Go say hello to Larry:

http://redtory.blogspot.com

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!

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!