LEGER: Black’s back, so let’s revel in the controversy
What is it about Conrad Black that elicits such passion? It can’t just be that he’s arrogant and his business methods are despicable. If arrogance merited excommunication, we’d do without some of our most successful generals, politicians and artists. If sharp practices were grounds for ostracism, we’d be shunning lawyers and stockbrokers en masse.
No, the deep emotions Black generates betray something about Canadians as a people. We’re a judgmental lot. Our boy scout self-image demands that our heroes be pristine and preferably rare. We despise those raised to foreign pedestals, yet crave approbation from foreigners who despise us (the Brits) or ignore us (Americans).
The fuss over his lordship’s relationship with his birth country says as much about us as it does about Black. It has led to allegations of special treatment, public accusations of political interference by a senior minister, politically inspired complaints to the Law Society of Upper Canada and denials by the prime minister. All this suggests our emotions run deep about the behaviour of one of our own.
Because, fellow Canadians, Black is indisputably one of our own and can’t be tossed off as he was in the Toronto Star, as a “medal-loving British ex-convict.” He is as Canadian as maple syrup and as complicated as Quebec, where he grew up.
Yes, Black was greedy and coveted ostentatious wealth. His narcissism led him to seek appointment to the House of Lords, which led to the forfeiture of his Canadian citizenship at the hands of Jean Chretien. But while vanity is a sin Canadians find abhorrent, it shouldn’t rob an individual of his nationality.
The Black controversy was fanned back to life when an aide to Immigration Minister Jason Kenney made a formal complaint to the Ontario bar over statements by Toronto lawyer Guidy Mamann. Mamann said Kenney must have intervened in Black’s application to return to Canada after his prison term in the U.S.
The complaint was dismissed because it was absurd and clearly motivated by politics. It also provoked 80 lawyers to sign an open letter repeating Mamann’s allegations of ministerial meddling, accusing Kenney of trying to muzzle dissent and daring the minister to complain about them too. “Given the high degree of control which you exercise over your department, we do not believe that you did not give your consent, either express or tacit, in relation to the request,” they wrote.
Kenney says the Black case went to “highly trained civil servants,” more specifically to a specialist officer stationed in Buffalo, N.Y. But he might have acknowledged his legal right as minister to get involved in cases like Black’s. It wouldn’t be unprecedented.
Complicating matters for the minister was the stunned statement of an aide, who said Mamann ignored the minister’s denials and instead “chose the path of shameless self-promotion and public spectacle.” That’s a path Kenney the politician would recognize on sight.
Then even Stephen Harper weighed in, saying it wasn’t in the government’s interest to intervene “in any way, shape or form” in Black’s return.
Whatever happened, does Black have a legitimate case for a return to his native land? The highly trained civil servant thought so. But many Canadians feel he turned his back on the country and the country should now do the same to him.
That’s harsh. Black didn’t kill anyone, does not represent a risk to Canadian society, and has had most of his convictions appealed and overturned. He wrote long tracts in prison about the injustices of the American courts and says he is more interested in reviving his literary career than in business.
So if he’s to be an author and commentator, why shouldn’t he come back? He wasn’t accused of literary crimes, like plagiarism or copyright infringement. Our most eminent author, Margaret Atwood, thinks we should welcome the “new and different kind of Conrad.”
If there’s no disgrace in accepting Black back into the fold, even reluctantly, then what’s the harm in Kenney saying plainly how the decision was made? After all, this is “the most open and transparent government in Canadian history,” right?
Dan Leger is a freelance journalist in Halifax. Twitter: @dantheeditor
Poor Opinion
Submitted by can-eh-dian on August 6, 2012 - 7:59am.
It is good that this is listed under opinion, because yours is not in line with most Canadians. We are extremely proud of our country and the thought of renouncing our citizenship is beyond 99% of us. As one of the 1% (in every possible way) Conrad Black made his choice for purely selfish and arrogant reasons. We Canadians get passionate about Conrad Black because he turned his nose up at us and forgot that he won the global lottery at birth by being born in this great country. In return we collectively, and rightly, turn our nose up at him.
And do not think for 1 second that the minister and PMO did not have a hand in his return. Every single federal public servant will tell you of the incredible level of micromanagement being expressed by this Conservative government. It is impossible that such a high level file was not micromanaged by the PMO.
So, nice opinion....but totally wrong.
Let's just ignore him.
Submitted by shawnino on August 6, 2012 - 8:35am.
Denying him the spotlight he craves is the best revenge.
Canadian vs U.S. justice.
Submitted by No problem here... on August 6, 2012 - 8:51am.
Conrad Black, Richard Hurlburt, both convicted felons. That is where the comparison ends. Mr. Black sentenced to jail, Mr Hurlburt sentenced to his refrigerator. Mr Black stole from the rich to make himself richer, Mr Hurlburt stole from the poor to make himself richer. Mr Black did his time in a Florida prison Mr.Hurlburt had the gall to request that his house arrest be transferred to his Florida house for the winter months. In a contest where the most principled felon is judged on honesty, integrity, and good character Mr Black wins hands down, he will sit on future boards and add value to their bottom line. Mr. Hurlburt can sit, and sit, and hope for some kind relative to appoint him to some marginal chore, maybe changing oil in generators, or hanging large screen T.V. something he knows something about.
Let see now, he gave up
Submitted by BC on August 6, 2012 - 9:26am.
Let see now, he gave up Canadian citizenship to get accolades form another country, he's a convicted thief, as stated here" he’s arrogant and his business methods are despicable".
Now, why would we want to accept him back here, send him back to England they seem to like him.
LEGER: Black’s back, so let’s revel in the controversy
Submitted by Bobby Wonderful on August 6, 2012 - 9:47am.
Yeah, let's revel in the fact that we now have a senior cabinet minister who publicly boasts that he didn't carry out his duties as he's legally required to perform and gets away with it. This government is ass backwards. . . or is it the country?
THE RE-INFANTILIZATION OF CANADA
Submitted by dennis.cato on August 6, 2012 - 10:02am.
"No, the deep emotions Black generates betray something about Canadians as a people. We're a judgemental lot. Our boy scout self-image demands that our heroes be pristine and preferably rare."
(Dan Leger)
As Dan says, the deep emotions Black generates betray something about Canadians as a people but he has unfortunately failed to indicate just what that "something" might be. Even his reference to us being a "judgemental lot" combined with having a "boy scout self-image" is self-contradictory. Boy scouts are not judgemental. So what's going on?
In a nutshell, Black has re-infantilized Canada. He has, at one stroke, returned us to the imperial cradle. By accepting an English peerage and recouncing his Canadian citizenship Black has demonstrated, in the fashion of Uriah Heep, that we still cravenly seek the approbation of those who "despise us." This, as the expression has it, "goes all the way down." This is a quality in respect to which there is no greater ignominy. And this is not from some Brit who we can laugh off. This is from one of us! This is the why, particularly in the case of Black, we are not just a "judgemental lot" but rather a deeply vengeful lot. The name "Black" itself is sour in our mouths.
However, Dan prattles mindlessly on about why Black should not be allowed to return permanently to Canada. He wants to be an author and a communicator don't you know and, Dan reminds us, he hasn't been accused of plagiarism or copyright infringement. Well, yes, that's true Dan, but you're missing the point entirely. Those are just rational arguments. They do not come close to that visceral hatred of Black which gnaws at our guts. May his name be forever exorcised from the Canadian populace!
Besides, Stephen wouldn't mind in the least having the ear of an English lord.
Dan ...
Submitted by pensive on August 6, 2012 - 10:56am.
... let's insert the word Khadr into your anti-conservative rant wherever we see the word 'Black'
and then when all things seem more or less politically correct, let's 'opine' the open hypocrisy of the looney-left, shall we?
Yes, we are
Submitted by daveburris on August 6, 2012 - 11:02am.
Evidently Dan is right at least, about the fact we are a judgemental people.
I think that what puts a lot of people off is the legal wrangles Black was involved in. Personally, I think for the most part, he was rail-roaded. Just like Martha Stewart, who took a call from her broker, followed his advice, and was sent to jail. The original charge was insider trading, but the conviction was for lying to the court. A pile of trumped up charges. When, at that time, Washington politicians themselves, were EXEMPT from insider trading regulations.
In Black's case, I agree "while vanity is a sin Canadians find abhorrent, it shouldn’t rob an individual of his nationality" There were 17 counts against Black, four were not proceeded with; nine were rejected by the jurors, and the remaining four, in a unanimous ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court, were sent back to the Apellant Court. The Supremes felt the Apellant Court had missed the mark, badly, in their handling of the case. “Writing for the(Supreme)Court, Justice Ginsburg was critical of Judge Posner’s decision, referring to the “anomalous” reasoning and “invented law” found therein. The appeal court was instructed to review Black's case and determine whether his fraud convictions should stand or if there should be a new trial" - Wikipaedia. But the Apellant Court reinstated two of the four original counts, and sent Black to jail.
The documents that Black supposedly removed illegally from from his offices, had already been copied, every page, and sent away, in compliance with 5 different subpoenas, and so the removal of documents that the courts already had, was a totally innocent act.
Yes, Canadians are a judgemental lot.
I suspect
Submitted by Selina on August 6, 2012 - 11:18am.
that much of the publicity surrounding Black throughout his career, especially in the latter years is attributable to Mr. Black's intimate association with the print media, both domestic and otherwise.
It has been almost universally acknowledged that Black is an arrogant, pretentious dick, albeit a very erudite and successful one. I often detect a smug satisfaction in newspaper accounts at Mr. Black's bruising encounter with hubris, doubtlessly derived in no small way from the various writers' brushes with the fallen angel, er lord, whether anecdotal or direct.
For Canadians, Mr. Black's biggest crime was that he had the gall to turn into a sort of citizenship Uncle Tom. The acceptance of the heretical true masters of the auld sod mattered more than a single malt with the fellow alums of Upper Canada College. For this he needs to pay. Like a betrayed spouse, Canadians want to see this scoundrel suffer for his sins, let him wallow in the faded misery of his adopted country, where he is equally a pariah amongst the posh elite and an unknown to the proles.
That he drags the faded Canadian queen of mean, Barbara Amiel, with him is purely icing on the cake. Let him go back to the moors and host a birthday bash for two featuring ice-sculpted cherubs peeing vodka.....only this time use his own money.