participating in the collective conversation on abortion that should take place. In fact, they don’t want any conversation, alleging that to question whether we should have any law on abortion is, in itself, unacceptable.

In some instances some people are going even further: they want to force physicians to act against their conscience under threat of being in breach of human rights or subject to professional disciplinary procedures for refusing to do so. The Ontario Human Rights Commission recently advised the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario to this effect.

Political correctness is being used to try to impose certain views and even actions that breach rights to freedom of conscience; to shut down free speech; and to contravene academic freedom. I do not need to emphasize the dangers of this in universities. The most fundamental precept on which a university is founded is openness to ideas and knowledge from all sources.

She spends the rest of the paper arguing for a system of “shared ethics” that grounds open, respectful debate between disagreeing parties. I hope this catches on before secular-left moves from censorship to outright violence, against those who would dare to disagree with them.

A short bio of Margaret Somerville

Margaret Somerville is Samuel Gale Professor in the Faculty of Law and a professor in the Faculty of Medicine at McGill University and is the founding director of the McGill Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law. In 2004, she received the UNESCO Avicenna Prize for Ethics in Science and in 2006 delivered the prestigious Massey Lectures.

Videos showing the folly of government-run health care

Get your butt over to Hot Air right now, and read this post on health care policy by my blog-friend Laura, who blogs at Pursuing Holiness. Laura writes about the myth of the millions of uninsured who cannot afford coverage. She outlines the many ways in which free care is available to everyone, including illegal immigrants, and those who cannot pay the full price. This is a MUST READ post.

Excerpt from Laura’s post:

…basic care and life-saving care is available to every human being who manages to set foot in this country, regardless of their ability to pay.

…Thanks to EMTALA, emergency rooms are required to help you.

…Thanks to hundreds of thousands of charity hospitals and community health centers – via both charities and government – you can get free or sliding-scale payment care.

I wanted to supplement her post with some of my own videos.

Two Women:

The Lemon:

And one more video from On The Fence Films called “Dead Meat“.

Dead Meat is a 25 minute short film which shows the reality of health care under Canada’s socialized medical system: Canadians wait … and wait … and wait. … And sometimes they die while waiting for free government health care.

Previous posts from me:

4Simpsons explains why tariffs turn recessions into depressions

I was browsing around on 4Simpsons, my favorite Christian Living blog, and I found this gem of a video on Neil’s latest round-up of links. I love this blog, because you get solid economics, solid social conservatism and solid apologetics.

Here’s the video:

It features Amity Shlaes, whose voice I find irresistible! And Jagdish Bhagwati, too.

If you are a Christian and you voted for Democrats, please listen to this lecture by Jay Richards on the “Myths Christians Believe about Wealth and Poverty“. When Jay mentions the “Trading Game” and networking theory, I had to study that in grad school e-commerce: “Metcalfe’s Law” and “network externalities”.

If you want to read the book by Henry Hazlitt that he mentions, it’s all posted online here. But I recommend Robert P. Murphy‘s “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism” as the best economics book for beginners. Better than Tom Sowell‘s “Basic Economics”? For beginners, yes! Get both, they’re all you need to understand basic economics.

Now, remember how leftist Democrats were always complaining about how much the world hated us because of Bush? Yeah, they didn’t really hate us then, (because they all voted in conservatives themselves!), but they really hate Obama’s trade policies now!

Take a look at what Canadians think of Obama‘s Buy American anti free trade policy: (H/T My best friend, Andrew who has a perfect marriage)

The dire predictions about Buy American are coming true. From pipes and water pumps to steel beams and office furniture, a wide range of Canadian manufacturers are suddenly finding themselves shut out of traditional markets south of the border, according to industry and government officials.

…Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters (CME) has compiled a list of seven pieces of legislation now before Congress that contain overtly protectionist language. They include bills to fund local sewer and water projects, expand broadband access, build smart electrical grids, replace Air Force One, purchase 100,000 hybrid vehicles, and build and renovate government buildings.

…Canadian steel makers and fabricators are feeling the impact of Buy American restrictions, which were inserted into the stimulus bill to appease U.S. steel makers and workers. Companies are losing orders, threatening $1-billion-a-year worth of exports, according to Ed Whalen, president of the Canadian Institute of Steel Construction.

Who loses from Americans paying too much for materials and products? Canadian companies and consumers are hurt from lost revenue, so they lay people off and buy less of our stuff. US companies pay more for materials, so they lay people off. US Consumers, who must pay more for products they could have got cheaper. And taxpayers, whose money is wasted by paying too much for government projects.

And who gains from protectionism? Why Obama’s union supporters and donors, that’s who. It’s basically a legal way of rewarding the people who put you in office ,and buying the next election with money confiscated from the productive private sector, i.e. – your boss.

A comprehensive article about Obama’s plans for energy policy, which will really destroy the economy and cost us piles of jobs, is here.