Details

Written by Gordon Prentice

Published: 29 July 2019

Central Moscow is in turmoil as thousands of protesters take to the streets to demand fair elections to the City Council on 8 September 2019. 

Over 1,300 people were detained by police over the weekend with reports of protesters being brutally clubbed and manhandled.

The protesters say the election authorities are refusing to register candidates they don’t want to see on the City Council, inventing reasons to keep them off the ballot paper. We are told disqualified candidates submitted forms that contained errors or fraudulent signatures.

The demonstrations are happening just days after I return home from Russia. In Moscow I saw little groups of flag waving protesters but nothing on the scale now being reported. Otherwise I would have joined in to learn more about the issues.

Heavy police presence

There is a heavy police and security presence in central Moscow but I figure this is just normal.

The Western tourists I speak to marvel at the prosperity and freedom of today’s Russia, at least in the big tourist destinations. They and their tourist guides openly crack jokes about the KGB and the old surveillance state when everyone was frightened to say boo! to a goose. Things are different now, they say. 

A bronze dog in the Hermitage Museum in St Petersburg – pointed out to us as we file by - is the spitting image of Vladimir Putin. We all chortle. Then gales of laughter. What fun! 

The huge GUM store on Red Square – once the shopping destination of choice for the Soviet Union’s nomenklatura offering goods that couldn’t be found anywhere else – is now full of high-end fashion outlets and very expensive international brands.

But behind the glitz there is a different reality. 

Assassination a stone's throw from the Kremlin

One morning as I am walking over Stalin’s bridge to Red Square I come across two women, perched on little stools, in front of flowers and photographs of Boris Nemtsov, a Russian politician and an outspoken critic of Vladimir Putin whom he believed to be deeply corrupt. 

Nemtsov was assassinated on 27 February 2015 on this very bridge, a five-minute stroll from Red Square. As tourists wander past, unaware of that brutal killing four years ago, I ask the women how long they’ve been there and what the authorities think about the protest. I learn there are about 60 of them who take it in turns to keep the protest going. They’ve been there every day since Nemtsov was shot dead with four bullets in the back. 

They want those responsible to be tracked down and brought to justice and for a memorial to be erected on the spot where Nemtsov was slain. Personally, I can’t see it happening. 

In the early days, they tell me the authorities were very hostile to the protest but the women are now largely left alone. Sometimes men in boots appear and throw the flowers over the bridge parapet. When I ask for a leaflet explaining more about the protest, the women shake their heads (there are no leaflets) but one gives me the lapel badge she is wearing.

 Now I am reading about an opposition politician Alexei Navalny who has been hospitalised as 

 “the result of harmful effects of undefined chemical substances”. 

Radioactive relationships

We all know about polonium but I wonder what else is in the cupboard? 

The former UK Prime Minister, Theresa May, reportedly told Putin in a private meeting at the G20 summit in Osaka last month that, in relation to the Salisbury poisoning, there was:

“irrefutable evidence that Russia was behind the attack – based on painstaking investigations and cooperation with our allies”

Russia, of course, denies this.

Russia Today just reports the news as they see it.

In the same way, the assassinated Boris Nemtsov and the four year vigil on the bridge is not news and is therefore not reported.

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

The Soviet Union collapsed on 26 December 1991. 

Update on 31 July 2019 from the Globe and Mail: The Kremlin lashes out, but Russians are no longer afraid to fight back.

Update on 3 August 2019 from the Guardian: Opposition leader detained. And more here.

Update on 4 August 2019 from the Observer on the police crackdown.

Update on 11 February 2020: From the Guardian. Prague Square - home to the Russian Embassy - is named after Boris Nemtsov.

Details

Written by Gordon Prentice

Published: 28 July 2019

The oldest tree in Newmarket is in the back yard of a house at 438 Botsford Street but it may not be with us much longer.  

The old White Oak was designated as a heritage tree in 2005 and is at least 214 years old, possibly as much as 314 years old. It is huge.

Think about it. Astonishingly, it was there during the Battle of Trafalgar in 1805.

And the old tree was standing during the Rebellion of 1837. It is a fabled part of our Town’s history. 

438 Botsford Street (or Liberty Hall) was the home of James B. Caldwell, a rebel sympathiser. The tree became known as Liberty Tree.

"They paved paradise and put up a parking lot"

It sits smack bang up against the property line with a neighbouring house on Timothy Street whose owners, despite the tree’s heritage designation, paved over the entire back yard to provide additional parking for their new apartment building. About 35% of the tree’s root system is buried under 8 inches of impervious asphalt.

As a result, the old tree could be starved of the vital nutrients it needs. It doesn’t get the constant drip of nourishing rainwater. And construction of the Timothy Street building saw huge piles of earth being heaped on top of the tree’s root system by heavy construction equipment. Fifty per cent of a tree’s root system is in the top one foot of soil and 90% is in the top three feet. Heavy machinery can do real damage but it is hidden and can take years to manifest. For the moment, the tree looks good for its great age but that could change overnight.

"It's a piece of our history"

Victor Woodhouse was on the Council back in 2007 when the Council was considering making a $750 grant “to invest in the well-being of the tree”. At the time he said:

“It is the only designated tree in Town. This is a piece of our history. It’s too bad it’s not more visible to the public so everyone could enjoy it.”

So, what needs to be done? The Town should immediately commission an expert arborist to check the tree for signs of distress and to report on its overall condition. If the paving has to be dug up to save the tree then that should happen. No question.

But how was it possible for the Liberty Tree’s root system to be paved over, apparently without a second thought?

Who is policing the Town’s designated heritage properties and its other features of historic value? 

Trees need us

The Town is currently looking at its policies on trees and not before time. For years, developers have been buying up and clear-cutting building lots before putting in applications to the Town to demolish old houses and redeveloping with much bigger ones. Profit is the priority and trees get in the way.

That mind-set needs to change. Trees need us. And we need them.

What a terrible indictment of the Town of Newmarket and its stewardship if, by inaction, indifference or neglect, it allows the old Liberty Tree to wither and die, its roots suffocating under a parking lot.

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Update on 16 August 2019: And here is how Newmarket Today covered the story.

Details

Written by Gordon Prentice

Published: 24 July 2019

Earlier this afternoon I received this curious email from Conrad Black or someone purporting to be Conrad Black. The email address is shown as This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. 

Baron Black of Crossharbour takes issue with an earlier post of mine in which I describe him as a convicted fraudster:

“Mr. Prentice, my media office has sent me your reference to me as “convicted fraudster” in a recent internet piece. The fraud in question was vacated by the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously and spuriously retrieved by the lower court to which the vacated counts were remanded for “assessment of the gravity of (the lower court’s) errors.” 

The charge consisted of the receipt of $285,000 that had been approved by the independent directors, posted in the company’s public filings, and was deemed (correctly) by the trial judge to be a clerical error of a co-defendant.

Finally, this count also was “expunged,” that is to say I have now officially never been charged in the U.S. 

The reason publicly given for this was not an ex gratia act of mercy and clemency by the president; it was on the recommendation of the White House counsel office after thorough research that I should never have been charged and that no crime was committed. Your reference was defamatory. 

As I doubt that you have enough readers or measurable influence to do me any damage, I don’t believe that if I sued you, while I would certainly gain a judgment that you have defamed me, I would receive a damage award adequate to cover my legal expenses. 

But this will serve as your notice that if you continue to describe me in those or similar terms-not calling me a jerk or a horse’s ass or anything like that, which would be a matter of opinion and fair comment, but as a criminal whose principal descriptive characteristic is the commission of frauds of which I have been convicted, I will be able to demonstrate intent to defame, which bears serious consequences even if you are only read by ten people. 

In that event, I will not be so forebearant. I did win the greatest libel settlement in Canadian history ($5 million) from the authors of the infamous special committee report of 2004. This is the only cautionary notice you will receive. Conrad Black”

Delicious!

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Update at 18.00 on 24 July 2019: Can I continue to describe Baron Black of Crossharbour as a “convicted fraudster”? I believe I can but I’ve got to tread carefully. Lord Black has pots of money to hire fancy dancing lawyers and I’ve got Wikipedia.  

The noble Lord tells me the conviction for the “receipt of $285,000” was “expunged” by the President:

“on the recommendation of the White House counsel office after thorough research that I should never have been charged and that no crime was commited”. 

The Office of the Pardon Attorney (in the US Department of Justice website) addresses this question:

"Does a presidential pardon expunge or erase the conviction for which the pardon was granted?"

And gives this answer:

"No.  Expungement is a judicial remedy that is rarely granted by the court and cannot be granted within the Department of Justice or by the President.  Please also be aware that if you were to be granted a presidential pardon, the pardoned offense would not be removed from your criminal record.  Instead, both the federal conviction as well as the pardon would both appear on your record.  However, a pardon will facilitate removal of legal disabilities imposed because of the conviction, and should lessen to some extent the stigma arising from the conviction…"  

That’s seems clear enough. Expungement cannot be granted by the President but only by a Court of Law and the White House Counsel’s Office is not, of course, a Court of Law. 

A presidential pardon – an Executive Act of Clemency - would not remove a pardoned offense from a criminal record. 

So how does his Lordship figure that I am defaming him when I refer to him as a “convicted fraudster”?

Isn't that what he is?

Update at 18.00 on 25 July 2019: The following exchanges took place with His Lordship

Me (Jul 25, 2019, at 12:14 PM) 

Thank you for your email of yesterday’s date in which you warn me not to refer to you as a convicted fraudster. You say I have defamed you.

You mention expungement which followed a recommendation from the White House Counsel’s Office.

I am told expungement cannot be granted by the President only by a Court of Law. Furthermore a Presidential Pardon does not remove the pardoned offence from the criminal record.

The two lie alongside each other so to speak, the pardon and the original offence.

Am I wrong about this? If so, in what way?

Lord Black of Crossharbour (Jul 25, 2019, at 12:39 PM):  

You are mistaken. Officially, I was never charged. 

Me (July 25, 2019 at 1:03PM)

In what way am I mistaken? How is it possible to be convicted of an offence without being charged first with that offence?

And what do your mean by “officially” when you tell me that “Officially, I was never charged”?

Please be as clear as possible so I can fully understand the argument and your reasoning.

Me (July 25, 2019 at 2.32PM)

I have been reflecting on our earlier exchanges. 

It would aid my understanding if you would let me have sight of the report from the White House Counsel’s Office on which you rely and which said you should never have been charged and that no crime was committed.

Will you please send it on to me?

Lord Black of Crossharbour: (2.51PM)

No

Update on 23 December 2020: From the New York Times. The editorial on Trump's pardons.

Update on 25 December 2020: From the National Post: Trump Pardons Hollinger Executives with the support of Lord Black.

Update on 14 January 2021: From Bob Hepburn in the Toronto Star: Conrad Black's loud and sad fawning over Trump.

Details

Written by Gordon Prentice

Published: 23 July 2019

The convicted fraudster, Conrad Black, has been rooting for Boris Johnson in the latter’s quest to become Britain’s next Prime Minister. It is easy to see why. They both display a casual disregard for the truth. 

Earlier today Johnson won the Conservative leadership with 66% of the votes on a 87.4% turnout – 92,153 to Jeremy Hunt’s 46,656. So Johnson becomes PM on Wednesday after his visit to the Palace, voted into office by a tiny unrepresentative sub-set of the British population. 

The shrivelled membership of the Conservative Party (with only 159,320 members) looks quite unlike contemporary Britain - it is older, wealthier and whiter – but they like Boris who makes them laugh and feel good about themselves. And they are prepared to overlook his many negative qualities.

More bluster than achievement

After following the antics of Donald Trump for years, the New York Times knows a liar when it sees one. It describes Johnson today in these terms:

“A rumpled master of political theater and the quotable quip, he is idolized by rank-and-file Tories determined to quit the European Union no matter what the consequences. Yet his record as journalist, legislator, London mayor and foreign secretary displays far more bluster than achievement, and a consistent disdain for hard work, probity or the truth.”

Johnson routinely makes false claims. When he was European Correspondent of the Daily Telegraph he invented stories about the EU which, astonishingly, were taken at face value by credulous Conservative voters back home in Britain. He told them, for example, the EU wanted to standardise the size of coffins and condoms and they lapped up this drivel.

The winning formula that brought him success as a journalist was all laughter and lies.  

Horrible to behold

Half a lifetime ago when Johnson was editing The Spectator and I was a humble backbench Member of Parliament he called me out of the blue to quiz me on my views on fox hunting (which were then very well known). I was very much in favour of a ban on hunting with hounds and played a modest part in getting the law changed. In the profile which subsequently appeared Johnson observed:  

“It is customary these days to say that backbench MPs don’t count for much. Gordon Prentice has proved that a single Parliamentarian, by tabling a judicious amendment to a Government Bill, can still wreck a part of our culture.”

I was quite happy with that but then he goes and spoils it all by quoting an unnamed Labour minister who apparently says I am “horrible to behold” and that no-one has a good word to say about me. 

Oh dear!  

Now that he is Prime Minister, Johnson’s promises will collide with reality. Writing in Sunday’s Observer Andrew Rawnsley reminds us that at various times Johnson promised (a) to leave the EU without a deal on October 31 if the EU refuses to renegotiate Theresa May’s Withdrawal Agreement (b) not to have a General Election before Brexit is done and (c) no further referendum. Rawnslay says:

“At least one of those pledges cannot be kept. When it has to be broken, I’d quite like to see the look on Theresa May’s face.”

"Utterly unfit to be Prime Minister"

Boris Johnson’s former boss at the Daily Telegraph Max Hastings, tells us he is “utterly unfit to be Prime Minister”.

“Johnson would not recognise truth, whether about his private or political life, if confronted by it in an identity parade. In a commonplace book the other day, I came across an observation made in 1750 by a contemporary savant, Bishop Berkeley: “It is impossible that a man who is false to his friends and neighbours should be true to the public.” Almost the only people who think Johnson a nice guy are those who do not know him.”

Conrad Black, who was the proprietor of the Daily Telegraph and The Spectator from 1985-2004, last month sprang to Johnson’s defence. In a piece in the Spectator Black brands Hastings a coward:

“Max Hastings vs Boris Johnson: I know who I’d trust more”

“(Boris Johnson) had his lapses, but he was capable, successful and reliable when it counted, and he is, as he appears, a pleasant man. Max is an ill-tempered snob with a short attention span. He has his talents, but it pains me to report that when seriously tested, he was a coward and a flake. I think Boris will be fine.”

Donald Trump agrees.

With endorsements such as these how can Boris fail?

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Update at 18.20: And this is how the Guardian views the Johnson Premiership.