Home » Babble » rabble community » rabble news features
babble-intro-img
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

137 replies [Last post]

Comments

fogbrella
Offline
Joined: Mar 24 2009
March 31, 2009 - 4:01am
#121

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


Boom Boom
Offline
Joined: Dec 29 2004
March 31, 2009 - 8:28am
#122
Strombolopoulos was a bit of an asshole at one point - he accused Galloway of pandering to the Muslim vote - and Galloway beautifully came back and said basically that was ridiculous - for 18 years he represented a riding with no Muslim votes whatsoever and during that time he was a vocal supporter of Palestinian self-determination. I suspect Strom was simply unprepared for this interview, although that's strange, because he's hosted Galloway before. Maybe Strom's instructions came from above?

Boom Boom
Offline
Joined: Dec 29 2004
March 31, 2009 - 8:34am
#123
melovesproles wrote:

Quote:
NDP Leader Jack Layton said he often disagrees with Mr. Galloway, but barring him meant “people will be tuning in from all over the place” to listen.

Fuck, Layton sounds like a tool.  Was this selective quoting by the Globe or really the main thrust of his comments?

 

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


Caissa
Offline
Joined: Jun 14 2006
March 31, 2009 - 8:38am
#124

Strom's an idiot. Gzowski's ghost could do a better job.

 

The diminuition of civil rights in this country must be arrested.


Unionist
Offline
Joined: Dec 11 2005
March 31, 2009 - 8:41am
#125
johnpauljones wrote:

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

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.

 


Joel_Goldenberg
Offline
Joined: May 5 2004
March 31, 2009 - 10:04am
#126

Couldn't Galloway have just come into Canada like anyone else and make his speeches? Did he tell federal officials beforehand of his intentions while in Canada. And if so, why?

On the other hand, if the feds were so worried about him promoting terrorism while in Canada, how they could they prevent him from doing so via video link?


Cueball
Offline
Joined: Dec 23 2003
March 31, 2009 - 10:08am
#127
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.

josh
Offline
Joined: Aug 5 2002
March 31, 2009 - 10:22am
#128
Unionist wrote:
johnpauljones wrote:

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

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.

 

Agree.  The judge's ruling was certainly legally defensible given the lack of irreparable harm and the unsettled nature of the record.


Cueball
Offline
Joined: Dec 23 2003
March 31, 2009 - 10:51am
#129
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.

It's Me D
Offline
Joined: Apr 22 2008
March 31, 2009 - 11:35am
#130

Quote:
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.

Agreed.

Would the logistics of doing so have interrupted his speech? 


Sven
Offline
Joined: Jul 22 2005
March 31, 2009 - 11:48am
#131

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!!!


aka Mycroft
Offline
Joined: Aug 8 2004
March 31, 2009 - 11:52am
#132

Cueball wrote:
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.

Given that the government's lawyers said he could be detained if he presented himself at the border I'm not sure if Galloway would be serving his constiuents in London very well by being incaracerated in Canada for several months awaiting an immigration hearing. 


Michelle
Offline
Joined: May 10 2001
March 31, 2009 - 11:55am
#133
Exactly.  And even if he'd only been held for a few hours, that would have wrecked the event in any case.

aka Mycroft
Offline
Joined: Aug 8 2004
March 31, 2009 - 12:03pm
#134
Hypocrisy in action: The JDL and the Galloway ban

 

And if anyone is interested to see Weinstein's "barely articulate" open letter it's here:

http://canadiancoalition.com/forum/messages/36900.shtml


It's Me D
Offline
Joined: Apr 22 2008
March 31, 2009 - 12:04pm
#135

Michelle wrote:
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 Wink


A_J
Offline
Joined: Aug 12 2008
March 31, 2009 - 12:59pm
#136

aka Mycroft wrote:
I'm not sure if Galloway would be serving his constiuents in London very well by being incaracerated in Canada for several months awaiting an immigration hearing.

I think his constituents managed to make do while he spent a few weeks on Big Brother a couple of years ago. 


remind
Offline
Joined: Jun 25 2004
March 31, 2009 - 2:00pm
#137
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.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or register to post comments