No, the deep emotions Black generates betray something about Canadians as a people. We’re a judgmental lot. Our boy scout self-image demands that our heroes be pristine and preferably rare. We despise those raised to foreign pedestals, yet crave approbation from foreigners who despise us (the Brits) or ignore us (Americans).
The fuss over his lordship’s relationship with his birth country says as much about us as it does about Black. It has led to allegations of special treatment, public accusations of political interference by a senior minister, politically inspired complaints to the Law Society of Upper Canada and denials by the prime minister. All this suggests our emotions run deep about the behaviour of one of our own.
Because, fellow Canadians, Black is indisputably one of our own and can’t be tossed off as he was in the Toronto Star, as a “medal-loving British ex-convict.” He is as Canadian as maple syrup and as complicated as Quebec, where he grew up.
Yes, Black was greedy and coveted ostentatious wealth. His narcissism led him to seek appointment to the House of Lords, which led to the forfeiture of his Canadian citizenship at the hands of Jean Chretien. But while vanity is a sin Canadians find abhorrent, it shouldn’t rob an individual of his nationality.
The Black controversy was fanned back to life when an aide to Immigration Minister Jason Kenney made a formal complaint to the Ontario bar over statements by Toronto lawyer Guidy Mamann. Mamann said Kenney must have intervened in Black’s application to return to Canada after his prison term in the U.S.
The complaint was dismissed because it was absurd and clearly motivated by politics. It also provoked 80 lawyers to sign an open letter repeating Mamann’s allegations of ministerial meddling, accusing Kenney of trying to muzzle dissent and daring the minister to complain about them too. “Given the high degree of control which you exercise over your department, we do not believe that you did not give your consent, either express or tacit, in relation to the request,” they wrote.
Kenney says the Black case went to “highly trained civil servants,” more specifically to a specialist officer stationed in Buffalo, N.Y. But he might have acknowledged his legal right as minister to get involved in cases like Black’s. It wouldn’t be unprecedented.
Complicating matters for the minister was the stunned statement of an aide, who said Mamann ignored the minister’s denials and instead “chose the path of shameless self-promotion and public spectacle.” That’s a path Kenney the politician would recognize on sight.
Then even Stephen Harper weighed in, saying it wasn’t in the government’s interest to intervene “in any way, shape or form” in Black’s return.
Whatever happened, does Black have a legitimate case for a return to his native land? The highly trained civil servant thought so. But many Canadians feel he turned his back on the country and the country should now do the same to him.
That’s harsh. Black didn’t kill anyone, does not represent a risk to Canadian society, and has had most of his convictions appealed and overturned. He wrote long tracts in prison about the injustices of the American courts and says he is more interested in reviving his literary career than in business.
So if he’s to be an author and commentator, why shouldn’t he come back? He wasn’t accused of literary crimes, like plagiarism or copyright infringement. Our most eminent author, Margaret Atwood, thinks we should welcome the “new and different kind of Conrad.”
If there’s no disgrace in accepting Black back into the fold, even reluctantly, then what’s the harm in Kenney saying plainly how the decision was made? After all, this is “the most open and transparent government in Canadian history,” right?
Original Article
Source: the chronicle herald
Author: DAN LEGER
No comments:
Post a Comment