The sad case of Conrad Black

[notyoueither]

Most people should be aware of the situation of Conrad Black. What might be less newsworthy is that the Govt. of Canada forced him to renounce his Canadian citizenship in his pursuit of a happy (to him) life in Britain. He committed the grave crime of seeking a title.

So, he told Mr. Chretein's govt to f off, renounced citizenship, and joined the Peers in Westminster.

Now he wants it back, the Canadian citizenship.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20051125/conrad_black_folo_051125/20051125?hub=TopStories

Conrad Black, who renounced his Canadian citizenship four years ago so he could become a member of the British House of Lords, may have decided that being Canadian might not be such a bad thing.

Friday's Toronto Star newspaper reports that Black has asked the Canadian government to give him back his Canadian citizenship. The former media tycoon gave it up when then prime minister Jean Chretien tried to block Black from being a life peer in British Parliament.

Black, 61, faces eight criminal fraud charges, fines of up to $2 million and possible restitution payments that could run into the tens of millions of dollars.

The charges were laid two years after Black was accused by independent directors of Hollinger -- a Chicago-based publishing company he once ran -- of misappropriating millions of dollars. None of the charges against him have been proven in court.

Black is expected to appear in a Chicago court next Wednesday to fight the charges. If he loses, he faces the prospect of spending as many as 40 years in prison. And his decision to renounce his citizenship could prevent him from requesting a transfer to a Canadian jail.

Only Canadian citizens can request a transfer to a Canadian jail from a jail elsewhere.

Thing is, I doubt being elected to the Commons in Britain would require renouncing Canadian citizenship. I'm positive of it.

I think Black has a good case, and that the GoC is and has been out of bounds by the standard of the UN Declaration of Human Rights.

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

Article 13.
(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

Article 15.
(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.

(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

No country in the world should be forced to keep immigrants who break the law. The only 'home' anyone has is the land of their birth. If a person has done wrong, then prosecute him or her, but depriving a native born person of citizenship is a no-no.

It is an interesting case.

[Last Conformist]

If he renounced citizenship, what does he have to complain about?

[molly bloom]

Re: The sad case of Conrad Black

Originally posted by notyoueither

Thing is, I doubt being elected to the Commons in Britain would require renouncing Canadian citizenship. I'm positive of it.

The peers sit in the House of Lords.


The first woman elected to the House of Commons who took her seat, was an American- Nancy Astor.

[OzzyKP]

Yea, they aren't depriving him of citizenship, he gave it up. So I don't think the UN applies here. This whole thing should have been fought out when Canada was preventing him from taking the House of Lords gig in the UK. But it looks like he made a rash decision and now has to suffer in an American "poud-me-in-the-ass" jail.

[Richelieu]

Keep the arrogant SOB out.

[duke o' york]

Got shares in Hollinger International do you Richelieu?

[Max Webster]

Re: The sad case of Conrad Black

Originally posted by notyoueither
Now he wants it back, the Canadian citizenship.

No, let the pile of crap rot in a US Jail.

[Dr Strangelove]

The US Constitution expressly forbids an American citizen from taking an oath to another country, a title of another country, or serving in the armed forces of a foreign power. Does Canda have similar laws? If not, why did he feel compelled to renounce his citizenship when he became a life peer?

[KrazyHorse]

No country in the world should be forced to keep immigrants who break the law. The only 'home' anyone has is the land of their birth. If a person has done wrong, then prosecute him or her, but depriving a native born person of citizenship is a no-no.

He renounced his own citizenship. Nobody deprived him of it.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
The US Constitution expressly forbids an American citizen from taking an oath to another country, a title of another country, or serving in the armed forces of a foreign power. Does Canda have similar laws? If not, why did he feel compelled to renounce his citizenship when he became a life peer?

I concur with this question, but there is the strange issue of Canad's relation to Britain. After all Canadians are still all technically subjects of the British Crown. So why would a subject of the Queen have to surrender his citizenship in one part of the commonwealth to sit in on the Queen's government?

[KrazyHorse]

And the Nickel Resolution barring the granting of foreign titles upon Canadian citizens is now 85 years old.

This isn't exactly a new thing.

[notyoueither]

Re: Re: The sad case of Conrad Black

Originally posted by molly bloom

The peers sit in the House of Lords.

The first woman elected to the House of Commons who took her seat, was an American- Nancy Astor.

Yes, I know, but there was a Canadian citizen in the Commons as of a couple years ago. So sitting in Westminster is obviously not the issue. That's why I pointed it out.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

No country in the world should be forced to keep immigrants who break the law. The only 'home' anyone has is the land of their birth. If a person has done wrong, then prosecute him or her, but depriving a native born person of citizenship is a no-no.

He renounced his own citizenship. Nobody deprived him of it.

The Prime Minister of the time took a personal interest in this man and his preferences of lifestyle. I call that arbitrary use of a questionable power.

I call preventing a Canadian living in London from receiving a title questionable.

[KrazyHorse]

"Preventing"? I seriously doubt the Canadian government's ability or willingness too do anything to prevent Mr. Black from receiving his title if both he and the British government were keen upon continuing in the face of the Canadian government's protest. Nor do I think that the Canadian government had the ability or willingness to do anything to punish Mr. Black if the ceremony went forward under the Canadian government's continued protest. Stripping him of his citizenship, throwing him in jail or fining him would have been a hell of a break from precedent, AFAIK. The Canadian government merely made its objections known to the British government. What they did in light of this fact was between them and Conrad Black.

[notyoueither]

The position of the GoC is not to 'prevent' Canadian citizens from obtaining titles?

But no problem joining the Marine Corps and blowing away villages.

Or designing large weapons that go bang for dictators.

It's stupid. We allow our citizens to travel the world and no law is broken should they wreak havoc while abroad, but no-no, don't you dare make one of ours a knight!