Galloway fights exclusion from Canada: Official documents attached

138 posts / 0 new
Last post
Natasha81

Now what? I've sent out my emails and my phone calls. I am so sick and tired of these neo-cons. When are Canadians going to unite and throw these pigs out?

johnpauljones

well we will have to unite agaisnt both the libs and the cons. cause Iggy was as big an advocate to keeping him out as Stevie was

Eliezer Zusken

Actually JPJ I heard Iggy on CTV calling galloway a "clown" but said he should be alloed to enter Canada.

johnpauljones

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.

Frustrated Mess Frustrated Mess's picture

johnpauljones wrote:
well we will have to unite agaisnt both the libs and the cons. cause Iggy was as big an advocate to keeping him out as Stevie was

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.

johnpauljones

FM that is multi partisan. I am attacking 2 asses not 1

Benjamin

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. 

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

CBC's Don Newman is reporting that Galloway will appear in Toronto tonight via video hhokup from New York, and that he will be a guest tonight on The Hour (at 11 pm) also by video feed.

thanks

[awesome clip pogge, thanks.  what a huge difference the person, the message, the music and the eyes make...beautiful. and it really is up to each of us.]

thanks

some friends and i put together this take on the tune 'universal soldier', apologies to  Buffy Ste. Marie, for one of our Iraq-war protests.  imagine re-wordings could further change it ... but the original might be more useful in any case, especially where religious differences are exploited for warmongering today [edited]. 

It's Exxon, it's Chevron, it's BP and it's Shell,

who fight with dollars and with bombs,

heedless of the children whose lives are now destroyed,

for barrels of oil beneath their homes.

Whatever your race, whatever your faith,

beware if you stand in the way,

any people they'll kill, who don't bend to their will,

kill you for me, my friend, and me for you.

With governments on puppet strings, the corporations rule;

they own the papers and tv,

feed us lies, hide the truth, try to justify their war,

do they think that we cannot really see?

They say it's for democracy, they say that war brings peace,

they say it's for the good of us all,

they've decided who's to live, and decided who's to die,

but they never read the writing on the wall.

Corruption within and corruption throughout,

the Empire is falling apart.

Fences come down, our hopes rise up,

rooted anew within our hearts.

It's we who raise our voices, for peace throughout the world,

who join our hands from shore to shore,

for People over profit, and Life beyond all greed;

We'll tolerate the violence no more !

(R)

thanks

well, it looks like rabble tv's channel space was full at 7:05, and nothing in my area is carrying that video feed, so if someone can put up a link afterward if the speech is taped, that would be great.

oldgoat

Check it out here.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Galloway on The Hour was fantastic! Catch it if you can.

melovesproles

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?

 

 

N.Beltov N.Beltov's picture

Sidebar: Keep the name of George Galloway in mind next time some NDPer gives you the bullshit about how genuine left-wing candidates (left of the NDP, that is) have no chance to get elected and will, in any case, make no difference. Perhaps that explains, in part, Layton's tool-like remarks; maybe Layton resents the competition and his party may just prefer to silence such views...

Michelle

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. :) 

N.Beltov N.Beltov's picture

After about 38 minutes of the recording, Galloway takes questions from the audience. But I couldn't hear the questions, ... I could only hear Galloway saying, "Yes", or "Thank you", and so on. I didn't listen to the remaining minutes after that. Is that problem remedied later in the recording? thx.

Michelle

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.

al-Qa'bong

Boom Boom wrote:
Galloway on The Hour was fantastic! Catch it if you can.

 

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.

N.Beltov N.Beltov's picture

Gah. Strombo is such a lightweight.

fogbrella

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 Boom Boom's picture

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 Boom Boom's picture

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

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

 

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

Unionist

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

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 Cueball's picture

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

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 Cueball's picture

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

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 Sven's picture

From Christopher Hitchens in [url=Slate[/url]:">http://www.slate.com/id/2214939/]Slate[/url]:

"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

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

Exactly.  And even if he'd only been held for a few hours, that would have wrecked the event in any case.

aka Mycroft

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

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

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 remind's picture

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.

Pages

Topic locked