Galloway fights exclusion from Canada: Official documents attached

So the letter required a response by yesterday or court action was seemingly threatened. Has any court action on behalf of Galloway been filled as of yet?

Thanks Michelle.

Many of the comments on that article are sickening... if I didn't consider these comments to be part of a right-wing campaign, but rather the true opinions of Canadians... I'd loose all hope for us.

Oh, I lost hope long ago. The comments sections of corporate media demonstrates the best argument for mandatory birth control that there is.

 

An 'interesting take'? I stopped reading when it used the word 'death cult'. Is that a megaphone I hear in the distance?

 

Terry Glavin is an asshat. And I'm betting Eliezer Zusken isn't long for this board.

Reminds me of a certain troll named "punch drunk" who was also a big Terry Glavin fan. He was  banned last New Year's Eve.

Not allowed? What now, you are whining about freedom of speech now, when no one has lifted a finger against you or your precious link. How ironic you would make such a complaint when Galvin's opinion is to uphold the censure of free speech.

Funny how those who are so much in favour of censuring others, always seem to get so miffed when they are censured. Even funnier, when they were not censured at all.

You posted. People responded. What do you want? Applause?

Well that is an interesting point. I assume you mean by that you think that Galloway should be allowed to come and say that he does not think that "free speech is absolute".

Being sorry for him is not the issue. Nor is it his rights that are particularly in question. What is being abbriviated here are the rights of Canadians who were going to see him speak.

Are you clear on this point?

Furthermore, this is a put-up job based on the fact that he delivered aid to the Gaza Strip, and this is the reason he is being barred. The idea that this act was made him a financial supporter of a terrorist organization is preposterous. This is not about hate speech, this is about anti-terrorism legislation being used to squash freedom of speech.

Well then if Galloway is getting lots of attention its a moot point then isn't it?

Even if that creep Meir Weinstein is appearing on BBC TV to announce that he is going to have the Canadian government investigate all the antiwar groups and church groups that invited him to speak for "links" to terrorist organization, even if he uses other means of communicating his message.

After all they no doubt paid Galloway, so I guess that means they are supporting Hamas through Galloway.

Weinstein seems to think he has the ear of the Canadian government on that. What do you think?

Slumberjack - what is your point in relation to this issue? My guess is the examples you gave are from Wilders and I already pointed an anti-freedom viewpoint of his (banning the Koran). I just used him as another example of an MP who was banned from speaking in a country with nefarious reasons.

On the issue of defining what constitutes free speech in the public domain, and in determining who may partake in it, my position is that hatemongers should not be included.

 Well don't you see the problem with that? The government is left to determine who is a hate-mongerer. The British government defined Wilders as such. The Canadian human rights commissions were entertaining the idea that Steyn and Levant are. You must likely agree with both of those designations.

But now we have our current Canadian government defining Galloway as someone too hateful and dangerous for Canadians too hear. (I know that the specific "legal" basis for his refusal of entry is the anti-terrorism leg., but the naming of Hamas as a terrorist org was the original basis).

Do you feel comfortable allowing the government to decide who is a hatemongerer? Don't you feel that Canadian citizens should decide this for themselves?

And yes we need the criminal code privisions against incitement to violence and the strict definitions it has about what constitutes hate speech.

Free speech is a red herring. This has nothing to do with free speech. It has to do with self-serving usage of criminal anti-terrorism laws to publicly punish a notable public figure's support for Hamas and criticism of the Israeli state. Clearly, Galloway's 'speech' has been rewarded by the coverage and not reduced in the slightest. Instead, it gives Kenney and Harper and the band of murderers they represent the opportunity to frame his words in the way they wish: as a looney radical rather than a five-time elected MP.

BTW, can I put a pitch in for possibly lifting the ban on Jeff House? It's in discussions like these that one really feels his absence. (I haven't spoken to him about coming back, incidentally)

Yes, I do. 

This is a government whose support base is derived from hate and fear, so no, I do not feel comfortable about that.  I also do not believe that rights should be left to the discretion of either majority or minority opinion.

Jeff is an immigration lawyer with a stellar reputation as both a lawyer and activist, and he's a consistent supporter of free speech and civil liberties.  If he's been asked I'm sure Jeff will be providing kick-ass legal work for Galloway and those working to overturn his banning. 

Of course they claim it's not a free speech issue, but the argument is lame when all he's done is provide humanitarian aid, particularly as they allow supporters of the violent, racist JDL to operate openly in Canada. 

He has a stellar reputation does he? What constitute the substance of this stellar reputation? What high profile civil rights immigrations cases has he won? I can see that he has been active in the issue of US war resisters here, but as far as I can tell his efforts have not ammounted to much, and as far as I can tell he is now "off" cases that he was once on.

I have seen nothing that indicates a reputation for excelence in his field. He might be competent.

Barabra Jackman is on the other hand and excelent lawyer with a great reputation, and numerous succefull cases under her belt.

See, Jackman makes the good sound bites.

The whole thing is ridiculous. I mean what was Galloway to do? Dump the aid on the beach and hand the cheque to the IDF and say: "Make sure this gets to the right people?"

We had a protest in Greensville at the office of Conservative M.P. David Sweet. You can see the photos here:

http://hcsw.multiply.com/photos/album/10/Galloway_Protest_for_free_speech_in_Canada

 

 We had about 26 people come out from 3 organizations, Hamilton Coalition to Stop the War, McMaster Muslims for Peace and Justice, and Independent Jewish Voices. Got some press before the event:

http://www.thespec.com/article/537168

as well as a letter to the editor.

As a hillarious aside, check out what the JDL is called in this article:

http://www.thespec.com:80/article/537720

Actually, I was under the impression that he was a criminal lawyer, except for the work that was done on the war resisters issue.  Cueball is correct that Jackman is widely considered to be at the pinnacle of immigration law.  While I don't necessarily fault House for the failure of the war resisters court challenges, it is hard to view unsuccessful hearings at both levels of the federal court, and a failed SCC leave application as ass kicking.  In fact, the Hinzman decision at the federal court of appeal has created a very bad precedent for refugees now trying to claim refugee status.  

 The deck is always stacked against you in immigration law; this is something that experienced immigration lawyers know and have to cope with.  The way justice plays out in the Federal Court system is quite distinct from that of Superior Courts, and consequently those representing immigration clients must understand this difference.

I was not saying that the result in Hinzman was the fault of his lawyer, but I do think that the strategic approach of the litigation campaign had some serious flaws, and has created a precedent that will negatively affect refugees in a much broader scope than just the war resisters.  

I agree.  Cueball and Benjamin, please don't take advantage of the fact that Jeff can't post here anymore and therefore can't respond to your speculation about his work on those cases.

Beyond the strictly Canadian Gov. claim of "security threat". If the designation of "security threat" came by way of the Ministry of Public Security of the State of Israel
(which is a very distinct possiblility given the nature of Galloway's "crimes"), by the very terms of the Canada-Israel public security Declaration such a dislosure could be be a violation of the signed agreement.  

Pertaining to that see:

Full government document at the end of this article

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=12913

Unfortunately, in Harper's Canada, that would likely mean yet another secret trial.

British MP George Galloway barred from Canada under the Canada Israel "Public Security" Agreement

Are stooges are like dead fish. It makes it easier to go with the flow

I hope someone who has access to timely weekend reporting will post the decision here...please.

Decision to be released Monday according to CTV.

 

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20090329/galloway_ba...

I have read much about Mr. Galloway in the last while and certainly one cannot describe him as progressive. He has supported the banning of Gert Wilders and Jean Marie LePenmfrom the UK (two facists that are hatemongers nonetheless have not supported terrorist groups), he appeared on a bizarre UK reality tv show and acted like a complete lunatic, the list is endless.

 

All that said he most certainly should not have been banned but no one who calls himself progressive should have a thing to do with this clown!!

 

And I'd say you're up the creek without a paddle.

Some of what you say is true, and it's unfortunate, in my opinion, that any hopes of having any high visibility dissent from the fast creeping fascism of this Government, and major media, should rest on the shoulders of this exhibitionist rather than more serious voices--which are readily available, but suppressed.

That said, Galloway, clown or not, is feared as someone who could actually bear true public witness to the suppressed reality of the horrors in Gaza to the sheltered Canadian public. On this point, I refer again to:

Galloway Ban Mocks Canadian Justice
Written by William A. Cook   
Saturday, 28 March 2009 16:56

http://www.pacificfreepress.com/news/1/3941-galloway-ban-mocks-canadian-...
====
As to your previous post of Glavin, I read it, too.

Glavin is most amusing as a kind of low-rent Christopher Hitchens, whose ideology, locutions, vocabulary and propaganda techniques he apparently emulates.

One of Hitchens' favorite techniques is to throw out a blizzard of so many half-truths that it takes 10 pages of commentary just to enumerate them--by the end of which, by the law of diminishing returns, everyone is asleep.

So, here just one of many half-truths Glavin uses in his smears of Galloway:

Wow! "Murdering" them in their beds?--or just when they stroll down Piccadilly?  

What is true in that statement is that Blair's Labour did eject Galloway; it was obviously a politically smart move for the party, considering Iraq war fever in 2003.
Here are the "crimes" for which the Labour Party found Galloway guilty, (from Glavin's own link):


Consider Glavin's arrogance and imperial mindset in equating "murder" with any (Iraqi) citizens' armed resistance of the illegal foreign invasion--a country invaded in a blatant resource grab, and to install permanent military control -- all under the cover of the fabricated excuse of WMD.
Glavins belief that armed resistance is "murder", leaves the Iraqis only the "freedom" to submit to the invaders and their puppet government.
===
With a mindset like that, it is all the more troubling when Glavin wants the subversion clause of the Immigration Act "wholly rewritten" to allow only Canadian approved (ie Glavin?)  "freedom fighters" into the country:


As to who is really "sucking up" to fascism in the Galloway affair is apparent from my  first link in this post. 

I am totally opposed to Galloway being barred from speaking in Canada. But apparently Galloway himself demanded that the British government bar Jean Marie LePen from setting foot in Britain to give a speech. That seems very hypocritical - either you support freedom of speech or you don't.

Galloway has made no statements about freedom of speech being an absolute right. He has said that the reasons given for limiting his freedom of speech (that he is a terrorist) are wrong. He did supported banning these Fascist people from speaking, because they were going to promote Fascism in the UK. The reasons given for barring Galloway is his supposed support for terrorist organization.

There is nothing hypocritcal about it. No one has suggested that Galloway will be engaging in hate speech or any such thing, or suggested that this would be the basis for barring him from Canada.

The arguement against the injunction is basically that no decision has been made by immigration, and so the injunction is premature. If you look at the documents they suggest that Galloway may make a submission. Galloway's lawyer is arguing that the ministers public statements not only taint any decision that might be made by subordinate immigration officials, and guarantee a negative decision, but also that the timing of the issue and the fact that the immigration department has yet to make a final judgement is a de facto decision, given that he is to arrive tomorrow.

Ok. I don't know why Jackman spent the better part of the afternoon arguing that a decision had been made, to oppose the governments position that no determination had been made.

An injunction is made against a decision that leads to an action, not against a hypothetical decision that might be made. The purpose is to pre-empt the action being take upon the decision.

"Isalmism" (whatever that is) is not crime under the law. Nor did the state, its agents, or its Ministers say that Galloway was barred from entering Canada because of his views, "Islamist" or otherwise, they barred him for allegedly supporting terrorism by bringing material aid to the people of Gaza under the tuttelage of Hamas, aid mind you that was checked and approved for distribution in Gaza by the Israeli government.

That, not his beliefs, are the crux of the case for barring Mr. Galloway from speaking in Canada. Galloway argued that LePen should be barred for his hate-mongering. The state of Canada has made no such case against Galloway.

Actually, she specifically suggested to the judge this morning that he could simply rule that he is admissible to the country.  Her reasoning is that this would be a "prohibition" (which she defined as preventing something that is certain to happen)  against an unjust ruling by border officials based on the prejudicial tainting of the process by Orr (the official who wrote the "preliminary decision" letter) and by Jason Kenney and his spokesperson.

The best thing is that she told the judge that "this is a no-brainer" and that he could keep it simple and just make that decision today instead of reserving until tomorrow.  Hee!

Yes she made both these arguements.

She also, quite cleverly, asserted that the charter of rights pertains to the Galloway case because the charter applies to Canadian law and how it is applied, not to the person.

She said that Kenney was "mouthing off all over the world" about his decision.

The bad decision will be that the judge will agree that he has jurisdiction in this case in as far as he will inform the immigration officer to disregard the Minister's statements, and the previous decision, and review the Galloway case without this information in mind. Much in the way that a judge orders that juries disregard inademissable evidence that they hear in a court room.

So, does anyone know whether Galloway's still going to try to cross tomorrow morning at a Quebec border?  Or is he going to wait for the judge's decision and then attempt to cross here in Toronto?

So let me get this straight - you support Galloway's right to enter Canada and speak here but you don't think anyone should stand up and defend this right when it's denied? That's not a principled position. 

Truthfully, I'm not a Galloway fan - I think he and RESPECT have taken some horrible stances (or have not taken stands when they should have) on abortion, women's rights, gay rights etc and that they've been bad for the Left in the UK - I also think he's a vain self-promoter who has often done more harm than good to the positions he supports (one exception being his brilliant performance when testifying before the US Congress a few years ago). While I opposed both wars against Iraq I  think his obsequiousness towards Saddam Hussein was lunacy and that his completely uncritical attitude towards some rather nasty dictatorships makes him the sort of caricature of a "loony lefty" that the right loves to point to in order to discredit us all. I didn't go to see him when he's been here in the past and, until the ban, I wasn't planning on going to see him this time.

That being said, this action by the government is the latest in a long line of attempts to bar left wing speakers from entering the country (including, in one case, a former US military officer who had turned against the Iraq war) and the charges against Galloway are clearly specious and are yet another attempt by the right to demonize and now criminalize support for the Palestinians and cannot be allowed to stand. 

I agree with Mycroft's assessment of George Galloway.  I wasn't planning to go and see him before and I probably won't now, either (I'll decide today whether to run over to the RSU and pick up a ticket - and if I do, it will be to support the organizers of the event and to show solidarity with the activists who have fought against this political abuse of power). 

But I certainly went yesterday to the rally outside the court, and then attended the hearing, and I fully support his right to come to Canada and speak.  I also support his aid caravan, including giving the aid to the Palestinian government.  (As I was explaining to my son yesterday, who is only 10 years old but still managed to understand what Jason Kenney, his spokesthingy, and the dumbasses in the JDL, B'nai Brith and CJC can't quite figure out), it's not like you can just go to Palestine and hand out ambulances and medical supplies and aid money on the streets to passersby. You have to give it to the government so they can distribute it to the people.  So they handed it over to the democratically elected government.

I explained it to my son this way: imagine Canada went through some sort of natural disaster, and other countries wanted to send us supplies to help us through it.  They would give those supplies to the Canadian government.  Currently, the Conservatives are holding government.  But that doesn't mean that just because Stephen Harper would be accepting the money and the supplies on behalf of the Canadian government, that this means the other countries are giving the money to the Conservative Party.  They're giving it to the democratically-elected Canadian government to distribute to the Canadian people, not to the Conservative Party.

It's the same thing in Palestine.  Galloway gave the aid to the democratically-elected government of the people of Palestine, so that they can distribute it through their government.  The people in government happen to be Hamas, but that doesn't mean the aid is being given to Hamas.  It's being given to the government, and to the Hamas leader in his role as democratically elected leader of the Palestinians, not in his organizational role with Hamas.

It's hard to know whether Jason Kenney, his spokesperson, the JDL, B'nai Brith and the CJC are too stupid to understand this, or do understand it but are deliberately misleading people about it.  Either way, whether they're stupid or liars, it sure makes them look bad.

I will be there for sure, rain or shine!

""The timing speaks for itself – the BBC ban a charity appeal for Gaza; last Friday, the Murdoch press inform me that a George Bush-supporting government minister in Canada has banned me from the country on account of my views on the Middle East; the following day news breaks that the British government is demanding the sacking of the deputy general secretary of the Muslim Council of Britain on account of his recognition of the government of Palestine; on Monday a couple of hours before I touch down [in the US for a speaking tour] with a substantive letter from the Viva Palestina campaign to the Charity Commission, one of its officials briefs journalists in a way that invites damaging innuendo.

"It's all too much of a coincidence.

"What is happening is a dangerous and sinister attempt to criminalise efforts to build solidarity for the besieged people of Palestine to choose their own government."

 

George Galloway (from his website)

some friends and i put together this take on the tune 'universal soldier', apologies to  Buffy Ste. Marie, for one of our Iraq-war protests.  imagine re-wordings could further change it ... but the original might be more useful in any case, especially where religious differences are exploited for warmongering today [edited]. 

It's Exxon, it's Chevron, it's BP and it's Shell,

who fight with dollars and with bombs,

heedless of the children whose lives are now destroyed,

for barrels of oil beneath their homes.

Whatever your race, whatever your faith,

beware if you stand in the way,

any people they'll kill, who don't bend to their will,

kill you for me, my friend, and me for you.

With governments on puppet strings, the corporations rule;

they own the papers and tv,

feed us lies, hide the truth, try to justify their war,

do they think that we cannot really see?

They say it's for democracy, they say that war brings peace,

they say it's for the good of us all,

they've decided who's to live, and decided who's to die,

but they never read the writing on the wall.

Corruption within and corruption throughout,

the Empire is falling apart.

Fences come down, our hopes rise up,

rooted anew within our hearts.

It's we who raise our voices, for peace throughout the world,

who join our hands from shore to shore,

for People over profit, and Life beyond all greed;

We'll tolerate the violence no more !

(R)

Unreal, I hope this further enrages people across Canada.

[more off]

Speaking of Buffy, she was on the Juno's last night and looks exactly the same as she did 40 years ago.

And yea Nickleback!!!!!

[/end off]

This decision is such a cop out; the judge is a coward. Galloway will be allowed in to Canada in the long-run, just not in time to speak tonight.

I am sure he will have a plan B ready for speaking tonight though. I hope he will return to Canada in the future.  

Good grief. What a cowardly decision. In other circumstances and cases before the courts, the judiciary pretends and claims that public events, public pressure, etc., has no bearing on their decision making. This time around, near as I can make out, the strongest argument by the judge against the injunction is from Galloway's own public remarks that the latter will, in any case, be heard in Canada (through other means) and will, therefore, not suffer irreparable harm.

 

Bravo to MP George Galloway for exposing the disgraceful Canadian government. He's done us all a favour for which he deserves our thanks. 

All the more reason for the outstanding MP from Bethnal Green to make a triumphant visit to Canada in the not-too-distant future. And maybe we could get a full, cross-country tour. That will really give Parliamentarian Galloway a chance to outline all the facts in regard to the Israeli war crimes, atrocities and attempted genocide in Gaza. Canadians really DO need all the facts in this matter publicized in the widest and broadest manner. 

Absolutely. It is punishing Galloway and all the organisers of vivapalestina.org , in support of the beleaguered people of Gaza.

That said, I agree with Mycroft and Michelle about some of Galloway's more reactionary views - and his frequent misogynistic statements about female politicians he crosses swords with - and the problems his showmanship has caused the British left.

well we will have to unite agaisnt both the libs and the cons. cause Iggy was as big an advocate to keeping him out as Stevie was

No Eliezer that is not what Iggy said when Galloway was first denied entry.

 At that time iirc the comment was -- if the "security"reasons was the reason then then keep him out.

FM that is multi partisan. I am attacking 2 asses not 1

CBC's Don Newman is reporting that Galloway will appear in Toronto tonight via video hhokup from New York, and that he will be a guest tonight on The Hour (at 11 pm) also by video feed.

well, it looks like rabble tv's channel space was full at 7:05, and nothing in my area is carrying that video feed, so if someone can put up a link afterward if the speech is taped, that would be great.

Galloway on The Hour was fantastic! Catch it if you can.

Sidebar: Keep the name of George Galloway in mind next time some NDPer gives you the bullshit about how genuine left-wing candidates (left of the NDP, that is) have no chance to get elected and will, in any case, make no difference. Perhaps that explains, in part, Layton's tool-like remarks; maybe Layton resents the competition and his party may just prefer to silence such views...

After about 38 minutes of the recording, Galloway takes questions from the audience. But I couldn't hear the questions, ... I could only hear Galloway saying, "Yes", or "Thank you", and so on. I didn't listen to the remaining minutes after that. Is that problem remedied later in the recording? thx.

 

While that was happening (I missed it) on one hand, the other hand, "The World at Six," claimed Galloway gave millions of dollars to Hamas. 

Then CBC reported how Palestinian groups broke up that youth orchestra from Jenin.  I lost count of how many times the report mentioned "Holocaust survivors," but clearly the intent of the piece was to make it appear as if Palestinians oppose any sort of conciliatory gestures toward Israelis.

thanks for posting that al Qa Bong (#80)

the fact that Galloway appeared on STrombopolous' show - which I personally never expect too much from, given the CBC's almost-complete capitulation - just like ABC!  is still significant, in that it indicates they're worried!

about the heat and the steam - thus, "let him on STrom! - that'll take some wind out of their sails..."

and why worry?

because what Galloway's has  to say - given the right questions - is exactly what they (Harper, Kenney, Cheney and the PNACers) don't want a Canadian audience to hear - BUT, let him appear (yes, I think they DO have some "pull" there) up against a "lightweight" like Strom  - just like any other "clown" (as Iggy labelled him*) - and "Presto!" a little pressure escapes! 

on a lighter note, ya gotta love the competition's petition:

http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?galloway

 

Let's remember that Layton condemned Kenny's banning of Galloway about a week ago on CTV's Question Period - I posted that earlier.

I'm no lawyer, but the decision looks narrowly correct to me. The judge was not being asked whether Galloway is admissible to Canada. He was being asked to allow him to enter on an urgent basis (injunction), in the absence of a "final decision" by the border service. That puts a huge burden of proof on the applicants, and the judge just applied the usual 3-fold test, which includes proving "irreparable harm". I think he got it right. The problem is not the judge, it's the government and its fascistic tendencies.

 

Excatly Joel. Immigration took the very unusual step of informing him that he was not welcome beforehand, since as a British citzen, he would not normally have had to get a visa. So, one presumes that they became aware that he would "come into Canada like anyone else" and made a pre-emptive decision.

My estimation of Mr. Galloway was substantially damaged by the fact that he did not present himself at the border and force immigration to finalize its decision. It seems to me that immigration can continue to argue that no final decision, and so therefore no harm. I doubt that the case can be argued further without that, especially now that a Federal court has affirmed that no decision was made.

From Christopher Hitchens in Slate:

"What is at stake in all these cases is not just the right of the people concerned to travel and to take their opinions with them. It is also the right of potential audiences to make their own determination about whom they wish to hear. As a journalist, I can go and visit Hezbollah spokesmen and report back on what it's like and what they say, but why should a reader have to take my word for it? The British House of Commons has room for a man as appalling as George Galloway; why should Canadians not have the chance to make up their own mind about him? If Geert Wilders is persuasive enough to get himself elected to parliament in The Hague, is there any reason to believe that the British people are so lacking in robustness that they need to be protected from what he has to say?"

Of course, it's not only the Right which tramples upon the right of free speech.  It's also many on the Left when it comes to people saying something they deem to be "offensive".

_______________________________________

Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!

Exactly.  And even if he'd only been held for a few hours, that would have wrecked the event in any case.

Thats what I was wondering; thanks. If the Cons had the opportunity to wreck his speech by detaining him at the border then he made the right call. He should certainly return to the border now that his speaking event is over though, just to come across for a short personal visit; see if they detain him then

Please continue in the new thread here this one is way too long and it seems people still want to continue discussing and there will be up coming news.