This Friday question deserves its own post. Should Conrad Black get his citizenship back? Should Canadian citizenship be at all renouncable? Would it not be better to say he must renounce his Lordship so that he may rejoin the masses of the Canadian populace without the taint of peerage? I say the latter is the way to go.
Even though he said some mean and dense things, that should not be cause to lose one's nationality. After all, in this case, it may be just about exchanging one sort of relationship as beneficiary of the hospitality of the Queen for another.

Comments
Classic - November 25, 2005 1:35 PM
_He's made his bed. Citizenship of Convenience is no citizenship at all. Let Lord Black's lawyers negotiate for a transfer to a British prison - if need be.
optimus - November 25, 2005 2:17 PM
As much as I loathe Lord Black, my default position would be to deny anyone citizenship in the country of their birth as infrequently as possible.
David Janes - November 25, 2005 2:49 PM
Born here? Canadian citizen.
Cool Girl - November 25, 2005 4:13 PM
Well, I would let him back if he met the criteria for Canadian Citizenship.
I believe two features of this are (or should be) Modesty and Politeness.
Unfortunatly, he ain't getting back in.
But look on the bright side - he may get to wear his red ermine Lord of Crossharbour robes to cast the chill off in prison. Or maybe he can trade it for a pack of smokes.
B - November 25, 2005 9:45 PM
Anyone who renounces their citizenship and slings shit like he did has chose the Devil You Don't.
He was so hot-to-trot to get his peerage that he was willing to sacrifice something I hold very dear: Canadian citizenship. Now that he could be doing time in the US, despite his 'steadfast' claims of innocence, his zeal for a return to his roots is very suspect. Clearly, he is a citizen of his own convenience. Will Mark Emery be able to use his already existing Canadian citizenship to get a prison transfer? Emery is, and always has been, proudly Canadian.
As far as I'm concerned, Barbara Amiel can visit her Lord down in The States.
Arthur - November 25, 2005 11:40 PM
the criteria for Canadian Citizenship.
He should do the Citizen and Imigration Test!
'nee - November 26, 2005 12:42 AM
I'm sorry, is citizenship non-renouncable? Can you just decide one day and change your mind the next, like an obnoxious kid standing on a ceremonial provincial boarder jumping back and forth across the line saying really loudly "NOW I'M IN ALBERTA!" (hop) "NOW I'M IN SASKATCHEWAN!" (hop) "NOW I'M ... OW!"
Yah, like that. So you can decide that you don't want to pay taxes for a few years and then suddenly recitizenize yourself? I think Mr. Black should have to get into the immigration queue with any other Brit who wants to become a Canadian Citizen to avoid a US Federal Penitentiary.
Flea - November 26, 2005 9:00 AM
Lord Black did not lose his citizenship because he said "some mean and dense things". He renounced his citizenship because he chose to. "Mean and dense": is this some sort of NDP code language for making sense of the world? And is everybody in fact to be treated like a five year old?
SayNay? - November 26, 2005 1:04 PM
Flea, lighten up. Good for Connie - Garth Drabinsky needs some company as a fugitive from US justice. BTW, isn't s.11 of the Citizeship Act mandatory (ie. no discretion in the Minister - the applicant is entitled to a citizenship "mulligan", if you will)if Connie meets the requirements as set out therein?
'nee - November 26, 2005 9:13 PM
I do remember "We will support the rights of all Canadians to be treated like 5 year olds," in the last NDP talking-points email, but I don't recall seeing "mean and dense." Did somebody leave me off the distribution list again? ... I DO seem to recall a lot of "Conard Black is an upstanding hero" talk from the Conservative side of the room at the time, so it is an almost irresistable opportunity to say "Ppphphphph!"
jim - November 27, 2005 7:10 AM
Does his opportunism no no bounds?
The Tiger in Exile - November 27, 2005 12:47 PM
Lord Black made his choice freely and with a sound mind; the law has provisions for former Canadian citizens to resume their citizenship. I believe it includes a year's residence requirement as a permanent resident.
Does he qualify? If so, he should be allowed to resume it. If not, he shouldn't. Whether or not some folks like or dislike his attitude is irrelevant.
The Tiger in Exile - November 27, 2005 12:50 PM
Mind you, s. 11(1)(c) might be an impediment:
"(c) is not under a removal order; and"
If the Americans are attempting to have him extradited, that is...