If Conrad Black wants admission to Canada

[bush_cheney2004]

And how strong is the US economy?

It's strong enough to support 75% of Canada's exports.

[RNG]

It's strong enough to support 75% of Canada's exports.

And dropping. You guys are in trouble with the hope and changer.

[WIP]

Black mostly renounce the Chretin. Good on him for that.

And, he was fully aware that Chretien was not president-for-life...which is what we will have when corporate psychopaths like Black completely consolidate their control and formally abolish all democratic pretense...Black cared more for having a title than he did for being a Canadian citizen.

I'll make one deal with all of you slavish conservatives who worship the worst examples of the human race -- give Black his Canadian citizenship back, and then open up a real, forensic investigation into all of the money that this kleptocrat stole from other companies while he was here, like Dominion and Massey Ferguson!

[MiddleClassCentrist]

Wait, is that for real? Do conservatives seriously rally around this guy? That's kind of amazing.

Fraud convictions are assets to conservative politicians.

[M.Dancer]

No wonder the economy is floundering.

Floundering because of other criminals of Black's ilk.

[ToadBrother]

And how strong is the US economy?

Are you claiming that tossing poor ol' Conrad in jail was the cause of the recession?

[Oleg Bach]

Conrad is Canadian establishment - why would we hate those that brought us prosperity....They are persecuting him because he has a higher intelligent level than the judges trying him...It must really irk them when he enters the court room....to know that the guy - and what is left of the old man's life is in your hands must be a sadistic gleeful thing for those that are his intellectual and spiritual inferiours - they gave him more time out of SHEAR SPITE! - Conrad was ambitious and was the figure head for the old Argus Corpoeration - If you want to jail someone - jail his handlers.

[jbg]

Fraud convictions are assets to conservative politicians.

And what's that nasty wisecrack supposed to mean?

[eyeball]

Yup. A rich, successful productive guy gets pilloried by your ilk. Send his tax dollars to the US or the UK. Losers. Not a clue among you all. No wonder the economy is floundering.

But you and your ilk are in complete total control now so shouldn't our economy start flourishing any second?

[jacee]

Conrad is Canadian establishment - why would we hate those that brought us prosperity....They are persecuting him because he has a higher intelligent level than the judges trying him...It must really irk them when he enters the court room....to know that the guy - and what is left of the old man's life is in your hands must be a sadistic gleeful thing for those that are his intellectual and spiritual inferiours - they gave him more time out of SHEAR SPITE! - Conrad was ambitious and was the figure head for the old Argus Corpoeration - If you want to jail someone - jail his handlers.

Are you saying he didn't break the law?

The fact that he is an arrogant sob is irrelevant.

Edited June 28, 2011 by jacee

[bush_cheney2004]

...It must really irk them when he enters the court room....to know that the guy - and what is left of the old man's life is in your hands must be a sadistic gleeful thing for those that are his intellectual and spiritual inferiours - they gave him more time out of SHEAR SPITE!....

Nah...he is just another criminal who renounced Canadian citizenship to become a convicted "lord". I'll bet his fellow inmates have a lot of fun with that.

[ToadBrother]

Nah...he is just another criminal who renounced Canadian citizenship to become a convicted "lord". I'll bet his fellow inmates have a lot of fun with that.

I'm sure when Lord Black gets out, he and Baron Archer will have lots to talk about. Perhaps they can form the nucleus of a naughty writers club.

Edited June 27, 2011 by ToadBrother

[PIK]

Everyoone esle is out and so should he.

[Evening Star]

Nice to know you are independently wealthy.

And how strong is the US economy?

RNG, I'm not totally sure what you're getting at. Does it boil down to "The rules should be different for really rich people" or some variation on it?

Edited June 27, 2011 by Evening Star

[Guest American Woman]

Black kind of goofed when he renounced his citizenship, but the chretin made him do it, so it's a wash.

Cretin made him take a seat in the House of Lords? Against his will?

Conrad Black gave up his Canadian citizenship in 2001 in order to get a seat in Britain's House of Lords. He called his status as a Canadian "an impediment to his progress in another more amenable jurisdiction."

link

I say don't let him back. We wouldn't want his being a Canadian to impede his progress in more amenable jurisdictions. Just looking out for the guy, eh?

Why anyone would want him back, would even consider letting him back, is beyond me. He made his bed. Let him lie in it.

[g_bambino]

Cretin made him take a seat in the House of Lords? Against his will?

No, but Chretien did force Black to make a choice that nobody else would be faced with. Chretien was obstinate and vindictive, which is what likely led Black to call the UK a "more amenable jurisdiction".

[RNG]

No, but Chretien did force Black to make a choice that nobody else would be faced with. Chretien was obstinate and vindictive, which is what likely led Black to call the UK a "more amenable jurisdiction".

Cretin was almost as bad as Trudeau.

[jacee]

No, but Chretien did force Black to make a choice that nobody else would be faced with. Chretien was obstinate and vindictive, which is what likely led Black to call the UK a "more amenable jurisdiction".

Any other Canadian would have had to make the same choice. There are no Lords of Canada. Chretien knew the public's opinion on that.

[ToadBrother]

Any other Canadian would have had to make the same choice. There are no Lords of Canada. Chretien knew the public's opinion on that.

To be clear, however, Chretien's reasoning, that the Nickle Resolution tied his hands, was quite false. The Nickle Resolution was never passed by Parliament. We can debate whether titles are appropriate or not (there are still some surviving Canadian titles, BTW), the fact was that what Black was being offered wasn't a Canadian title, anyways, but a British one.

[g_bambino]

Any other Canadian would have had to make the same choice. There are no Lords of Canada. Chretien knew the public's opinion on that.

And who said Black was to be appointed a "Lord of Canada"? He was offered a place in the British peerage by the Queen in her British Council, which, as Black is, and was then, a British citizen, she was entirely within her jurisdiction to do. Chretien, however, as the Queen's Canadian prime minister, advised her to the contrary, on the grounds that the Nickle Resolution forbade Canadians from receiving from their monarch honours or offices that entitled the holder to titles or honorific prefixes. Chretien's premise was almost unfounded since 1) the Nickle Resolution is just that: a resolution that had no legal bearing and which was overturned by a subsequent parliamentary vote in 1934, anyway, 2) the Queen was offering the appointment as Queen of the UK and not Queen of Canada, and 3) dual Canadian and British citizens already held or had been granted titular honours and offices by the British government (the Baron Beaverbrook, the Countess of St. Andrews, Sir Bryant Godman Irvine, Sir Neil McGowan Shaw, and Sir Conrad Swan, not to mention members of the Royal Family). Canadian public opinion on the matter is both immeasurable and irrelevant.

Canadian courts found that Chretien was within his bounds to offer the advice he did. However, it's pretty clear his main motive was to use his prerogatives against Black specifically in an act of revenge for all the negative press Black had doled out against the Prime Minister. It was a petty, childish affair all around that unfortunately left the Queen suck right in the middle.

[c/e]

Edited June 28, 2011 by g_bambino

[Guest American Woman]

No, but Chretien did force Black to make a choice that nobody else would be faced with. Chretien was obstinate and vindictive, which is what likely led Black to call the UK a "more amenable jurisdiction".

Can you show me an example where someone else was able to take on such a position and still retain their Canadian citizenship? If not, it's just conjecture on your part that Chretien "forced" Black to "make a choice nobody else would be faced with." As for why he "likely" said what he did, if that is the reason, sounds to me as if his displeasure with one Prime Minister overpowered his feelings about Canada, his country, and his citizenship.

Regardless of the reason(s), Black made his own decision - no one "forced" him into doing or saying anything. He chose to do what he felt was most favorable to him, and now he wants to come back because that's what will now suit him best.

I'd say 'too late, buddy.'

[g_bambino]

Can you show me an example where someone else was able to take on such a position and still retain their Canadian citizenship?

The Baron Beaverbrook. Regardless, can you point to a law that forbids people who possess Canadian and British citizenship from taking a seat in the House of Lords?

[+]

Edited June 28, 2011 by g_bambino

[William Ashley]

Can you point to a law that forbids people who possess Canadian and British citizenship from taking a seat in the House of Lords?

???

This is one bit that I offer

The Minister, when applying for a revocation of citizenship, may also request that the person be declared inadmissible on security grounds,

see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_v._Chr%C3%A9tien

from Ontario:

http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/decisions/2001/may/blackC33387.htm

"Nickle Resolution passed by the House of Commons in 1919"

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0009566

1988 by the government of Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, which adopted a policy entitled "Policy Respecting the Awarding of an Order, Decoration or Medal by a Commonwealth or Foreign Government."

http://www.international.gc.ca/protocol-protocole/assets/pdfs/Decor.pdf

( that carries with it an honorary title or confers any

precedence or privilege; (legally the house of lords still possesses legislative authority over canada - although most would argue that) There are still technically customary rites... (for now)

Take for instance:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_functions_of_the_House_of_Lords

Most of it is quite burried but technically it could still be applicable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peerage

Technically speaking ... why would the Canadian Queen not give honours but the british queen do?

Was there something good british about black but not good canadian?

That is the "judicial quaf"

Commoner "house of commons"

peer.. .....

two classes.

it devolves legally. Understand british law including anglican church cannon law is still "law" if not overridden" in Canada - this means technically all british customs and rights are part of Canadian law unless annulled or ammended. (Basically ITS ON THE BOOKS") (Recent british and Canadian law have been splitting a little since the "separation of crowns", the canada act etc.. etc..

Of course a judge just might ignore a given law - it is bad jurisprudence however.

Peerage DOES confer differentiation of Canadian Citizenship as a commoner.

Although what the real story is just might be about some articles conrad Black wrote in the Post eye for eye bs perhaps.. that however is anyones geuss.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privilege_of_peerage

" right of freedom from arrest" prior the canada act.. and others... still technically exists for british lords.. although many people might just ignore that.. maybe not?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privilege_of_peerage

Understand that law that is in existence stays in existence - people might just not recognize that. Failure to recognize the law does not remove it. There is the trial process but a judge who ignores the law isn't a very good judge of the law. Judges are suppose to do their job, that is part why the government has the power to intervene in Political trials, or to propose the amendment or annulling or creation of law that can be sent for assent.

Edited June 28, 2011 by William Ashley

[ToadBrother]

Can you show me an example where someone else was able to take on such a position and still retain their Canadian citizenship? If not, it's just conjecture on your part that Chretien "forced" Black to "make a choice nobody else would be faced with." As for why he "likely" said what he did, if that is the reason, sounds to me as if his displeasure with one Prime Minister overpowered his feelings about Canada, his country, and his citizenship.

Regardless of the reason(s), Black made his own decision - no one "forced" him into doing or saying anything. He chose to do what he felt was most favorable to him, and now he wants to come back because that's what will now suit him best.

I'd say 'too late, buddy.'

The issue was a complicated one and never, to my mind, settled sufficiently. The Nickle Resolution was never passed into law, and because it modified a Royal Prerogative (the granting of Titles), such an Act, at that point in time, would have required the consent of the British Parliament. Even now, as it alters the powers of the Queen, it would require pretty much universal consent by both Parliament and the Provinces.

Black did indeed make his decision, but I never thought it was a particularly fair thing to force him to do it. What the Queen was to do was as Queen of the United Kingdom, not of Canada. The extinguishment of his Canadian citizenship was legal, but I always thought it an abuse of process. What's more, as g_bambino has pointed out, other citizens have been granted titles, and in fact there are still a handful of such residual titles in Canada, it was a ludicrous thing that Chretien did.

[Guest American Woman]

The Baron Beaverbrook. Regardless, can you point to a law that forbids people who possess Canadian and British citizenship from taking a seat in the House of Lords?

If there is no such legal restriction, how in God's name could Chretien have forced Black to make the decision to renounce his Canadian citizenship? Do your PM's have such unchecked power that they can force people to do things in spite of the laws of Canada?

And again, no one "forced" anything on Black. He made his decision based on what best served his needs. I can't understand putting the blame on Chretien after Black acted in such a way.