Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Anti-war British MP banned from entering Canada: NDP | Main | Stephen Harper vs. libertarians, the continuing saga »

Friday, March 20, 2009

BC Civil Liberties Association decries “shameful banning” of anti-war British MP on national security grounds

The British Columbia Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA) is joining the NDP in calling on Immigration Minister Jason Kenney to immediately overturn the decision by the Canadian Border Services Agency to ban British MP George Galloway from Canada for his anti-war views. 

According to the BCCLA, British media reported that Galloway has been deemed inadmissible to Canada on national security grounds under Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.  Government spokespersons have apparently declined to cite what precise “threat to national security” is posed by Galloway who was scheduled to speak at a public forum entitled Resisting War from Gaza to Kandahar, hosted by the Toronto Coalition to Stop the War. 

In a statement made today, BCCLA Policy Director, Micheal Vonn said:

“This is shameful conduct from our government.  We could not agree more with Mr. Galloway that this is a dismal reflection on Canada.  It strikes at the core of the essence of our democratic rights.  If the government or some border agent is allowed to determine what speech Canadians get to hear, one of our most precious freedoms will be shredded.  This decision is clearly ideologically motivated and has nothing whatsoever to do with national security.  It is yet another in the seemingly endless list of abuses and violation of our fundamental freedoms that the rhetoric of national security has spawned.” 

The Western Standard reported in 2008 that the BCCLA spoke out against the possibility of Canadian Border Services preventing an American anti-gay group from entering Canada in order to protest. 

“It doesn’t matter what end of the political spectrum the expression comes from and it doesn’t matter if it is the most profound wisdom or the most piebald idiocy, Canadian Border Services Agency should not be in the business of screening what viewpoints are presented to Canadians in Canada.  Full stop,” said Vonn.

Posted by Matthew Johnston

Posted by westernstandard on March 20, 2009 | Permalink

Comments

The guy is a supporter of Hamas, Hezbollah and goodness knows who else. He's a menace to world peace. Keep him and his kind out. Boot the deserters too.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-03-20 1:23:04 PM


Yes - try and defend yet another HarperCON misstep. Even Bush didn't see this guy a threat.

Harperistas are blind to their own idiocy.

First, yet another 'What, me worry' statement from Steven E. Neuman, which gets eviscerated by Dodge and others, then the Goodyear fiasco, then Breitkreutz, now this.

No majority for you clowns...

Posted by: ronin | 2009-03-20 1:49:20 PM


It all depends. If he incites riots or terrorist or criminal activity (not hard to believe given his reputation), then the government acted correctly. If all he does is preach non-violent resistance to what he sees as injustice, however, then the government overstepped itself.

That said, Canada is under NO obligation to grant ANY foreign national admittance. He has been caught accepting money from the corrupt UN food-for-oil program. He's also arguably guilty of treason for "giving aid or comfort to the enemy." There's more evidence against him than there is against George Bush. Canada stands to gain nothing by admitting known rabble-rousers, and is under no obligation to do so. Visa DENIED.

Next case.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-03-20 2:25:16 PM


Israel is a terrorist welfare aparthied state financially supported by the USA, canada should be supporting PALESTINE AND RIGHT OF RETURN. Hamas is elected government, and resistance fighters and don't give me the excuse of using children and women, IDF has done this for decades, and snipers shooting civilians, WAKE UP.

Posted by: Cheryl | 2009-03-20 5:29:43 PM


Cheryl: You have the right to spew filthy political garbage in this country. For now, anyway. People on this site tend to struggle to support this right, and are WIDE AWAKE to those, maybe like yourself, who would deny this right.

Posted by: Agha Ali Arkahn | 2009-03-20 7:01:42 PM


Galloway is an idiot but everybody should be free to be an idiot.

And I shall have the freedom to say that Galloway is a douche bag.

Posted by: David Gagnon | 2009-03-20 8:47:28 PM


I have little sympathy with Hamas or Hezbollah who provoke Israel with rockets and kidnappings, then claim to be the innocent victim.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-03-20 9:03:40 PM


I see the Ezra Levant Kool Aid drinkers are still resident on this site. If you want to read a screed of sheer hypocrisy on this subject, check out phoney free speech crusader Ezra's take on his own blog. Even his own readers there chastize him for his ludicrous position. For Ezra, it is all about spinning in support of the Harper Tories who hate him.

Galloway, like any free individual, has the right to think or say or spend his money any way he wants.

Jason Kenney says it is not a free speech issue but rather a "security" issue, because Galloway wishes to give money to Hamas, or encourage others to do so. Hmmm. Isn't election financing law preventing people from spending their own money in support of political messages a free speech issue?

As a commenter on Ezra's blog pointed out: banning Galloway for financially supporting Hamas paves the way to ban people, including Jews, for financially or otherwise supporting Israel.

Ezra is a fool; Harper is dangerous.

Posted by: Tagger | 2009-03-21 12:08:11 AM


I would ordinarily dismiss the commentary of somebody named Zebulon Pike as guranteed to be stupid. But that would be prejudicial bigotry. Instead, I read his comments. He is stupid.

Posted by: Tagger | 2009-03-21 12:09:58 AM


The power of censorship is the state's ability to abrogate or punish the dissemination of ideas and thus interfere with their transmission. The Canadian government has refused a British Member of Parliament, Labour MP George Galloway, from entry to Canada because Galloway opposes the US & Israel agendas with consistency and clever speeches. He was planning to be here at the end of March to deliver another screed against the Americans, the occupations in the middle east by western powers and Israel, and on this current financial debacle inspired by the US banking system.

George Galloway spoke before the US Congress in 2005 and he was spectacular in being the first western politician to tell Congress that George Bush he was a homicidal dictator-invader. There is even a book called "Mr. Galloway Goes to Washington" all about his truthful smackdown of Bush imperialism.

The explanation for barring George Galloway from Canada is that Mr. Galloway lends credibility and accepts some ideas of the islamic jihadists, thus making him like a Ron Paul acolyte as seen by a Missouri policeman, that is, a terrorist. Though Mr. Galloway has committed no act of violence or been an intemperate man he is nonetheless banned from espousing his ideas here in Canada? Only this week George Bush was feted like a prodigal son by 1,500 of Alberta's porcine corporate robber barons who love to bathe in the sulphorous afterglow that comes from chuckling over W's evil doings of the past 8 years. George Bush is the mass murderer first identified by George Galloway, but the killer of over 1,000,000 is welcomed by Canadian immigration while the truthteller is not.

Why has this happened?

I have watched Galloway debate. I have seen his speeches on Tv and read about the man. I like his anti-Americanism, anti-Zionism. He admires jihadists because they are trying to expel infidels (western powers & their lackeys) from the Islamic community. I agree with those positions.

Its a triumph of Canada's Israeli lobby that the Conservatives in government here in Canada can bar an elected member of the British Parliament based on his correct and truthful views on the middle east. Jews are my favorite people much of the time but they do influence Canada & the US governments way too much in an unhealthy way. Bernie Farber of B'Nai B'rith was in the Asper owned Israel-lobby newspaper National Post today urging Galloway be barred from Canada for his support of the liberation group Hamas and Hezbolleh.

Considering a good argument can be made that Israel is a European occupation zone put in the middle east to create ceaseless destabilization, it is easy to consider Hamas and Hezbolleh liberation organizations. Israel is fundamentally illegitimate, having expropriated the property of all Arabs in 1947 and established a fundamentalist race-pure state, expelling the majority of the residents of Palestine. Most citizens of Israel are immigrants who expelled the indigenous people who greatly outnumbered them.

Galloway is considered a terrorist with these views, as I'm sure my opinions make me a traitor to the Canadian state, considering Canadian soldiers are allied in this imperial occupation & invasion of Islamic territory.

Nonetheless, in a free and democratic society like Canada, any Canadian should be able to hear Galloway, and question or criticize him to his face, or simply listen. This Israeli-lobby inspired ban is very explicit censorship by the Canadian government. This is a power that will be widely abused; ultimately any speaker with principles can be barred from this country because all principled people are extremists. Only the compliant and compromising ordinary opinions will be welcome, that is, the status quo. As a patriotic Canadian (I'm just a rebel to the state, not the nation), I am very worried about this arbitrary power in the hands of tin-pot dictators like the Harper government.

Posted by: Marc Scott Emery | 2009-03-21 3:14:50 AM


Hey Emery put down the bong for a second. If you're supposedly a columnist on this blog, you're expected to come up with something important, not to reprint what you said in another thread. Try that on your cellmate - he'll do all kinds of things to you.

This is what drugs do to you kids, and why drug dealers should be severely punished.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-03-21 7:43:43 AM


Refusing people entry into a country because of their poltical beliefs, because they oppose government dogma, is a sign of a police state.
Since when in so called "free Canada" do we not have a right to an opinion? And why this fellow when we do allow anti western immigrants into the country....and pay them to be here?

Posted by: JC | 2009-03-21 8:46:42 AM


there is a very intelligent conversation on rabble btw

Posted by: Cheryl | 2009-03-21 10:33:42 AM


Galloway is a wanker, as they say across the water. We have enough Islamo-fascist supporters here already. We certainly don't need one of Britain's clowns.

Posted by: Markalta | 2009-03-21 11:35:16 AM



Hey Zeb, stop talking!

You are not allowed to talk anymore! STOP!

We think we might not like your kind of discussion so, you have to shut up!

How's that workin' out for ya tough guy?

Hmmmer. Things that make ya go, hmmm?

Posted by: Hmmmer | 2009-03-21 11:38:33 AM


This is yet another stupid move from Harper. I voted for him, hoping I would get a principled small government, freedom of speech, integrity focused kinda PM. How wrong I was.

Posted by: Johan i Kanada | 2009-03-21 11:46:09 AM



The Government of Canada will be seen as having responded to this: "His proposed visit prompted the Jewish Defence League of Canada to write an open letter to the country's government urging it to do 'everything possible to keep this hater away'.

Galloway may be a hater or not depending on perspective. A threat to Canada he is not .

"Mr Kenney's spokesman Alykhan Velshi said the act was designed to protect Canadians from people who fund, support or engage in terrorism."

This loose interpretation of section 34(1) of the country's immigration act whereby "'A permanent resident or a foreign national is inadmissible on security grounds for:" stated reasons undoubtedly will not be applied evenhandedly.

Were it, based on an article in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz "IDF in Gaza: Killing civilians, vandalism, and lax rules of engagement " no individual from Israel participating in the recent conflict in Gaza would be admissible to Canada.

Google the headline from Haaretz for details: "IDF in Gaza: Killing civilians, vandalism, and lax rules of engagement" http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1072040.html "

Posted by: Joe Hueglin | 2009-03-21 11:50:27 AM


It's so telling when the Reform/Alliance/neo-Con coalition steps in a big pile of doo, everyone can smell it on them but they just yell louder and louder, IT DOESN'T STINK!!

It's stinks!

Hmmmer. Things that make ya go, hmmm?

Posted by: Hmmmer | 2009-03-21 11:55:03 AM


If you turn on Harper and he's defeated, you'll have Iggy and Taliban Jack in charge. Then you'll be sorry.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-03-21 12:10:49 PM


This reminds me of that Seinfeld bit where the guy decides "No soup for you", the soup Nazi guy.

That would make Jason Kenney the speech Nazi.

How can he then, support the Jews?

You mean they get freedom of expression but Galloway doesn't? Hmmm?

Oh, I get it now, Galloway didn't pay him off or vote for him, right!

Hmmmer. Things that make ya go, hmmm?

Posted by: Hmmmer | 2009-03-21 12:24:16 PM


>>If you turn on Harper and he's defeated, you'll have Iggy and Taliban Jack in charge. Then you'll be sorry.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-03-21 12:10:49 PM
-----------
NO you'll be sorry!

Defeated? Harper never won anything, the other guy lost. The riding he was handed is a guaranteed Tory win, he doesn't even campaign there really.

BTW Zeb, you were told to stop talking, shut up!

How does that feel?

Hmmmer. Things that make ya go, hmmm?

Posted by: Hmmmer | 2009-03-21 12:34:04 PM


why do you keep deleting my comments, i see others have left a link in theirs, the link is to the petition for FREE SPEECH in CANADA, and FOR GALLOWAY, you have DONE NO BETTER THAT Harper and Kenney by deleting mine and letting others post links, you have deleted x2 now, what is this zionist censorship that is who is behind this wiesman of the zionist canadian congress,

GOOGLE PETITION: Let Him Speak: Allow George Galloway To Speak In Canada

Posted by: Cheryl | 2009-03-21 4:02:36 PM


Those who advocate allowing Galloway into Canada basically fall into one of two categories: those who support Islamic terrorism and those who do not support a country having the right to sovereign and secure borders. Otherwise it can only be described as muddled thinking to equate it to free speech.

Posted by: Alain | 2009-03-21 5:06:18 PM


>>Those who advocate allowing Galloway into Canada basically fall into one of two categories: those who support Islamic terrorism and those who do not support a country having the right to sovereign and secure borders. Otherwise it can only be described as muddled thinking to equate it to free speech.

Posted by: Alain | 2009-03-21 5:06:18 PM<<

Alain why the "Islamic" label? Is there be any other type of, race, religion, creed, nationality etc. you would like to condemn?

It's enough that anyone be a terrorist, doesn't matter what kind and yes they should definitely be apprehended at the border.

Galloway is not a terrorist or threat, everyone knows that. If he is, Kenney should have told us what kind already!

Don't muddle the conversation with with fear and innuendo. Would it make any difference if he were coming to Canada to walk his dog? No it wouldn't, he would still be Galloway and the Jews would still complain and Harper's inept govt. would still cower in their shadow and acquiesce.

If this is about OUR national security why is the specific condition a secret from us? Should we not applaud the diligence of Border Services?

Alain, it should be the hardest thing to do in the world for our govt. to condemn anyone.

Otherwise, they could just as easily condemn you.

Hmmmer. Things that make ya go, hmmm?

Posted by: Hmmmer | 2009-03-21 6:39:52 PM


Galloway, like any free individual, has the right to think or say or spend his money any way he wants. - But not in any country that he wants, nor to obtain it any way he wants.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-03-21 9:54:03 PM


Hmmmer,

1. Is "Islamist" better? He said "Islamic terrorism," not "Islam." So you can stop pretending to take offence to a non-existent slur. Did you really think this lame attempt at deflection would succeed?

2. A continuation of 1. You're muddling the conversation yourself. You're splitting a hair just so you've have something to kick about.

3. You don't have to be either to be denied a visa to enter the country. He's a suspected criminal, too, you know.

4. Opinion, not fact.

5. Because it's a private matter between the government and the visa applicant, in this case Galloway. It is none of your freaking business. If you were denied entry to a country for unflattering reasons, odds are you wouldn't want them to run a million posters with your name, photo, and the reasons for being refused admission.

6. Somehow, I doubt you'd complain if our government condemned George W. Bush.

7. Who they "condemn" is irrelevant. They cannot impose legal sanctions against someone without proof. Being refused a visa is not a legal sanction; they are granted at the discretion of the Ministry and are not in any way to be construed as some sort of right.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-03-21 10:17:23 PM


We don't need Galloway. Canada already has more than its share of total arselocks.

Posted by: Agha Ali Arkahn | 2009-03-21 11:19:29 PM


Marc, cut the crap. You're going up the river, so you may as well resign yourself to it. Spouting inane conspiracy theories and embracing every trendy, chic, pseudo-intellectual cause célèbre you can find is not going to bring a stampede of converts to form a human ring around you to prevent the American marshalls from marching you off to jail. Support for your situation has been underwhelming to say the least. You never even answer any of the posts. You're lone harridan shrieking in the dark.

1. Your assertion that Galloway was refused a visa for his political views is opinion, not fact. Of course, if you actually have proof...

2. Emotional concern. No one here gives two fucks what you consider to be "spectacular." It was a spectacular flop, granted. Because George Bush is not a dictator (as his absence from the White House shows), and he is not a murderer (uniformed soldiers fighting uniformed soldiers and/or non-uniformed terror units is not murder). We'll decide what is truth, not some washed-up, semi-martyred narcissist.

3. He is also accused of receiving money from the corrupt UN food-for-oil program and calling for the overthrow of the Egyptian government. His misbehaviour is so profound that he has been kicked out of his own party and censured by Parliament several times.

4. Given that it is Americans who will be imprisoning you for the majority of your adult life, Marc, your dislike for them is not surprising. But no one here cares what you like. We care what you can prove. So far, squat.

5. "I'm not racist, but..."

6. Actually, the modern state of Israel would not exist at all if Europeans could be counted on to treat Jews decently. It's more a place for refugees from Europe than a European enclave.

7. If people start calling you traitor, Marc, it's time to ask yourself why. Oh, and that "Islamic territory" was historically Jewish before being conquered in the 7th century. What's the cutoff on conquests, before which all conquests are legitimate and after which all conquests are illegitimate? Or does the colour of the invader's skin play a larger role?

8. "All principled people are extremists." Spoken like a true unreconstructed campus radical. You know, Marc, most people outgrow their radicalism, the same way they outgrow, you know, Hot Wheels and skateboards?
Marc, cut the crap. You're going up the river, so you may as well resign yourself to it. Spouting inane conspiracy theories and embracing every trendy, chic, pseudo-intellectual cause célèbre you can find is not going to bring a stampede of converts to form a human ring around you to prevent the American marshalls from marching you off to jail. Support for your situation has been underwhelming to say the least. You never even answer any of the posts. You're lone harridan shrieking in the dark.

1. Your assertion that Galloway was refused a visa for his political views is opinion, not fact. Of course, if you actually have proof...

2. Emotional concern. No one here gives two fucks what you consider to be "spectacular." It was a spectacular flop, granted. Because George Bush is not a dictator (as his absence from the White House shows), and he is not a murderer (uniformed soldiers fighting uniformed soldiers and/or non-uniformed terror units is not murder). We'll decide what is truth, not some washed-up, semi-martyred narcissist.

3. He is also accused of receiving money from the corrupt UN food-for-oil program and calling for the overthrow of the Egyptian government. His misbehaviour is so profound that he has been kicked out of his own party and censured by Parliament several times.

4. Given that it is Americans who will be imprisoning you for the majority of your adult life, Marc, your dislike for them is not surprising. But no one here cares what you like. We care what you can prove. So far, squat.

5. "I'm not racist, but..."

6. Actually, the modern state of Israel would not exist at all if Europeans could be counted on to treat Jews decently. It's more a place for refugees from Europe than a European enclave.

7. If people start calling you traitor, Marc, it's time to ask yourself why. Oh, and that "Islamic territory" was historically Jewish before being conquered in the 7th century. What's the cutoff on conquests, before which all conquests are legitimate and after which all conquests are illegitimate? Or does the colour of the invader's skin play a larger role?

8. "All principled people are extremists." Spoken like a true unreconstructed campus radical. You know, Marc, most people outgrow their radicalism, the same way they outgrow, you know, Hot Wheels and skateboards?

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-03-22 11:27:54 AM


The glitches on this server are beginning to bug me.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-03-22 11:30:23 AM



The comments to this entry are closed.