Everybody bleeds so have a care for Conrad and Barbara

Toronto Star Photo

Black and Amiel during trial in Chicago

Barbara Amiel authors a raw first-person piece in this week's Maclean's (Aug. 4) in which she describes the personal price she and her husband, Conrad Black, have paid for his trial and resulting conviction earlier this year (on 3 counts of mail fraud and one count of obstruction of justice). The case and recent denial of appeal were widely publicized — over-the-top, Amiel would say — and he is serving a 6 ^1/2 year sentence in a Florida prison. (Sorry, I can't link the story without using the Star's own library paid services because Maclean's charges for a full read of its columnists, and I'll respect that.)

Understandably, there are a lot of digs in the story, including her comment that, with the bludgeoning of Black's fortunes, they were defended in Chicago "not by the lawyers we would have liked, but the lawyers we could afford. Major difference." Hmmm. Do the initials E.G. come to mind? I'm sure others who are mentioned would rather not be.

I found the piece sad and tragic. Sad in the sense of the bereftness Amiel feels and tragic in the evidence of the worst aspects of human nature she describes. Amiel recounts betrayal by people they had favoured in headier days. She writes of an emergency conference call with the Hollinger Inc. board of directors at a time when hostile invaders were putting a financial squeeze on the company, listing participants as Fredrik Eaton, Douglas Bassett, Maureen Sabia and Allan Gotlieb, former ambassador to the U.S. and a man for whom Amiel claims Black did many favours. The directors refused Black's request for more time to raise money, according to Amiel, and the conversation over, Black hung up. "I did not," writes Amiel and continues:

"Nor did the other directors who, believing both of us off the line, abandoned their serious tone and began laughing and joking about the stew they had put Conrad in. "I should get an Oscar for my acting," said Golieb in reference to his performance as a concerned director. "I could barely stop myself from laughing when Barbara referred to her concern for Conrad's reputation," said Fred Eaton. The woman I had recommended for the board, my old schoolmate from St. Catharines, Ont., Maureen Sabia, sarcastically replied, "All she's worried about is her own reputation," and joined happily in the dissing of us both. Here, writ plainly, was the future. These people were among Conrad's oldest friends."

I can't comment on the case because, as Amiel herself points out, one would have to read all the court transcripts and judgments in order to reach a conclusion. She repeatedly dismisses her own take on the case as that of "the wife" — and what else would a reader expect than for a wife to defend her husband? I found that touching and honorable. But the behaviour of people Black and Amiel thought they could depend on — that's another matter.

I haven't always agreed with Amiel. Years ago, I interpreted the premise of her book, Confessions, to be that everybody is created with equal opportunity and those who fail, who don't pull themselves up by their bootstraps, have only themselves to blame. From life experience, including my work, I know that to be untrue. Moreover, in this essay, she argues that if the rich can't get justice, the poor are doomed. It's an argument that, just personally, I find distasteful and think it weakened the power of the piece.

However, the betrayal she describes is Shakespearean. It's universal and demeans us all when people behave in the manner she has described. Where were the better angels? I don't have a thousand friends and my Facebook entry is purely for my job and not a scavenger net. I believe in my gut a handful of people, friends all my life, would not betray me when I needed them. (Let's not get sidetracked into Sophie's Choice questions here.) Nor would I betray them. The conversation Amiel says she overheard was savage and one can only hope she and her husband have friends — true friends — upon whom they have been able to depend, apart from their own bond.

 

Comments

[Joan Tintor]

Yes, it was a riveting piece. And I'm glad to learn that it does make a difference to actually subscribe to Macleans.

I know many have little sympathy for them, but there is an element of tragedy that so many of their friends were fair weather ones, if not outright freeloaders. (though I suspect many would regard it as not tragic but fitting).

I'm not sure I agree with Amiel's extrapolation from how she was treated to how the poor are treated in the US system. The poor are not viewed as juicy targets by ambitious prosecutors.

[william westcott]

They were all bedfellows in the same bed called greed power and corruption. It doesn't surprise me at all they all turned out to be cutthroats in the end. I mean afterall, Conrad Black was as much an opportunist as any of those so called friends who are now laughing about his and Ms. Amiel's plight. Too bad, so sad, suck it up Barbara and have another sip of champagne!

[S. Prymak]

I have little sympathy for them as the same abuse of trust from those you believe value their integrity happens to all of us not only the wealthy. Conrad scooped the extra cash from over funded Dominion employee pension because the law allowed it, he had to know that a percentage of that was from employee contributions and using percentage attributed to company contributions would have been the ethically and moral thing to do but he didn't. His column in the Post stopped just short of ultra right wing fanatics, his childhood and life resembled growing up in a royal family as the next heir to the throne of England. He is so far out out of touch with how most people deal with struggles in life that were removed for him and as an adult behaves like a spoiled brat who got everything he wanted as a child and expects it to continue in adulthood. Sorry but if things were getting rough with an angry board I am sure he could have parachuted out of there comfortably and had more than enough wealth to keep him from the food banks until he died. He chose to stay because he wanted to remain king and thought they would let him do it if he made changes, I think his attitude probably offended the conservative directors and they wanted him out period. I would have taken the money and ran then lived happily ever after helping out less fortunate relatives with just what he claimed as expenses. When did you ever see Black contribute to the community like Bill B. of RIM?
Thousands of children are dying daily around the world before the reach the age of 10 and we are wasting our time on Conrad and Barbara troubles, excuse me if I don't shed a tear.