George Galloway

[waldo]

I remember the original arguments. Kenney said that Galloway raised money and gave it to Hamas. Hamas is on the terrorist list and nobody can enter Canada who has provided support to Hamas. Period. That's the law. It was the opposition, joined by our left leading media that jumped to the defence of Galloway and cooked up the red-herring Free Speech scenario. Of course this buffoon ended up getting publicity - but you can thank the Liberals/NDP/Media for that. All the government was doing was enforcing the law.......and the idiot should still not be allowed into Canada.

actually... Kenney (and Velshi) emphasized, repeatedly, the decision was one handled completely and entirely by Canada Border Services Agency - a so-called "operational" decision... one based on s34.1 of the Immigration Act. Kenney/Velshi were very clear and determined to distance themselves from the actual decision. And, of course, Kenney had the authority to override the decision and allow Galloway entry.

it appears we're going to see exactly how the decision was arrived at... and indication from those leaked documents is that Kenney most certainly was personally involved in the decision itself - Border Services appears to have been a convenient deflection.

of course, others have commented on another alternative basis for the decision: British MP George Galloway barred from Canada under the Canada Israel "Public Security" Agreement

British MP George Galloway was refused entry to Canada on the pretext that he supported Hamas, which is categorized by the Canadian government as a "terrorist organization."

Contrary to what has been reported in the media, this was not a unilateral decision by the government of Canada.

In all likelihood, the decision was taken in close consultation with Israel under the terms of a farreaching agreement on "public security" signed in Tel Aviv on March 23 2008. The "Declaration of Intent" establishes a framework of bilateral cooperation between Canada and Israel in the area of "Public Security". The agreement has not been the object of debate in the Canadian parliament, nor has it received media coverage.

Under the proposed agreement, the Deputy Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness of Canada is in liason with his Israeli counterpart the Director General of Public Security for the Government of the State of Israel. Together they chair a joint Management Committee.

The terms reference of the Canada-Israel "Declaration" are extremely broad. They include issues of immigration and ethnic profiling, the management of borders, intelligence and the exchange of information, emergency preparedness, correctional services, prisons, law enforcement and counter-terrorism. The agreement allows for officials from the State of Israel, to play a role in Canadian "public security" including border security and immigration.

The important question is whether Israeli officials were present in Canada and whether they were assisting their Canadian counterparts with regard to the decision to bar George Galloway.

[jbg]

What I can't figure out is why anyone gives a damn. Yeah, so the guy's an apologist for goons and lunatics, but come on, what's next, deny Noam Chomsky entry? Twerps like Galloway are only as potent as we make them. He's just a bloody backbencher.

I generally am 100% pro-free speech. If all that a person intends to due is express vile opinions they should be let in.

If he committed overt criminal acts he should not be let in based on that conduct. I profess ignorance on that subject as to Mr. Galloway.

[Keepitsimple]

I agree that by following principle, we've given Galloway much more press than he deserves....but for those who think Galloway is a beacon for Free Speech, here's a demonstration of how Mr. Galloway's principles can be a bit "flexible".

Back in April of 2004, many people in Great Britain were furious their government was about to allow a controversial foreign national — French far-right leader Jean-Marie Le Pen — to enter the U.K. for a speaking tour.

One of them was British MP George Galloway, who spearheaded a campaign, unsuccessful as it turned out, to ban Le Pen from entering the country.

Here’s how the Guardian newspaper reported Galloway’s role in its April 23, 2004 edition.

“Calls to ban Mr. Le Pen from Britain were led (by) George Galloway, the former Labour MP and cofounder of the Respect coalition, who has insisted that he (Le Pen) ‘should not be allowed to step foot on to British soil at any time.

‘If the home secretary allows into this country someone who denies the Holocaust and who is on record as hating all Muslims, he will be siding with the neo-Nazi far-right against multicultural Britain,’ Mr. Galloway said.”

All of which makes the fact that Wednesday, Galloway will appeal to our federal court to overturn a decision by the Canadian government last March banning him, a foreign national, from entering Canada for a speaking tour, rather ironic.

(The case was held over Monday because one of Galloway’s lawyers accidentally injured her foot.)

Ironic because, given his stand on Le Pen, Galloway clearly believes a country has the right to bar foreign nationals from entering its territory based on what they say and do, and regardless of any right to “free speech” they might claim.

Indeed, Galloway seems to believe more in free speech for Galloway, than in free speech as a sacred principle.

Link: http://www.torontosun.com/comment/2010/04/26/13729636.html

[Sir Bandelot]

I agree that by following principle, we've given Galloway much more press than he deserves....but for those who think Galloway is a beacon for Free Speech, here's a demonstration of how Mr. Galloway's principles can be a bit "flexible".

I don't see any inconsistency. The UK has hate speech laws.

Hate speech laws in the United Kingdom are found in several statutes. Expressions of hatred toward someone on account of that person's colour, race, nationality (including citizenship), ethnic or national origin, religion, or sexual orientation is forbidden

Thus to allow a person wo come into the country and give such a speech would be illegal. I don't know if that was the case with this particular individual, but your post implies that it would be.

I believe in free speech but there should be limits, as with all other things in a civil society. Let free speech be free, where said laws are not being broken. In comparison I doubt that Galloways speeches would break Canadian laws.

Edited April 27, 2010 by Sir Bandelot

[scribblet]

I agree that by following principle, we've given Galloway much more press than he deserves....but for those who think Galloway is a beacon for Free Speech, here's a demonstration of how Mr. Galloway's principles can be a bit "flexible".

Link: http://www.torontosun.com/comment/2010/04/26/13729636.html

LOL another one who thinks free speech is only for him and his opinions

[Argus]

I don't see any inconsistency. The UK has hate speech laws.

Canada has hate speech laws. So what's your point?

Thus to allow a person wo come into the country and give such a speech would be illegal. I don't know if that was the case with this particular individual, but your post implies that it would be.

Le Pen and Galloway are two sides of the same ignorant, scummy coin.

I believe in free speech but there should be limits, as with all other things in a civil society. Let free speech be free, where said laws are not being broken. In comparison I doubt that Galloways speeches would break Canadian laws.

Whether he would or wouldn't is rather beside the point. He's foreign scum. We are under no obligation to allow foreign scum to enter Canada for any reason, however benign.

[Sir Bandelot]

Canada has hate speech laws. So what's your point?

You read my point and you answered your own question. besides that point, Canada has the right to decide whether or not to let any non-citizen into the country. But we should not make excuses based on false assertions. Galloways speech, like it or not does not qualify as hate speech under Canadian law.

[bloodyminded]

having a sane, stable, viable, beautiful and productive society once again. what else?

I doubt such a phenomenon has ever occurred.

[bloodyminded]

who would dream to think that this is a conservative issue? The champions of bars on free speech are all staunch liberals and lefties alike.

By definition: not here, at any rate. Meaning that your statement is--by definition--incorrect.

[scribblet]

There does seem to be a double standard though, do those who think Anne Coulter should not be allowed to speak, believe that Galloway should be allowed to speak hmmm

[normanchateau]

You read my point and you answered your own question. besides that point, Canada has the right to decide whether or not to let any non-citizen into the country. But we should not make excuses based on false assertions. Galloways speech, like it or not does not qualify as hate speech under Canadian law.

Much of the debate in this thread revolves, at least indirectly, around the issue of expecting consistency from Stephen Harper. It is naive to expect that consistency motivates him. He strongly opposed making it a hate crime to promote or advocate the murder of homosexuals, presumably because it would have a negative impact on the free speech of Harper-supporting, homophobic, religious nuts. But he has a problem with Galloway's free speech so masks his inconsistency under the bogus guise of anti-terrorism legislation.

[M.Dancer]

Since there are already laws against advocating or promoting murder..a second redundent law would make it double bad...or would it be fabulously double bad...?

[scribblet]

Much of the debate in this thread revolves, at least indirectly, around the issue of expecting consistency from Stephen Harper. ---------

Nice try, but no cigar, but here we go with the usual one issue homosexual rants which has nothing to do with this subject. It revolves around the border people deeming Galloway to be in contravention of our laws so acted according to the law. Maybe they were wrong, I don't know, but either way it has nothing to do with homosexuality.

[bloodyminded]

There does seem to be a double standard though, do those who think Anne Coulter should not be allowed to speak, believe that Galloway should be allowed to speak hmmm

Sure. But it would appear that most of us do know Coulter should be allowed to speak.

[Dave_ON]

There does seem to be a double standard though, do those who think Anne Coulter should not be allowed to speak, believe that Galloway should be allowed to speak hmmm

It's funny but those who screamed the loudest about Anne Coulter's right to free speech have been conspicuously absent on Mr. Galloway's dilema. Seems only certain loud mouths are afforded that right...

Edited April 28, 2010 by Dave_ON

[Sir Bandelot]

There does seem to be a double standard though, do those who think Anne Coulter should not be allowed to speak, believe that Galloway should be allowed to speak hmmm

It's not a double standard. In the one case she breaks hate speech laws. Galloway does not (seem) to do that. But he has been accused of funding terrorism by giving money to Hamas. Different, but still against the law.

[normanchateau]

It revolves around the border people deeming Galloway to be in contravention of our laws so acted according to the law. Maybe they were wrong, I don't know, but either way it has nothing to do with homosexuality.

As a matter of fact, the issue of free speech is common to Galloway, Coulter and Harper's reasons for opposing C-250. Harper and his born-again, praying-on-their-knees friends opposed C-250, the legislation which made it a hate crime to promote or advocate the murder of homosexuals, on the grounds of free speech. Stephen Harper, the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, Real Women of Canada, Lifesite and other religious extremists acknowledged this:

http://www.canadianchristianity.com/cgi-bin/na.cgi?nationalupdates/040415defeat

[M.Dancer]

As a matter of fact, the issue of free speech is common to Galloway, Coulter and Harper's reasons for opposing C-250. Harper and his born-again, praying-on-their-knees friends opposed C-250, the legislation which made it a hate crime to promote or advocate the murder of homosexuals, on the grounds of free speech. Stephen Harper, the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, Real Women of Canada, Lifesite and other religious extremists acknowledged this:

http://www.canadianchristianity.com/cgi-bin/na.cgi?nationalupdates/040415defeat

That's just so fabulously wrong...

[scribblet]

And then some, but it does show an inordinate amount of bigotry and incorrect assumptions when describing certain 'friends'. Couching the response (an others) in such distortive Christaphobic terms might make some liberals feel better as they attempt to write off differing opinions or thought patterns as belonging only to 'religious nuts' so I suppose it's easier that than giving serious thought to accurate commentary.

Actually, the distortive rhetoric used is more dogma like fanaticism then any I've ever seen used by any religious people. LOL

Edited April 28, 2010 by scriblett

[normanchateau]

That's just so fabulously wrong...

Yes, it was absolutely wrong of them to oppose C-250.

[M.Dancer]

Yes, it was absolutely wrong of them to oppose C-250.

Abtholutely. It should be double bad to promote or advocate murder of gays. Once because, well that's the law anyway...and the second time because gays are abtholutely fabulous and are an endangered species....

[normanchateau]

It should be double bad to promote or advocate murder of gays. Once because, well that's the law anyway...

That's the law despite Harper voting against C-250, the legislation which created the law.

[scribblet]

Abtholutely. It should be double bad to promote or advocate murder of gays. Once because, well that's the law anyway...and the second time because gays are abtholutely fabulous and are an endangered species....

LOL and this is an issue that has nothing to do with George Galloway, it's another red herring, and an erroneous one at that LOL

Bigoted rhetoric notwithstanding, the bill was opposed, not because of any 'hate' towards gays, but because it would seriously infringe on the rights of freedom of speech and religion.

[Argus]

You read my point and you answered your own question. besides that point, Canada has the right to decide whether or not to let any non-citizen into the country. But we should not make excuses based on false assertions. Galloways speech, like it or not does not qualify as hate speech under Canadian law.

Well we don't know what he intended to say, but again, so what? He was banned as a terrorist supporter. And since he's a scumbag I find it hard to get worked up over the issue.

[Argus]

It's not a double standard. In the one case she breaks hate speech laws.

According to an opinion by the University of Ottawa's own law department nothing she has said has even come close to breaking our hate speech laws.