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.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: About the RPN | Become a podcaster
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2013 the authors
Syndicate
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.
As Catchfire points out, this line of freedom of speech and what constitutes hatemongering are completely off topic, and essentially a red herring. Galloway has not been banned from Canada for hate speech, or any such thing. Hate crimes legislation or any such thing.
What has happened is that minister has used his discretionary adminstrative powers to block a person from coming into Canada using a very tendentious interpretation of the statuates regarding support for terrorist organizations.
I am sure Mr. Galloway would love to have an opportunity argue wether or not what he says is hate speech in an official judicial hearing. Mind you if what Mr. Galloway says does indeed constitute hate speech, then this board would be shut down, as well as many others like it, and I and many millions of Canadians would be facing prosecution for hate crimes.
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.
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/608935
Yeah, she's excellent. I was involved in an immigration case that created a precedent in Federal Court and her firm was the one we used. Another more junior lawyer did quite a bit of the work, but Jackman mentored her through it, and she also gave oral arguments in court. She was excellent. And we won!
Apparently she and Nazami are also representing the Canadian Arab Federation - they're suing Jason Kenney for cutting their funding for political reasons.
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?"
I know. It's fucked up. Either you give the aid to the structures in place (which is the government, which is Hamas right now) or you let the people starve.
Of course, we know which of those options is preferable to people who are pro-Apartheid.
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.
You can hardly blame losing the Hinzman case on Hinzman's lawyer. The deck was always stacked against him.
Sounds pretty distinguished to me. But that's all an aside.
Galloway is clearly a jerk in a lot of ways, but he's no more a criminal for taking aid to Gaza, than Audrey McLaughlin was for loading up a truck with supplies and driving it to Oka during the confrontation there.
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.
That's true, there's really no freedom of speach issue here, at least not legally. Galloway is not a Canadian, nor is he not in Canada. There is nothing in the Charter to protect what he might want to say.
There is of course a broader principle of free exchange of ideas that is at risk.
That is correct. They are completely entitled to bar someone from the country if they are a security threat, and that someone has a right to challenge the evidence the decision might be based on. But at the end of the day, even if a judge reviewed the evidence they have against Galloway and ordered its disclosure, the government could still refuse to do so on security grounds.
On a barely related note - did his lawyers really just cite Wikipedia in their letter? Ewww.
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.
Way back, M. Spector said: "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."
I'm bored tonight so I went to see what happened on New Year's. I have no idea if these two posters are one and the same but Punch Drunk was certainly vile. I really have to say, though, that encouraging someone to commit suicide, even in jest, is an awful thing to do.
Sorry about the thread drift.
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
And now the Conservative attack on free speech, moves to the courts:
Gov’t will attempt to ban pro-Galloway submissions from court: supportersNot the decision--but a good article here:
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-...
Decision to be released Monday according to CTV.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20090329/galloway_ba...
Galloway speaks:
http://www.rabble.ca/news/kenney-cant-censor-interview-george-galloway-speaks
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!!