Published in the Ottawa Citizen, July 13, 2007

 

Black Verdict Was Sadly Predictable
by
Pierre Lemieux

 

The conviction of Lord Black under at least one major charge was easy to predict, as I did before I heard the result. Not that I wished for this outcome. On the contrary, I consider Lord Black a friend, even if he and I have many philosophical -- or perhaps I should say methodological -- differences. While he was waiting for the jury verdict, I invited him and Barbara for dinner in Montreal on July 22, hoping he would then be a free man. He had given me a tentative yes. But it was difficult not to see the many reasons why he was likely to be convicted. The first reason is that the U.S. government had spent large resources on getting Lord Black convicted. It had scared David Radler into snitching on his former boss. By seizing the proceeds of the pre-indictment sale of Mr. Black's New York apartment and other such manoeuvres, it had reduced Mr. Black's financial capacity to defend himself. Against a modern, powerful state intent on felling him, an individual has little chance. A second, related reason is that the state naturally hates individuals such as Lord Black. For the little prosecutors in Chicago, their careers and political interests are strongly biased toward bringing down a famous man such as Lord Black. The new Inquisitors know that, however hard they work for injustice, they are likely never to be hanged from lampposts in a revolution. It is true that Lord Black was not an ordinary entrepreneur, independent from the powers that be. He is a Lord of England, and for decades has been associated with a political establishment that bears a heavy responsibility in the demise of our liberties. Paradoxically, it is the very demise of our liberties that has allowed the sort of mock trial of which he has been a victim. Yet for all his political connections, Lord Black had an unforgivable vice: He is a strong individual who does not bend before political correctness. The editorial policy he inspired in the papers he owned or created was bound to irritate "the scoundrels who govern us" (if the reader will allow me to quote the back cover of my last book). This didn't help him fly under the radar of the contemporary witch-hunters. A third reason why Lord Black was convicted was the very number of charges levied against him, and his being tried with three of his former associates. Pile up the charges. Charges are cheap. The more dice you throw, the higher the probability one will fall right. On the 13 charges against Lord Black (42 in total against all accused), was there any chance that jurors, in their quest to compromise toward unanimity, would not retain at least one? The probability of finding 12 persons who have not been plunged, from their most tender years, into the sea of statist slogans that pass for a social and legal philosophy is, I fear, very small. Finally, one can probably now find a law against virtually anything. Unlike so many who faced the state's unstoppable steamroller, Lord Black has refused to admit guilt and to bargain for a lesser punishment. Future generations, if they have not all been transformed into Chicago zombies, will be grateful to him for this. And my invitation to Conrad for dinner is still valid, for another time and another place.