babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Galloway fights exclusion from Canada: Official documents attached
March 25, 2009 - 1:20pm
As we all know by now, George Galloway has been told he will not be allowed to enter Canada because our border officials believe he is a "national security threat" and engaged in terrorism.
I have attached the official letter from Citizenship and Immigration, as well as George Galloway's response to this post (see below to download the scanned images of the CIC letter, and the PDF of his lawyer's response).
There was a press conference this morning outlining their strategy. This is why the above documents have been released.
http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/March2009/25/c3876.html
Here's a CTV report on this morning's press conference.
Galloway's lawyer is filing with Federal Court today to have the decision overturned.
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.
The below is all that Galloway is "guilty" of ie guilty of nothing that matters.
Excerpt from Galloway lawyer letter above.
The CBSA determination is one based on inference drawn from his involvement in the Viva Palestina aid convoy. It is not a reasonable inference. It is clear that this convoy was what it purported to be: a symbolic gesture by a number of individuals and organizations to support the Palestinians isolated and blockaded in Gaza. The passing of the convoy into Gaza was simply a recognition that the Palestinians of Gaza, who elected Hamas in a democratic election, ought not be punished by withholding from them the means of survival.
Oh, I lost hope long ago. The comments sections of corporate media demonstrates the best argument for mandatory birth control that there is.
Here is an interesting take on Galloway from Terry Glavin.
http://transmontanus.blogspot.com/2009/03/company-we-keep.html#links
Reads like 60's era Maoist agitation and propaganda. What is funny about that is that the stilted grammar and constant use of weak modifiers is understandable given that the original source for those were badly translated Chinese: "George Galloway a bloodthirsty running dog of the Ayatollahs."
True enough when repeated often enough, in the Goebelesque sense, but nothing factual at all.
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?
Thank you for posting those documents, Michelle.
It is absolutely ridiculous that Galloway is being banned. I find him to be a bit ridiculous and loony (anyone see his Big Brother performance), but he should not be banned from entry. Why is it that those who refuse to support free speech are too shortsighted to see the results - ie increased publicity for the views of those they abhor? Look at Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant and the increased readership they got. Galloway has gotten Canadians who never would have heard of him to read his views.
However, why are there so few real defenders of free speech anywhere on the political spectrum? Galloway spoke up supporting the decision to bar Wilders (a sitting Dutch MP) from England, so it is hard to feel sorry for him. Wilders support banning the Koran. Now we have many people who stood up for Steyn and Levant supporting the banning of Galloway?
If you don't believe in free speech for views you find repugnant, you don't believe in free speech. Sadly, over the past year in this country it seems there are many in this category on the left and right.
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.
Absolutely. My point was that it is too bad he does not support the right of British people to hear an MP from another country speak. It is (or should be) scandalous that our government does not support the rights of Canadians to hear him speak and make up their own damn minds.
And either way our government's actions have ensured that Galloway is receiving a MUCH wider audience than he would have otherwise received.
ETA to respond to your Furthermore comments. I absolutely agree with that is well. The anti-terrorism legislation is what is being used here to violate free speech. This legislation is being used to curb our civil liberties in many ways. In this case, it is 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?
While we're comparing in the interests of free speech, which MP has proposed the establishment of a version of the Nuremberg laws within their country? Which MP suscribes to these principles:
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.
I doubt the court case will go very far - I'm not a lawyer but my feeling is that the government has quite a lot of discretion, excessively so, when it comes to determining who can and can't enter the country (less so once someone has actually arrived). However, I think this will hurt Kenney's reputation in the long run and I suspect no future government will be so stupid at least in regards to Galloway. If there's an election later this year and the Tories are defeated it's likely Galloway will be in the country sometime afterwards.
I think the CJC and Bnai Brith have really harmed their credibility though.
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.