Friday, July 13, 2007 — Cheering News

Three very pleas­ant items in tonight’s news.

Crim­i­nal financier Con­rad Black, who is also a mem­ber of the British House of Lords, has been found guilty on four counts (rack­e­teer­ing, obstruc­tion of jus­tice, mon­ey laun­der­ing, and fraud) in a Chica­go court, and may face prison time. While he is prob­a­bly not a big name in the Unit­ed States, and the tri­al drew only mod­er­ate cov­er­age from Amer­i­can media, it was fol­lowed with great inter­est in Cana­da, where he has been despised by most decent peo­ple for decades.

Black was born into an extreme­ly wealthy fam­i­ly in Win­nipeg, and has spent a life­time buy­ing, mis­man­ag­ing, and steal­ing from a long chain of com­pa­nies, at first in Cana­da, then in the the U.K. and U.S. His pro­cliv­i­ty for theft became well-known to most Cana­di­ans in the 1980’s, when his attempt to steal $62,000,000 from employ­ee pen­sion funds was head­ed off by the Supreme Court. As the own­er of var­i­ous Con­ser­v­a­tive news­pa­pers, he enter­tained Cana­di­ans with tirades about how ter­ri­ble a coun­try Cana­da is. He also wrote sev­er­al books of dubi­ous val­ue, includ­ing a wor­ship­ful biog­ra­phy of Richard Nixon. He retains his great­est admi­ra­tion, how­ev­er, for Napoleon, with whom he is reput­ed to be obsessed.

Cana­di­ans may have regard­ed Black with embar­rass­ment and con­tempt, but the upper crust in the U.K. were delight­ed with him. After pur­chas­ing the Dai­ly Tele­graph, he began throw­ing a bliz­zard of extrav­a­gant par­ties for the rich and titled, with mil­lions of dol­lars acquired by defraud­ing the share­hold­ers of his com­pa­nies. Prime Min­is­ter Tony Blair urged the Queen to grant him a peer­age. This did not sit well with Cana­di­ans. Evver since the Nick­le Res­o­lu­tion of 1919, the Cana­di­an Gov­ern­ment has tak­en a dim view of the Queen grant­i­ng peer­ages to Cana­di­ans, protest­ing that the Cana­di­an peo­ple find the con­cept of hered­i­tary and aris­to­crat­ic titles to be inher­ent­ly repug­nant. Cana­di­an Prime Min­is­ter Jean Chré­tien was right­ful­ly infu­ri­at­ed by the prospect of the Queen mak­ing Con­rad Black, who had pub­lished end­less tirades denounc­ing Cana­da, into “Baron Black of Crosshar­bour”, espe­cial­ly with­out any con­sul­ta­tion with Cana­da. He launched a vig­or­ous protest with the Queen. In the end, Black was forced to renounce Cana­di­an cit­i­zen­ship in order to accept the title.

The out­come of the Amer­i­can tri­al is full of won­der­ful ironies. Black and his wife, ultra-con­ser­v­a­tive colum­nist Bar­bara Amiel, were always rant­i­ng about the supe­ri­or­i­ty of both the British Aris­toc­ra­cy, and the new Repub­li­can Monar­chy in Wash­ing­ton, as well as the sup­posed supe­ri­or­i­ty of the Amer­i­can busi­ness ethos over the unso­phis­ti­cat­ed hicks in Cana­da. He some­how did­n’t reck­on with the fact that Amer­i­can reg­u­lat­ing agen­cies and laws against fraud and cor­po­rate crime are tougher and more effec­tive than they are in Cana­da. And all their con­ser­v­a­tive tirades about “get­ting tough on crime” have dif­fer­ent impli­ca­tions in a coun­try where juries actu­al­ly do get tough on crime — and are not like­ly to make an excep­tion because some­one styles him­self as “Baron Black of Crossharbour”.

Will Black serve the hard time he deserves? Or will appeals shuf­fle him into some fake “pun­ish­ment” in an Amer­i­can “coun­try-club prison”? Either way, I will have one sat­is­fac­tion. For many years, I have called Con­rad Black a crim­i­nal, and now it can’t be dis­missed as rhetor­i­cal excess.

In con­trast, there was an out­pour­ing of pub­lic affec­tion, here is Toron­to, at the funer­al of Ed Mirvish. Mirvish was a real busi­ness­man, i.e., an entre­pre­neur who lift­ed him­self up from immi­grant pover­ty by pro­vid­ing ser­vices that peo­ple need­ed, deal­ing hon­est­ly, and nev­er for­get­ting his debt to his com­mu­ni­ty. Yehu­da (“Hon­est Ed”) Mirvish was the son of Lithuan­ian and Aus­tri­an immi­grants who oper­at­ed a small gro­cery store in Toron­to. His father died when he was fif­teen, so he dropped out of school to run the busi­ness. In 1948, he real­ized that the waves of refugees who had arrived in Cana­da need­ed a place to shop that offered low prices, and a colour­ful, friend­ly atmos­phere that the prim-and-prop­er stores of that dom­i­nat­ed the city could not pro­vide. The store made a for­tune. Mirvish plowed it back into the neigh­bour­hood. He bought up decay­ing hous­es and rent­ed them out cheap­ly to artists and musi­cians. His love of the the­atre led him to pur­chase a bank­rupt venue, and to bring in Broad­way pro­duc­tions. His judi­cious selec­tion of pop­u­lar plays, and his encour­age­ment and sup­port for every aspect of the dra­mat­ic arts, trig­gered a gen­er­al growth of the arts in Toron­to. Large­ly due to his influ­ence, a city that had lan­guished in cul­tur­al obscu­ri­ty became the third largest cen­ter of Eng­lish-lan­guage the­atre, after Lon­don and New York.

Gen­er­a­tions of immi­grants have shopped at his cheer­ful­ly vul­gar store, which expand­ed grad­u­al­ly to fill an entire block. Nobody ever doubt­ed his sense of humour —- he once insti­tut­ed a “dress code” for his employ­ees, then secret­ly payed them to go on strike in protest against it — or his loy­al­ty to, and iden­ti­fi­ca­tion with the hard-work­ing immi­grant cus­tomers who made him wealthy. I men­tion this to con­trast it with the arro­gant pre­ten­sions of crim­i­nal sleeze like Con­rad Black and Bar­bara Amiel, who give peo­ple pompous lec­tures about “free mar­ket eco­nom­ics” when they are, in fact, the most obnox­ious ene­mies of any real free market.

Speak­ing of free­dom, the third pleas­ing item in today’s news is that a Toron­to judge has ruled that Canada’s mar­i­jua­na pos­ses­sion laws are uncon­sti­tu­tion­al. Ear­li­er court rul­ings against these immoral laws in Ontario have been much less clear-cut. Cud­os to attor­ney Bri­an McAl­lis­ter, who argued the defense of a young man charged with pos­ses­sion of a mere 3.5 grams of mar­i­jua­na, and con­vinced the judge to see the issue in the light of the constitution.

The pro­hi­bi­tion of mar­i­jua­na is an egre­gious vio­la­tion of fun­da­men­tal human rights, and an assault on human lib­er­ty and dig­ni­ty. There is no moral jus­ti­fi­ca­tion, what­so­ev­er, for such vile laws.

Leave a Comment