[LINK] "Conrad Black says stripping his Order of Canada would add ‘insult upon injury’"

[rfmcdonald]

Why do I still care about the ravings of a British citizen convicted of a felony? (The Canadian Press' Jim Bronskill writes a good article about Black's latest challenge, this one to his desperate push to relieve him of membership in the Order of Canada on account of his criminal conviction.)

Conrad Black says it would heap “insult upon injury” to strip him of membership in the Order of Canada over U.S. criminal convictions when no Canadian court would have found him guilty of the same charges.

[. . .]

The Order of Canada’s advisory council, chaired by Supreme Court Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, may recommend to the Governor General that an appointment be rescinded when a member has been convicted of a criminal offence, or if their conduct strays significantly from recognized standards of public behaviour.

Black went to the Federal Court this month after the advisory council rejected his request for a chance to make oral arguments in his defence, saying he could file only written representations.

A half-day court hearing is set for Aug. 24 in Toronto to determine whether Black can appear in person before the advisory council.

“I remain fully convinced of the legal and moral propriety of my actions,” Black says in the court affidavit sworn last week.

[. . .]

Black says he would present his position in an oral hearing of the advisory council “through witnesses as well as documentary evidence” about “the history of injustices” he experienced in the U.S. courts and related matters.

“In order to properly defend my honour and integrity, I seek the opportunity to present the very lengthy and complicated history of the past few years in person, looking the members of the Advisory Council in the eyes, answering any questions they may have and explaining to them why termination would be the unjust and inappropriate heaping of insult upon injury.”

In a response filed with the court, federal lawyers representing the advisory council say Black has no case.

“It is plain and obvious that the preliminary decision of the Advisory Council concerning whether or not to hold an oral hearing is not subject to judicial review,” they said.