Mar 27 2009

Galloway Can Go Away

Published by at 10:39 am under canadian politics,politics,terrorism

Let’s state the obvious – Gorgeous George isn’t a terrorist. But that doesn’t mean we have to let him into Canada.

Canada’s border security agency decided on security grounds that sitting British MP George Galloway won’t be allowed into our country. The reason given: supplying Gaza thugocracy officials Hamas with clothing, ambulances, medical supplies and $45,000 in cash.

Some like to split hairs and talk about how Hamas rules a territory and was democratically elected, which makes it different from a typical terrorist organization. But neither Canada, nor the USA, nor our European allies have ever bothered to make that distinction. Hamas is a terrorist organization, period. It’s on the exact same list as Al Queda.

Of course Galloway wasn’t supplying guns and rocket launchers. But let’s suppose Galloway had given money and material support to Osama bin Ladin’s terror network. Well, again, according to our own rules, and the rules of our allies and the UN’s own statements, that should be grounds for some pretty harsh punishment. Legally, there seems to be no difference between supporting Hamas and Al Queda.

So the question is not really why Canada is keeping Galloway out. The real question is why he hasn’t faced any legal consequences for his actions while in Britain.

As for Galloway’s supporters contention that this is a free speech issue, I’ve got a name for them to look up: Geert Wilders. He’s that Dutch politician banned from speaking in Britain (not because his statements against Islam would cause violence against Muslims, but the other way around. One wonders how the British government would have reacted to Salman Rushdie had the Satanic Verses been published in 2009).

Galloway said of the controversy at the time, “Freedom of speech is not absolute.” (Globe and Mail). Not only is this not a free speech issue, but it’s bit much for Galloway and his supporters to rally around that angle.

UPDATE-April 15, 2009- George Galloway blows a gasket. This is not about charity. It’s about politics.

[Slashdot] [Digg] [Reddit] [] [Facebook] [Technorati] [Google] [StumbleUpon]

2 responses so far

2 Responses to “Galloway Can Go Away”

  1. Kurskon 27 Mar 2009 at 11:45 am

    No border service is required to tell you why you are denied entry. They do so as a courtesy.

    They can pick any reason under the sun not to allow you in, and that is’s your hat, what’s your hurry?

  2. Haideron 28 Mar 2009 at 1:42 am

    Hi Jonathan,

    Before I express my opinions about this post, I’d like to point out that this is the first time I visit your site and I haven’t read many posts (so far!). I don’t know all your political views, and it’s impossible for me to express all my views within a blog comment.

    Therefore, there’s a lot of room for misunderstandings. :)

    Although I’m a Muslim, I have some very unconventional views for a Muslim. In fact, most Muslims would probably deem my views blasphemous!

    I say all this because I don’t want you to place my comments in a context (or as part of a worldview) that I don’t agree with, which will distort the meaning of my comments. I hope I can clarify my views further through future correspondence, and I request that you don’t make any assumptions about my views, beyond what I say in my comments. I hope that makes sense!

    Anyways, I used to participate in rallies in support of Palestine when I was in London. And while Galloway used to be a celebrity there, I thought that his take on the Arab-Israeli conflict was very hypocritical. Freedom of speech is usually used to serve the Palestinian cause, but not as a principle applicable to everyone. Not only is it not considered absolute, it’s considered a one-way principle.

    Having said that, have you written a post on the meaning of terrorism? I’d be interested to know how you define it, and how you draw distinctions between what Israel does, and what Hamas does.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS

Leave a Reply