If Conrad Black wants admission to Canada

[TimG]

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?

The Queen is not going to start a protracted legal battle with the Government of Canada. This means that even if the law was not valid the Queen would refuse to grant a title as long as the Canadian Government claimed it was illegal.

[Guest American Woman]

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.

Could you cite any actual examples of these others? - and when they occurred? And was Black's simply a title, or were their duties in Britain involved along with the title? Last but not least, why, even if it was an unfair position to put him in, would Black choose Britain over Canada? That says all I would need to know. And now he wants to come back - with a criminal background? Sounds very much like a self-serving person to me.

[ToadBrother]

...deleted...

Edited June 28, 2011 by ToadBrother

[ToadBrother]

Could you cite any actual examples of these others? - and when they occurred?

Beaverbrook's peerage was in 1917. I'm not sure if there are any more recent examples.

And was Black's simply a title, or were their duties in Britain involved along with the title?

Black would have sat in the House of Lords along with the other Life Peers, so he would have been a member of the British Parliament. I don't think he ever did, as the Labour government changed the rules about the Lords pretty heavily during that time. But that would have been little different than Beaverbrook, who also was a Lord, and in fact, one of Churchill's key ministers in WWII, and was also very important for his North American business and political contacts.

Last but not least, why, even if it was an unfair position to put him in, would Black choose Britain over Canada? That says all I would need to know. And now he wants to come back - with a criminal background? Sounds very much like a self-serving person to me.

The way I remember it is that the Queen was going to take her Canadian Prime Minister's advice (as she is bound to do), and not give him a Peerage. Black, rather than fight, said "screw it", renounced his citizenship and thus the Prime Minister's advice became moot.

[bloodyminded]

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.'

Yes, Black renounced his citizenship, so clearly it was not terribly important to him.

Your view on this is, in a sense, an American view; however, since (and yes, I'm speculating) most Canadians would agree with you (and I guarantee they would) I guess it's more universal than that.

For what it's worth, I'm inclined to sympathize with your perspective on this as well. I think you're right.

If TB and bambino are correct (and they are pretty knowledgeable about such things), then yes, Chretien was seriously out of line. But since Black--by definition--doesn't care much at all about Canadian citizenship, preferring a Lordship to stoke his monumental ego, then that speaks for itself.

[ToadBrother]

If TB and bambino are correct (and they are pretty knowledgeable about such things), then yes, Chretien was seriously out of line. But since Black--by definition--doesn't care much at all about Canadian citizenship, preferring a Lordship to stoke his monumental ego, then that speaks for itself.

I can't say Chretien was terribly out of line. We can debate the appropriateness of a Canadian PM advising the Queen not to confer a title on a person with dual citizenship based upon a non-binding resolution. Ultimately, however, the Queen is bound to listen to Her ministers, for better or for worse.

[g_bambino]

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.

The only thing forced on Black was a choice nobody else would have to have made: a place in the House of Lords or your citizenship. Black freely chose the former. But, the fact that he had to make the choice at all was entirely Chretien's doing.

It was Chretien's prerogative to advise the Queen not to allow the appointment of one person, a Canadian citizen, to a position in another country that would grant that individual a peerage; there was nothing illegal about that advice, and so the Queen was bound to follow it, as is the consitutional convention. At the same time, it was Tony Blair's prerogative to advise the Queen to appoint that same person, also a British citizen, to the House of Lords; again, as that advice was not illegal, the Queen was bound to follow it. The Queen was therefore stuck between contrasting advice from two of her prime ministers concerning one person who was a citizen of both countries.

There was, however, no need for Chretien to create this conundrum: the Nickle Resolution was never a law and had already been overturned by a later vote in parliament, a dual Canadian/British citizen already held a seat in the House of Lords - the Baron Beaverbrook - and other dual citizens were already at that time in the possession of titles granted by the British government - the Countess of St. Andrews, Sir Terry Matthews, Sir George Sayers Bain, Sir Bryant Godman Irvine, Sir Neil McGowan Shaw, and Sir Conrad Swan.

When the courts ruled on Chretien's side - his actions were petty, but not unconstitutional - Black threw his Canadian passport in the Prime Minister's face and went off to his seat on the red benches in Westminster.

The whole thing was just a pissing contest between two egomaniacs.

[g_bambino]

Black would have sat in the House of Lords along with the other Life Peers, so he would have been a member of the British Parliament. I don't think he ever did, as the Labour government changed the rules about the Lords pretty heavily during that time. But that would have been little different than Beaverbrook, who also was a Lord, and in fact, one of Churchill's key ministers in WWII, and was also very important for his North American business and political contacts.

Black did take his seat in the House of Lords and, as a life peer, I believe he would've been relatively immune to the subsequent changes to that upper chamber, which affected mostly the hereditary peers.

On that note, it was the third Baron Beaverbrook I was referring to - Maxwell Aitken - who I think would hold Canadian citizenship due to his father - the second Baron Beaverbrook - being born in Montreal. He would've held a seat in the House of Lords prior to 1999. Ditto for David Thomson, the third Baron Thomson of Fleet, who is most certainly a Canadian citizen.

[guyser]

Ditto for David Thomson, the third Baron Thomson of Fleet, who is most certainly a Canadian citizen.

Screw dat....Winnipeg Jets owner baby !

[Molly]

So the whole affair was largely a p***ing contest among media barons.

Peerage was the accessory du jour for the up and coming billionair newspaper magnate. Next it would have been pocket-sized dogs.

[Tilter]

So the whole affair was largely a p***ing contest among media barons.

Peerage was the accessory du jour for the up and coming billionair newspaper magnate. Next it would have been pocket-sized dogs.

The whole question at hand refers to our stupidity in still insisting that Canada be bound to the British Monarch. Along with this will be the next month's vomit inducing shows about 2 Brits favoring us with a visit to our country that will cost the Canadian taxpayer a minimum of 10 million bux and actually the only real purpose it will serve are the shows will fill the TV air with the toadying TV talking heads, drunk with their own "charisma", chumming with royalty & examining at length (great length) the amazing abilities of the couple to hoodwink about 1/10 of the Canadian public at large with the glorification of a system 500 years past it's prime.

Gag me with a spoon.

Edited June 29, 2011 by Tilter

[Remiel]

It is perhaps worth noting that Roy Thomson also had to drop his Canadian citizenship, though at the time dual-citizenship did not exist by any means but marriage it seems, so it was in fact necessary by law in order for him to obtain peerage.

[jacee]

Regardless of laws, I think Chretien's actions reflected the will of the Canadian people. We simply don't call anyone "Lord" nor tip our hats to him. I expect Canadians may also feel enough compassion to let him back in, unless his status as an unrepentant criminal makes him too much of a threat to the public.

[g_bambino]

Regardless of laws, I think Chretien's actions reflected the will of the Canadian people. We simply don't call anyone "Lord" nor tip our hats to him.

The will of the Canadian people? Surely you're joking. The Canadian people rarely, if ever, has a unified, common will. Did the majority even have a "will" one way or the other in relation to the Black/Chretien affair? It didn't seem that way.

Regardless, I guess you missed the point where I said there already were (and still are) Canadians who can be addressed as "Lord" and "Lady", as well as those who've been knighted and can be referred to as "Sir". Hat tipping is also optional.

[Oleg Bach]

Big deal if Conrad had and has an ego. We forget that all he was originally was a bag man and front man for the old Argus Corporation...It must have been agreed on in Conrads youth that he got to be the figure head while all the other lawyers and finacial tycoon types stayed in the back ground - He is what they call - taking the fall. He is not much different than the Obama phenomena - the difference being...He can actually think an original thought...................The ambitous American prosecuters and judges dispise hime because his awareness and intelligence level is much higher than theirs - so they hate him.

When I was a kid...I knew some of Conrads associates on a semi-personal and private level - They are good and honourable people - they are the ones who keep OUR banks from failing - Conrad was the adventurer...and like the spot light - The others are intensely private - as for poor Conrad coming home - enough is enough - The bastards to the south would have sent him to that Cuban prison camp and tormented him for info if they could - But then it would have been obvious that he had been captured by privateers and pirates -

I like the guy - as for his percieved sins - thousands did what he did...and thousands are rewarded and walk free - just because he is ego centric and likes to live large is no reason to continue to torture him and his family - In my books he is welcomed home with open arms...He is old - why rob him and his loving family of the last few healthy years of his life?

[bush_cheney2004]

...I like the guy - as for his percieved sins - thousands did what he did...and thousands are rewarded and walk free - just because he is ego centric and likes to live large is no reason to continue to torture him and his family - In my books he is welcomed home with open arms...He is old - why rob him and his loving family of the last few healthy years of his life?

Because he is a convicted felon. If he and his ilk are so smart, how did they get caught (and convicted) by the stoooopid Americans? Cheers!

[Oleg Bach]

Because he is a convicted felon. If he and his ilk are so smart, how did they get caught (and convicted) by the stoooopid Americans? Cheers!

Jerkish - You know nothing of the man "convicted felon" - your whole damned society is run by non-convicted felons..those that are convicted and those YET to be convicted. So you think that a person is a hero because they are smart enough not to get caught - because they have clever crimminal intent and are shewed that they are to be looked up too? I said he was "intelligent" not shrewd or "smart" - the guy is not evil - You have folks walking around free who wage undeclared and illegal wars - where thousands are duped and die and are maimed - mostly for profit....You really stuck your foot in your mouth - all I can say is you "stoooopid" Americans had better let the hostage go....YOU see we do negotitate were terrorists ...our American brethern terrorists. ooooooo bc ---------you piss me off - now give him back!

[Oleg Bach]

B C intentionally angered me in order to get me to de-focus - nice try. Now lets get back to the buisness at hand. Harper should stop appeasing that spiteful old French guy Chretchien...or how ever you spell it - secondly - Harper has nothing to fear from the empty Obama - with his sweet voice and run around in circles non-speeches ( did you hear his latest on the economy) ---------------"get those guys in those corporate jets with the gold toilet seats" -

Harper if he was a MAN - would quietly put in a word to Washington and get a pardon for Mr.Black on humanitarian grounds...BUT that is not likely to work seeing that Obamas - domestic policy on the economic level is to seemingly destroy the rich and powerful...while quietly maintaining the new and old rich and powerful.

Obama is now appealing to the HATE the rich voters...more propoganda and more emotional manipulation - in the hopes of a second term - Obama will NOT have a second term - his supporters have figured out that all he is - is an ego driven boy - with the gloating immaturity of some ghetto kid who just won the spelling bee.

[g_bambino]

The whole question at hand refers to our stupidity in still insisting that Canada be bound to the British Monarch.

Yes, let's mount a decades long, nation wide constitutional project of extracting ourselves from the personal union of the Commonwealth realms just so Elizabeth is never again put in an awkward position by two squabbling schoolboys. Brilliant.

Gag me with a spoon.

Which pretty much sums up what one wants to do after reading the rest of your vacuous bitching.

[Tilter]

Yes, let's mount a decades long, nation wide constitutional project of extracting ourselves from the personal union of the Commonwealth realms just so Elizabeth is never again put in an awkward position by two squabbling schoolboys. Brilliant.

Which pretty much sums up what one wants to do after reading the rest of your vacuous bitching.

No, not decades long---- just a National referendum like Australia had deciding whether Canada needs the Buckingham Palace leeches.

[g_bambino]

No, not decades long---- just a National referendum like Australia...

You must mean Australia's referendum in 1999 that resulted in the retention of the Australian monarchy. That was, of course, the end result of 15 years of planning, studies, conventions, debates, and education, in the federal and all six state jurisdictions. Another dozen years later, and the lame republicans still haven't been able to formulate a plan and have lost the attention of the nation in the process. So, yes, it would likely be a decades long project for Canada, as well; assuming there ever was more than a half percent of the population that cared enough to even try.

[Oleg Bach]

Assuming most of the members at Mapleleaf are of anglo stock - where is your loyality too your own? Canada shows more mercy and grace to a Muslim immigrant set on destroying our home than they do for the people that built our home. Conrad represents to a degree - our old anglo establishment - Once men like him are gone - YOU will fade...you need this old man home...or your privledge will desolve more rapidly that it would naturally.

[Guest American Woman]

The only thing forced on Black was a choice nobody else would have to have made: a place in the House of Lords or your citizenship. Black freely chose the former. But, the fact that he had to make the choice at all was entirely Chretien's doing.

Again, I'm questioning your claim. From what I've read, Black was the first to be offered peerage after the dual citizenship law of 1977 was passed. Prior to that, "Roy Thomson had to forfeit his Canadian citizenship in 1963 in order to accept a seat in the House of Lords." So Black wasn't the only one to give up his Canadian citizenship to accept a seat in the House of Lords.

There was, however, no need for Chretien to create this conundrum: the Nickle Resolution was never a law and had already been overturned by a later vote in parliament, a dual Canadian/British citizen already held a seat in the House of Lords - the Baron Beaverbrook - and other dual citizens were already at that time in the possession of titles granted by the British government - the Countess of St. Andrews, Sir Terry Matthews, Sir George Sayers Bain, Sir Bryant Godman Irvine, Sir Neil McGowan Shaw, and Sir Conrad Swan.

As for Sir Terry Matthews and Sir George Sayers Bain, Chretien was apparently upset about the offer of their titles, too (emphasis mine):

In 2001, Welsh-born billionaire Terry Matthews

sparked a diplomatic row

when he was awarded a knighthood. Matthews became a Canadian citizen after he left Wales in 1969 to seek his telecommunications fortune in Ottawa.

Chrétien was furious

and said Blair should have informed the Canadian government about the honour. But Sir Terry still retains his title.

Evidently the title was bestowed upon Matthews without informing the Canadian government beforehand.

George Sayers Bain, another Canadian citizen who lives in Britain, was also bestowed a knighthood in the same ceremony.

Blair explained that he did not know Bain was a Canadian citizen

until it was too late to change the list.

So again, the Canadian government was not informed beforehand. Chretien was not happy.

So it doesn't sound as if this were nothing more than a personal vendetta against Black on Chretien's part.

I had asked if there were any duties involved with Black's title because I think that, too, could make his 'title' different from other titles.

....unlike the cases of Sir Bain and Sir Terry, Lord Black's was an appointment to the House of Lords and an invitation to take part in the British Parliament ....

I can see where that would be a problem; a conflict of interest. I can understand why there would be an objection to a Canadian citizen taking part in another nation's government.

I just don't see the situation as something that 'no one else would be subjected to' and/or nothing more than Chretien's dislike of Black.

When the courts ruled on Chretien's side - his actions were petty, but not unconstitutional - Black threw his Canadian passport in the Prime Minister's face and went off to his seat on the red benches in Westminster.

That was his choice. A choice I believe he should have to live with.

The whole thing was just a pissing contest between two egomaniacs.

I disagree, for the reasons I've given along with the other examples I've cited.

link

link

[bush_cheney2004]

... Conrad represents to a degree - our old anglo establishment - Once men like him are gone - YOU will fade...you need this old man home...or your privledge will desolve more rapidly that it would naturally.

Fat chance....Conrad represents convicted anglo bastards who think they are above the law. That kinda crap might fly in Canada, but down here you gots to do some time. I hope he dies in prison!

[g_bambino]

From what I've read, Black was the first to be offered peerage after the dual citizenship law of 1977 was passed.

He was. But, that's of no relevance. There was at that time at least one other dual Canadian/British citizen who held a place in the peerage, and thus a seat in the House of Lords: Kenneth Thomson, the 2nd Baron Thomson of Fleet. I also believe (but am not entirely sure) that Maxwell Aitken, the 3rd Baron Beaverbrook, held (and holds) dual Canadian and British citizenship. The circumstances around Roy Thompson's elevation to the peerage were entirely different; the citizenship laws had changed by the time Black was offered the barony.

Also, remember that Chretien's objection was not to Black having a seat in the House of Lords; it was to the conferrence upon Black of a title, supposedly in contravention of a 1919 parliamentary resolution that was actually voted down in 1934. As already noted, there were even more dual Canadian/British citizens who held British titles. Of course, Chretien said he was angry about some of those, too; but, he couldn't let himself look like a hypocrite, of course. Though, he did, since he was only angered by two particular Canadians who'd been given titular honours, but not the four or five others who existed.

I suppose the situation highlighted not only the expansiveness of both Chretien's and Black's egos, but also the stupidity of the Canadian government's policy on titles; its unclear, of dubious foundation, and thus inconsistently applied, sometimes ignored completely and sometimes used as part of a personal vendetta.