Conrad Black.....will soon be home.

[ToadBrother]

I think, arguably, in a case such as this the title was conferred by the Queen acting in her role as the Queen of the United Kingdom, not the Queen of Canada. There are, after all, no noble titles for the Queen of Canada to award.

There are still a few inherited titles around, but it's more to the point that inconsistently, the Federal government has made claims based on a resolution of dubious authority. It's more a statement of policy, but Chretien (like a number of Prime Ministers, most frequently McKenzie King) made it sound like Black's acceptance of a British peerage was unlawful, and it wasn't. His peerage would, of course, be meaningless in Canada, nobody said otherwise, but there were no constitutional or legal grounds requiring Black to abandon or repudiate is Canadian citizenship. I despise the man, but that was one time when I wish he would have used the money (while he had it) to take the Feds to court. I'd love to see some pseudo-legal bullcrap like the Nickle's Resolution turfed, not necessarily because I want Canadian titles per se (though New Zealand has resurrected knighthoods, a more impressive title than the "Order of Canada", which sounds like something you'd get in a box of breakfast cereal), but because if you want to make a sort of life-or-death thing out of a citizen accepting a foreign title, then bloody well do it in a lawful fashion. What Chretien did, and what other PM's before him have done who have acted like this resolution meant a damned thing to anyone, was an abuse of his powers. He had no power to advise the Sovereign on what She does outside the borders of Canada, and he had no constitutional authority to force a citizen to relinquish citizenship because of that.

Edited July 23, 2010 by ToadBrother

[Guest American Woman]

Because Conrad Black willingly gave up his citizenship when he accepted a British title. Khadr did not. Khadr is still a Canadian citizen, Conrad Black is not.

I'm not just talking about Omar, I'm talking about his whole family. They apparently can go to Afghanistan and train with al Qaeda and engage in conflicts over there, get injured, and go back to Canada for treatment. While other members of their family talk about how awful Canada, and its values, are.

So are you saying it's ok to do that, but if one says "I renounce my Canadian citizenship," it is not ok? Because seriously, if that's the case, Canada has a problem.

I'm not saying it's fair.

Ok. So you're just explaining the way it is. I respect that, and thank you for your explanation.

The whole issue of his accepting a foreign title was a load of crap, based on the Nickle's Resolution, which has always been of dubious constitutional status, since it was never passed as an act, never sent to the Senate and never given Royal Assent, and since one might argue that it alters Royal Prerogative, it most certainly wasn't something that a mere motion in the House would find sufficient to give it any force of law. The whole thing was a chest-thumping exercise between Black and Chretien. There's nothing in Canadian law or in our Constitution which forbids the accepting of titles of nobility, particularly those conferred by our Sovereign.

So once again, given your explanation of the legalities, I question how his citizenship can be in question.

Mind you, I'm not defending Black, but I truly don't understand how the Khadars' citizenship can still be intact/defended, while Black's citizenship is not.

[ToadBrother]

I'm not just talking about Omar, I'm talking about his whole family. They apparently can go to Afghanistan and train with al Qaeda and engage in conflicts over there, get injured, and go back to Canada for treatment. While other members of their family talk about how awful Canada, and its values, are.

So are you saying it's ok to do that, but if one says "I renounce my Canadian citizenship," it is not ok? Because seriously, if that's the case, Canada has a problem.

I'm not sure of your objection here. An American citizen who went and fought for al Qaeda wouldn't lose his citizenship either. Citizenship, once conferred, is very difficult to strip someone of.

Ok. So you're just explaining the way it is. I respect that, and thank you for your explanation.

So once again, given your explanation of the legalities, I question how his citizenship can be in question.

Mind you, I'm not defending Black, but I truly don't understand how the Khadars' citizenship can still be intact/defended, while Black's citizenship is not.

American citizenship laws are little different on this count. Black was put in a ludicrous position by a vengeful PM using a legally invalid argument. You seem to be trying to suggest that the two situations are at all similar, and they're not.

If Omar Khadr had been an American citizen, born in the United States, he couldn't be stripped of his citizenship. I understand Joe Lieberman has been trying to get a bill passed that would, in such cases, strip citizenship.

Edited July 23, 2010 by ToadBrother

[Guest American Woman]

Most of those who criticize Black do so simply because he was a very rich man. They see him as some kind of simplistic "bourgoisie" target. Not surprising. So did the army of American DA's who convicted him!

I really know nothing of his case, but I have to conclude that the reason some people don't defend his citizenship, while the Khadr's citizenship is defended, is because he's rich.

It obviously had nothing to do with how he ran his company. How do we know this? The people appointed by the court to manage the company in his absence ran it into the ground! The stockholders lost millions! Little old ladies lost their pension money!

The lobby out to get Black could not possibly have been acting for "the good of society", assuming that meant that those investing in Black's businesses had been wronged by criminal actions. If they were, they would not have destroyed those businesses!

It's like the old Viet Nam war quote from some general or other "We had to destroy the village in order to save it!"

No, it's just envy and anti-capitalism cliches, all over again.

Again, I admit that I know nothing of his case, but I just find it puzzling how a Canada-born Canadian would have to grovel to retain the right to move back to Canada in light of others who have been granted the rights of citizenship in spite of their behavior/actions.

Black created an empire that employed a LOT of people so they could feed their kids! A lot of folks got a good return on their investment. He is hated by so many because he is a man of standards. Witness his spat with Chretien. Black was never a supporter of the Chretien Liberals. So when Britain offered Black a peerage Chretien couldn't resist digging up some old law at the last minute that said a Canadian could not accept. The fact that Canadians had accepted such peerages before in our history was ignored by the Chretien Liberals. It was really just a very, very petty gesture.

So Black threw it back in Chretien's face and dropped his Canadian citizenship! I don't blame him. In his place I might have done the same. Black had directly benefited far more people with a good income than Chretien ever had in his life of politics.

Meanwhile, we are now witnessing the hypocrisy of those who would champion a citizen of convenience like Khadr, a terrorist thug from a family of terrorist thugs, to be allowed to return to Canada yet who would deny the same opportunity to Black.

It is just totally, ridiculously absurd! It is like preferring Charles Manson over Martin Luther King. The comparison is so mindboggling it simply shouldn't be allowed.

I have to say, you've piqued my curiosity. I'm going to have to read up on it and find out more about this case.

[fellowtraveller]

So once again, given your explanation of the legalities, I question how his citizenship can be in question.

Because he voluntariy renounced it. He was obliged by Chretien to choose between keeping Brit citizenship and accepting a peerage, and quitting as a Canadian. He quit.

I like Black for the simple reason that he eleicts such a visceral reaction from lefties. Entertaining at all times.

[fellowtraveller]

Mr. Black wants to come home to Canada...and if some analysis are right, there will soon be nothing to keep him from doing so. I'm not sure there should be.

there are two obstacles: he is n ot a citizen and has zero right to automatic residency in Canada, and as a foreigner he has the major problem of a serious and recent felony conviction in the USA. Oh, make that three: he is hated by at least 50% of Canadians and a higher percentage of the media.

[Smallc]

There are obstacles....but I suspect he'll somehow make it back eventually.

[ToadBrother]

There are obstacles....but I suspect he'll somehow make it back eventually.

Maybe, maybe not. I think it's irrelevant. He'll never have the empire he once had, and even if he manages to successfully appeal the other charges, he's still got lawsuits coming, and that will keep him busy for some time to come.

[Wild Bill]

there are two obstacles: he is n ot a citizen and has zero right to automatic residency in Canada, and as a foreigner he has the major problem of a serious and recent felony conviction in the USA. Oh, make that three: he is hated by at least 50% of Canadians and a higher percentage of the media.

Oh, I dunno. Polls consistently have shown that MORE than 50% of Canadians have no use at all for Khadr and couldn't care less if he rotted forever in Gitmo yet still a minority on the left feel that their view should prevail and that evil bag of Islamist fundamentalist skin should receive all the benefits of Canadian citizenship.

[Remiel]

Oh, I dunno. Polls consistently have shown that MORE than 50% of Canadians have no use at all for Khadr and couldn't care less if he rotted forever in Gitmo yet still a minority on the left feel that their view should prevail and that evil bag of Islamist fundamentalist skin should receive all the benefits of Canadian citizenship.

What benefits would those be? A fair trial, followed by the possibility of more rotting away? How exactly is that a high burden on us?

[Wild Bill]

What benefits would those be? A fair trial, followed by the possibility of more rotting away? How exactly is that a high burden on us?

I guess it depends on how you define "fair trial". We constantly see examples of judges making rulings and casting sentences that are contrary to the values of many Canadians.

If Khadr were to have a Canadian trial many folks believe that it would just be a rubber stamp. Khadr would be declared innocent, because of being too young to understand the consequences of throwing hand grenades at people and of having had a tough father. He would have some free counseling courtesy of the Canadian taxpayer and would be back out on the street.

This would happen despite any evidence to the contrary or any contradiction to the values of Canadians, even if it represented a clear majority. If someone were to do a poll, it would be dismissed because "Canadians just aren't capable of clear thinking on such a complicated subject!"

In order to believe that he would get a fair trial you first have to have confidence in the judicial system in such cases of high moral profile. Our system seems to work reasonably well if the case is to settle a property or contract dispute. Where it so often falls down is when it is asked to arbitrate a question of morality.

[Smallc]

I guess it depends on how you define "fair trial". We constantly see examples of judges making rulings and casting sentences that are contrary to the values of many Canadians.

That does not in any way mean that it wasn't a fair trial. That also doesn't in any way mean that it wasn't a fair sentence. You cannot somehow pretend that a system that doesn't follow your own morality is immoral. The arrogance that you display in posts such as this astounds me.

Edited July 24, 2010 by Smallc

[Wild Bill]

That does not in any way mean that it wasn't a fair trial. That also doesn't in any way mean that it wasn't a fair sentence. You cannot somehow pretend that a system that doesn't follow your own morality is immoral. The arrogance that you display in posts such as this astounds me.

Your lack of logic continually astounds ME! I never said that the system doesn't follow MY morality! I said it often doesn't represent the morality of the majority of its citizens!

Do you even realize that the logical outcome of your statement is that the system should NOT represent the morality of the common view? That somehow judges are superior to most of us? That they have an inside scoop on what is moral and the views of the citizens of Canada are irrelevant?

Now who's arrogant! Talk about elitism! You either believe in democracy or you're just another elitist. There are no other categories.

Go on! Tell me how what you said doesn't actually mean what you said! This should be great fun!

[Smallc]

Your lack of logic continually astounds ME! I never said that the system doesn't follow MY morality! I said it often doesn't represent the morality of the majority of its citizens!

Have you asked them? And does that even matter? Does that make it unfair?

Do you even realize that the logical outcome of your statement is that the system should NOT represent the morality of the common view? That somehow judges are superior to most of us? That they have an inside scoop on what is moral and the views of the citizens of Canada are irrelevant?

They are not irrelevant. They shouldn't though, be the only consideration. There are many factors that come into play. There is a reason that the judiciary is supposed to be independent and there is a reason why we don't elect judges. The mob mentality that the people develop in many cases isn't often fair, just, moral, or logical.

Now who's arrogant! Talk about elitism! You either believe in democracy or you're just another elitist. There are no other categories.

There are many other categories. I don't believe in unlimited democracy.

Now then, lets look at the definition of fair:

fair1    [fair] Show IPA adjective, -er, -est, adverb, -er, -est, noun, verb

–adjective

1.free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice: a fair decision; a fair judge.

2.legitimately sought, pursued, done, given, etc.; proper under the rules: a fair fight.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fair

Seems like given that, Canadian trials are fair....even if they aren't moral to some (though I'd like you to provide proof that most don't find them moral....and that most of those that don't find them moral in fact understand what they're saying).

Edited July 24, 2010 by Smallc

[Smallc]

Oh, and (I realize this is 6 years old), it seems that Canadians trust their justice system more than those in most other western countries...and that more people trust the system than don't overall:

http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/res/cor/sum/cprs2004011_1-eng.aspx

[Wild Bill]

Oh, and (I realize this is 6 years old), it seems that Canadians trust their justice system more than those in most other western countries...and that more people trust the system than don't overall:

http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/res/cor/sum/cprs2004011_1-eng.aspx

http://www.accessmylibrary.com/article-1G1-55450626/public-perceptions-courts-examination.html

"Despite the decline in both property and violent crime in Canada over the last five years (Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics 1996), policy makers and the general public continue to express heightened concern about crime. One of the main concerns for policy makers is maintaining public support for the criminal justice system. This may become more difficult as the public continues to express dissatisfaction with various aspects of the criminal justice system. For instance recent research reveals that Canadians believe that court sentences are too lenient (Sprott and Doob 1997) and that racial minorities believe that racial discrimination is a serious problem within the criminal justice system (Wortley 1996). Research in both Canada and the United States indicates that the public has become increasingly critical of the criminal justice system (Flanagan, McGarrell, and Brown 1985; Doob and Roberts 1988). Researchers also point out that public support for more punitive sentences and support for the death penalty has increased over time (Warr 1995; Flanagan et al. 1985; Doob and Roberts 1988). "

http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection-R/Statcan/85-002-XIE/0120085-002-XIE.pdf

"Canadians’ views of the courts are not as favourable as their

views of the police. In particular, in 1999, less than one-quarter

of the population felt the criminal courts were doing a good

job of determining whether or not the accused is guilty (21%),

helping the victim (15%), and providing justice quickly (13%,

see Table 1). Canadians were most likely to rate the courts

positively at ensuring a fair trial for the accused (41%). When

compared to assessments of police performance, more people

felt that the courts were doing a poor job. Between 11% and

17% of Canadians did not have an opinion concerning the

performance of the criminal courts (see Table 1)."

http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/res/cor/rep/2004-05-pub-conf-eng.aspx

"Considerable variation emerges when the public is asked to rate the performance of criminal justice agencies with respect to specific functions. For example, performance ratings for the courts are relatively high with respect to ensuring a fair trial for accused persons, but quite low for providing expeditious justice. The police receive higher performance ratings for being approachable than for responding to calls promptly. Finally, correctional authorities are seen to be doing a better job at controlling prisoners than supervising offenders in the community."

http://www.bouckslawblog.com/bouckslawblog/2009/03/canadas-criminal-justice-system-productivity.html

"2. Public dissatisfaction

Christie Blatchford wrote an article in the 26th March 2009 edition of the Globe and Mail commenting on the “egregiously glacial pace of Canadian (criminal) justice.” She went on to remark that it is a subject “which no one much wants to discuss, let alone fix.”

There are many examples of unpardonable delay. One B.C. example is the Basi and Kirk case. It began around 28 December 2003. No trial date has been set. Possibly, it may begin in late 2009; six years after the arrests: see posting this site, 12 December 2008.

Another is the murder of Rena Virk on 14 November 1997, allegedly committed by Kelly Ellard. On 5 September 2008, the B.C. Court of Appeal ordered a fourth trial. Depending on the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, the trial will likely begin around the end of 2009; twelve years after the arrest: see posting dated 21 January 2009.

Then, there is the recently concluded case in Ontario commercial fraud case involving Garth Drabinsky and Myron Gottlieb. It was a judge alone trial. Reportedly, it took seven years to get to trial."

There are pages and pages of similar sites from just one vague google! It would appear that I am not alone in my beliefs. There appear to be HUGE numbers of dissatisfied Canadians!

BTW, I would take the logical consequence of your argument about how judges must be independent is that there is NO check or balance on their judgements! In effect, we have to assume that all of our judges are perfect in their interpretation of what's just and moral. Where is the REALWORLD check or balance on an imperfect judge? We already know. There isn't one! The deal for Karla Homolka proved that some years ago.

[Smallc]

There are pages and pages of similar sites from just one vague google! It would appear that I am not alone in my beliefs. There appear to be HUGE numbers of dissatisfied Canadians!

And I don't really care. People really don't understand the system and think they know more than they do. If people are dissatisfied, they can change the laws. Sometimes that happens. Usually, it doesn't. The system that interprets them should be left alone. The fact that people see crime as an increasing problem while it is in fact declining says a great deal.

BTW, I would take the logical consequence of your argument about how judges must be independent is that there is NO check or balance on their judgements! In effect, we have to assume that all of our judges are perfect in their interpretation of what's just and moral. Where is the REALWORLD check or balance on an imperfect judge? We already know. There isn't one! The deal for Karla Homolka proved that some years ago.

There is a check on judges. Higher courts and the bodies that oversee judges. I don't really care to have you (or anyone else unfamiliar with the workings of justice and law) deciding whether or not a sentence was just.

[g_bambino]

Conrad Black put having a fancy title ahead of his very identity as a Canadian. He gave up on Canada, not for real exceptionalism, but for a facade. This country is not his Home. He made sure of that.

Since when was citizenship a Canadian's "very identity"? It's a legal classification, little more, and what value could it have to Black when it was being used against him by a prime minister with a personal vendetta?

Besides, doesn't Black still have a diplomatic passport as a member of the Queen's Privy Council?

[Alta4ever]

Then he can stand in line like anyone else.

So in other words he can seek across the boarder then claim refugee status, then we might see some of the NDP liberals agree it might be time to reform our refugee system.

[fellowtraveller]

Oh, I dunno. Polls consistently have shown that MORE than 50% of Canadians have no use at all for Khadr and couldn't care less if he rotted forever in Gitmo yet still a minority on the left feel that their view should prevail and that evil bag of Islamist fundamentalist skin should receive all the benefits of Canadian citizenship.

???

I'm talking about Black being hated by the left, not Khadr.

[bloodyminded]

There are pages and pages of similar sites from just one vague google! It would appear that I am not alone in my beliefs. There appear to be HUGE numbers of dissatisfied Canadians!

I suspect you're right, but smallc makes a good point: most Canadians, certainly including those whose opinions you've offered via polls, don't clearly know what they're talking about.

This was even conceded, albeit a bit vaguely, in something you have shown us:

"Considerable variation emerges when the public is asked to rate the performance of criminal justice agencies with respect to specific functions. For example, performance ratings for the courts are relatively high with respect to ensuring a fair trial for accused persons, but quite low for providing expeditious justice.

You see? These are contradictory. A few sneaky defense tactics aside, in most cases, the lack of a speedy trial is against the accused's rights. So the polled Canadians simply don't understand what they're talking about here.

As for the rest: granted, you're offering opinions (yours and parts of the Canadian public's), so that's fair enough; but that doesn't mean the opinons are automatically correct. For example, the notion that the justice system is "too lenient" is not in any way an objective truth, but merely an opinion. Countries with harsher penalties do not clearly seem to be superior at lowering the crime rate (ultimately the primary and most important goal, far more important than punitive aspects); in fact, though matters are not perfectly obvious, there are some indications that the opposite is true; that harsher penalties incur greater crime rates. At the very least, it's worth looking into, if we're at all serious about issues of crime.

And yes, the number of supporters of the death penalty have apparently risen in recent years. But that's because people are scared, and to some degree have misperceived crime rates. Not a good reason to institute the Biggest of Big Government. (There is no bigger government than one that can execute its citizens...I should think anti-big government conservatives would appreciate this basic truism.)

Edited July 25, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Smallc]

And just to be clear, there are also other polls that show support for the death penalty continues to fall (I don't have time to look right now, because I'm leaving...but there was a rather recent poll), especially given the stories about wrongful convictions from the past that have recently come up.

[Wild Bill]

And I don't really care. People really don't understand the system and think they know more than they do. If people are dissatisfied, they can change the laws. Sometimes that happens. Usually, it doesn't. The system that interprets them should be left alone. The fact that people see crime as an increasing problem while it is in fact declining says a great deal.

There is a check on judges. Higher courts and the bodies that oversee judges. I don't really care to have you (or anyone else unfamiliar with the workings of justice and law) deciding whether or not a sentence was just.

Your "check on judges" doesn't seem to function very well in the real world. When's the last time you saw a judge over-ruled for being too lenient and ruling against the morality of the common people? A check that is never used is merely a facade.

As for your first paragraph, it is obvious that we can never agree. You could not have more firmly declared yourself an anti-populist and an elitist. You are certainly entitled to your own views but you have left us with no room for agreement.

Edited July 25, 2010 by Wild Bill

[Oleg Bach]

How could I? The circumstances are entirely different. Conrad Black was not a 15-year old boy whose choice was made by his father. I do not feel the same about sniffing flowers and sniffing gasoline either.

DON'T be so sure that Conrads choices were not made for him by his father...part of the drive contained in Black's persona was a direct result of buisness feuds..he father was harmed by upstarts as Conrad himself was...and Conrad spent a great deal of time avenging his poor father...Just as I have...I don't like the idea of a collective mass of corporate socialist....killing my grand father for operating in the private sphere and being punished for his brightness and hard work...

No for Conrad's weakness - I assumed that he knew how the neo-Nazi buisness elite operate through their liberal judical henchmen......Conrad was naive when he brought up the idea of mentioning that his wifes health was suffering...

What a stupid trusting jerk Conrad was---DOES HE NOT UNDERSTAND THAT THIS LIBERAL HENCHERY ---------------ALWAYS GOES THROUGH THE MAN'S WEAKEST POINT - THEY WILL GO THROUGH THE THINGS YOU LOVE - WHETHER IT BE A WIFE OR YOUR INFANT CHILDREN ...

He should have never brought up the issue of his wife's health - they used it to manipulate him...what a fool - are you listening Conrad?...You do not seem to know your OWN insidious system.

[Smallc]

Your "check on judges" doesn't seem to function very well in the real world. When's the last time you saw a judge over-ruled for being too lenient and ruling against the morality of the common people? A check that is never used is merely a facade.

The common people have nothing to do with it. Precedent and the law is what matters in a common law system such as ours.

As for your first paragraph, it is obvious that we can never agree. You could not have more firmly declared yourself an anti-populist and an elitist. You are certainly entitled to your own views but you have left us with no room for agreement.

I'm definitely an anti populist. After reading "The People's House of Commons" I came to despise populism.