Frankly, I don’t care whether George Galloway is denied entrance into Canada or not – call me old fashioned, but my Canada really is concerned only with Canadians. I don’t feel my rights to freedom of speech or expression are jeopardized because I cannot go in person in Canada to listen to another foreign blowhard - well, blow hot air. We have more than enough problems trying to extract our citizens from foreign countries or kicking out the foreign malcontents who abuse our refugee process system to worry much about who is not being allowed in. I realize the Canadian chapter of the Jewish Defense League is currently taking credit for influencing the federal government in denying him admittance, and that may or may not be true. Personally, I am not so sure what role the JDL should be playing in Canada. It is not exactly like Canada is lacking for Jewish lobby or support groups. During the late 60’s and early 70’s, it had a role and a purpose, and it was called “Prisoners of Zion” and it functioned rather well, but I am not sure it hasn’t outlived its overall usefulness.
Anyhoo, CTV is reporting the court has ruled against the Galloway pleadings:
Controversial British MP George Galloway will not be allowed into Canada to deliver a series of anti-war speeches, a Federal Court judge has ruled. "A fundamental principle of immigration law is that non-citizens do not have an unqualified right to enter in Canada," Justice Luc Martineau wrote in a 14-page ruling released Monday.
"The admission of a foreign national to this country is a privilege determined by statute, regulation or otherwise, and not a matter of right." Parliament has given Canadian Border Services Agency officers the right to determine who is admissible, he said. Martineau wrote while there have been serious arguments raised against the decision to keep Galloway out, "a proper factual record and the benefit of full legal argument" are missing."
The applicants didn't meet the necessary legal tests for him to issue an order allowing Galloway entry, the judge wrote. Earlier this month, border security officials deemed Galloway inadmissible saying he was guilty of providing material support for terrorism.
Galloway had been part of a caravan that had delivered humanitarian aid to Gaza following the Israeli military incursion there. He also gave a $45,000 donation to Hamas, which the government said in a letter to the MP is a banned terrorist organization in this country. Last week, Galloway told CTV's Power Play that ambulances and medical supplies must be delivered through Hamas because they are the democratically elected government in the Gaza Strip.
Nothing irritates me more than the mass media enabling a lie. Hamas was never democratically elected to govern the Gaza Strip. It took the right to rule in a blood violent coup against the lawful legal authority of the Palestinian Authority. Throwing someone off a building is not the same as casting a ballot in a polling station.
Furthermore, Georgie lies - any humanitarian aid or money could have been channeled through the UNWRA rather than used to line the Palestinian Chapter of the Muslim Brotherhood purse. But then, of course, Georgie would have missed the photo-ops and received minimal publicity return on his ‘aid’ gesture. And don't get me started on his alleged 'anti-war' stance 'cause I have tons of quotes of his support of Hezbollah's 'military' actions against Israel.
3 comments:
I thought Hamas had won in an election against Fatah, been prevented from taking office by Abbas, got into a civil war, and eventually become the rulers of Gaza. A tangled tale, but they assuredly did not merely seize power.
Not quite, in fact, Ismail Haniyeh was sworn in as Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority on March 29, 2006. Hamas took their seats in Ramallah.
This coincided with low level fighting between Hamas and Fatah and matters came to a head in October 2006 when Haniyeh’s convoy came under an attack. Fatah claims it was an one-off attack by a Fatah clan with a personal grudge against Hamas. This incident sparks the first open break between Fatah and Hamas. It was papered over but in December 2006 Haniyeh is denied entry into Gaza from Rafah until he handed over the USD30 million he allegedly raised on his first official trip abroad as Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority to an Arab bank in Egypt so that it can be transferred directly to the PA directly. Haniyeh originally denied having any ‘funds’ but relinquishes the said ‘funds’ anyway.
This creates the first official ‘open’ conflict with Fatah in the legislative council. Under the terms of a ‘unity’ agreement Haniyeh resigns his post Feb 17, 2007, and is again sworn in as Prime Minister on March 2007. From March to April small clashes are seen in a tit for tat battles between Fatah and Hamas until May 2007 when a series of larger clashes occur in the Gaza Strip.
June 10th dawns and Hamas unilaterally decides the only way to end the conflict is to seize control of the Palestinian Authority security forces in the Gaza Strip and replace all Fatah aligned security forces with Hamas members. In 4 days of bloody fractional fighting Hamas’ hold is for all purposes total by June 14th. In retaliation, Abbas dismisses Hamas from the legislative government, declares a state of emergency and decides to rule by Presidential decree and in the interim appoints a new prime minister. June 15th Hamas declares total control over the Gaza Strip and refuses to recognize the authority of Abbas.
One can argue and dispute which side of the Fatah/Hamas divide acted in ‘more’ bad faith during the two ‘unity’ governments in the legislature council but what one can not effectively argue is that Hamas’ control over the Gaza Strip was won on a ballot. No citizen of Gaza ever voted for Hamas to hold absolute and total power over the Gaza Strip.
I'm pretty proud of this ban, finally somebody stood up to this "blowhard" and did not let him do what he wants. He's nothing but a liar and a terrorist, even though that sounds a bit harsh. Talking about the freedom of speech is pointless here, if he wanted to give out a speech he could have done it back home, no need to come to Canada. If anyone really was interested in hearing the speech, I'm sure they could travel to UK and see him personally.
Take care, Elli
Post a Comment