Who should we let into the country?

Remove all ads!

Canada's latest tempest in a teapot is about this fellow. In a nutshell, he's a left wing politician who is being accused of being too cozy with Hamas for Canada to let him enter and speak.

Spoiler

Would you not think that in all of the media hysteria over Canada's barring of British MP George Galloway, a relevant fact is that Galloway led a campaign to bar uber-right-wing French politician Jean-Marie Le Pen from the U.K. in 2004?

Galloway argued, without success, that for the British government to allow in Le Pen would be "siding with the neo-Nazi far-right against multicultural Britain."

He added: "Le Pen should not be allowed to set foot onto British soil at any time."

That's relevant, indeed it's crucial information, because it tells us George Galloway, far from being a defender of free speech, is a defender of free speech for George Galloway, which is entirely different.

Indeed, ideologues of the left, like Galloway, and those of the right, typically end up in the same place on free speech. They're all in favour -- for themselves. For others? Not so much.

Pundits who have been pontificating ad nauseam that Galloway must be allowed into Canada because it's a free speech issue -- actually, it's not, it's an immigration and security issue -- don't mention this, or mention it only in passing.

Perhaps that's because doing so requires a tip of the hat to the journalist who first pointed out Galloway's hypocrisy -- Don Butler of the Ottawa Citizen.

To read his excellent report on the controversy -- as opposed to more media bombast -- Google his March 22 article: "Galloway tried to stop visit by far-right French politician -- British MP barred from Canada vows to fight decision in court."

IGNORE

Another reason Galloway's media cheerleaders ignore or downplay his hypocrisy is that when you're trying to make a free speech argument, it's hard to do so convincingly when the guy you're defending doesn't believe in it.

Finally, this isn't about free speech. Galloway isn't a Canadian citizen. He's a would-be guest and, as a sovereign nation, we have the right to bar him.

Canadian immigration officials have decided to do so because, in their determination, Galloway's "material support" for Hamas -- legally classified as a terrorist group in Canada -- disqualifies him under Section 34 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

The "free speech" nonsense aside, I disagree with this decision and believe Galloway should be allowed into Canada.

Why? First, he has never been convicted in the U.K., or anywhere else, of aiding terrorists, nor, to my knowledge, of any other crime.

Second, I question whether immigration's finding that Galloway's leading of a convoy into Gaza last month to deliver humanitarian aid to Hamas officials, actually qualifies as "material support" for terrorists. For example the U.S., which also considers Hamas a terrorist group, hasn't banned Galloway from the American portion of his speaking tour.

Third, Galloway has been allowed into Canada before, as recently as 2006.

MEDIA MANIPULATOR

A savvy media manipulator, Galloway is demanding Immigration Minister Jason Kenney reverse Canada's decision, which Kenney has emphatically refused to do.

Galloway has theatrically responded that being banned by Kenney, "is like being told to sit up straight by the hunchback of Notre Dame, or being lectured on due diligence by Conrad Black."

Very clever, but in reality, being instructed on free speech by George Galloway, is like being ordered to take a vow of poverty by AIG executives, given his own hypocrisy.

To anyone, that is, save for his media and other cheerleaders.

lorrie.goldstein@sunmedia.ca

The article is spoilered here for your reading convenience.

I agree that this is an immigration issue, not a free speech one. Country's should permit their own citizens entry and exit rights, but it is under no bloody obligation to let ANYONE in. If this guy is an undesirable, there's no reason on God's green earth that we have to allow his butt in.

His hypocrisy in trying to exclude a politician with an opposing viewpoint while whining about his own right to express his is stunning. THAT's chutzpah!

I say let him in, though. Just make it clear that he is being let in, not that he has some sort of a right to enter.

By the by, do any of you Brits know anything about this guy?

 

Definitely not a free speech issue. If someone supports terrorists, you should have the ability to deny them access to your country if you so choose.

I agree with your conlusion, though, LKD. Let him in anyway. The only people likely to take him seriously are those who already share his opinions, so I can't really see him doing much harm.

 

I agree that this is an immigration issue, not free speach. I also find it odd that he's apparently being barred for the same things he tried to bar someone else for.

As long as the terrorism isn't proven (and providing humanitarian aid would, in my opinion, require further investigation and clarification), I see no valid reason to deny him entry, though.

 

He's one of the most famous politicians in Britain, though not for the right reasons. He's very left wing and rails against Western opression of Arab countries. He was very chummy with Saddam and tried to get sanctions lifted. He was firmly against the Iraq war and got kicked out/ left the Labour party over it. He then moved from his Glasgow contituency to a London one with a large Muslim population, which gave him a base to be reelected.

During the Iraq war there were serious allegations that he profited from the oil for food scams that Saddam ran. Nothing was ever proven and I'm not sure how much to read into it. In a very depressing sign of our times the biggest blow to his credibility came when he appeared on celebrity big brother and didn't come across well.

Obviously pro Palestinian but the type who just claims to be anti all violence. I can't imagine he provides 'material support' to any terrorist organisation. I think it's ridiculous to ban him but I wouldn't bother listening to anything he says.

 

A nation should have the right to let whomever they want or don't want to come into their country.

 

I think Canada already set the bar by accepting various criminals, draft dodgers, and deserters from the US....

I'm certainly not saying everyone in Canada is a reject of some form, it's just that Canada has shown a position of tolerance (which is a good thing) when it comes to immigration. And it works for them. In spite of taking in a group of people the US would rather lock away, the crime rate and relative happiness of the citizens is far better than for their southern neighbors.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by "criminals", but the setting of the bar vis-a-vis U.S. draft dodgers and deserters is based on what we value and think is right as a society. If we disagree with a U.S. war, it would be pretty hypocritical of us not to offer protection to those U.S. citizens who agree with our position. Think of it as similar to offering refugee status to people who are justifiably trying to escape an oppressive regime. (Not that I'm suggesting the U.S. is oppresive, but the analogy works in this case.)

 

What are you talking about? The people fleeing Cuba are most likely criminals. Therefore, by accepting them--er, those we do accept. Shut up--Amerca shows a position of tolerance.And it works for us. In spite of taking in a group of people Cuba would rather lock away, the crime rate and relative happiness for their citizens is far better than for their southern neighbors (is that even true? Well, whatever. They're third world, we're not, we win).

 

Are you responding to me, AMaster? Because if you are, I have no idea what you mean. I was responding to T2's post, and neither one of us said anything about Cuba - we were talking about people from the U.S. (or at least I was, and I think T2 was as well).

Of course, if you weren't responding to me, then please disregard this post.

 

I think he was using sarcasm directed at me. The key difference between the immigration policies of the US and Canada, IMO, is the criminals Canada allows in are generally pacifists (draft dodgers and deserters). Whereas we (the US) seem to be fairly indiscriminate about the types of crimes committed -- we only seem to care whether or not the crimes were committed against those we don't like.

As a result, Canada has a fairly low crime rate in areas where immigrants tend to agglomerate, while in the US we have high crime rates in those areas.

 

We tend to let in a lot of unskilled people into Canada on compassionate grounds. Many of them may not be violent, but a lot of them hold fundamentalist views that are not really in harmony with those of Canadians born here. This is a bad idea. Here in my city we are experiencing a rise in the crime rate as Somali immigrants with little to no education are opting to form gangs and challenge entrenched groups in the street crime arena. They are not availing themselves of the educational opportunities here but are choosing "the quick and easy path" to money that often ends with them getting into trouble with th police. Then their friends claim that the police are unfairly targetting them. It ticks me off.

What is worse, though, is that the university educated people we let into the country come here with the reasonable expectation that they will soon be able to practice their profession. Then we turn around and tell them that their credentials are not accepted and they end up driving taxis. THAT is an even WORSE idea than the one I mentioned in the previous paragraph.

 

Well, as a sovereign country Canada can approve, or decline, another politician's official visit - isn't this what the article is about?

However, I'm not really sure just what this MPs position is. "Support" for Hamas may mean many things, from thinking they are right (and hey, everyone is entitled to their opinion) to participating in terrorist activities; personally, I think that a democratic society should have freedom on (strictly) political views - including of those who disagree with the state. The article speaks of Galloway's "material support" for Hamas as a fact, then in the next paragraph states that the man has never been convicted for that or anything else. So apparently the UK did not consider the convoy thing (also, were the supplies for Hamas directly or for the Gaza Palestinians, for whom Hamas is the closest thing to government) as support for terrorists; apparently neither does the US, or at least their officials didn't know/care.

At the end of it all, Canada has the right to bar or allow anyone in. I, however, am not sure that their voiced motives here are quite valid.

 

Absolutely agreed. I could understand it if we said to them that their skills weren't up to Canadian standards, and offered some form of assistance to upgrade those skills (or at least warned them prior to them immigrating that their skills might need upgrading), but it seems to me that we just leave them hanging.

 

Their motives don't need validation by any outside source. Our right -- and EVERY country's right -- is to secure our borders and only allow in who we wish, and bar who we wish. There is (or should be) no other country or body telling us how to secure our borders -- that is a huge violation of sovereignty.

Perhaps the motives as stated are not pure, but that's a different issue.

 

I didn't mean valid as in "you can't do that". I meant that the reasons given for denying the man entry seem, well, exaggerated.

 

I find it astounding that ANY nation who is against Terrorism would allow anyone connected in anyway to Terrorism to enter their country knowingly. If there is even the slightest risk of that individual doing anything to the citizens of that nation or connecting that nation in anyway to Terrorism due to their actions, the government of that nation is not doing it's job to protect its people or itself from future harm. That goes for the US, Canada, GB or any other nation who dons the "Shoe of Goodness".

 

You know, there was a number of people who thought in just that manner when George W. Bush came to Calgary -- they wanted him arrested as a war criminal. While I used to be a Bush supporter and am not a radical or a leftist by any means, I couldn't help but concede that they had a point!

To go back to the original story, though, I cannot imagine anyone who has politics further removed from mine than this Galloway fellow, but I'm not sure he's an abettor of terrorism. Maybe the Canadian agency in charge of the whole deal knows more data than I do. Nevertheless, the US allowed in Iran's president and the world kept turning.

 

Maybe i'm short-sighted, as i am new to fatherhood and find myself always thinking of my wee-ones and not much else. But living in the US, or anywhere else for that matter, i want my little ones to be safe as possible from harm by outside sources, as would any loving parent. I'm pretty sure Galloway is not a terrorist, a knucklehead certainly, but not a terroist. But in General, if a government is without a doubt, 100% positive of known links to terrorism, they should not allow the admittance of that individual into their country and risk ANY harm to their people. To do so would be a terrible lack of due diligence on their part.