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
[offtopic]
Buffy Sainte-Marie
[/offtopic]
[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]
Wow. I hope Galloway will be able to follow through on a Plan B, whatever that may be.
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.
I did not think that the court would rule against Galloway. I am not a lawyer so maybe one of the legal eagles from babble can tell me if the reasons in paras 21-25 are valid
also will the supreme court hear this on appeal?
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.
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.
Yes. And to accomplish that we should immediately change the direction of this tread to launching partisan attacks against one another. Sorry, couldn't resist.
FM that is multi partisan. I am attacking 2 asses not 1
No claim to being a legal eagle here, but my opinion...
The reasoning in the decision regarding the injunction test was sound. If Galloway will be heard anyway, and the irreparable harm is that he would not be heard, then I think the applicant does indeed fail on that step of the test (this of course says nothing about what the merits on judicial review may or may not be).
As an interlocutory decision, I see little prospect of appeal. The judicial application of the injunction test is very malleable (perhaps even more so than the governmental discretion under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act), and thus the chance of success at the Federal Court of Appeal is effectively nil.
What bothers me about the decision is that it encourages CIC/CBSA to employ rather smarmy tactics: sending a letter to someone that for all intensive purposes is a negative decision, but is sufficiently grey so as not to qualify as a final decision for the purposes of judicial review. The failure of the judge to address this aspect of the case was very disappointing, since I think an honest reading of CIC's letter makes it quite clear that a decision had been made. I would have liked the judge to at least explain why he thought the letter did not constitute a decision.
Where this leaves us is that an individual has to call the government's bluff, and force a final decision by attempting to enter Canada; this is obviously both time and monetarily consuming.
Fuck, Layton sounds like a tool. Was this selective quoting by the Globe or really the main thrust of his comments?
I was so proud of Tor and Kim and Yee-Guan tonight for making everything run smoothly with the rabble video link! I had my fingers crossed, sitting in the audience, that everything would go well, and it did! If it hadn't, it would've been a minor catastrophe, since there were over a thousand people in the audience tonight depending on our rabbletv feed to broadcast Galloway's speech.
Sorry, just had to do a shout-out to my co-workers. :)
I doubt that, N.Beltov. I'm as critical as anyone of the NDP, but at the hearing yesterday, Olivia Chow came to Federal Court in support and solidarity. I highly doubt that the NDP doesn't support Galloway speaking here.
That said, that was kind of a sucky quote. But as suggested, maybe that was a selective quote. Or maybe he was answering a specific question about whether Layton agrees with Galloway, and then he gave a general answer about not having to agree with everything Galloway says in order to support him speaking in Canada, and that trying to suppress him just makes more people want to hear him. James Clark made the latter point himself in his introduction of Galloway.
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.