PM feared Galloway--Linda McQuaig

Link:
http://www.rabble.ca/columnists/2009/04/pm-feared-galloways-message

as has been my point, exactly, on a few threads...

however, another point Ive tried to make, and one that should NOT escape notice, is that George Galloway also threw a scare into Michael "The Count" Ignatieff, too

all he could - or would - squeeze out, in reaction to the man, was, "the guy's a clown" what? such a bright intellectual light and that's IT?

Did he mean "a clown" the way Sasha Baron Cohen's "a clown", though? what?

I think, "Who better to debate George Galloway than Michael Ignatieff?" Harper and Kenney would both be reduced to preverbal grunts, but IGGY! now THERE is a Debate! I see a series of -"Live and in-person", prime-time sessions, staged across the country, on all networks

starting soon - let's push for that! Ignatieff vs. Galloway!

love you Linda!

By the way, it was "fear of galvanizing anti-war sentiment in peace-oriented Canadians" that has led Mr. Harper to simply ACCEPT - publicly, at least - the end of Canada's "combat mission" in Afghanistan

That's been his sonorous  - even dreary - theme from the start - "Combat Mission over 2011, period" -

Cold War xenophobia was much the same. The Merricans openly hounded people, sometimes to death, in the era of McCarthy witch hunts. Canadian authorities prefered to destroy people's lives more quietly, secretly even, and never let their victims know what happened.

I think I prefer the American approach ... and not just because MP Galloway was able to tour the US but prohibited, on spurious grounds, from visiting and touring Canada.

yeah, well, agreed

but Galloway's voice should be kept alive here, in Canada, by any means possible

I want (future prime minister) Ignatieff pressured to debate the guy in public - he did imply that Galloway wasn't a security threat but a "clown"

Chances are he'd do a photo-op with Sasha Baron Cohen - the Count and the Baron - in a heartbeat

Let's see Iggy's sense of humor get a public workout with that other "clown" - Galloway!

I'm so sick of hearing pro-Apartheid lobby groups and supporters claiming that he gave the money and supplies to Hamas.  He didn't give it to Hamas.  He gave it to the head of the democratically elected government of Palestine.

If Canada had gone through some sort of disaster and was given aid money, it would be Stephen Harper accepting the money on behalf of the Government of Canada, but that doesn't mean the money was being given to the Conservative Party.  It was being given to Canada through the government.

Same with George Galloway's aid money for Palestine.  You know, my 10 year-old understands this distinction perfectly.  Because he's not a fucking moron.  You'd think that the representatives from the JDL, the CJC, and the Conservative Party (well, I guess they're all pretty much the same thing these days) would be smarter than a fourth grader, but unfortunately not.

then there's the similarly "moronic" response, of Iggy, re Galloway: "he's a clown!"

WHat?

but I'm repeating myself - to the wind - ad nauseum - perhaps in the hope of having the issue take flight

I wonder if Galloway himself is capable of such a distinction.

When he was pushing to ensure that Jean Marie Le Pen be barred from Britain, do you think he was thinking that he was barring a democratically elected Member of the European Parliament?

The whole "democratically elected" thing cuts both ways, does it not?

Sure, "The whole "democratically elected" thing cuts both ways" - unless you examine the actual INTENT of both men.

Mr. Galloway, by his message, is not engaged in the blatant, deliberate suppression of a people - Jean Marie Le Pen IS

I'm concerned that you can't see the difference!

Thing is, the whole "democratically elected" thing is precisely so I don't.  Which isn't to say I can't be aware of it (and trust me, I'm not endorsing the political views of J-M. Le Pen).  But in the same way that perfectly reasonable criticism of Hamas (speaking of 'intent') is supressed with the reminder that it's not for us to judge -- they're democratically elected -- it's not for us, or Galloway, to judge whether a French MP is or is not admissible to the country.

If we're going to start ignoring this democratically elected thing then I'm afraid we'd be having a long talk about Hamas, wouldn't we?  And yes, they're fighting for the freedom of a people, but I suspect that some of their policies and actions might not pass the progressive test, any more than Le Pen does.

So, either another population democratically electing a representative means something, or it doesn't.  Once you start throwing your own personal judgement of "intent" in there, it doesn't.

Should Mr. Le Pin(head) be allowed into Canada? to say whatever the hell he feels like saying?

I daresay he'd transgress hate-speech laws in CAnada, were he to do so.

NOT SO Galloway. NOTHING he's saying is "hate-based" OR inflammatory - unless it is "inflammatory" - for Jews in Canada, at least - to say that Palestinians are being horrifically-treated by Israel.

THAT is what the govt. of Canada is trying to prevent by barring Galloway entry.

They (Harper, Ignatieff, et al) simply don't want the apple-cart - ie, the push, by NATO, to remake the Muslim Middle East for Israel - to lose a wheel - by hitting the ROCK called Galloway - at this stage of the game.

He very well might. In which case we'd get him.

I don't have a problem with people breaking the law and being sanctioned for it -- in that order -- though as I note, Galloway seems to.

Where do you get this idea that Section 34 of the immigration act pertains to crimes of hate speech?

The case of La Pen, et al, are completely different. Those cases were to do with expectef violations of the Britich criminal code regarding hate speech. It had nothing to do with wether or not they were "threats to national security." They were not, almost certainly. Galloway was refused on the grounds that he was a threat to national security, not that he was promoting hate or any such thing. These are completely different cases.

Galloway's case is that his and his Canadian supporters right to freedom of speech have been abrogated based on the misapplication of the law regarding national security. It has nothing to do with anything that Galloway was expected to say... at least not officially.

They would never be able to bar Galloway under Canadian hate speech laws, so they chose to abuse section 34 of the immigration act pertaining to terrorism, and national security.

right but Snert is saying, "let them in - if they break the law arrest them"

Le Pin(head) is notoriously "inflammatory" - and many Canadians disagree whole-heartedly WITH his views - However, there are simply no (historical) grounds by which to (similarly) bar Galloway

THAT is all about keeping the truth about Iraq, Afghanistan, AND the plight of Palestinians, visa vi Israel, from Canadians

Were the real truth to be wider known - about why Bush went into Iraq, etc. and just whose plans he was following - it most-assuredly would soften the support for (as I've said) Canada's Afghan "mission" - and especially for the soon-to-be-announced expanded combat mission there

I'm pretty sure the CJC, Conservatives and JDL understand the difference, which is why they keep hammering the "Galloway supports Hamas" propaganda.  Unfortunately, when media such as the CBC pick up the refrain and broadcast it (which has happened), those who don't follow the Palestine issue probably make the assumption that Galloway is some sort of terrorist.

It is the BIG LIE in practice and it is very, very effective.

What is interesting is how the decision to exclude Galloway on false National Security grounds is being parlayed as a case against hate speech.