Blog of Adam Daifallah -- author, journalist, law student. Lover of politics, writing, golf, curling, fitness, fashion, bacon and maple products -- not necessarily (but probably) in that order. Partisan of the Anglosphere. Contact me via email at adam@daifallah.com. This summer I am joined by Keir Wilmut and Omar Soliman.
Monday, July 30, 2007
Fun with Economics
Have you been forwarded this email yet?
FW: - GAS PRICES - CONSUMERS NEED TO CHANGE THE DEMAND/SUPPLY IN THE MARKET - READ ON AND DO YOUR PART
I don't usually go for these emails, but this one may have impact on our pockets Gas - Read this if you aren't interested in paying $1.30 - $1.50 / liter this summer. This idea may actually work.
…
Here's the idea: Starting June 1 of 2007 DON'T purchase ANY gasoline from the biggest Company in Canada. Petro Canada! If they are not selling any gas, they will be very quickly inclined to reduce their prices If they. reduce their prices, the other companies will have to follow suit.
Think about this. Petro Canada has 1500 retail locations and the entire country consumes 68 million gallons a day. Yes per day. And Petro Canada is Canada 's largest gasoline retailer, then doesn't it make sense that the consumer can bring this giant to its knees and force them to lower their prices. But to have an impact, we need to reach literally millions of Petro Canada gas buyers. It's really simple to do!
Now, don't wimp out at this point.... keep reading and I'll explain how simple it is to reach millions of people. I am sending this note to 30 people. If each of us sends it to at least ten more (30 x 10 = 300) ... and those 300 send it to at least ten more [etc etc etc]
If this makes sense to you, please pass this message on. I suggest that we not buy from Petro Canada UNTIL THEY LOWER THEIR PRICES TO A REASONABLE PRICE AND KEEP THEM DOWN.
Sounds like it has a shot, doesn’t it? Of course, the most obvious flaw is that, of the 15 million or so people in Canada, you'd never reach enough of them to make a difference. But – to run the analysis – what if everyone in Canada decided to participate?
Let's say gas is $1 / litre everywhere. All of a sudden, everyone stops buying gas at Petro Canada. PC decides to drop their gas prices to $0.99 to attract customers.
One of two things would happen:
People say, "cheaper gas at PC! Hooray!" and go fill up at PC. PC raises prices back up to $1. This is what would happen.
But let's say people decide to Stick to Their Principles, and still refuse to buy gas at PC. Well - if that were the case, why would any of the other stations lower their prices? If you run a gas station across the street from a PC, and they are charging $0.99 and you are charging $1, and for some weird reason there is a line up at your pumps and no one at the PC pumps, would you lower your prices? Or, would you continue to charge $1?
The flaw in the plan is that boycotting a company prevents the normal price-matching effect from happening. Company A doesn't reduce their prices just because Company B does so; Company A will only follow the price reduction if more people start buying from Company B and Company A is suffering as a result. The boycott plan removes the "harm" to Company A of having higher prices, so Company A has no incentive to follow.
Perversely, if this plan was ever fully implemented (which it couldn't be), prices may actually rise at the other stations.
Gas prices are largely determined by supply and demand. Shocks to the system, like natural disasters, shift the supply curve. If people stopped shopping at PC, it would be like those stations were no longer selling gas. This would reduce the overall supply of gas, shifting the supply curve, rising prices.
Think of it this way - all the customers who usually go to PC would have to go elsewhere. This would lead to line ups at those other stations, and those stations would start run out of gas on some days. What do you do if you run a gas station, have big lines at your pumps, and on some days run out of gas? Yup – you increase your prices.
- Worst politician in Canada? The one who unashamedly smuggled drugs in Bibles...and then has the nerve to talk about negative female representation in politics. Pathetic.
The comments to my post on Warren Kinsella’s Cookie Blunder have got me thinking about politics, decency, and fairness.
I do not believe Warren Kinsella is sexist. I think he made a lame joke without ever intending to suggest that women ought to stay in the kitchen, or anything like that. I think that if he had thought for more than thirty seconds, he never would have made the comment. I know that I’ve made stupid comments like that before, and that you have, too.
So the decent thing to do would be to cut the guy some slack, accept his apology, and move on from this non-incident.
But: let’s play make-believe for a moment. Imagine if, in the build up to an election campaign, one of John Tory’s senior advisors had suggested – via a lame joke – that women would rather stay home in the kitchen. What do you think Kinsella would do?
I think he would make that guy’s life a living hell. I think he would put a boot to this guy’s throat, step down, and not let up until John Tory and the Conservative campaign was gasping and pleading for air. I think the author of Kicking Ass in Canadian Politics would make damn sure that at every single one of John Tory’s public appearances from now until the day of the election there was a group of Liberal women, wearing aprons, waving signs and handing out cookies.
Of the many post-mortems written to date, Mark Steyn's opus on the Conrad Black trial is definitely the most thorough and thought-provoking. Steyn captures the real Conrad Black: a man who, contrary to the media and prosecutors' caricature, isn't terribly driven by money. He prefers talking about ideas, history and how to change societies. Steyn basically reflects my position (or more accurately, I reflect his) that the defence team never created a compelling or adequate alternative narrative to the government's this-guy-is-a-greedy-arrogant-robber-baron story. Like the old political adage that some policy beats no policy, in this case, some narrative beat no narrative.
But the prize for best overall piece since Judgement Day goes to my former boss, Seth Lipsky. Seth prepared these remarks and read them to his staff at The New York Sun. Seth is such a gifted writer and he succeeds in saying what so many of us feel but weren't able to effectively communicate. Both the Sun and the National Post -- my two alma maters -- would not have existed without Conrad Black, and the Daily Telegraph would likely no longer still be alive. While calmly, though reluctantly, accepting the trial's outcome, Seth explains why Conrad Black is his friend and why he still supports him. I stand with him.
When you preach equality, as I do, you need to practice it. Therefore, I owe my saintly wife – and my mother, and the amazing women I know and work with, in politics and business – a lot better than some puerile and sophomoric attempt at humour. In particular, I owe my daughter better, too.
... but only after some weasly stuff about how he could justify or explain his comment. Not that he is trying to explain it away, you understand, but if he wanted to, he could point out how the real story is the knuckle-dragging conservatives and their supporters:
I could equivocate, I suppose. I could be a spin doctor, and query whether the media organizations which have assigned reporters to the story (the Globe, the Star and the Sun) did so because of my ongoing freelance column gig (media critic at the National Post). Or I could suggest that Cheri di Novo’s outrage relates to the fact that I loudly opposed the political candidacy of a person who had actually smuggled drugs in Bibles (which I did, and still do). Or I could wonder why Lisa MacLeod is upset about what I said, but not at all about her fellow Conservative candidate, Randy Hillier, who opposes support for “Quebec, Native, Arts, Homosexual, Urban and Multi cultures” (that’s what he said). Or I could point out that I have columnized against violent pornography, and anti-women movies, and the terrible prostitution ads found at the back of a certain Toronto media organization’s entertainment weekly (they know who they are). Or I could quote one of my editors at the Post, who emailed this to me an hour ago, when I gave him a head’s-up that I would be a media football tomorrow in the competition: “Kinsella a sexist? Honestly Warren it is beyond absurd. I don't think anyone who knows you would ever believe such tripe.”
Or, you know, I could give some other excuse. But I won’t.
That's a lot of talking for someone who isn't making excuses.
Of the many YouTube videos available to use as diversions or procrastination tools, one of my favourites is the raucous debate between Christopher Hitchens and George Galloway about the Iraq war. In that dog fight, Hitchens repeatedly accused Galloway of being Saddam Hussein's useful idiot and for being in cahoots with the ex-Iraqi dictator. (The same claims were made by London's Daily Telegraph, for which Galloway sued for libel and won.)
An inquiry was set up, by the Committee on Standards and Privileges, to investigate. It has now produced its report, along with a recommendation that Mr. Galloway apologize to the House and be suspended from Parliament for 18 days. And the findings of the report are even more damning, if that is possible, than the conclusions reached by the Senate and Volcker investigations. In particular, they make reference to the transcript of a meeting between Galloway and Saddam Hussein on Aug. 8, 2002. On that date, Galloway complained to his political master—the man he had saluted in public for his "courage" and "indefatigability"— that certain problems with oil prices were affecting "our income" and "our dues."
I would have preferred someone with less of an established persona – the games are really the star of The Price Is Right, if that makes sense – but it could have been so, so, SO much worse:
[O'Donnel] said she had suggested that the show include Broadway hunks, confetti, musical bumpers and a set makeover.
This past weekend was another bloody one in Toronto: several shootings, including one that resulted in the death of Ephraim Brown, an 11-year old boy.
Mayor David Miller has decided that US guns are the cause, and convincing the US government to change their gun laws is the solution:
"It's time for the Canadian government to say to the U.S. 'we are good friends, but your gun laws are exporting a problem to our country and it is not acceptable any more and you need to take action,'" he said Monday.
This is… well, somewhat naïve, is perhaps the politest way to put it. Let’s assume for a moment that US guns are the source of Toronto’s problems, and that tightening gun laws in the US would cause the violence to stop. Is there anyone – including Mayor Miller – who seriously believes that the Canadian government has the ability to influence US gun control policy?
Gun ownership is the US is a complicated issue. Entrenched in the Constitution, the right to bear arms is viewed by large numbers of Americans as inalienable a right as the right to free speech. A powerful gun lobby advocates on behalf of gun owners, while an almost-as-powerful anti-gun lobby has fought for decades trying to restrict gun ownership.
Given the massive amounts of money in play, and the gun-issue voting blocks that can make or break candidates for office south of the border, it is not realistic to believe that chiding from the Canadian government would have any effect on American gun policy.
What, then, can be done about gun violence? Is there anything within the control of the Canadian government that ought be considered to try and reduce the gunfire? Perhaps… oh, I don’t know, a look at the criminal justice system?
The two [accused] men, just out of their teens, have a history of criminal charges. In Mr. Eubank's case, those charges include weapons offences, allegations he assaulted a police officer and, on one occasion, eight counts of failing to comply with bail conditions.
In the summer of 2005, Mr. Sappleton was arrested and charged in connection with the notorious drive-by shooting that wounded four-year-old Shaquan Cadougan — charges that were withdrawn by prosecutors. Both men allegedly have gang connections. Both are well known to police.
All accused are innocent until proven guilty, and a series of unproven criminal charges does not mean these two men are guilty of anything. But the string of violent charges coupled with the repeated failing of at least one of the accused to comply with bail charges does raise issues about the efficacy of the Ontario justice system when dealing with known gang members.
Let’s look closer to home before we embark on a quixotic quest to change American gun laws.
Thorough and quite enlightening profile of John Tory in the new edition of Toronto Life. I would say more about Tory, who has had a fascinating career replete with accomplishments (not too different from Mitt Romney's) but this one paragraph has to be singled out:
John Tory represents a less strident brand of conservatism that was once common in this country—one that favours free markets and fiscal prudence, but also believes in social justice and the positive power of government. It’s called Red Toryism, a moniker that has nothing to do with Tory’s family name but is synonymous with his views. It’s the political philosophy whose roots stretch back to Sir John A. Macdonald and the very invention of Canada. In the 1970s and ’80s, during the Bill Davis era in Ontario, it was known as the Big Blue Machine: the ideal combination of organizational strength, political savvy and well-managed, moderate government. In the 1980s, Brian Mulroney borrowed Davis’s formula and his brain trust, riding the Big Blue Machine to two successive federal majority governments. Today, however, few people in Canada equate conservatism with moderation. Federally, the party has taken the Progressive out of its name. Provincially, Mike Harris’s Common Sense Revolution remade the party into one of ideological purity. And the Big Blue Machine of capital-P Progressive Conservatism has been reduced to rusty scraps and popped springs. John Tory has been carrying that broken-down heap on his shoulders since the defeat of the federal PCs in 1993. He is determined to see it rebuilt. He is probably its last hope.
That whole paragraph is chock-full of misrepresentations and half-truths that you would expect to hear from, uhhh, Toronto Life.
First, the term "Big Blue Machine" has nothing to do with the "political philosophy" of the Davies Tories. It referred only to the organizational powerhouse around Davis, consisting of people like John Tory, Hugh Segal, Norman Atkins and others.
Second, the statement that "few people in Canada equate conservatism with moderation" is puzzling. What is the basis for such a statement, and has the author been paying attention to the last 9 months of the Harper government? Is there a study or a poll we can point to?
But more importantly, the Common Sense Revolution did not remake the Ontario PCs into an ideologically pure party.
One, the CSR years were hardly ideologically pure: spending continued to go up in all areas (especially healthcare) and many Red Tories continued to have tremendous sway in the party and held important positions such as party president (Peter Van Loan) and many cabinet spots (Elizabeth Witmer and Janet Ecker spring to mind.)
Two, if the party was ideologically pure, how and why did it elect John Tory as leader?
These points may seem trivial and unimportant, but those of us who care about fairness and accuracy and the way the history of the Harris era will be written need to speak up when we see such things.
Dangerous Offender provisions of the Criminal Code
Little-discussed provisions of the Criminal Code are once again in the news. “Notorious pedophile” Peter Whitmore has been offered a deal: if he pleads guilty to sexually assaulting two young boys, he’ll receive a life sentence - but will not be subject to a “Dangerous Offender” application.
Back in law school I wrote a lengthy paper examining the theoretical underpinnings of these applications. This is the (abridged) section outlining the nuts and bolts of Canada’s Dangerous Offender legislation:
The current provisions for Dangerous and Long-Term Offenders are set out in Part XXIV of the Criminal Code. An offender must have been found guilty of a “serious personal injury offence,” defined in section 752 as either an indictable offence carrying a possible penalty of at least ten years involving the use of violence against another person, or conduct endangering or likely to endanger the life or safety of another person, or conduct likely to inflict severe psychological damage on another person; or an offence or attempt to commit a sexual assault under section 271, 272, or 273.
Once an individual is convicted, the Crown can make an application at any time up to six months later. To succeed in their application, the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the “offender constitutes a threat to the life, safety or physical or mental well-being of other persons on the basis of evidence establishing:”
(a) that the offence for which the offender has been convicted is a serious personal injury offence described in paragraph (a) of the definition of that expression in section 752 and the offender constitutes a threat to the life, safety or physical or mental well-being of other persons on the basis of evidence establishing (i) a pattern of repetitive behavior by the offender, of which the offence for which he or she has been convicted forms a part, showing a failure to restrain his or her behavior and a likelihood of causing death or injury to other persons, or inflicting severe psychological damage on other persons, through failure in the future to restrain his or her behavior, (ii) a pattern of persistent aggressive behavior by the offender, of which the offence for which he or she has been convicted forms a part, showing a substantial degree of indifference on the part of the offender respecting the reasonably foreseeable consequences to other persons of his or her behavior, or (iii) any behavior by the offender, associated with the offence for which he or she has been convicted, that is of such a brutal nature as to compel the conclusion that the offender's behavior in the future is unlikely to be inhibited by normal standards of behavioral restraint; or (b) that the offence for which the offender has been convicted is a serious personal injury offence described in paragraph (b) of the definition of that expression in section 752 and the offender, by his or her conduct in any sexual matter including that involved in the commission of the offence for which he or she has been convicted, has shown a failure to control his or her sexual impulses and a likelihood of causing injury, pain or other evil to other persons through failure in the future to control his or her sexual impulses.
If this application succeeds, the court is required to impose an indeterminate sentence, without parole review for seven years.
If the application fails, or no such application was made, and the offender was convicted of a sexual offence for which a sentence of two years or more is appropriate, the Crown can make an application to declare the offender a Long-Term Offender. This application will succeed when the court is satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that there is a substantial risk that the offender will re-offend, and there is a reasonable possibility of eventual control of the risk in the community. The requirement of a “substantial risk to re-offend” will be satisfied where the offender has shown either a pattern of repetitive behavior that shows a likelihood of further death, injury, or psychological harm to other persons, or conduct in a sexual offence that shows a likelihood of future injury, pain, or other evil to other persons.
If the Long-term Application succeeds, the offender is sentenced to a maximum ten year monitoring period in the community, following the completion of their sentence for the underlying offence. If the Long-Term Application fails, or the Crown elects not to make one, then the offender serves only the sentence imposed for the underlying offence.
Despite the expansion of their applicability caused by the 1977 and 1997 amendments, these provisions of the Criminal Code remain infrequently used, as only approximately 15 offenders per year are designated Dangerous Offenders. Even more infrequent is the release of such an offender; in 1997, only four out of one hundred and seventy six Dangerous Offenders were on some form of conditional release.
According to a survey of the Dangerous Offender population in 1994, they tend to be white, middle-aged, uneducated men, facing financing difficulty:
IQ 94.9 Mean age 34.4 Sexual offence 92% Grade completed 8.5 % single 48.4 Caucasian 95.2 % unemployed 63.3 % financial difficulty 58.9
Significantly, despite the attempt of the 1977 DO provisions to broaden the category to include non-sexual offenders, virtually all Dangerous Offenders had at some point been convicted of a sexual offence. To evaluate the efficacy of the DO criteria in identifying probable repeat offenders, the study compared Dangerous Offenders to a group of federal offenders who had, upon, release, subsequently re-offended violently. These “detention failures” had similar characteristics to Dangerous Offenders, suggesting that the criteria for Dangerous Offenders are indeed identifying probably recidivists.
It goes on like this for 40-some pages. Let me know if you have a burning desire to read the rest.
What's the result of this deal? It does increase the likelihood that Whitmore will one day get parole, but only slightly. A life sentence can actually mean life in jail: a parole board will have to approve any release, and given his past they will, presumably, be unlikely to do so.
Ray Heard is at it again--and, let's be clear, this can only be good news for the federal tories.
In 1980, a guy named George C. Perlin wrote an important book called "The Tory Syndrome", in which he attempted to explain the failure of the federal Conservative Party as owing to a tendency on behalf of it's members for engagement in perpetual internal fratricide (read: federal tories' failure had to do with a penchant to kill their own).
Aside from the possibility of Perlin having confused "cause and effect" (i.e. internal party bickering may have been the effect of Conservative political failure--not always or necessarily it's cause), the theory makes a whole lot of sense if you look at Conservative party politics in, say, the 90's. Adam documents this well in his book.
While the reign of Prime Minister Harper will be remembered for many positive contributions (and many more still to come, I'm sure), we can all agree that a unique accomplishment has been the taming of the various factions within the party and the relative harmony developed within conservative movement in general. Put simply, the Tory Syndrome is dead. And it's been a long time coming.
Meanwhile, it is now abundantly clear that the sorry spectacle that was the Chretien-Martin affair comprised itself of all the necessary ingredients of a new (yes, I'm going to say it) "Liberal syndrome." Guys like Ray Heard perpetuate this theory, previously unthinkable for the LPC in Canadian politics. So there you have it, Ray Heard is my hero--I pray that he keeps it up.
This here, in my opinion, is pathetic. Again, I'm sort of the in the minority on this issue in the conservative camp.
But here's what I can't understand--and maybe some of you could help me with this:
Western governments neglected engagement with the Palestinians on the basis of their authoritarian, anti-democratic bent (read: Fatah is a corrupt organization and only democracy will solve these ills);
Then, when the Palestinians finally came to their senses and voted in free and fair elections, we outright rejected their votes and denied them foreign aid (read: we encourage your right to political expression, but not this time);
Meanwhile, we illegally bolster the opposition as the government of choice (read: Fatah, despite your not being elected, we don't mind engaging with you after all).
Lastly, we read that Hamas, the government of choice, has resorted to violence (read: they are a terrorist organization).
Now, far be it from me to ever justify a Hamas government's actions...but as the self-appointed bearers of democracy, why is it that we periodically find ourselves in the awkward situation of having to trample the very democratic values we cherish and claim to promote?
Sure, politics is never this simple. But, just for a second, consider the negative effects that such policy has on the broader War on Terror.
When President Bush decides to engage exclusively with Abbas and Fatah, thereby subverting the democratic will of the Palestinians, he sends two messages:
All that sweet talk of democracy, liberty, and freedom was all for naught; and,
We will engage with who we want, when we want, and for reasons of our choosing.
If the politics of the Middle East is "irrational" (as Reagan once put it), it must surely be related to the incongruity of our own values and principles with our actions and motives.
Today, America speaks anew to the peoples of the world:
All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: the United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you.
Democratic reformers facing repression, prison, or exile can know: America sees you for who you are: the future leaders of your free country.
The rulers of outlaw regimes can know that we still believe as Abraham Lincoln did: "Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves; and, under the rule of a just God, cannot long retain it."
The leaders of governments with long habits of control need to know: To serve your people you must learn to trust them. Start on this journey of progress and justice, and America will walk at your side.
President Bush's second term is nearly done. A missed opportunity is what this represents...
"The easiest way to rob a man is to call him a thief" -- George Jonas
Talk about foreshadowing. At about 11 am Friday morning, the bright Montreal sunshine was suddenly replaced by clouds, then extreme darkness. Then there was a total downpour. Five minutes later, I got an email from Omar that the verdict was coming down. I then realized it was Friday the 13th. Ten minutes after that, I watched the live Internet feed from the CBC as word of the four guilty verdicts out of 13 came out.
I was prepared to hear a guilty verdict or two, but when it actually happens, it's still a shock to the system.
Through the greater part of the trial, I thought things went very well for Conrad Black and the other defendants. How could one conclude otherwise? Most of the prosecution's witnesses were a bust. It was clear for the great majority of the trial that the government was not convincing anyone that any crimes were committed.
But I started getting concerned when I read reports of the prosecution's closing statements and how effective Julie Ruder supposedly was. I knew that emotion would, or at least could, win over the jurors in spite of hard facts. The government painted a picture of an evil robber baron and played up class envy. (The video footage was also a killer.) Patrick Fitzgerald's team developed a sexy narrative and it worked. I also worried when the judge sent the jury back after they sent their Tuesday note indicating deadlock. I figured it would encourage compromise and that that would mean a mix of guilty and non-guilty verdicts.
The first thing you learn in criminal law class is that the prosecution needs to prove two things: a criminal act (actus reus) and a guilty mind (mens rea). From the media reports about what went on inside the courtroom, I saw proof of neither, especially the latter.
The Conrad Black that has been portrayed in the media and by the prosecution is not the man I know. And I'm not the only one who feels that way. Scores of ex-Black employees, from Joan Crockatt to Ken Whyte to Dominic Lawson to Mark Steyn to John O'Sullivan, have defended him throughout this ordeal. Several friends from ex-Hollinger papers have contacted me to express their private support. It is telling that those who know the man best feel the strongest about what an amazing person he really is.
No one has said it better than George Jonas: the zeitgeist won the day Friday. Pure and simple. Conrad Black will appeal the four convictions. This battle isn't over.
Victory has a thousand fathers, and defeat is an orphan. Similarly, it seems, a guilty verdict has a thousand bloggers spinning their theory of how the defense blew it.
Far from me, a not-quite-yet-lawyer, to criticize Eddie Greenspan, but I think Lord Black should have taken the stand.
The word on the street during the trial was that Lord Black wanted to testify, but his lawyers talked him out of it via (in part) a particularly vigorous mock cross-examination. Given that the defense seemed to be going well, the logic went, why give the prosecution the chance to regain ground?
During cross-examination the prosecution would have scored some points. Lord Black’s, er, lordly manner would have come out, and he no doubt would have used more than a few ten-dollar words. His lawyers were likely concerned that this would alienate the jury and make them dislike him.
This risk would have been worth taking: not testifying was a missed opportunity to explain why there was no crime. It also raised doubt as to his innocence in the minds of the jury members.
The defense argument on the non-competes was that they were properly approved payments for a service (the service not to compete). Who can give a fuller and more satisfying explanation of how they came to be in the contracts, why they were justified, and how they were approved: Eddie Greenspan or Conrad Black? On the obstruction of justice charge, is it more persuasive to hear from Lord Black’s secretary as to the contents of the boxes, or him?
It was David Radler’s word versus Lord Black’s, and Lord Black didn’t say a thing.
Concern that Lord Black’s effusive manner would alienate the jury seems overblown. Given that the prosecution had described him as a thief and a fraudster, his image in the courtroom only had room to go up. Having met Lord Black, I can report that he comes across as polite and quite amiable – hardly the conniving con artist portrayed by the prosecution. Expecting a slick fraudster with verbal diarrhea, the jury would have been pleasantly surprised.
But most importantly, I think juries expect an innocent man to want to testify. Even though it is a serious error of law for a trier of fact to make a negative inference from an accused’s decision not to testify, I think jurors frequently do precisely that. Not on any sort of a rational, conscious level, but on a sub-conscious, gut-feel level. If I was accused of a crime I didn’t commit, that voice says, I’d use every chance I had to proclaim my innocence.
Unless you have a serious criminal record, you should almost always take the stand if you are the defendant in a white-collar crime case. Irrespective of any instruction it receives, the jury will usually not believe that you lacked the requisite criminal intent if you are not willing to look them in the eye and tell them so. We have all heard horror stories about white-collar crime defendants who took the stand and made the government's case stronger through unbelievable testimony. Nevertheless, I am firmly convinced that in most of these cases the result would have been equally disastrous if the defendant had stood silent. There are exceptions to every rule. The decision whether to take the stand will differ with each individual defendant and case, and will sometimes depend on intangible factors. But all things considered, it is best for the white-collar criminal defendant to testify.
In America, unlike Canada, jurors are allowed to discuss the case and their deliberations – so over the coming weeks we’ll get more insight on how they reached their verdict, and whether testimony from Lord Black could have changed the outcome.
When you look at how much of the case Conrad & Co were acquitted on, it's hard not to conclude - as Lord Black's friend and former Hollinger director Alfred Taubman did of his own travails - that he was convicted because he did not testify. In particular, the charge that looks like ruining his life - a potential 20-year conviction for removing boxes containing documents he had already sent to the SEC - is one that could only be explained and mitigated by understanding what was in his head. Not what was on camera, what his secretary was thinking, who was in the parking lot, or anything else. The circumstantial evidence was too appealing to be overridden by anything but the testimony of the defendant himself.
Conrad Black has been found guilty on four of the thirteen charges against him (obstruction of justice and three counts of mail fraud). He faces a maximum of 35 years in prison.
The obstruction of justice conviction stems from the video of Lord Black removing boxes from his former corporate HQ. The mail charges related to the non-competes with American Publishing Corporation.
The government alleged three schemes - the "US scheme", the "CanWest scheme", the "perks scheme" - and upgraded them to racketeering, and threw in tax fraud. They lost on racketeering and tax. They lost outright on two-thirds of the schemes. And on the remaining scheme - the "US scheme" - they lost on everything but the APC non-compete fee. Yet, absent successful appeals, four men could be spending the rest of their working lives in jail. The US Attorney's office might usefully adopt as its motto the IRA's message to Mrs Thatcher after the Brighton bombing, "You have to be lucky every time. We only have to be lucky once."
Expect appeals - especially given the way the jury's deliberations played out.
Such is Ontario politics these days. And I can't say I disagree either. I am one to believe (and I am probably alone on this) that conservation, in all its peculiar forms, is inextricably tied to the ideals of a genuine conservative.
Elsewhere, I have seen conservatives (read: libertarians) use the mantra of liberty to argue against such encroachment. Fundamentally, this crowd has confused the American conservative tradition with the Canadian conservative tradition--very different narratives altogether. It's a matter of fact that the liberty line resonates much better with Americans than it does with Canadians: our Founding Fathers weren't as interested in ceding themselves from the Motherland. The tory tradition in Canada is all about moderation, collectivism, and order--the emphasis on liberty is not as prominent.
A lot of the stuff that guys like Ron Paul (who describes himself as a "constitutionalist") are saying these days reminds me of the political rhetoric of Ronald Reagan. In Reagan's Inaugural Address on January 20, 1981, he famously noted:
In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. From time to time we've been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. Well, if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else? All of us together, in and out of government, must bear the burden. The solutions we seek must be equitable, with no one group singled out to pay a higher price.
Notice how similar that is to pronouncements made in the Declaration of Independence (1776):
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
I may be simplifying this argument, but, in a nutshell, this is what distinguishes one of the tendencies in American conservatism from Canadian conservatism: namely, and I'm pretty sure my friend Adam would disagree with me here, Canadians are probably more willing than Americans to accept "attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction" over them.
Is it right for governments to do this? Probably not.
While I can't locate it on his presidential homepage, the New York Sun reports that Rudy Giuliani has named Harvard professor Stephen Rosen, Middle East scholar Martin Kramer, Peter Berkowitz and the legendary Norman Podhoretz to constitute his foreign policy team. That is one hawkish team.
Interesting read from Urquhart on the summer campaign in Ontario.
Ontario Tories will be pleased to know that their leader is hard at work in anticipation of the fall provincial election. Unfortunately, any seasoned political campaigner knows that a leader's "prodigious work ethic" is never really directly correlative to their political success. The hype and circumstance of a heated electoral contest (one that, in all likelihood, will result in a minority government) dictates otherwise.
Here's a thought:
Forget the hand-shaking on the BBQ circuit...Tory's team will need to identify new and creative ways to get their message across to Ontarians. I'm inclined to believe that we should go negative sooner or later (and that has nothing to do with having worked for Warren Kinsella for over a year ;-). It's just plain and simple: the "Leadership Matters" mantra is too open-ended for a public that has yet to see what John Tory can offer. We need to go neg, NOW. Leave all the fancy policy stuff for the campaign period--it's going to be long enough.
For all the other Conrad Black Trial Junkies out there, Steven Skurka's Crime Sheet is indispensible. His reading of the hung jury tea leaves:
The jury’s verdict in the case is merely hours away. None of the journalists covering the trial are prepared to stray far from the courtroom. Stay tuned.
Kipnis, Boultbee and Atkinson will be free men tomorrow. Their ordeal will soon be over. The verdict of the jury will be not guilty on all counts.
Conrad Black has beaten the core charges he faces including the racketeering and fraud charges relating to the $60 million dollars of non-competition payments.
The remaining charges relate to some of the perks or more likely to the obstruct justice charge.
The deadlocked jury will either return with no verdict on the remaining charges tomorrow or perhaps return with a sweeping acquittal on all counts. It will not matter because the government will never retry Black on any of the peripheral charges.
For political / legal junkies, this trial is starting to resemble Bush v. Gore 2000. Just when you think it is going to be over soon and you'll have to find something else to do with your coffee breaks.... hanging chads! Hung juries! It's like a soap opera that never ends.
The last two days has brought some media attention to our little Conrad Black Fan Club on Facebook. Actually, it's not so little anymore. At last count, membership has ballooned to over 500 people. Yesterday's Globe mentions the club, and Joe Warmington in today's Sun papers wonders if the club, as well as the welcome message from Conrad Black, are legit. Yes indeed. And while Joe is claiming to have a "call out" to the creators, I certainly haven't heard from him. Anyone wanting to join can do so by typing in Conrad Black in the search bar. It's the first thing that comes up.
Some attentive readers will have noticed the below post on the Mayerthrope murders was not written by me. It was written by Keir Wilmut, who has joined this blog as a contributor.
A few weeks ago, I put out a request to have some friends join this blog for the summer while I work at a law firm. With that full time job and the hours it demands, I felt I wouldn't have the time to put into this blog that I would like. So, I asked anyone who shares my ideological outlook and who is an aspiring journalist to join me. I couldn't be happier with who has agreed to come help, and you'll know why when you read their stuff.
The first is Keir Wilmut (see his first post below). Keir recently graduated from law school at the University of Toronto, articled at a major Toronto firm and is now entering the journalism business. Some of you may know him from his work as MTV Canada's political correspondent, or as the runner-up to Deirdra McCracken in last year's Next Great Prime Minister Contest. He's also known as one of Toronto's most eligible bachelors. I have known Keir for several years and respect him greatly. I'm really glad to have him on board.
The second addition is Omar Soliman. Omar recently graduated from U of T and is heading to Columbia University in the fall for a Master's degree in journalism. Omar has been involved in conservative politics for a while, working for Jim Prentice on Parliament Hill and with the Ontario PC Campus Association. His articles have been published in such outlets as the Western Standard and The Hill Times. He is Executive Director of the University of Toronto Churchill Society and he currently works for Warren Kinsella at the Daisy Consulting Group in Toronto.
Dennis Cheesman and Shawn Hennesey have been charged with four counts of first-degree murder under the “Parties to Offence” provision of the Criminal Code. Judging by the vague descriptions in the newspapers, I don’t think this is a well-understood provision.
Section 21 of the Criminal Code doesn’t make a particular act illegal, but rather overlays the other offences in the Code and extends liability for those offences beyond the person who actually committed the act:
PARTIES TO OFFENCE / Common intention.
21. (1) Every one is a party to an offence who (a) actually commits it; (b) does or omits to do anything for the purpose of aiding any person to commit it; (c) abets any person in committing it.
Translated into plain English this means that a person can be found guilty of any of the acts in the Code if he or she (a) actually commits the act, (b) assists another person to commit the act, or (c) encourages another person to commit the act. The possible penalties are the same as for a person who actually commits the offence, although the degree of the role will play a role in sentencing.
It looks as if Cheesman and Hennesey are accused of aiding (section 21(1)(b)) James Roszko in the murder of the four RCMP officers. This will require the Crown prosecutor to prove that the two men did something (or didn’t do something) for the purpose of helping Roszko commit murder. Accidental assistance is not enough: whatever specific act or acts Cheesman and Hennesey are accused of doing to aid Roszko, it will have to be proven that they either intended that death would ensue, or that they intended Roszko cause harm of a kind likely to result in death. Note that “intent” does not equate with “desire”; there is no requirement that the two men wanted the officers dead.
There isn’t much information available about what the two men allegedly did to aid in the commission of the offence other than a statement by an RCMP officer in the warrant that “Hennesey is a person on which Roszko would turn to for assistance.” What we do know: on the day before of the murders, two bailiffs arrived at Roszko’s farm to seize a stolen truck. Roszko fled. He allegedly made phone calls from Hennesey’s house. Hennesey later told the police that Roszko asked him to hide his truck, but he refused. The next day, Roszko somehow make it back to his farm where he shot the four officers.
As an example (and this is entirely speculative), let’s say Roszko came over to one of their houses and said, I’m in trouble, can I hide out here for the night? Hiding Roszko could only result in a conviction for murder if the men did so with the intention of helping him kill the officers. Just knowing that he was on the run for some reason and giving him a place to stay would not be enough to convict for murder (but may be enough to convict under sections 23 and 463 as an accessory after the fact). Similarly, say one of them men drove Roszko back to his farm. This could only result in a conviction for murder if the man drove him to the farm intending that he commit an act likely to lead to the deaths of the officers.
If such intent cannot be proven, the two men could still be found guilty of manslaughter if they intended to assist Roszko commit an act that a reasonable person would have understood would lead to bodily harm. Continuing the speculation, it might be enough to convict them of manslaughter if they drove Roszko back to the farm while he spoke of his desire to shoot at the officers, even if they had no intention of helping him commit murder, and didn’t appreciate that he might do so.
Edited to add: Colby Cosh has some great analysis, pointing out additional reasons why it may be difficult to convict these guys.
I channel surfed to Live Earth for a minute only to see what looked like a doped-up Macy Gray and her band singing that one song she had a hit with a few years ago. The band members all wore t-shirts with various messages on them. End Hunger, etc. One of the shirts had George Bush written on it, with an X through it. Another had Dick Chaney with an X through it. Yes, it was spelled that way. Chaney.
Sorry for the absence. A lot of good has happened in the last two weeks. Rosie's out of the running for the host spot on Price is Right! But so has a lot of bad, including today's news from Afghanistan. But I would like to mention something a little less heavy this evening -- the new website Dalton.ca. Whatever your take on Dalton McGuinty, this is one fine piece of political advertising. Low cost, incredibly professional, straight to the point and interesting. The Ontario Liberals get top points for this.
McGuinty's tenure has been shaky from a "promises kept" perspective, so he's done well to address all those shortcomings this early on. When John Tory tries to raise them during the fall campaign, much of the public will be tired of hearing about it. He's already dealt with that stuff.
When Greg Sorbara delivered his first budget in 2004, I was in the lockup and had to write the editorial for the next day's National Post. No one could believe how many promises he broke. But as I left that room, I said to a colleague, "Just wait. Dalton McGuinty will get a second majority." I still believe that. The Liberals knew exactly what they were doing. They knew that if they got all that bad news out of the way early on, they could spend the next three years explaining it away and that most people would forget about it.
Judging by the polls, that's exactly what's happened.
Sorry for the prolonged absence. I was moving, and didn't have Internet at home until today. Regular blogging -- with an exciting new summer twist -- to resume tomorrow.
