Federal Court to rule on George Galloway's right to enter Canada

It will be entertaining in any case (if also disgusting) to read the squirming replies of the GoC lawyers as they try to justify the banning of a UK Member of Parliament from Canada. I believe it is the first time in history for such a disgrace to Canada. This Conservative regime is going to leave an ugly stain on Canadian history, regardless of when they are thrown out of office.

If I am not mistaken wasn't Mr. Galloway found to have delivered thousands of pounds of British cash to the leader of Hamas? While some will clearly disagree Canada has found Hamas to be a terrorist group and I thought it was on that basis (that he was potentially coming here to raise funds for a terrorist group) that he was denied admittance.

Good Lord.  The man who vigorously campaigned to have a member of the EU Parliament banned from Britain's soil is going to grouse about being banned from Canada's.  Can we charge him with shameless, blatant, larger-than-life hypocrisy, and ban him for that?

You are mistaken.

That has no basis in reality on this particular planet.

You are right about one thing: I clearly disagree with the assumption that Hamas (the legal, duly elected democratic government of Gaza) is a terrorist organization. The terrorist organizations would be Israel and the US. 

Oh, and Stephen "I eat kittens" Harper is also a terrorist.

May I point out that a real war criminal, George Bush, freely enters this country without a whit of Harperite concern.

Um Jingles I think you are the one that is mistaken. Here is a Youtube clip of galloway giving money to Hamas.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYFGIbaabTU

Opposition to Galloway by self-styled representatives of the Jewish "mainstream" in this country shows how deep into the sewer they have sunk. There is not a shred of progressive or enlightened spirit left to them. Harper is their Messiah. Let them depart the scene of history arm in arm, bimhera beyameinu.

Hamas is the duly ELECTED government for the Palestinians. Tought shit if you don't like it. Galloway delivered medical and other supplies to deal with the unending and sickening Israeli war crimes and atrocities against the Gazans; obviously he had to deliver the supplies to the duly elected authority, whoever it was.

Wow, babble really is chock a block with Zionist apologists.

Not really. It's just an algorithm that turns them on when certain keywords are mentioned that drive them batty (like "peace", "justice", "Galloway"...). The rest of the time they resume their quiet ceramic selves and sit nicely on the shelf.

Good Lord. You're comparing George Galloway, a progressive humanitarian, with that fascist fuck Nick Griffin?

Perhaps you are talking about Geert Wilders, a member of the Dutch parliament, who was banned from entering Britain back in February. Some columnist, Christopher Hitchens I believe, suggested that Galloway was a hypocrite because he did not have much to say at the time about the Geert Wilders ban and supported the banning of Le Pen.

I think this is partially true. I've searched all over looking for anything that Galloway actually said about the Wilders ban. I could find nothing. This is not surprising because Galloway was probably too busy organizing the Viva Palestina convoy to really care about his fellow MP's banning a racist from entering their country.

Or maybe you are referring to Jean-Marie Le Pen, the french politician who has been convicted several times of anti-Semitism.  Even the National Post columnists dropped the Galloway-Lep Pen hypocrisy strawman once they figured out who Le Pen was.

But hey, don't let the facts get in the way of a good story. George Galloway is an unabashed hypocrite, right?

2009 Hypocrisy awards

Gold Medal - the Israeli propoganda machine

Israel drops leaflets and phones in advance to warn victims about attacks that may or may not happen, so people who have nowhere to run and hide have a chance to run and hide.  When the attacks do eventually happen after a number of false starts, they include white phosphorous and flachette bombs on a civilian population. This makes the Israeli Defence Forces the "most moral army in the world".

Silver Medal - Benjamin Netanyahu and Hillary Clinton

Netanyahu agreeing to a 9 month settlement freeze that does not include the 3000+ homes already started or "approved", or anything at all in East Jerusalem. Clinton then praises this as an 'unprecedented' concession on the part of Israel towards peace in the mid-east.

Bronze Medal - the CJC, Stephen Harper, Michael Ignatieff

The CJC awards Stephen Harper a humanitarian award. Michael Ignatieff, addressing the awards ceremony audience, praises the CJC for being the conscience of Canada.

Best Three Part Harmony award - Kenny, Farber, Weinstein

MP Jason Kenney, Bernie Farber of the CJC, and Meir Weinstein of the JDL singing "This is not about freedom of speech" after George Galloway was banned from entering Canada to speak to several peace activist groups.

Best Cover by a Solo Artist - Stephen Harper

Stephen Harper singing "I get by with a little help from my friends, I get high with a little help from my friends".

It does not get any better than this!

Be careful what you wish for Snert, your dreams may come true!

OK so I have looked at the youtube piece and while I agree wholeheartedly that Galloway should have been permitted into canada, the law is not onside from what I can see.

1. Like it or not Hamas is labeled a terrorist group and this was accepted by all political parties

2. Galloway did give a lot of money to Hamas...the evidence is clear

3. As a result Canadian authorities made a judgement call based on the evidence.

The Court will review this decision but my guess is it will lose

It's noted above that "Hamas is the duly ELECTED government for the Palestinians." Whatever evils they may do, they apparently deserve some respect by virtue of having been elected.

Le Pen was also elected, wasn't he? Either that matters, or it totally doesn't, neither for him nor for Hamas.

Anyway, I'll stick with "hypocrite". In an ideal world, Galloway would have been allowed into Canada (and immediately prosecuted if he engaged in any terrorism) and Le Pen into Britain (to be immediately prosecuted if he committed any hate crimes). Why that's not good enough for Galloway is a mystery to me.

Those are the grounds the Canadian government based denying Galloway entry into Canada.

These grounds need to be asserted or discounted by the courts reviewing the matter.

Let us remember that Mr. Galloway had done a tour/lecture circuit in the U.S.A. and had not committed any "act of terrorism" there. His speech(es) were streamed into Canada and no mention was made about him advocating terrorism or the support thereof.

If Bush allowed him into the U.S.A., then what makes Harpo so special? What's his problem?

My guess: he supports the war(s), and Galloway doesn't. I don't, personally, think there was any merit in barring Galloway when we already have laws to deal with him if he suddenly decides to start an Al Qaeda cell in Flin Flon. But if Galloway is going to argue that the government had no right to bar him then I think he really needs to dig deep, and ask himself why he believes this when it's his ox being gored, and believes the exact opposite when it's someone else's.

Ah yes, the YouTube evidence. Note, the only mention of Hamas in that unattributed video is in its title. Even if this is proffered as valid evidence, it will be argued that Galloway was giving a donation to the people of Gaza via the duly elected government of the people, and that such a public and open display by a high profile British Member of Parliament is hardly characteristic behavior of a criminal in the act of supporting terrorism.

The £25,000 cash donated represented about 2 1/2% of the total value of the goods delivered to Gaza, which included 24 ambulances.  Gaza had no ambulances left, you see, after Operation Cast Lead.

So was this supporting terrorism or a humanitarian effort?  Context certainly matters in deciding between murder and self defence.

Yes, Canadian authorities made a judgement call.  Was it a good one? No. Should it be allowed to stand? Absolutely not.

Will the Harper/Kenney goon show fight this in court? Don't be suprised if they do. Imagine what it's like to be a GoC lawyer these days. It's got to be one of the worst jobs in the world.

What flimsy sophistry. This isn't about Galloway whining about being banned. This is about whether WE CANADIANS support or oppose his being banned. Galloway's views about censorship are irrelevant. It is our consciences which are on trial here.

I think there is a dual standard here:

A man of peace like George Galloway is denied entry into Canada.

Men-o-war like Bill Clinton and George Bush are allowed in to give expensive dinner speeches/conferences.

Of course there's a double standard here; it's how the world works.  Galloway speaks up for the oppressed and says rude things about those in power; therefore, those in power seek to silence him.

People here invite George Bush - who has committed the same type of crimes for which those who were tried at Nuremberg were hanged -to Canada and pay $100 per vacant head to hear him speak.

The powerful get to set the rules and determine who may be heard.

How many paid for the Clinton and Bush conferences?

How many protested?

Vox populi.

Let me say again, Galloway should never have been kept out of Canada. It was an immense over-reaction. I happen to think Galloway is a horse's ass but just the same horse's asses are still allowed entry here.

Nonetheless, I too saw the video. Its really hard to claim that Galloway was there only to bring aid to the Palestinains in Gaza. His words (if the youtube video is not a fake) are what they are.

Yeah, too bad the Israeli government still gets given "gobs of cash" by the US to spend on terrorizing Palestinians and stealing their land and water, huh?  Let me guess - that's okay, though.  Am I right?

oops...

Speaking of evidence, did you see the pictures of the white phospherous bombs raining down on that UN compound? It makes it rather hard to claim that this is NOT a war crime. Or how about that security wall?  Makes it kind of hard to argue that Israel is NOT an apartheid state.

But even this damning evidence does not stop the pro Israeli lobby from vigorously defending these atrocities; calling the IDF the "most moral army in the world."  Gimmie a break.

A high profile British MP in a high profile public appearance hands over a doggy bag of cash to the Prime Minister of Gaza, making a speech to anyone willing to listen.  He outfits the militants with ambulances to aid in in their fight against the IDF? He delivers disposable diapers so they can be loaded and lobbed over the wall at the defenseless Israeli settlers? This is supporting terrorism? Gimmie a break.

If that was his real intention, then maybe a plea of insanity is in order.

Perhaps either of you legal scholars could explain exactly how the cash donations should have been handled?

Don't know about Michelle, but the argument I use with pro-Israeli posters is that they should be ashamed of supporting a state founded on religious/ethnic discrimination, which maintains an unlawful nuclear arsenal, threatens and invades its neighbours, unlawfully occupies land which does not belong to it under international law, deprives the Palestinian people of their national rights, massacres and intimidates the Palestinian people daily, and supports the United States slavishly in the latter's aggression all around the world, in exchange for financial and military propping. I also charge them with attempting to smear the good name of the Jewish people internationally, peddling the line that Jews need a "homeland" different from the one where they live, isolating Jews from the struggles of all oppressed people, and disgracefully linking the Jewish name with the war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by the pariah state of Israel.

If pro-Israeli posters additionally use logical fallacies or inappropriate modes of argument, I would put that critique far lower on my scale of priorities.

yes Unionist but of course you wouldn't say such a thing on babble about individual pro-Israel protestors since it would be a flagrant violation of babble policy.

Thank you Unionist

Canadian envoy objected to banning George Galloway

Jim Bronskill CP, Feb 8, 2010, Globe and Mail

Jason Kenney - liar liar, pants on fire

Yeah, they went through the Immigration department case management office. So, not in direct touch. A lesson in weasel words for us all.

Yep OO, now we know what that means when they say "not in direct touch"