The Red Tory or “progressive” or “moderate” wings of Canada’s conservative parties really like to play up how polite they are compared to the Liberals, or how civilized they are compared to their party kin who take the term “conservative” a little more seriously. While its true that there are quite a few grassroots and even prominent Red Tories out there (Rob Nicholson comes to mind), it is also true that there are a sizable amount of people in this group who add greatly to the stereotype of a politician who is self-serving, greedy, disinterested in anyone but themselves and opportunistic and who, because of these traits, are capable of destroying any network their associated with via their large egos (witness Ontario, 1985, 2003 ; Canada 1993; Canada 2006 (the Liberal Party in this case) ; New Brunswick 2007, and almost definitely Ontario, 2007). A perfect case study come today from the National Post where long-time Red Larry Zolf, who during the 2006 election made a point of spewing hatred against social conservatives, attacking the character of Stephen Harper and questioning the intelligence of true fiscal conservatives as often as he could, is now asking through today’s Post for some special favours from the Prime Minister in an open letter.
While I have to give him credit for apologizing to Stephen Harper at the beginning of his post, Zolf goes on to demonstrate that the apology only extends as far as his desire to get something in return. Witness exhibit A:
Prime Minister, you and you alone can give Conrad Black his Canadian citizenship back. David Radler, who ratted on Black, will serve time in a comfortable Canadian jail. Black faces 20 years for taking his own file boxes from the Toronto offices of Hollinger Inc., and faces the possibility of spending that time in a tough Chicago prison. That is a ludicrous situation.
I’m sorry, but whether Lord Black is innocent or not (and I am personally rooting for him, although I do respect the rule of law), he was accused of committing crimes against the United States. If Canada doesn’t recognize the legitimacy of the U.S.’s case against Black it should complain to Great Britain, for after all, Black has renounced his Canadian citizenship and is now a British citizen. Simply speaking, we have no right to interfere in another country’s legal process when the person involved isn’t even one of our own and hasn’t bee charged up here yet. I didn’t know that the U.S.’s prisons were so barbaric though; Zolf makes it sound like the US prison system is on par with one of Saddam’s old work houses.
It gets better though, as in the next breath Zolf begs Harper to take a page out of George Bush’s playbook and pull a Scooter Libby. Ya, that’d win him a lot of points both with the voting public and with the law-abiding crowd…
But here comes the climax:
The Conservative party owes Conrad Black a great deal. He created the National Post, a newspaper that championed the Canadian Alliance and you too, Mr. Prime Minister.
Let me remind you of how Black gave up his Canadian citizenship in the first place. The National Post and Black were critical of Jean Chretien’s dealings involving the Grand-Mere Inn and the neighbouring golf course. When Black decided to become a British lord, Chretien invoked the 1919 Tory Nickle Resolution to support the proposition that Canadians could not accept British peerages. Out of anger at Chretien, Black renounced his Canadian citizenship.
(emphasis added)
Ah, the good old Red Tory tradition: you scratch my back, I scratch yours…well, until you use the opportunity to also lodge a knife back there too! So politicians, while compelled to act when they see something unfair going down, are particularly obligated when the person involved was a political ally. So if Lord Black was a Liberal, or a Bloc supporter, then what Zolf? Harper just turns a blind eye and says “Serves ‘em right”? Again, very opportunistic and very much a reason so many of us left the old PC Party in the first place!
We can’t have a proper piece by a progressive-anything without a bit of anti-Americanism though:
“I defended Black on the CBC Web site. I found the whole Black trial American vigilantism at its worst.”
Again, why aren’t we at the embassy calling London if this is such an issue?
I couldn’t end this though with a better ending than what Zolf offers; it demonstrates exactly what I’ve been pointing to all along: a pride in one’s personal etiquette (or at least a disillusional assessment of such), an obvious opportunism, and just a dash of loathing sent the way of the Liberals:
But that’s beside the point, Mr. Prime Minister. Giving Black his Canadian citizenship back would be the right and decent thing for you as a prime minister to do. It would also p#!% off the Canadian Liberal establishment and the Canadian Liberal media, and wouldn’t that be fun for you?
…and Red Tories wonder why the rest of us don’t find them even half as charming as they find themselves!
George Freeman wrote:
I disagree.
While Conrad Black did do a great deal to cultivate the present fortunes of the The Conservative Party in Canada, you are right, that alone is no reason to help Black. But it is a reason worth keeping in mind!
On the question of Canadian citizenship, helping Lord Black regain his Canadian citizenship stands as a matter of principle for two reasons.
First, it would be a sufficient official reply to Black’s trial by the Canadian government. And Canada needs to make some sort of reply because the obstruction of justice conviction against Black casually takes the Province of Ontario within the jurisdiction of the Northern District of Illinois. This is offencive to the sovereignty of any jurisdiction, let alone a country. For a United States Court to declare itself fit to enforce Canadian court orders, orders that Canadian courts choose not to enforce, sets a very bad precedent, bad for all Canadians!
In this particular case, the obstruction of justice charge against Black cannot stand without invoking the fact that he was flouting a court order, a Canadian court order. Without that Canadian court order, the US prosecution lacked the criminal implication that Conrad Black was obstructing an official proceeding of the United States. But nothing Black did was criminal! Black’s moving those boxes was never determined a “crime” in Canada because the Canadian court received the boxes back, untampered, and Blacks story of it being a misunderstanding was seen as credible—he was being evicted. And as far as US investigations go, all relevant documentation had ALREADY been disclosed to the SEC. To say that flouting the Canadian court order is criminal, when no Canadian court determines it to BE criminal, in the circumstance, constitutes jurisdiction grab! For the integrity and reputation of Canadian legal jurisdiction, the Canadian government should express its disapproval, especial when the jurisdiction grab is undertaken by such a close a powerful country like the US. It makes us look bad to say nothing! Giving Black back his citizenship would adequately show Canadian disrespect for how the US judicial system has handled this particular case.
Second, Lord Black’s renunciation of his Canadian citizenship is not exactly kosher. We know he did it because Chretien (and Blair) left him no alternative if he were to take a seat in the House of Lords, but this was most certainly a false alternative! The Nickle resolution is of no constitutional standing because it was only ever approved by the House of Commons, and especially, never sent as an address to the King.
Not only is there no point of Canadian law to prevent a Canadian from accepting a seat in the House of Lords, but, clearly, the matter was Blair’s alone and not for Chretien’s interference; such a matter is with in the prerogative of a Canadian Prime Minister and Blair should have recognized this point. But because Chretien’s invocation of the Nickle Resolution presented a false alternative, it makes the renunciation of Black’s Canadian citizenship one given under “duress,” of sorts.
Not only was Black both a British and Canadian citizen at the time, but as per our own Citizenship Act, Great Britain, or any Commonwealth country, is not a “foreign power,” in the true sense of the term, historically. Canadians are also regarded as “citizens of the Commonwealth,” and, thereby, the offer of a seat in the House of Lords could not have been, strictly speaking, a “foreign honour.” For instance, Canada sends a “High Commissioner” to countries like Great Britain, Australia and India for the very reason that these countries are not, by our own law and history, seen as “foreign powers” in the same legal light as Russia, China or the United States.
Clearly Chretien was just being a bastard, and how so can be explained now that he is no longer in power: the Nickle resolution is bunk. Any Canadian government, let alone a Conservative one, should try to rectify such an injustice.
Black didn’t have to accept the honour, but to be forced by a Canadian Prime Minister to choose between it and his citizenship, especially when he was also a British citizen and accepting it contravened no Canadian law, was wrong! It would not be right to say that Black’s renunciation of his Canadian citizenship was made under false pretexts, so the Canadian government will no longer recognize it as a valid renunciation.
While I don’t like Red Tories or Zolf, Black should be given his citizenship back because it is the right thing to do! A Canadian government needs to express its displeasure with such a blatant jurisdiction grab by a close ally, and Lord Black’s renunciation of his Canadian citizenship was under false pretexts to begin with, at the time he renounced it.
I agree Red Tories are often very anti-American. While Zolf is an ignoramus and probably couldn’t adequately criticize what is wrong with the American system of criminal justice, there are very fair and important criticisms that can be made relative to the Canadian system. Mark Steyn, Steve Skurka and others have made them very well.
Helping Black is the principled thing to do, not just returning a favour!
Posted on 19-Jul-07 at 12:57 pm | Permalink
George Freeman wrote:
Sorry, I meant to state that advising Tony Blair on giving Black the honour did not fall within Chretien’s prerogative as Prime Minister; Blair should have ignored the advice.
Because Chretien effectively denied the honour without renouncing his citizenship, it constituted false pretext. It is well known that Black only renounced his Canadian citizenship because he was put in such a corner by Chretien.
Viewing Black’s renunciation as invalid would be right!
Sorry for the typos!
Posted on 19-Jul-07 at 1:04 pm | Permalink
Aaron Unruh wrote:
This is the first time that I’ve seen Zolf write anything remotely interesting.
Posted on 19-Jul-07 at 1:20 pm | Permalink
Grind a Grit wrote:
So Red Tory is Larry Zolf…Who would of known? ;-)
Go say hello to Larry:
http://redtory.blogspot.com
Posted on 19-Jul-07 at 2:46 pm | Permalink
Ken wrote:
Completely agree Matthew! His support of Conservatives should have no impact on how Harper should act, the issue is did Black break the law or not. On top of that, since Black is not even a Canadian citizen and the trial wasn’t Canadian, I hardly see how a Canadian government should have any say whatsoever in what happens.
Posted on 19-Jul-07 at 3:22 pm | Permalink
Jason Kauppinen wrote:
I thought Larry Zolf was a socialist?
Posted on 19-Jul-07 at 5:17 pm | Permalink