I ran across the same Velshi piece Jingles quotes above, but I think this one he co-authored may actually be more relevant to the current decision by Kenney.

In it, Velshi and his co-author take issue with a judge's decision that the Bush administration was unconstitutionally proscribing charitable donations to "Specially Designated Global Terrorist" groups, or SDGTs.

Note these two paragraphs, in which the now-famous Cromwell allusion had an early run:

There is, however, a compelling basis for a government ban on any assistance — even self-described humanitarian aid — to terrorists. Because terrorist organizations are not known as models of corporate transparency, there is no way of knowing whether a terrorist entity’s humanitarian arm is funneling money to its militant one. What is more, the fungible nature of money means that donations to the peaceful arm free up money to be spent by the militant arm.

It is similarly absurd to believe that a terrorist organization’s political and humanitarian services can excuse its terrorist activities. Hezbollah is the exemplar of this strategy. Although it holds itself out as a legitimate political party, because its political demands are backed by the threat of force, its political wing has a symbiotic relationship with its military one. Without their heavies in the hills, Hezbollah politicians would be street-corner Cromwells, guilty of their country’s blood but powerless to spread their poison inside the Lebanese government.

In an interview with British media, Velshi seemed to imply that Galloway's recent delivery of humanitarian aid to Gaza counted as support for terrorism, not surprisingly given this earlier essay.

Another theme stressed by Velshi in this piece is the need for broad discretion by the executive authority to fight terrorists (hence his unhappiness with the judge's ruling that the discretion to define SDGTs was unconstitutionally broad).

Canada doesn't have the same three-branch structure as the US of course, but the recent action of the CBSA under the Conservatives could be seen as a similar broadening of the government's power.

Perhaps Velshi and Keney are importing US-style attitudes and views of government into Canada:

Palpably, the government must not let a flawed judicial decision that relaxes restrictions on terrorists stand unchallenged. Nor can it afford to be passive in defense of our foreign policy while the cold, lacertian [lizard-like] eyes of our enemies watch for any flicker of hesitance.