George Galloway

Topaz · March 21, 2009

I really didn't know who this guy was but I read his bio and if the reason Canada stopped him from coming here was that he took a convoy of aid into the Gaza after the war with Israel to help the people but that is Hamas territory and Hamas is on Harper's list of terrorist. Wow, people can't help other people who were hurt or dying and needed food?? BUT Canada lets in GW who is and could be charged with war crimes???

DogOnPorch · March 21, 2009

Chalk another one up for our new fascist government.

I agree that banning him is silly. It just gets him attention and makes his often outrageous criticisms hold water.

He's fun to watch, mind you.

bush_cheney2004 · March 21, 2009

......Wow, people can't help other people who were hurt or dying and needed food?? BUT Canada lets in GW who is and could be charged with war crimes???

Well, Chretien is still in Canada....right? So much for the "war crimes" argument.

DogOnPorch · March 21, 2009

I really didn't know who this guy was but I read his bio and if the reason Canada stopped him from coming here was that he took a convoy of aid into the Gaza after the war with Israel to help the people but that is Hamas territory and Hamas is on Harper's list of terrorist. Wow, people can't help other people who were hurt or dying and needed food?? BUT Canada lets in GW who is and could be charged with war crimes???

He's got more baggage than that. He's a well known rabble-rouser and is well known for his combative stance on issues he supports. Tossed out of parliment...oil for food scandle...pissed off the US government...praised Saddam to his face...encouraged 'freedom fighters' to fight the 'Crusaders'...it goes on. He likes a fight and it plays very well with his East London constituents.

capricorn · March 21, 2009

However, I think Kenney is again only stirring up hatred where there should be none.

Do you see a bogeyman under every bed?

Mr. Galloway is not a threat to Canadians

Sorry. You are not in a position to determine that. You may think you know better than the officials who interpret and apply Canada's laws but you don't

This will once again create rallies and protests, pitting Jewish and Arab Canadians against one another, while the rest of us may be forced to choose sides.

Rallies and protests are proof that free speech is alive and well in Canada. You have a problem with that?

How many would have even listened to him if Kenney hadn't introduced him to us.

It sounds like you would have been a good candidate.

Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff said Galloway should be allowed into Canada unless the government can prove he poses a threat. "If he's being barred on free speech grounds, that's an outrage," Ignatieff said. "I mean he can come to Canada and talk rubbish all day long as far as I'm concerned. (But) if there is a security threat, that's another matter."[/i]

Hmm, seems to me Ignatieff is saying if the law was properly applied, the free speech argument is moot.

Jason Kenney needs to be fired, gagged or put in a straitjacket. He has completely lost touch with reality.

You're so predictable.

Here's how one of Galloway's constituents sees Canada's decision to bar his entry.

I would like to take this opportunity, as a resident of the Bethnal Green and Bow parliamentary constituency, personally to thank the Canadian government and in particular its immigration minister, Jason Kenney, for succeeding where many - including myself - have been struggling and failing in recent years: to find a word that adequately sums up George Galloway, my MP
That word is "infandous". Roll it around your mouth. Savour it. Apparently it means "too odious to be expressed or mentioned". It came along with the filip that he was a "street-corner Cromwell". Oh. And they decided not to let him into the country either.

After everything. After the cosying up to dictators, shouting his mouth off about Palestine, ousting the spectacular Oona King from her job as the previous MP and appearing on Big Brother dressed in a leotard while pretending to be a cat instead of tending to his constituency - one of the very poorest in the country - there is poetic justice in it being Canada that nailed him.

Canada: one of the most civilised places on Earth, which consistently comes out at the head of the league tables for health, wealth and happiness. The country with scenery to die for and its priorities in the right place. I can't be as rude as I'd like to be about Galloway here because he's very litigious.

But Canada, I salute you.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/emma_hartley/...anked_by_canada

capricorn · March 21, 2009

He's fun to watch, mind you.

You ain't kidding. Here's George impersonating a cat and responding to his mama's petting.

Wilber · March 21, 2009

If he came here and stood on a soapbox rallying to kill all Jews, he would be arrested. We would too if we tried the same thing in England. Was he not visiting here on another matter, but the fact that he empathizes with the victims of war, now all of a sudden he's a hate monger. I'm pretty sure we can say what we want in the UK so long as it isn't geared to incite hatred for any group.
Chalk another one up for our new fascist government.

That's your opinion, I am just pointing out that contrary to what some people on this forum seem to believe, foreigners do not have the right to enter this country whenever they want and say whatever they want.

Oleg Bach · March 21, 2009

Any one who says "kill all Jews" - is someone working for the evil anglos and ready and willing to cause a diversion so the crooks can go free one more time...What a nasty role to have as a human being - being a Jew - You have to take the blame for all of man's sins. Which sort of makes the Jews one big huge Jesus.. :rolleyes: I really don't believe that the Jews are to blame for anything - they just get paid to take the fall of more ruthless and cruel people who always manage to sculk away un-noticed as the fires burn.....This ruse will never work again - People are brighter and more informed these days and are less prone to be controled by hate....hate the tool of the elite who are not that elite...just cunning...I would fear the blue eyed pale anglos more than the Jews - they are harmless - white anglos are killers ...it's a genetic thing - preditors and opportunists.

DogOnPorch · March 21, 2009

That's your opinion, I am just pointing out that contrary to what some people on this forum seem to believe, foreigners do not have the right to enter this country whenever they want and say whatever they want.

Well, true enough. If Malmo is an example, we don't need to pit Canadian Muslims vs Canadian Jews over something half a world away. The theory of Canada being one wishing to be rid of all the nonsense back in the Old Country.

George would have definately caused some action in that department. Probably not of his own doing, but his supporters and detractors would probably have it out verbally if not with rocks and Molotovs.

But still, to ban him only makes him stronger as an icon to his causes.

Edited March 21, 2009 by DogOnPorch

DogOnPorch · March 21, 2009

Any one who says "kill all Jews" - is someone working for the evil anglos and ready and willing to cause a diversion so the crooks can go free one more time...What a nasty role to have as a human being - being a Jew - You have to take the blame for all of man's sins. Which sort of makes the Jews one big huge Jesus.. I really don't believe that the Jews are to blame for anything - they just get paid to take the fall of more ruthless and cruel people who always manage to sculk away un-noticed as the fires burn.....This ruse will never work again - People are brighter and more informed these days and are less prone to be controled by hate....hate the tool of the elite who are not that elite...just cunning...I would fear the blue eyed pale anglos more than the Jews - they are harmless - white anglos are killers ...it's a genetic thing - preditors and opportunists.

Demonstration in London, UK.

We don't need that here.

Oleg Bach · March 21, 2009

Banning him does not make a stronger icon out of this guy - This is simple - you consider someone an undesirable - you don't let him in your house - but as a devided family - we allow the takers to enter and rob us of our dignity and social well being and health.......If I was the king of my domain - Life would be better because....I would have barred certain people from my life - BUT - with my former foolish wife - who can not tell and does not care who is the bad guy or good guy --------------it led to familiar weakness and poverty ..

A nation is like a family - and you have to have a head of the house hold who filters out the trash and riff raff...if you don't you will have a poor nation in every way ----- simply put - don't let the devil in your house..and don't let free speechers push you around - some of them are morally neutral.

bush_cheney2004 · March 21, 2009

Demonstration in London, UK.
We don't need that here.

I agree...bad spelling shall not be tolerated! :lol:

DogOnPorch · March 21, 2009

I agree...bad spelling shall not be tolerated!

Gets around those picky little UK hate speech laws.

Wilber · March 21, 2009

But still, to ban him only makes him stronger as an icon to his causes.

d

Only to those who identify with those causes. He could post on this forum if he wanted to, we don't need to allow someone into this country for them to have their opinions heard here.

DogOnPorch · March 21, 2009

Only to those who identify with those causes. He could post on this forum if he wanted to, we don't need to allow someone into this country for them to have their opinions heard here.

Ultimately I agree because he's a KNOWN troublemaker. Plus he does have some views that are truely contrary to Canadian stated policy re: Hamas, Hezbollah, et al. I can't help but think that it only adds fuel to any problems that might be brewing here in Canada. Our protests (in Canada) tend to be rather peaceful for the moment.

bush_cheney2004 · March 21, 2009

Ultimately I agree because he's a KNOWN troublemaker....

That's icing on the cake....ultimately...Canada's sovereignty trumps Galloway's free speech rights.

Wild Bill · March 21, 2009

I'm not sure, but apparently Canada no longer allows free thinkers. You get put on a list. I hadn't even heard of this Galloway person before Kenney made him a star. Now I want to invite him for tea.

I thought we had stopped allowing free speech and thinkers years ago, after hearing what happens to anyone supporting Israel at Queens University.

If you want to exercise free speech, why not go over to 'rubble.ca' and make a post that says you believe that Steven Harper is a nice guy?

Surely there's no better example of free speech than that board!

Aren't some of us being a bit hypocritical here?

Argus · March 21, 2009

Wasn't it Stephen Harper who used "free speech" as his rationale for voting against Bill C-250, the legislation which made it a hate crime to promote or advocate the murder of homosexuals?

No it was Harper who voted against a bill which could have criminalized the bible, the Koran and a whole lot of other religious books which all said nasty things about fags.

Argus · March 21, 2009

Galloway belongs in Canada giving speeches to those who want to hear them!!!!

Most of whom habitually wear bedsheets, some white, with pointy hats, some black with mesh screens over their faces.

Argus · March 21, 2009

By delivering aid?

Wasn't he involved in the oil for food scam, making money from Saddam in exchange for campaigning against the sanctions? Everything I've heard about him says he's a sleaze. I see no reason why we should want him in Canada.

madmax · March 21, 2009

Wasn't he involved in the oil for food scam, making money from Saddam in exchange for campaigning against the sanctions?

Here is the answer to your question.

Oil for Food
[edit] Daily Telegraph libel case

On 22 April 2003, the Daily Telegraph published an article describing documents found by its reporter David Blair in the ruins of the Iraqi Foreign Ministry. The documents purport to be records of meetings between Galloway and Iraqi intelligence agents, and state that he had received £375,000 per year from the proceeds of the Oil for Food programme. Galloway completely denied the story, and pointed to the nature of the discovery within an unguarded, bombed-out building as being questionable. He instigated legal action against the newspaper, which was heard in the High Court from 14 November 2004.[100]

On 2 December, Justice David Eady ruled that the story had been "seriously defamatory", and that the Telegraph was "obliged to compensate Mr Galloway ... and to make an award for the purposes of restoring his reputation". Galloway was awarded £150,000 damages plus costs estimated to total £1.2 million. The court did not grant leave to appeal; in order to appeal in the absence of leave, the defendants would have to petition the House of Lords.

The libel case was regarded by both sides as an important test of the Reynolds qualified-privilege defence.[101] The Daily Telegraph did not attempt to claim justification (a defence in which the defendant bears the onus of proving that the defamatory reports are true): "It has never been the Telegraph's case to suggest that the allegations contained in these documents are true".[102] Instead, the paper sought to argue that it acted responsibly because the allegations it reported were of sufficient public interest to outweigh the damage caused to Galloway's reputation. However, the court ruled that, "It was the defendants' primary case that their coverage was no more than 'neutral reportage' ... but the nature, content and tone of their coverage cannot be so described."

The issue of whether the documents were genuine was likewise not at issue at the trial. However, it later transpired that the expert hired by Galloway's lawyers, a forensic expert named Oliver Thorne, said "In my opinion the evidence found fully supports that the vast majority of the submitted documents are authentic."[103] He added "It should be noted that I am unable to comment on the veracity of the information within the disputed Telegraph documents, whether or not they are authentic."

The Telegraph lost their appeal on 25 January 2006, the same day as Galloway's Big Brother eviction, and on 15 February 2006, the newspaper announced it would not be seeking leave to appeal

madmax · March 21, 2009

Everything I've heard about him says he's a sleaze.

If only they weren't forgeries and fabrications...and Perhaps Christian Science Monitor would still be around. (One of my favourite reads).

The Christian Science Monitor also published a story on 25 April 2003, stating that they had documentary evidence that he had received "more than ten million dollars" from the Iraqi regime. However, on 20 June 2003, the Monitor reported[104] that their own investigation had concluded the documents were sophisticated forgeries, and apologised. Galloway rejected the newspaper's apology, asserted that the affair was a conspiracy against him, and continued a libel claim against the paper.
The Christian Science Monitor settled the claim, paying him an undisclosed sum in damages, on 19 March 2004.[105][106] It emerged that these documents had first been offered to the Daily Telegraph, but they had rejected them. The documents' origin remains obscure.

In January 2004, a further set of allegations were made in al-Mada, a newspaper in Iraq. The newspaper claimed to have found documents in the Iraqi national oil corporation showing that Galloway received (through an intermediary) some of the profits arising from the sale of 19.5 million barrels (3,100,000 m³) of oil. Galloway acknowledged that money had been paid into the Mariam Appeal by Iraqi businessmen who had profited from the UN-run programme, but denied benefiting personally, and maintained that, in any case, there was nothing illicit about this:

“ It is hard to see what is dishonourable, let alone "illicit", about Arab nationalist businessmen donating some of the profits they made from legitimate UN-controlled business with Iraq to anti-sanctions campaigns, as opposed to, say, keeping their profits for themselves. ”

The report of the Iraq Survey Group published in October 2004 claimed that Galloway was one of the recipients of a fund used by Iraq to buy influence among foreign politicians. Galloway denied receiving any money from Saddam Hussein's regime. The Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards had begun an investigation into George Galloway but suspended it when Galloway launched legal action. On 14 December, it was announced that this investigation would resume[citation needed].

guyser · March 21, 2009

Only Canadians have the "right" to exercise free speech in Canada,

...it does not say in the Charter that one has to be a Canadian to be protected by it. Anyone on our soil benefits.

Argus · March 21, 2009

If only they weren't forgeries and fabrications...and Perhaps Christian Science Monitor would still be around. (One of my favourite reads).

According to his own experts some of those papers were quite genuine.

And it strikes me that if one organization after another asserts that there is evidence linking him to oil-for-food influence buying there's very likely some fire under all that smoke.