You are right about him being a criminal, and an obviously denier of his guilt, but I see no problem with his article written in defence of his friend who he saw to be unjustly slandered. There is certainly a differing level of quality of a piece written by some semi-educated drug dealer than one written by someone who is exceedingly well read and of obvious intelligence. Some people still respect teh opinions of Mr. Black even in light of his financial misadventures.

There are fools everywhere. I trust his pay goes to the state of his incarceration.

You're free not to read it; I quite enjoy reading Black myself (though I almost spit out my coffee Saturday morning when I read that particular phrase). If you pick up the Toronto Star, you'll find on a regular basis regular column inches printed by other unrepenant criminal types (William Ayers, for example, and a regular cast of middle-eastern hate mongers).

The currently incarcerated? That must mean more that "people I do not like" surely. There must be some respect for the rule of law in these matters. At least give the column a title like "From the Big House".

Seconded.

I think the National Post really doesn't consider what Conrad Black did to be a crime. I think they believe that, because he built the company, he had a right to that money. It's part of the ideology that perplexes me. It's not conservative; it's free-reign capitalism.

However, regardless of whetehr what he did constitutes a crime in ones mind, how does that crime (and it was a crime) make his opinions on other matters invalid? I mean seriously, if the more left wing social persons in society honestly believe that criminals of much more violent natures deserve a chance to be integrated into society after they have served their time, how can they honestly then opine that Mister Black cannot speak in public on matters not associated with his particular choice in nefarious matters?

Guy was a white collar criminal. What exactly is wrong with him speaking in public in defense of his friend, especially through a medium that had the right to publish his thoughts, or not do so?

Just playing devils advocate here.

He is a convict. Galley slaves did not get any press time either.

I think of myself as someone who is pretty punishment oriented when it comes to crime. But I do probably agree that criminals deserve a chance to be integrated into society after they have served their time. Mr. Black has not yet done his time.

So, anyone who is incarcerated through a Canadian or American court of law, in the opinion of the group here, loses their right to publication/free speech, regardless of how connected or unconnected the topic to their crime, until their period of incarceration ends by way of completeness or parole.

Gotcha.

Just making notes for future discussions.

This is perhaps the first time I have agreed more with seanie than with Alan, on this blog.

Though I see Alan's point, why should the Post afford a criminal such an opportunity for expression?, ultimately I do not have a problem with it.

First, I believe I read that incarcerated felons in the United States are not allowed to earn money while in prison.

Secondly, the post is essentially taking on the risk of allowing a convicted criminal write in their paper. Some will assess them negatively for that, as Alan does, others will not. But everyone remains free to publish, read, and not read as they so choose.

So, should Black, because he is a convicted and incarcerated criminal banned from publicly expressing his opinions? I think not. However, I do not think that we should start judging the severity of crimes and the intelligence of the criminal versus this right - as seanie comes close to doing. If Black were a highschool drop-out arsonist he should be just as free to his expression - however one suspects more people would be more judgmental of the Post publishing him, if they did, which they probably wouldn't.

And that ultimately, I suspect, is what Alan has a problem with. But, though going to prison certainly diminishes ones reputation, it does not necessarily put every convict back to zero, nor should it. Black had a much greater public stature than most convicted felons, especially in some circles, and there is nothing wrong with him using his stature, education, and contacts to prop-up his damaged reputation.

Actually, I think that a convicted criminal who indicates such disdain for his imprisonment as to characterize it as a persecution might well have the privilege of contacting news media cut off. As a convicted criminal doing time, he has no reputation to prop-up and certainly the thin allegation that this is some sort of political persecution is just bizarre. He should be treated like all those other US convicts who get to speak to 60 Minutes for an hour a year shacked in an orange jump suit.

Black's a good writer. That's why I'd print him, and that's why I read him.

But I too would enjoy a tongue-in-cheek title like "From the Big House".

Moore has a response to Black's column in yesterday's NP: I will concede I am in awe of Lord Black’s intellect and mindful of his many fine accomplishments, but I do not tremble before his character.

In awe of his intellect? Spare me. The man is a buffoon. A serial failure. A felon.

I like to think if him as more of an intelligent yet pompous supervillian.

Darth Vader was nasty too but a well meaning fundamentalist who just wanted order in the universe.

I see Mister Black has yet another article, and wondered what Alan would think of his characterization of the US justice system in this quote:
My response to him is assuredly not “fear.” It is irritation that, whether from malice or ignorance or both, Mr. Moore imagines that I have actually been convicted of anything by serious and civilized legal standards, and that he swaddles his spoon-fed superficialities in stigmatizations such as “gaol,” as if I were in Newgate or the Conciergerie; and the assertion that I am “behind bars,” as if I were in Alcatraz or Sing Sing. Tedious though it is, this is low security.