Galloway banned from Canada

[Каие]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...alloway-canada

A furious George Galloway last night vowed to fight a ban on him entering Canada on the grounds of national security. The MP for Bethnal Green and Bow had been due to speak at a number of events in the country but his anti-war stance was drawn to the attention of the government by a Jewish group. He will challenge the decision in court.


A Canadian government spokesman said that the decision would not be overturned for a man regarded as an "infandous street-corner Cromwell". The description of the Respect MP may have led him to his dictionary the definition of infandous is "too odious to be expressed or mentioned". Galloway said the comparison to Cromwell was not so offensive as he was "the champion of parliamentary supremacy and the executor of supporters of autocratic and parliamentary power".


Galloway has been deemed "inadmissible" to Canada under section 34(1) of the country's immigration act. Alykhan Velshi, a spokesman for the immigration minister, said the act was designed to protect Canadians from people who fund, support or engage in terrorism.
"We're going to uphold the law, [and] not give special treatment to this infandous street-corner Cromwell who actually brags about giving 'financial support' to Hamas, a terrorist organisation banned in Canada," said Velshi. Galloway said he was dismayed both as an elected parliamentarian and as a Scotsman. "Canada was built by Scotsmen, it is like being turned away from the family home. I will be seeking a judicial review and take this matter to court. One way or another I will be heard by the people who want to hear me."

Don't know how solid the claim that he brags about giving 'financial support' to Hamas is, never heard it. He is an avid and rabid anti-Israeli, but no anti-Semite. A sympathiser and undying supporter with the Palestinian cause that sometimes bordering on blatant terrorist support. A demagogue who's only aim in life is to be famous and known, he has realised best way to do this is by pandering to Muslims and the Middle East as an anti-Israeli/American madman.

By the way for the record, I don't care one bit about this, It's entirely up to Canada to decide whether or not he will cause problems to their nation and if he is coming to spread hate against Jews or what-not. Their borders, their sovereignty. To be honest this is a good thing, Galloway rarely attends Parliament anyway, this at least will get him in their and doing the bloody job he was elected to do. instead of gallivanting around the world talking jack.

But I now just wondering where are all the ''OMG BRITAIN IS GAY FOR NOT LETTING IN FASCIST WILDERS'' "THEY HATE FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND ARE BENDING OVER FOR MUZLIMZ..LOLOLOLOL" crowd are at?

[The Devil's Sergeant]

OMG Canada is sooo gay!

[Dr. Croccer]

Canada is a former British colony, so it's clearly your fault as well.

[The Devil's Sergeant]

If Canada has evidence to charge him with a crime then by all means arrest and try him. Otherwise I don't see a valid reason to keep him out.

[Каие]

Arrest and try an elected legislator of another country? Even I didn't think Wilders should be tried and charged, that is the business of his own country.

[Erik]

But enough about Wilders, isn't this thread really about Galloway? I am as of yet undecided on Canada's actions.

Read the OP: this tread is to COMPARE Galloway to Wilders.

I feel sorry for you that you have to live in country that so regulates free speech. I really sincerely do

Why feel sorry if that's what the majority in Britain wants?

I'm very happy about the gun restrictions in my country, but I'm not going to feel sorry for Americans for living in a country with so many guns. - because that's clearly what THEY want.

Arrest and try an elected legislator of another country? Even I didn't think Wilders should be tried and charged, that is the business of his own country.

Wilders is being tried in the Netherlands, but you are right: that's the business of the country where the crime is committed, not that of a country a MP wants to visit.

Canada and Britain have every right to ban people for whatever reason, but they can't play world police and arrest people in foreign countries for breaking their own laws.

[Digbert]

Can we ban him from Britain now and send him somewhere else like France or maybe North Korea

[Magic Man]

Its for the good of the people.

[Каие]

Yeah Mandela was still banned from the USA for quite a damn while, don't even know if that's been lifted now.

[CDMan477]

Yeah Mandela was still banned from the USA for quite a damn while, don't even know if that's been lifted now.

The ban was lifted last year
http://www.voanews.com/english/archi...7-01-voa61.cfm

[The Devil's Sergeant]

Ok lets compare here:

UK banned Wilder because of nothing he did or said was against the law but because others my riot against him. It comes down to that Wilders was unpopular therefore he must be banned. (Maybe Wilders was in violation of some PC antifree speech law?)

Canada bans Galloway because Canada bans those who financially support terrorism.

Actually the two situations don't at all seem similar to me.

[Dr. Croccer]

Ok lets compare here:

UK banned Wilder because of nothing he did or said was against the law but because others my riot against him. It comes down to that Wilders was unpopular therefore he must be banned. (Maybe Wilders was in violation of some PC antifree speech law?)

Canada bans Galloway because Canada bans those who financially support terrorism.

Actually the two situations don't at all seem similar to me.

Wilders was banned because he was an unwanted political extremist, like the two Muslims guys before him.

[The Devil's Sergeant]

Wilders was banned because he was an unwanted political extremist, like the two Muslims guys before him.

Being an extremist is illegal? God what a boring place Britain must be.

[Dr. Croccer]

Being an extremist is illegal? God what a boring place Britain must be.

Unless you want Imams preaching death everywhere...

They ban unwanted political extreme aliens. Natives have carte blanche.

the US banned Mandela and Marcus Garvey for the same reasons.

[Каие]

UK banned Wilder because of nothing he did or said was against the law but because others my riot against him. It comes down to that Wilders was unpopular therefore he must be banned. (Maybe Wilders was in violation of some PC antifree speech law?)

Incorrect. But to be honest, I never expected you to objectively and properely educate yourself on anything related to the United Kingdom. There as no riot, there was no calls for his banning, there was no petition, no pressure groups. Just one member of the House of Lords, Lord Ahmed, wrote to the House of Lords to object to the purpose of the meeting. The ''riot'' thing was a complete fabrication.

The people you would expect to be against WIlders were actually supportive of letting him in for debate. Anjem Choudry a firebrand Islamist Briton openly challenged Wilders and said to let him in for debate. The leader of George Galloway's party, a Muslim woman, said Wilders should of have been let in as he broke no law and was exercising his right to free speech.

He was banned as his intention, as shown in his leaked speech, was to attempt to turn Britons against one another, and since he is facing charges in his own country for similar behaviour, he had no place here.

Canada bans Galloway because Canada bans those who financially support terrorism.

There is no evidence that he financially supports terrorism.

Being an extremist is illegal? God what a boring place Britain must be.

They ban unwanted aliens. Natives have carte blanche.

^^^This.

[The Devil's Sergeant]

Incorrect. But to be honest, I never expected you to objectively and properely educate yourself on anything related to the United Kingdom. There as no riot, there was no calls for his banning, there was no petition, no pressure groups. Just one member of the House of Lords, Lord Ahmed, wrote to the House of Lords to object to the purpose of the meeting. The ''riot'' thing was a complete fabrication.

A fabrication by your government you mean?
From the British government, Wilders views "threaten community harmony and therefore public security" Ergo he has something unpopular to say so he cannot come.

The people you would expect to be against WIlders were actually supportive of letting him in for debate. Anjem Choudry a firebrand Islamist Briton openly challenged Wilders and said to let him in for debate. The leader of George Galloway's party, a Muslim woman, said Wilders should of have been let in as he broke no law and was exercising his right to free speech.

So did you supoorted his entrance?

He was banned as his intention, as shown in his leaked speech, was to attempt to turn Britons against one another, and since he is facing charges in his own country for similar behaviour, he had no place here.

Good lord what's wrong with that? In mature countries thats called "politics."

There is no evidence that he financially supports terrorism.

You mean other than the fact that he says he does?

[Каие]

A fabrication by your government you mean?

No by the Daily Mail.

From the British government, Wilders views "threaten community harmony and therefore public security" Ergo he has something unpopular to say so he cannot come.

No the British government said this:
Foreign Sec:"We have profound commitment to freedom of speech but there is no freedom to cry 'fire' in a crowded theatre and there is no freedom to stir up hate, religious and racial hatred, according to the laws of the land."
Cabinet Sec: "This guy wasn't coming here to exercise his right of free speech. This guy was trying to come here in order to sow division between us in this country. Everything I've heard about this guy tells me he's a bigot and the right place for him is to stay at home."

So did you supoorted his entrance?

No, I'm neither an Islamist nor Left Wing, I believe a country should be allowed to control who comes in and out of their borders, and to come into a countries territory is a privilege and invitation, not a right. Thus if your intention is to harm any part of said country, you should be refused entry. That goes for wannabe European Nazis, Islamist hate preachers, Christian hate preachers from the US, Homophobic inciters of murder from the Caribbean.

Although, in hindsight it would have been better if he was just let in without a fuss.

Good lord what's wrong with that? In mature countries thats called "politics."

In 1930's mature countries, maybe. But no we call it alien activity.

You mean other than the fact that he says he does?

Where does he say he does?

[The Devil's Sergeant]

No the British government said this:
Foreign Sec:"We have profound commitment to freedom of speech but there is no freedom to cry 'fire' in a crowded theatre and there is no freedom to stir up hate, religious and racial hatred, according to the laws of the land."

I feel sorry for you that you have to live in country that so regulates free speech. I really sincerely do

Cabinet Sec: "This guy wasn't coming here to exercise his right of free speech. This guy was trying to come here in order to sow division between us in this country. Everything I've heard about this guy tells me he's a bigot and the right place for him is to stay at home."

Some one needs to tell that neandthal Cabinet Sec. that the concept of free speech exists to protect the most unpopular speech.

No, I'm neither an Islamist nor Left Wing, I believe a country should be allowed to control who comes in and out of their borders, and to come into a countries territory is a privilege and invitation, not a right. Thus if your intention is to harm any part of said country, you should be refused entry. That goes for wannabe European Nazis, Islamist hate preachers, Christian hate preachers from the US, Homophobic inciters of murder from the Caribbean.

I see. You want to live in a bubble. From now on I shall call you Bubble Boy.

Although, in hindsight it would have been better if he was just let in without a fuss.

Yes because the actions of your government was embarassing in every way. Your government should have learrned the lesson of countless oppressive governments before it. Attempting to regulate and censor messages it finds displeasure with is bound to makes those messages more popular and sought after.

In 1930's mature countries, maybe. But no we call it alien activity.

No I'm pretty sure countries in the 1930's that enacted restrictions on free speech were worse off for it.

Where does he say he does?

He says he financially supports Hamas. Hamas = terrorism.


But enough about Wilders, isn't this thread really about Galloway? I am as of yet undecided on Canada's actions.

[Dr. Croccer]

Wilders was refused because a right winger wanted him to show his movie in the House of Lords.

The same reason he wasn't allowed to show his crap movie in the European Parliament, they don't want to.

Obviously he threw a hissy fit.

[Treize]

Lol, I thought this was about cows...