Ottawa approves Conrad Black’s request to live in Canada

IdRatherBeSkiing

Satelitte Radio Addict
May 28, 2007
14,629
2,380
113
Toronto, ON
I think he's a complete douche and would rather him not be here, but I'm not sure what the official immigration policy is.

I know some people who had the same process applied. Its all up to the discretion of the immigration department, the more powerful the permit, the higher up the snivel servant has to be to exercise his discretion. This looks like a very basic permit.

Of course with discretion obviously wealth and politics come into play.
 

#juan

Hall of Fame Member
Aug 30, 2005
18,326
119
63
Maybe Black will bring some of his millions and put twenty people to work. That would partially justify his continued existance.
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,778
454
83
Think Conrad Black received special treatment? Lindsay Lohan begs to differ

Two words for anyone who thinks Conrad Black shouldn’t be let back into Canada: Lindsay Lohan.

Back in 2011, readers will recall, the actress pled no contest to misdemeanor theft and probation violation, after being caught stealing a $2,500 necklace from a jewellery store in Venice, Calif. This was on top of her various drunk-driving charges. She is on informal probation until 2014.

And yet, our immigration authorities somehow decided to let this monster roam free in Canada during the filming of an upcoming Elizabeth Taylor biopic for Lifetime Television. (Alas, in the end, she ended up staying home: The producers switched the film location to L.A. after their star allegedly slugged Marisa Dugas.)

And LiLo isn’t alone. While the default rule is that non-citizens with a criminal record are barred from Canada, thousands of Americans get temporary-resident permits anyway. Every professional athlete who comes here after doing jail time for flashing a gun in a nightclub or punching a bouncer — he’s got one.

In fact, all the big-time professional Canadian sports teams would fold overnight if these permits weren’t churned out as a matter of course, since they wouldn’t be able to play home games. (And let’s not even talk about the music industry.)

The idea that we should give greater scrutiny to Conrad Black — a newspaper columnist, Officer of the Order of Canada, and acclaimed historian who has fully paid his debt to society — was always a fantasy entertained primarily by a dwindling corps of left-wing haters on the north side of the border.

Speaking of which, I am writing this column while perusing Tuesday’s edition of the Toronto Star — wherein a headline informs me as follows: “Return to Canada a long shot for [Conrad] Black.”

Oops. Anti-Black schadenfreude dies hard at One Yonge Street, apparently. This is the newspaper, let us not forget, where Bob Hepburn recently devoted an entire cranky column demanding the revocation of Black’s Order of Canada, prompting the Post founder and columnist to shoot back with a piece entitled “A few words for Bob Hepburn and my other ignorant critics.”

That headline says it all, I think. When Black first went to jail, there was a huge contingent of Canadians delighted — or at least titillated — by the idea of an ermine-trimmed magnate laid low by his arrogance and misdeeds.

But the sight of Black springing up off the canvas, and landing body blows against his “ignorant critics,” swung things around — especially once he’d won an important victory at the U.S. Supreme Court, and reduced the surviving convictions against him to one count of fraud and one (extremely dubious) charge of obstruction. In courtrooms, as in sports, we love scrappy underdogs. And that’s what Conrad Black, somewhat astonishingly, became.

As for legalities, the factors weighed in deciding whether to approve a temporary-residency applicant include whether the person poses any danger to Canadians, and whether the person will make a beneficial contribution to Canadian society.

For shorthand, let’s call this the Lindsay Lohan test — since we know she passed — and see how Conrad Black stacks up.

LiLo robbed a jewellery store and drove drunk — a potentially fatal habit. The crimes Black was convicted of, on the other hand, occurred in the boardroom and document-storage closet: No one will be fearfully crossing to the other side of Post Road when they see him riding the other way on his bike — except perhaps Bob Hepburn.

As for making a beneficial contribution to society: Black has written three critically acclaimed biographies, and contributes regularly to the Post, National Review and The Catholic Herald. Lohan’s greatest contribution to the world of arts and letters, by contrast, is Freaky Friday and Herbie: Fully Loaded.

Here’s something else Black has done: raised awareness for the most disadvantaged and voiceless people in North American society: prisoners.

Indeed, this is one of the great ironies of the left’s enduring bitterness toward the former newspaper magnate. If they’d actually deign to read his columns and his prison-authored book, A Matter of Principle, they’d know that he relentlessly eviscerates the American war on drugs and the corrupt U.S. prosecutorial system, as well as the prison-industrial complex into which they have collectively dumped their army of convicts. The good fight (from the bleeding-heart perspective) in other words.

And now, just days away from his release, Black has — unwittingly and accidentally — raised another policy issue: Why, exactly, does Canada nominally ban all non-citizens with a criminal past, especially now that we know, through Conrad Black’s example, how ridiculously stacked the deck is against defendants in American courts?

Last year, while doing a story on the North American trucking industry, a CEO told me that it was very difficult to recruit U.S. truckers, because 30% of applicants have criminal records, making them ineligible to cross into Canada. It’s a total waste of manpower — especially since most of these crimes are minor, non-violent offences such as marijuana possession. It’s an example of how Canada’s border-admission policies are exacerbating the harms caused by America’s hyperactive and sadistic criminal-justice system.
It’s a great subject for Conrad Black to columnize about, in fact. And I hope to soon tell him that. In person. In Canada.

Think Conrad Black received special treatment? Lindsay Lohan begs to differ: Jonathan Kay | Full Comment | National Post
 

gerryh

Time Out
Nov 21, 2004
25,756
295
83
Black is a convicted felon, but then our justice and immigration system are pretty slack on criminals. Commit a crime, you're not ruled out from living here. And he even denounced his Canadian citizenship. Became his lordship, thanks to the monarchy and runs back to Canada. I wonder what his views on the monarchy and England are now.


The best-known modern application of the Nickle Resolution occurred when Prime Minister Jean Chrétien used it to prevent Canadian publishing mogul Conrad Black from becoming a British life peer. Chrétien held that, in spite of the fact that the British government was honouring Black as a British citizen, and that Black then held dual citizenship of Canada and Britain (allowed since 1977), he as prime minister of Canada had the right to keep Black from becoming a British life peer because he was also a Canadian citizen. In the end, Black gave up his Canadian citizenship in order to accept the British honour.


In other words, if he had not given up his Canadian citizenship, he could not accept the honour that Britain was bestowing on him..
 

dumpthemonarchy

House Member
Jan 18, 2005
4,235
14
38
Vancouver
www.cynicsunlimited.com
Black thought he could build a corporate dictatorship, using the company he ran as a personal piggy bank. Not to mention abusing reporters who ran stories about his actions. Canada's laws are so weak it took USA authorites to charge and convict him. He is like
Alan Eagleson, who stole millions from the NHLPA and it took the USA govt to put him in jail. He was removed from the NHL Hockey Hall of Fame.

The best-known modern application of the Nickle Resolution occurred when Prime Minister Jean Chrétien used it to prevent Canadian publishing mogul Conrad Black from becoming a British life peer. Chrétien held that, in spite of the fact that the British government was honouring Black as a British citizen, and that Black then held dual citizenship of Canada and Britain (allowed since 1977), he as prime minister of Canada had the right to keep Black from becoming a British life peer because he was also a Canadian citizen. In the end, Black gave up his Canadian citizenship in order to accept the British honour.


In other words, if he had not given up his Canadian citizenship, he could not accept the honour that Britain was bestowing on him..

Sometimes, even with Canada, you have to make a choice. And by moving back to Canada, and not the UK, Black is making a choice. Black is a guy who loves history and found most Britons don't give a rat's backside for his view of it. They think he's a weird colonial, so he's here, and not there. Money gave him a fake life in the UK, with his title and robes, quite a sad fellow. I'm in favour of taxing the rich big time whenever I think of this phony.
 

Spade

Ace Poster
Nov 18, 2008
12,822
49
48
9
Aether Island
God bless mummy and daddy, the prime minister and his new government, Conrad and and his supporters, and ,,,Uncle Bob. Good nignt until the new sunrise and remember, "To hare is Hugh, man."
 

BruSan

Electoral Member
Jul 5, 2011
416
0
16
I was at one time a member of a small group responsible for the administration of a private "defined benefit" pension fund of some 380 million dollars. We were very careful to follow Rev. Can's. prescribed rules regarding "fund surpluses': those amounts of funds that would be deemed surplus if the fund were required to be 'wound up' and found to be additional to the requirements to pay the pension obligations to it's members in perpetuity. We knew that Rev. Can., being a tax addictive entity would view those funds in two ways:

1/ require taxation on those funds up the ying yang.
2/ refuse further injection of funds into the tax sheltered pension fund until those additional funds were no longer deemed surplus either through required funding "holidays" or improved benefits payouts.

We had no warning about a third risk until Conrad slithered out from under his mossy rock. - That being the sale of a business in control of that "private fund" along with it's "deemed surplus" monies.

Anyone remember Dominion Foods and Conrad purchasing that company? He did so purely due to those surplus funds sitting in their pension fund as he knew as the new owner he could make an application to withdraw those funds from the pension fund and recoup a substantial portion of his initial purchase investment in Dominion Food markets.

No matter those funds came in part from the employees contributing part of their paychecks, no matter those funds came in NO part from his investment pocket, no matter those surpluses may have come about through the astute investment protocols of the administrators of the fund, no matter that those funds should have been used to improve the benefits of the pension fund, both past and present, members.

He immediately went into full "rape" mode and launched a legal application to, not only withdraw the surplus, but to wind up the entire fund.

That little action on his part sent a major "tsunami" through the private pension fund community and I guess we should thank him for that as virtually ALL of us immediately took steps to secure those funds and stipulate bylaws, approved by Rev.Can., as to how those funds were to be subject to dispersal upon purchase of the master originator.

The conservative party has now lost another vote as I had voted for them based on their fiscal policies but of late had become concerned for what has been one 'thumb your nose' after another at the citizens over the last year; NOW this obvious "fellow traveller" moment!

To acquiesce to virtually all of Washington's demands on exchange of information regarding any Canadian citizen wishing to enter to the U.S. making us all subscribe to a provable, virtually "squeeky clean" history or "deemed rehabilitated" requirement and then let this slimy bastard (who renounced his Canadian citizenship) with a major felony conviction back into our country speaks volumes to myself of just what the conservative mindset is degrading to.

Like myself; I suspect the moral implications of this far too easy decision on the part of Harper's party will trigger other voters chagrin and have a backlash they neither anticipated or will understand.

Shame on them!
 
Last edited:

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,778
454
83
More on the Conservative double standard.

Mulcair blasts ‘double standard’ that cleared way for Conrad Black’s return to Canada

OTTAWA — News that former media mogul Conrad Black has been given permission to return to Canada after his release from a Florida jail sparked outrage from NDP leader Thomas Mulcair Tuesday.

Black has been serving the final days of a jail term for fraud and obstruction of justice. He has declared publicly he wants to return to his home in Toronto, which he shares with his wife, Barbara Amiel.

The federal government has cleared the way for Black’s return by granting him a one-year temporary resident permit, which is valid from May 2012 to May 2013, according to a source.

Mulcair said the government is not justified in allowing the “the British criminal Conrad Black” to return to Canada, while denying entry to other foreigners with criminal histories.

“This is a simple case of a double standard on behalf of the Conservative government,” Mulcair said. “There is obviously one set of standards for Conservative party insiders and another that applies to everyone else.”

Mulcair compared Black’s case to that of Gary Freeman, an American-born man who has been denied re-entry into Canada because of a criminal record. The 63-year-old was involved with the Black Panthers, and was extradited to the U.S. in 2008 and pleaded guilty to shooting a police officer in 1969. After serving a 30-day sentence, he was denied re-entry to Canada, where his wife and four children live.

“It is a clear case of a double standard, one for an American black man from Chicago, another for a British white man coming out of federal penitentiary,” Mulcair said.

The authorization of a temporary permit is the first step in Black’s quest to return to Canada long-term — but he will have to pass through a series of immigration hurdles to become a Canadian citizen again.

In 2001, the Montreal-born Black gave up his Canadian citizenship to accept a peerage in Britain’s House of Lords. He did this because then-prime minister Jean Chretien would not allow him to accept the title as a Canadian citizen.

Black was forced out of the global publishing empire he had built after shareholders in the U.S. questioned payments he and other Hollinger executives received from the sale of corporate assets. In 2003, Black refused to respond to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission about those payments.

In 2007, he was convicted of fraud and obstruction of justice in a Chicago courtroom.

He had served 29 months of a 78-month sentence when the U.S. Supreme Court tossed out the “honest-services” law that had formed the basis of his 2007 conviction.

He was released in 2010 while the courts re-examined his case. Ultimately, some of the counts for which he was previously convicted were dropped. He returned to a Miami prison last September, where he received credit for time served.

His sentence is due to end this weekend, although prison officials said he likely would be released Friday.

Black has made it clear he wants to return to Canada, but his criminal conviction and lack of Canadian citizenship pose problems.

Black’s ultimate goal is to once again become a citizen. But he can only be considered for citizenship after he has successfully attained permanent residency status and has lived in the country for at least one year. Experts have questioned how easy it will be for Black to get permanent residency status, given his criminal conviction.

Before his run-in with U.S. prosecutors, Black was one of the world’s most successful media moguls. In the 1990s, he bought a stake in the Southam newspaper company and founded the National Post in 1998.

Elsewhere, his newspaper titles included Britain’s The Daily Telegraph, the Chicago Sun-Times, the Jerusalem Post and the Sydney Morning Herald.

On Parliament Hill Tuesday, Immigration Minister Jason Kenney would not say whether Black had been granted the permit. But he did answer questions about the case in general.

He said that foreign nationals are eligible to apply for temporary resident permits to come to Canada. He said he couldn’t comment on Black’s case in the absence of Black’s explicit permission without violating the Citizenship Act.

“It’s the only legal answer I can give,” Kenney told reporters. “If anyone of you can obtain a waiver from the Privacy Act from Mr. Black, we’d be happy to release all the details of any application, how it was considered and according to what criteria.”

Kenney said he expected there might be an application forthcoming, so he instructed his officials in February “to deal with any such application on their own, without any input from myself or my office to ensure that it was handled in a completely independent fashion.”

Every year, officials from the Citizenship and Immigration Department approve more than 10,000 temporary resident permits for foreign nationals, he said, and “a very large number” of those permits help to overcome inadmissibility for foreign nationals with criminal records if federal officials determine it’s a non-violent offence, the individual poses a low risk to reoffend and does not pose a risk to Canadian society.

Federal officials also will consider such other criteria as whether the person has long-standing ties to the country, family connections, and humanitarian and compassionate considerations, Kenney added.

Interim Liberal leader Bob Rae said he has no objection to the government approving Black’s return given his “long attachment and association with Canada,” but expressed concern about the precedent this will set for other criminals seeking entry to Canada.

“In a sense the federal government is now, if you like, hoisted by its own petard,” he said. “If they accept Black’s request … then obviously that’s something they’re going to have to apply in a lot of other cases and situations.”

Black will have to fight an uphill battle to regain Canadian citizenship, Kenney said. Foreigners must first become permanent residents before applying for citizenship, he said, and one can’t become a permanent resident with a “relatively fresh criminal record.”

“For a foreign national with a criminal record, even one that’s non-violent, it’s a fairly lengthy process to establish Canadian citizenship,” he said.

Conrad Black's planned return to Canada attacked by Thomas Mulcair | News | National Post
 

#juan

Hall of Fame Member
Aug 30, 2005
18,326
119
63
Mulcair has a dual citizenship with France and that makes me a little uneasy to start with. Mulcair should go and sit down somewhere and STFU.
 

DaSleeper

Trolling Hypocrites
May 27, 2007
33,676
1,665
113
Northern Ontario,
Mulcair has a dual citizenship with France and that makes me a little uneasy to start with. Mulcair should go and sit down somewhere and STFU.

Maybe Omar Khadr should wait until Mulclair is prime minister to apply to come back to Canada....might even get the Order of Canada if he waits:lol:
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
The best-known modern application of the Nickle Resolution occurred when Prime Minister Jean Chrétien used it to prevent Canadian publishing mogul Conrad Black from becoming a British life peer. Chrétien held that, in spite of the fact that the British government was honouring Black as a British citizen, and that Black then held dual citizenship of Canada and Britain (allowed since 1977), he as prime minister of Canada had the right to keep Black from becoming a British life peer because he was also a Canadian citizen. In the end, Black gave up his Canadian citizenship in order to accept the British honour.


In other words, if he had not given up his Canadian citizenship, he could not accept the honour that Britain was bestowing on him..

And I'd say Chretien was wrong in forcing a person to abandon his citizenship.
 

IdRatherBeSkiing

Satelitte Radio Addict
May 28, 2007
14,629
2,380
113
Toronto, ON
It would be a double standard if this was the only application. Its not. This is a common process and exceptions are made all the time for less political reasons.

Mulclair is just using this as a talking point which I guess makes him no different than any other Leader of the Opposition from the past.
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
847
113
69
Saint John, N.B.
Did you catch the comparison??

"Mulcair compared Black’s case to that of Gary Freeman, an American-born man who has been denied re-entry into Canada because of a criminal record. The 63-year-old was involved with the Black Panthers, and was extradited to the U.S. in 2008 and pleaded guilty to shooting a police officer in 1969. After serving a 30-day sentence, he was denied re-entry to Canada, where his wife and four children live."

Right.

And we are supposed to take the NDP seriously????
 

#juan

Hall of Fame Member
Aug 30, 2005
18,326
119
63
Did you catch the comparison??

"Mulcair compared Black’s case to that of Gary Freeman, an American-born man who has been denied re-entry into Canada because of a criminal record. The 63-year-old was involved with the Black Panthers, and was extradited to the U.S. in 2008 and pleaded guilty to shooting a police officer in 1969. After serving a 30-day sentence, he was denied re-entry to Canada, where his wife and four children live."

Right.

And we are supposed to take the NDP seriously????

Freeman got a thirty day sentence for shooting a U.S. police officer? On the other hand, the creep who strangled the Quebec
cabinet minister, Laport, went off to Cuba and came back a hero....at least in some circles.
 

Locutus

Adorable Deplorable
Jun 18, 2007
32,230
45
48
65
Did you catch the comparison??

"Mulcair compared Black’s case to that of Gary Freeman, an American-born man who has been denied re-entry into Canada because of a criminal record. The 63-year-old was involved with the Black Panthers, and was extradited to the U.S. in 2008 and pleaded guilty to shooting a police officer in 1969. After serving a 30-day sentence, he was denied re-entry to Canada, where his wife and four children live."

Right.

And we are supposed to take the NDP seriously????


These clowns are gonna ensure a second Con majority. :lol:
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,778
454
83
Douglas Gary Freeman was arrested in Toronto in 2004 for a 1969 police shooting in Chicago. Freeman says he acted in self-defence, but pleaded guilty to aggravated battery and served 30 days in jail in the U.S. He served three years in jail in Toronto prior to going to the U.S. for his court case. Freeman raised a family in Canada and was working at a library in Toronto when he was arrested.
Conrad Black returning to Canada on temporary permit - Politics - CBC News

The guy was living peacefully in T.O. for 35 years and somehow we're supposed to believe he is a threat now? And yet, we're also supposed to believe that Conrad Black isn't going to continue working with his cronies the day he gets back in?

Please.

I can understand not allowing Freeman in on the merits that his case was of a "violent" nature, but if the immigration office honestly believes that Conrad is going to be an innocent angel when he gets back, I lolz to that.

Freeman got a thirty day sentence for shooting a U.S. police officer? On the other hand, the creep who strangled the Quebec
cabinet minister, Laport, went off to Cuba and came back a hero....at least in some circles.

Exactly.

The point is that there is a double standard and the cons got called pretty quick on it.

Another contentious issue is that of involvement. Kenney said that the government shouldn't even get involved or even comment on these situations and then went out of his way to say that Freeman was a "cop killer" - thereby committing another juicy hypocrisy in less than 2 mins.

Double standard#2.
 
Last edited:

Goober

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 23, 2009
24,691
116
63
Moving
Conrad Black returning to Canada on temporary permit - Politics - CBC News

The guy was living peacefully in T.O. for 35 years and somehow we're supposed to believe he is a threat now? And yet, we're also supposed to believe that Conrad Black isn't going to continue working with his cronies the day he gets back in?

Please.

I can understand not allowing Freeman in on the merits that his case was of a "violent" nature, but if the immigration office honestly believes that Conrad is going to be an innocent angel when he gets back, I lolz to that.



Exactly.

The point is that there is a double standard and the cons got called pretty quick on it.

Another contentious issue is that of involvement. Kenney said that the government shouldn't even get involved or even comment on these situations and then went out of his way to say that Freeman was a "cop killer" - thereby committing another juicy hypocrisy in less than 2 mins.

Double standard#2.

Gun violence- He was hiding from the US authorities - Did he not change his ID? He would not cause any problems or do things to bring attention to himself now would he?

Black was convicted on one charge – total sum of 600 K. Every other charge was dismissed or overturned by the SCC and the other 2 counts by the presiding judge. Who convicted him on 1 charge.
Yet you see a similarity between both cases?
 

IdRatherBeSkiing

Satelitte Radio Addict
May 28, 2007
14,629
2,380
113
Toronto, ON
Gun violence- He was hiding from the US authorities - Did he not change his ID? He would not cause any problems or do things to bring attention to himself now would he?

Black was convicted on one charge – total sum of 600 K. Every other charge was dismissed or overturned by the SCC and the other 2 counts by the presiding judge. Who convicted him on 1 charge.
Yet you see a similarity between both cases?

If the NDP were at the helm, he would not see the simularity. Because the Conservatives are in power now he sees this as a double standard.

Quite simply, somebody who does gun violence is less likely to be allowed in. Seems like common sense to me.