Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Class War in Media Mogul Conrad Black's Court Trial

By Naomi Klein, The Nation. Posted March 30, 2007.


The jury selection for the trial of a Canadian press baron accused of looting shareholder earnings reveals popular discontent with the corporate elite.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Naomi Klein

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

During the jury selection process at the Conrad Black fraud trial in Chicago, the judge polled potential jurors on their impressions of Black's home, Canada. "Socialist country," one replied. According to press accounts, Black, once the third-most-powerful press baron in the world, turned to his wife, Barbara Amiel, and they shared a smile. At last, a juror after their own hearts -- the couple had been redbaiting Canadians for years.

The Black trial is an odd beast: A Canadian who gave up his citizenship to be a British Lord is on trial in the United States for allegedly pocketing tens of millions that belonged to the shareholders of Chicago-based Hollinger International. Every twist is front-page international news, but most Americans have no idea who Black is. In his opening remarks, Black's lawyer Edward Genson assured the jury, "In his native Canada and England, he's a household name."

It makes sense that Lord Black is a nobody in Chicago. Black never needed to bother with politics in the United States -- as far as he was concerned, the country was close to perfect. It was the rest of the English-speaking world that required Black's bombastic ideological lectures. Delivering those was his life's mission.

Black is the world's leading advocate of the "Anglosphere," a movement calling for the creation of a bloc of English-speaking countries. Adherents claim that the United States, Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand must join together against the Muslim world and anyone else who poses a threat. For Black, the United States is not just the obvious leader of the Anglosphere but the economic and military model that all Anglo countries should emulate, as opposed to the soft European Union.

Although the consolidation of the Anglosphere as a political bloc receives far less scrutiny than US military interventions, it has been a crucial plank of Washington's imperial projects. The movement recently gained some notoriety when it emerged that on February 28, the White House had hosted a "literary luncheon" for George W. Bush's and Dick Cheney's new favorite writer, ultraright British historian Andrew Roberts, author of A History of the English-Speaking Peoples Since 1900, an Anglosphere manifesto. But it is Black who has been the linchpin of Anglosphere campaigns for two decades, using his British and Canadian newspapers to reach out and collectively hug his beloved United States. In Britain this took the form of using the Daily Telegraph as a beachhead against "euro-integrationism" and insisting that Britain's future lies not with the EU but with Washington. This vision reaches its zenith, of course, with the Bush-Blair team-up in Iraq.

In Canada, where Black controlled roughly half the daily newspapers, the push to Americanize was even more strident. When Black founded the daily National Post in 1998, it was with the explicit goal of weaning Canadians from our social safety net (a "hammock") and forming a new party of the "united right" to unseat the governing Liberals.

So, if Black was going to get a sympathetic jury anywhere, it should have been in the United States, where regular people worship the wealthy because they are convinced they could be the next to strike it rich (unlike those envious, over-taxed and -regulated Europeans and Canadians).


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: conrad black, fraud

Naomi Klein is the author of "No Logo: Taking Aim at the Brand Bullies" and "Fences and Windows: Dispatches From the Front Lines of the Globalization Debate."

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
FASB and SEC Mull U.S. Exec Pay Accounting Change
Posted by: cognitorex on Mar 30, 2007 7:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
America's accounting standing board's chiefs are close to deciding that salary and perks exceeding two million dollars annually can not rationally be deemed pay for work expended. Payouts of five million to hundreds of millions would quite boggle the minds of both Adam Smith and Karl Marx, said one insider, "off, off, off the record."
Going forward, the recommendation will be that executive remuneration exceeding two mil annually will be construed as a disbursement of corporate capital in amounts agreed to by boards, directors, trustees and not so trust-ees as the case may be.
The new accounting Pronouncement will reflect that mega salaries in excess of the maximum two mil will be considered as an allocation of corporate capital which will no longer qualify for accounting treatment as a corporate expense.
A number of CEO's have formed a study committee particularly in response to the IRS position of "You can call it capital or you can call it Swiss cheese, we're still taxing exec' pay at the highest personal rate possible."
"There's a fundamental lack of fairness here," whinged the corporate CEO's. They also pointed out, "even embezzlement is treated as a deductible expense."
Shareholders, mostly wearing Abu Ghraib style hooding to protect their identities, were cautiously pessimistic that CEO's and other financial elites would rein in their thievery at any point in the near future.

repost of 10.18.06
Craig Johnson

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Naomi Klein “forgot” to mention that Black is life-long Zionist supporter
Posted by: exhibit on Mar 30, 2007 7:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
He has been accused of using his ownership of media Telegraph conglomerate to stifle debate on Middle East in Great Britain and elsewhere. Former Tory minister Lord Gilmour accused him of dispensing "virulent Israeli propaganda." When he tried to impose more hard-line, pro-Likud editorial line on the relatively moderate Jerusalem Post, 31 journalist revolted.

Its not fit for print, Naomi?

See:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/
Archive/Article/0,4273,4153170,00.html

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

No One is "Worth" X dollars?
Posted by: edith on Mar 30, 2007 8:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Conrad Black should do hard time if he swindled money. That is the only issue the jury in Chicago should worry about. Whether Black gives some of his fortune to charity and is a good rich guy, like Gates, or a bad rich guy like the old robber barons is irrelevant. The remarks of some jurors that nobody should make x milliions or billions also is ludicrous.

Who should decide what someone makes because they took the risk to invest in a business? (if they did it in a crooked way, then obviously their profits need to be reclaimed and compensation to victims made.). It's easy to say anyone who makes ten million or more as a CEO isn't "worth" it, but if you pass that law, what's to prevent the ceiling being lowered or different ceilings being legislated for different professions("no doctor is worth more than $500,000 per year or no lawyer should make $200,000).

I don't buy the argument that if businessmen, lawyers and doctors, to name just several professions, made less, that smart people wouldn't go into those areas. But, that's not the point. The point is to encourage agreements freely negotiated in a transparent system, with a tax system that funds needed services but not services that can be done better by private organizations or individuals.

Income in excess of the bare minimum that the most efficient public entity needs(i.e., often local rather than federal govt) should stay with the person who a company or partnership has legally decided to compensate. If a company wants to reward all employees equally through salary, bonuses, or stock, fine. But the same principle of freedom demands that the govt, including the judicial system, not allocate compensation within private organizations.

I do favor a minimum wage that increases periodically to discourage business from importing cheap labor or using child labor to undercut legal, adult workers. But there should be no govt mandated "maximum" wage. Overpaid inefficient managers will eventually be ousted or find themselves in bankruptcy.

And as for overpaid convicted corporate crooks, I'm no liberal- execute a few- I'm good with that or with forced labor(maybe in some of the unsafe mines in West Va.).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I've Got Mine Posted by: edith
I love it, "Jury of my peers? I HAVE NO PEERS!!!"
Posted by: ateo on Mar 30, 2007 8:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I love the argument his lawyers tried to make during the jury selection process. "These people are not my peers, these people are the trash I might pay to do whatever I bid them. Go boy (to the judge), fetch me a jury of billionaire English royalty, my only true peers."

Too bad for him that a jury of your peers refers to legal status rather than net income in the U.S. still. I'm sure he'll get his newspapers working to influence public opinion to change that.

After all, if corporate robber barons have to answer directly to the workers they have screwed the punishments given to them might be great enough to deter fat cats from screwing their workers and the tax payers in the future. And what then?! The collapse of capitalism itself my friends!

We need to make the rich answerable to the millions whose lives they have destroyed. We need to make the rich afraid by imposing much MUCH harsher sentences upon them.

Steal an apple, 5 years in prison. Steal millions of dollars from your employees and investors, get away with it.

Ah, America!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Juries are 'ordinary' Americans? God help us all.
Posted by: albrechtkrausse on Mar 30, 2007 4:51 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
People who are routinely exempted or removed during voir dire:
1) doctors
2) nurses
3) eldery
4) lawyers
5) government officials (not necessarily elected, but any job)
6) cops (or ex-cops)
7) soldiers (or ex-soldiers)
8) politically active people
9) 'homemakers' (used to be exempt, now, I think based on age of children in most states.)
10) businessmen
11) women (if a rape case), white males (if its a criminal case)
12) clergy (or those who are religious, whatever faith)
Once we remove all of those folks the rest of the population using any excuse they can think of to get out of jury duty (remember duty is a bad word in this country, and being on a jury is such a hassel.) Work issues, vacation issues, illness, fake excuses, or just claiming bias/racism or making outrageous statements during the initial cattle-call or during voir dire.

So, once the law, the people themselves, and the shysters remove the able jurors, we are left with, normally, the retired (but not too old), those on disability, 'minorities', and the stupid. Some of which can make good decisions but hardly 'representative' of one's 'peers', especially in this case.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The US as an Economic Fraud is The Real Culprit
Posted by: crmcvin on Mar 30, 2007 6:36 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm struck by the comment about Americans thinking they are the next to get rich, etc. They do think that - carefully choreographed and manipulated by advertising and big business all their lives to think that. The truth is that America is an economically fascist state. Paying as much or even more in taxes (in some cases) than European counterparts and getting literally nothing for it. Except illegal wars carried on my morons - - Certainly no reliable mass available health care protection, no decent transportation alternatives, lousy public schools (which we pay extra for in our housing costs!) no higher education benefits (oh sure, you can saddle your kids with loans that make others rich), and a failing social safety net. To say nothing of cities that don't work, cops that hate you, and corporations that lie through their teeth, steel your money without any accountability (places like banks and credit card companies) while all the while a fascistic entitiy known as "The Credit Bureau" keep score on you and judges you everyday in your struggle to put food on the table and pay the outrageous bills -- all of which are perpetrated by profit making entities from health care providers and insurance and credit card companies to the local governments themselves to make your life as expensive to live as they can.

Americans need to rise up and stop this economic usury - the best first step would be to take one useless credit card - like one from the Gap or some other retail outlet, and one from a major card company like Visa or Mastercard - cut it in half and send it to the company saying you will no longer be ripped off by their userous fees and outgrageous lies. Then we can move on to jointly finding out how to shut down the credit bureau fascists and the infratstructure that supports them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"Popular discontent with the corporate elite" in Canada?
Posted by: Wassermann on Mar 30, 2007 9:15 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
CORRECT.

They've finally caught on to who the "corporate elite" is; witness for yourself:

Anti-Semitic activities in Canada have risen to their highest level in 25 years

"Anti-Semitic activities in Canada have risen to their highest level in 25 years, according to a new report."

---

Canadian anti-Semitism at all time high

"There were 935 reported incidents of anti-Semitism in Canada in 2006 - representing a 12.8 percent rise from the previous year, a four-fold increase over the past 10 years and an all-time high since counting began - according to figures released by the League for Human Rights of B'nai B'rith Canada."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]