Source:
Guardian<snip>
In Canada, where Black controlled roughly half the daily newspapers, the push to Americanise was even more strident. When he founded the daily National Post in 1998, it was with the explicit goal of weaning Canadians from our social safety net (a "hammock") and forming a new party of the "united right" to unseat the governing Liberals.
So if Black was going to get a sympathetic jury anywhere, it should have been in the US, where regular people worship the wealthy because they are convinced they could be the next to strike it rich (unlike those envious, over-taxed and over-regulated Europeans and Canadians). Perhaps in 2000, at the height of the stock-market bubble, Black would have faced a jury made up of such supportive folks, ones who would have looked at his uncanny ability to divert Hollinger profits into his own accounts and said: "More power to you."
. . .
Many jurors appeared to regard North America's ultra-rich the way Russians see their oligarchs - even if the way they amassed their fortunes was legal, it shouldn't have been. "I just don't think anyone should get that amount of money from any company, example Enron and WorldCom," one juror wrote. Others said: "I feel that there is corruption everywhere"; anyone paid as much as Black "probably stole it"; "I am sure this goes on all the time and I hope they get caught". John Tien, a 40-year-old accountant at Boeing, launched into such an elaborate lecture about the accounting scams endemic in corporate America that Black's lawyers asked the judge to question him in private, to prevent his views from influencing the other potential jurors.
Regardless of what else happens in the Black saga, the jury-selection process has already provided an extraordinary window into the way regular Americans, randomly selected, view their elites - not as heroes but as thieves. As far as Black is concerned, this is all terribly unfair - he is being "thrown to the mobs" because of rage at the system and, unlike American billionaires, he doesn't "dress in corduroy trousers" or donate his fortune to Aids charities. Black's lawyers even argued (unsuccessfully) that their client could not get a fair trial because the average Chicagoan "does not reside in more than one residence, employ servants or a chauffeur, enjoy lavish furniture, or host expensive parties".
Read more:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2040914,00.html