PM feared Galloway's message

Please chip in to support more articles like this. Support in its summer fundraiser today for as little as $5 per month!

Anyone who has ever seen George Galloway in action knows why he had to be stopped at the border. He definitely poses a threat -- although not the security one alleged by the Harper government.

Rather, Galloway, a five-times elected member of the British Parliament, poses a threat to Stephen Harper's ability to sell Canadians on our involvement in the Afghan war and on Ottawa's support for Israel in its battle against the Palestinians.

Galloway is a fierce, effective critic on both fronts. With the mental toughness of Noam Chomsky and the showmanship of Mick Jagger, Galloway slices through the pro-war apologetics of political leaders like a knife through warm butter.

So it's not surprising Harper wasn't keen about Galloway coming to Canada. Even without the controversy of the ban, Galloway promised to attract huge audiences and stir up the kind of anti-war feeling that brought thousands onto Canadian streets last January to protest Israel's bombing of Gaza, and Ottawa's refusal to condemn it.

Media commentators have missed the point by treating the ban as purely a free-speech issue, and suggesting Galloway should be heard, despite his odious views.

Galloway's views aren't odious. In fact, they're in sync with millions of Canadians. In a recent Angus Reid poll, 48 per cent of Canadians wanted our troops brought home from Afghanistan before the scheduled 2011 withdrawal. A BBC poll showed Canadians have more negative than positive views of Israel -- even before the Gaza bombing, which UN human rights investigator Richard Falk said last month "would seem to constitute a war crime of the greatest magnitude."

It was fear of Galloway galvanizing anti-war sentiment in peace-oriented Canadians that prompted Ottawa to brand him a terrorist supporter -- for providing urgently needed cash and medical supplies to Hamas, the democratically elected government in Gaza. As a result, Galloway only appeared in Canada via videolink from the United States, where he was allowed to move about freely and address packed houses, apparently without threatening U.S. national security.

The Galloway episode highlights how Harper has abandoned any pretense of even-handedness in the Middle East. (Last month, Canada was the only country to vote against a UN resolution opposing the expansion of Israeli settlements on occupied Palestinian land.)

Indeed, it seems likely Israel had a hand in the decision to ban Galloway from Canada. In March 2008, the Harper government signed a broad-ranging security pact with Israel. The pact, which has received scant attention in Canada's Parliament or media, established close Canada-Israeli co-operation in "border management and security," under a management committee comprised of Canada's deputy minister of public safety and Israel's director general of public security.

So was the decision to ban Galloway not only absurd and anti-democratic, but also influenced by a foreign government?

Canadian government spokesperson Alykhan Velshi denied this yesterday. But what exactly does this secretive management committee do, and how might it affect Canada's Muslim and Arab populations?

Clearly, we need a thorough public review of the Canada-Israel security pact -- a task made all the more urgent now that the Israeli cabinet includes the extremist Avigdor Lieberman, who once mused publicly about drowning Palestinian prisoners.

Peace groups have been pushing Harper to establish a department of peace. But he prefers to suppress the case against war, only permitting us to hear it most fully articulated via videolink from free sites outside our borders.

Linda McQuaig is author of It's the Crude, Dude: War, Big Oil and the Fight for the Planet.

Related Items

Thank you for reading this story…

More people are reading than ever and unlike many news organizations, we have never put up a paywall – at rabble we’ve always believed in making our reporting and analysis free to all, while striving to make it sustainable as well. Media isn’t free to produce. rabble’s total budget is likely less than what big corporate media spend on photocopying (we kid you not!) and we do not have any major foundation, sponsor or angel investor. Our main supporters are people and organizations -- like you. This is why we need your help. You are what keep us sustainable. has staked its existence on you. We live or die on community support -- your support! We get hundreds of thousands of visitors and we believe in them. We believe in you. We believe people will put in what they can for the greater good. We call that sustainable.

So what is the easy answer for us? Depend on a community of visitors who care passionately about media that amplifies the voices of people struggling for change and justice. It really is that simple. When the people who visit rabble care enough to contribute a bit then it works for everyone.

And so we’re asking you if you could make a donation, right now, to help us carry forward on our mission. Make a donation today.


We welcome your comments! embraces a pro-human rights, pro-feminist, anti-racist, queer-positive, anti-imperialist and pro-labour stance, and encourages discussions which develop progressive thought. Our full comment policy can be found here. Learn more about Disqus on and your privacy here. Please keep in mind:


  • Tell the truth and avoid rumours.
  • Add context and background.
  • Report typos and logical fallacies.
  • Be respectful.
  • Respect copyright - link to articles.
  • Stay focused. Bring in-depth commentary to our discussion forum, babble.


  • Use oppressive/offensive language.
  • Libel or defame.
  • Bully or troll.
  • Post spam.
  • Engage trolls. Flag suspect activity instead.