Related Articles

22 users responded in this post

Subscribe to this post comment rss or trackback url
mygif

There’s still the issue of the $45,000 given directly to Hamas.

No matter what we say about the correctness of Hamas being on the list of proscribed organizations, the fact of the matter is that Galloway gave $45,000 to an organization on the list. The issue is really that simple. If the Girl Guides end up on a list, buying cookies makes you ineligible to enter Canada.

All else is irrelevant. Getting Hamas off the list is a battle for Canadians to fight at home, should we decide that that is the right thing to do.

We are after all, a nation of laws, and the law was applied correctly, not by an evil conservative overlord, but by a faceless bureaucrat. The actual government involvement in all this was to do nothing, and allow the administrative decision to stand.

ReplyReply
mygif

Speaking as a fellow scot (yer actual “Born in and lives in Scotland” kind), I feel I must give our view on the man. Here it is: George Galloway is a cunt. Theres no getting away from it. Hes a loud mouthed, blowhard grandstanding self-aggrandising opportunistic prick. He didnt fight his constituency in scotland, moving instead to unseat a reletively blameless labour politician in an area of london where anger at the iraq war was greatest.

But. And you knew there had to be a But, right? For all that, he is not a terrorist. He does not promote hate speech (or at least not against groups of people. Against Tony Blair, yeah. But ot most in britain Galloway vs Blair is like watching a snake fight a scorpion). Banning him makes it look like you are afraid of a man who pretended to be a cat on national television. He’s not a terrorist and the evidence that hes a terrorist supporter is to be honest sketchy at best.

He is also to give him his credit, a very very good debater. I recommend anyone search out him ripping the arse out of the people questioning him in the US senate a few years back.

Just my 2 cents worth.

ReplyReply
mygif

I’d have to agree with Simon K here, also speaking as a Scot.

Also, can someone provide a link to Galloway giving cash directly to Hamas. Mostly because I don’t think he has that kind of cash to throw around, at least not personally.

ReplyReply
mygif
Heksefatter said on March 31st, 2009 at 10:13 am

Speaking as a Dane, a citizen of the country with the Mohammed cartoons, we have the very same hypocricy thrown into our faces on a daily basis. Many of the most passionate defenders of the right of free speech of the newspaper that published the cartoons also lionize Geert Wilders, the Dutch douchebag who made the muslim-bashing movie “Fitna” and argues that the Quran should be outlawed!

These bold defenders of free speech also bash Hans Jørgen Bonnichsen, former chief of the Danish internal security services, who is known for arguing that divisive rethoric increases the risk of terror and that some anti-terror laws have infringed on basic civil rights. The defenders of free speech argue that he should not speak his mind, as he is damaging the operations of the secret services and revealing insider knowledge…though the secret services themselves are not raising charges and no independent legal professional think that he has done anything illegal.

ReplyReply
mygif

There’s still the issue of the $45,000 given directly to Hamas.

…which was delivered without Israeli objection. (Well, obviously they weren’t happy, but they still permitted it.)

ReplyReply
mygif

It was also delivered to Hamas because they may or may not have been elected fairly, but they are the current government. So was he giving the money to the government, which happened to be Hamas, or the other way around?

ReplyReply
mygif

There’s still the issue of the $45,000 given directly to Hamas.

…which was delivered without Israeli objection. (Well, obviously they weren’t happy, but they still permitted it.)

Still irrelevant. This in not about whether or not the law is just, nor whether or not Galloway is an asshole. Nor do we look to Israel for judgment under our laws.

It’s about rule of law. You have two options: You can lobby in Canada to have the definition of aid to terrorist organizations changed, OR Mr. Galloway can land at an airport, and fight his deportation in a court of law.

But, until either of those two paths are followed and the law is changed, the existing decision is correct.

You know, this could very well be a bad law, I’m not going to pass opinion on that aspect of the issue. The fact is that he is ineligible to enter Canada.

Mr Galloway was allowed to speak last night via a network link. There was absolutely no suppression of speech.

ReplyReply
mygif
Jonathan Kiehlmann said on March 31st, 2009 at 12:57 pm

“Speaking as a fellow scot (yer actual “Born in and lives in Scotland” kind), I feel I must give our view on the man. Here it is: George Galloway is a cunt. Theres no getting away from it. Hes a loud mouthed, blowhard grandstanding self-aggrandising opportunistic prick. He didnt fight his constituency in scotland, moving instead to unseat a reletively blameless labour politician in an area of london where anger at the iraq war was greatest.”

Speaking as another Scot (of the actual living here type. Wait, actually, I moved to London to start a PhD in October. Still counts, right?) I don’t think Galloway’s that bad.

It’s certainly not fair to use the fact “He didnt fight his constituency in scotland, moving instead to unseat a reletively blameless labour politician in an area of london” as a criticism.

He didn’t fight his constituency for the simple fact that it didn’t exist any more. The redrawing of the borders [due to the Scottish Parliment meaning less MPs for Scotland] meant his constituency no longer existed. He chose not to fight the [other] labour incumbent of the sucessor constituency, who he respected.

He’s a loud-mouthed self-aggrandising opportunist, no doubt, but he was providing a loud opposition to the war when very few other elected representative standing up to what they believe. He’s a prick, yes, and shouldn’t get too much power, but he should be there, to say what many others aren’t.

I don’t see why standing against Oona King was such a bad thing – she backed Blair whole-heartedly. She made sense as someone to stand against.

ReplyReply
mygif

I keep waiting for these right-wing douchebags who oppose allowing Galloway into the country to say something about how if we’re going to ban people who support oppressive governments, then letting George W. Bush speak in Calgary was also wrong.

Apparently I’m the only person bothered by that blatant hypocrisy, though. Oh, well. I anxiously await Ezra Whatshisface’s vocal opposition of Condoleeza Rice entering Canada this coming May!

Also: There’s still the issue of the $45,000 given directly to Hamas.

Hey, guess who else gave money to Hamas? The Israeli government! Israel financially supported Hamas in an effort to undermine the PLO. So are we going to ban people from the Israeli government? You know, since the issue here is not supporting people and organizations that gave Hamas money.

ReplyReply
mygif
NCallahan said on March 31st, 2009 at 1:58 pm

I’ve got a question about this: how well enforced is this law? What I mean is, if somebody hadn’t said “Galloway shouldn’t be allowed in Canada” and had gone out and actively invoked this law, would it still be barring his entry into country? Is this a law that is applied frequently or a law that tends to lie ignored on the books until somebody feels like using it?

ReplyReply
mygif

Speaking as a Canadian, let me assure you that Ezra is also a cunt and a mighty hypocritical one – while peddling his martyrdom as a “free speech warrior”, he is also engaged in a SLAPP suit against a former employee who wrote a less than flattering letter to the editor about a year ago. So he is actively participating in suppression of free speech and opinion, while also asking the rubes and credulous right-wing idiots to donate to his little crusade. He claims all of this cost him $100 000 CAD, but has refused to show the expenses on which this is based and has refused to let people know how much he has earned via his pay-pal button.

The man is a black-hearted charlatan.

“There’s still the issue of the $45,000 given directly to Hamas.”

So, did all those people who donated to help the people of New Orleans after Katrina donate to the Republican Party?

I didn’t think so.

ReplyReply
mygif

It’s about rule of law. You have two options: You can lobby in Canada to have the definition of aid to terrorist organizations changed, OR Mr. Galloway can land at an airport, and fight his deportation in a court of law.

But, until either of those two paths are followed and the law is changed, the existing decision is correct.

And here is the point: Levant’s worries about constraint on speech lead him to conclude that amendment of law is necessary where said amendment can protect his speech (and similar speech he supports) from being curtailed, but not where it curtails George Galloway’s.

That is seemingly okey-dokey with Levant. And that’s the point.

ReplyReply
mygif
Rob Brown said on March 31st, 2009 at 2:57 pm

Skimming Galloway’s Wikipedia entry and Wikiquote page, I agree with some things he’s said:

“Tell me the name of one member of the seven members of the same family slaughtered on the beach in Gaza by an Israeli warship. You don’t even know their names! But you know the name of every Israeli soldier who has been taken prisoner in this conflict. Because you believe whether you know it or not that Israeli blood is more valuable than the blood of Lebanese or Palestinians.”)

And not with others:

“Hezbollah has never been a terrorist organisation!” (What?! They do a damn good impersonation of one, then.)

Denying him entry into Canada, though? Because he was involved in getting the necessities of living into Palestine at a time when the Palestinians desperately need it after having their country demolished and hundreds of their civilians killed? (And hundreds certainly were; even if you believe Israel’s claims that the death toll is exaggerated, even if the death toll is actually half or one third of the 900 listed, we are still talking about hundreds of innocent people slaughtered.)

That’s not what this country’s supposed to be about.

ReplyReply
mygif
Garfield said on March 31st, 2009 at 5:30 pm

I can’t believe the border authorities turned a non-citizen away just because he’s a well-known financial supporter of a terrorist group. I smell a conspiracy. Any truly free society would welcome such visitors with open arms.

ReplyReply
mygif
Rob Brown said on March 31st, 2009 at 6:09 pm

So what are you saying, Garfield? That any aid to Palestinians is financially supporting a terrorist group?

ReplyReply
mygif

Of course he is Rob. Just look how they terrorized the Israelis last year by throwing themselves under white phosphorus.

Unless Garfield continues to think that giving aid to the government of Gaza is the same as donating it to Hamas. Does that mean paying my taxes is a donation to the CPC? I’d sure like to stop it if that’s the case.

ReplyReply
mygif
Garfield said on March 31st, 2009 at 7:19 pm

Hamas are bad actors. Designating them as terrorists may seem arbitrary, but if the governments of Canada, the U.S., Japan and the EU agree on it, it may not be entirely capricious. On the other hand, violence is not all that Hamas does. It’s also into children’s television:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYjQXSF6mtc

ReplyReply
mygif
Rob Brown said on March 31st, 2009 at 8:07 pm

You have to be able to separate the people from their government. It’s not as though anybody is handing Hamas a blank cheque or a truckload of weapons here. We are talking about food and medicine and so forth. The kind of stuff that wouldn’t come in very handy in an attack on Israel.

Whatever else it has done, Hamas has to use that stuff to help the people it’s been elected to govern. If they don’t, they aren’t going to stay in power. So I don’t see the problem here.

And we’ve all seen the stupid Mickey Mouse knockoff by now.

ReplyReply
mygif

Speaking as an American, would anyone like a ride in my bitchin’ monster truck? We can then eat apple pie while I tell you that you’d all be speaking German if it weren’t for us.

ReplyReply
mygif

[...] your cause. Also if you think the likes of Ezra Levant and Steyn are your allies the title of this blog says it [...]

mygif

I hate that “this is the rule of law” stuff, it’s a great big fucking phantom, it’s like that episode of Scooby-Doo where they meet Leviathan and then find out it was really the assistant manager of the amusement park Mr. Hobbes all along. Really, fuck that shit: the government of Canada bends laws all the time, for all kinds of different people in all kinds of different ways, and they don’t get to claim “rule of law” as an excuse for turning on laws in certain areas because it suits their interest to do so, and then turning them off again in other areas when it doesn’t.

Or are we really longing to hear more government officials explain that “that was the decision that I made”.

ReplyReply
mygif

“Dayv said on March 31st, 2009 at 10:54 pm

Speaking as an American, would anyone like a ride in my bitchin’ monster truck? We can then eat apple pie while I tell you that you’d all be speaking German if it weren’t for us.”

Hee. Thanks for that, brought my blood pressure right down. (I should probably just stop reading blog posts on this sort of topic.)

ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Please Note: Comment moderation may be active so there is no need to resubmit your comments