George Galloway is a Scottish MP who speaks out on behalf of Palestinians and expresses support for Hamas. He was recently invited to Canada to give a speech in Toronto but Canada's Immigration Minister, Jason Kenney, immediately recognized that Canada can't tolerate that. Kenney determined that a member of the British parliament is a threat to our national security and Galloway was banned from entering Canada. Jennifer Smith is embarrassed by her country's behavior [Jason Kenney's Personal War on Terror]. So am I.
Oh thank god. I thought Australia was the only non-American country acting idiotically at the moment about censorship.
ReplyDeleteI thought Canada was a country all about free speech? I guess I was mistaken. I thought free speech was exactly about allowing those people to speak with whose views you vehemently disagree. I guess I was mistaken. Maybe that's the difference between Canada and the US
ReplyDeleteJason Kenney is scary! And very embarrassing to this Canadian.
ReplyDeleteWe still bleep words on our television networks, for f@#$ sake. Canadians have a very limited understanding of what "free speech" is all about. It's very sad.
Are they having former US Senator Norm Coleman in to speak in place of Galloway?
ReplyDeleteTo rattler,
ReplyDeleteYes... at the moment a lot of Canadians are looking at our current government and asking who these people are, and where they came from. With a little luck, this is only a small interruption in our national sanity, until the opposition parties finally find their spines and send Harper et al. packing.
rattler says,
ReplyDeleteMaybe that's the difference between Canada and the US.
Maybe it is. Is Oklahoma part of the USA?
Is there a reason why Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Fidel Castro had to stay in New York when they visited the USA? Why didn't they get a visa to visit the rest of the country? Is it because New Yorkers are the only ones who care about free speech?
I'm not proud of Canada but I'm not proud of the USA either.
The government continues to embarrass me as a Canadian. What a fucking joke they are. I hope anyone who voted for harper is ashamed of themselves, they should be.
ReplyDeleteI'm not exactly up on the nuances of Galloway-related issues, but... didn't they deny him entrance because of his material support for Hamas, which is a recognized terrorist organization?
ReplyDelete"(...) didn't they deny him entrance because of his material support for Hamas, which is a recognized terrorist organization?"
ReplyDeleteYes, that's what I heard - that he was giving money to Hamas which is, to my knowledge, on Canada's terrorist organizations list. This could explain that...
Maybe with a Liberal government, Israel will be put on that list too... One can only hope...
"I thought Canada was a country all about free speech?"
ReplyDeleteCanadians have lost most of their right to express themselves a long time ago. You can be charged with "hate speech" for practically any tough opinion, except if you're a Muslim - I'm serious!
I was going to let this go, but some of the comments here may have been made from incomplete information.
ReplyDelete"Although he has visited Canada before, the Canada Border Services Agency declared him inadmissible on national-security grounds and Immigration Minister Jason Kenney decided he would not use his power to let Mr. Galloway in."
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20090321.GALLOWAY21/TPStory/
Hence in any government, the bureaucracy would have probably made the same decision in full concordance with its mandate and within the law. To put more context to this, Martha Stewart, Akon, and Bill Ayers have been denied entry to Canada, as have many many other individuals.
More importantly, Ignattief (Leader of the Opposition) deferred to the judgement of the Canada Border Services Agency while affirming the freedom of expression. He is quoted in the article I provided above.
To imply that this case is the same as the case of Martha Stewart (has a criminal record, so denied entry on those grounds) is spreading another form of "incomplete information", is it not?
ReplyDeleteSecondly, just because more than one political party is in favour of this does not make it correct. Yes the Liberals started this with their laws after the Sept 11 attacks, and the Tories continue on the same line. At some point, we as a society have to get over this and move on. There are bad people out there, but suspension of rights is not a justifiable trade off for a minuscule increase in our security.
George Galloway is a blow-hard, but he's very amusing. Keeping him out of Canada is ridiculous.
ReplyDeleteGalloway's main fault was his decision to get into bed with the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) as part of a British electoral front called "Respect". (I think they managed to elect a few municipal counsellors in the UK). But that unholy alliance came to an end not too long ago. Galloway and the SWP (International Socialists in Canada) have split and the SWP leader who engineered the front, John Rees, was ousted from the SWP ruling group.
More on free expression (from insidehighered.com):
ReplyDeleteAfter She Helped Student Journalists, She Was Denied Tenure
Christine Kopinski, the only journalism professor at Clark College, is credited with advising student journalists there on how to improve their newspaper, which in recent years has focused on such issues as campus security, flaws in student advising, and budget choices facing the college. Now Kopinski has been denied tenure: the college's trustees voted down her bid, despite support from her department, The Columbian reported. Typically at Clark, departmental votes are respected, although the final decision rests with trustees. The faculty union is preparing a grievance. The union president told the newspaper: "This is huge. Tenure is sacred. It's as if someone just burned the Constitution, for academics."
Even Galloway's lawyer in Canada never argued that this was a 'free speech' issue when they made their failed bid for an injunction. hello....
ReplyDeleteanonymous says,
ReplyDeleteEven Galloway's lawyer in Canada never argued that this was a 'free speech' issue when they made their failed bid for an injunction. hello....
Hello.
Of course it's about freedom of speech. You don't really think that a British member of parliament is a terrorist, do you?
Galloway appeared on The Hour last night via video link from New York. You can watch the discussion about freedom of speech on their website. Galloway's interview starts at 11:50.
I have the appeal right here..the one the sent to the goverment
ReplyDeleteThe refusal to let Mr. Galloway enter Canada to speak infringes the freedoms
under s.2 of the charter of those within Canada who want to attend and listen to him.. (so they are arguing your free speech was curtailed not his)..but if hes deemed inadmissable its a moot point..there no argument for free speech..cause they didnt even argue his.
Oh and by way, you have the right to refuse someone entry .You dont have to conclude guilt, only resonable expectation someone was guilty. Think of the OJ trial, he wasnt convicted, but he had to pay a wrongful death suit. Also if you seen someone smoking crack on the American side from Canada's (even though you arent sure its crack)..you cant let him in..not only that you cant even charge him..the Americans can't charge him either if they didnt find the crack.. George has been investigated numerous times (accepting money from Sadamn) and this charity currently is under investigation..find all the facts first..even his own Goverment almost arrrested him with links to the Oil for money scandal..course he got kicked out of a party and out of parliament for 18 days...
ReplyDelete