PDA

View Full Version : Galloway banned from canada(surprised there isn't a thread on this,did a search)



AAAhmed46
26th March 09, 11:17 PM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1163502/Canada-bans-George-Galloway-grounds-national-security.html


'Infandous*' George Galloway banned from Canada on grounds of national security (*look it up)

By Mail Foreign Service
Last updated at 8:34 PM on 20th March 2009

* Comments (43)
* Add to My Stories


George Galloway has been barred from Canada on national security grounds.

The outspoken MP, who opposes the war in Afghanistan where Canadian troops are deployed, was due to make a speech in Toronto on March 30.

But a spokesman for immigration minister Jason Kenney said Mr Galloway was viewed as a supporter of the radical Palestinian group Hamas, which is banned in Canada.

The Respect MP for Bethnal Green and Bow, who is on a North American speaking tour, vowed to use all means at his disposal to challenge the ‘outrageous’ ban.

He called the move a ‘desperate election ploy’ by a Conservative government.

But a spokesman for Canada's immigration minister Jason Kenney insisted the decision, taken by border security officials, would not be overturned for a 'infandous* street-corner Cromwell' (*'infandous: too odious to be expressed or mentioned).
This Hamas photo shows the head of the Hamas government Ismail Haniyeh, right, embracing George Galloway during their meeting in Gaza City on March 10 this year

This Hamas photo shows the head of the Hamas government Ismail Haniyeh, right, embracing George Galloway during their meeting in Gaza City on March 10 this year

Mr Galloway was due to give a speech in Toronto on March 30 but has been deemed 'inadmissible' to Canada under section 34(1) of the country's immigration act.

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

The minister has the right to issue special exemption permits but will not do so in Mr Galloway's case.
The man who banned him: Canada's immigration minister Jason Kenney

The man who banned him: Canada's immigration minister Jason Kenney

Mr Velshi said: 'We're going to uphold the law, 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.

'I'm sure Galloway has a large Rolodex of friends in regimes elsewhere in the world willing to roll out the red carpet for him. Canada, however, won't be one of them.'

Mr Galloway, 54, MP for Bethnal Green and Bow, is consulting organisers of his north American speaking tour and exploring whether legal action can be taken to overturn the ban.

Mr Galloway, an opponent of the war in Afghanistan where Canadian troops are deployed as part of international forces, lamented the 'idiotic' ruling as 'irrational, inexplicable and an affront to Canada's good name'.

And the Scot also said being refused entry to Canada was like being told to stay away from the family home.

Mr Galloway said: 'This is a very sad day for the Canada we have known and loved - a bastion of the freedoms that supporters of the occupation of Afghanistan claim to be defending.

'This has further vindicated the anti-war movement's contention that unjust wars abroad will end up consuming the very liberties that make us who we are.

'This may be a rather desperate election ploy by a conservative government reaching the end of the line, or by a minister who has not cottoned on to the fact that the George Bush era is over.

'All right-thinking Canadians, whether they agree with me over the wisdom of sending troops to Afghanistan or not, will oppose this outrageous decision.

'On a personal note - for a Scotsman to be barred from Canada is like being told to stay away from the family home.

'This is not something I'm prepared to accept.'


More...

* 'We seek the promise of a new beginning': Obama makes unprecedented YouTube appeal to Iran
* 'You are fighting a religious war against gentiles': What rabbis told Israeli soldiers in Gaza war

Mr Galloway was due to speak at a public forum entitled Resisting war from Gaza to Kandahar, hosted by Toronto Coalition to Stop the War later this month.

The Respect party MP was also set to address a second public forum in Mississauga, just south of Toronto, on March 31.

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'.

In 2006, Mr Galloway was refused entry to Egypt on the grounds of national security after he travelled to the country to give evidence at a 'mock trial' of former prime minister Tony Blair and ex-US president George W Bush.

He was held overnight in a police cell before the authorities changed their minds and allowed him in, and he later received a personal apology from the country's president.

A spokesman for Citizenship and Immigration Canada confirmed that Mr Galloway had been deemed inadmissible on national security grounds and would not be allowed into the country.

He said the decision had been taken by border security officials 'based on a number of factors' in accordance with section 34(1) of the country's immigration act.

The act states: 'A permanent resident or a foreign national is inadmissible on security grounds for:

'(a) engaging in an act of espionage or an act of subversion against a democratic government, institution or process as they are understood in Canada;

'(b) engaging in or instigating the subversion by force of any government;

'(c) engaging in terrorism;

'(d) being a danger to the security of Canada;

'(e) engaging in acts of violence that would or might endanger the lives or safety of persons in Canada; or

'(f) being a member of an organisation that there are reasonable grounds to believe engages, has engaged or will engage in acts referred to in paragraph (a), (b) or (c).'

Immigration minister Jason Kenney has the right to exempt people from the act if it is felt that their presence would not be 'detrimental to the national interest'.

But the spokesman said Mr Kenney would 'decline to exercise that discretion' in Mr Galloway's case.

.................................................. .................................................. ..............................


Lots of canadians newspapers commenting on this.

This was stupid, because he was going to speak in a university, not to change the mind of powerful elected officials like Girt Wilders was. THe people he would have appealed to would be the radical and often irrational left(look im pretty leftwing, but george sometimes just doesn't make sense)

He's a buffoon(once called Saddam hussain a great man, or something stupid like that_but he isn't a threat or even that bad.

Bnai Brith and the Canadian jewish congress are actiing just as sensitive as muslim groups toward the cartoons.

Sure he put supplies in gaza, but not weapons or anything, just food and blankets. Even some pro-isreal folk wont say that's terrorist activity.

The same peolple that poo pooed the banning of Girt from england are supporting the ban on Galloway.

Whatever your political outlook, if you support freedom of expression for one side, surely it appeals for the other?

rw4th
26th March 09, 11:43 PM
Now if only we could apply the same law to Jack Layton and get him deported.

HappyOldGuy
26th March 09, 11:48 PM
Obviously it's wrong on all sorts of levels, but how damaging is it going to be between the countries. I don't know where this guy sits in UK politics other than his wacky middle east stuff. Is Gordon Brown quietly applauding, or likely to raise a stink?

AAAhmed46
26th March 09, 11:49 PM
Layton lives in his own mind.

so does harper.

WarPhalange
27th March 09, 12:33 AM
Jewish Defense League can get a guy banned from the country, and people are afraid that this one guy is going to what, single-handedly destroy a city or something?

Banned for what? "Uhhh... he has an opposing view on an issue!!!" This is why the US > Canada. We allow all sorts of idiots into the country and let them say pretty much anything they want (no threats or classified stuff, of course). If the guy really is an idiot, he gets laughed at for saying that there is no homosexuality in Iran. If his ideas hold some water, then hey, maybe he wasn't that stupid after all?

AAAhmed46
27th March 09, 12:57 AM
All those who defended Girt Wilders saying freedom of speech is sacred, why don't we hear them denouncing this? Isn't this about freedom of speech as well?

Yes, Girt should have been allowed to speak, to ban him made him stronger.

Lots of canadians did not know who George Galloway was, but now they do.


Galloway wasn't promoting mass lynching of jews or anything or deportation or banning of the torah and tanak.

He was going to talk about afganistan and canada's role, which i disagree with him on, many canadians soldiers gone in there with very good intentions.

But ban him for it?

Virus
27th March 09, 01:50 AM
Galloway's a noxious character. He supports jihadists in Iraq as well as repressive middle eastern regimes. I don't think he should have been banned though.

AAAhmed46
27th March 09, 02:03 AM
....that statement means you are not a hypocrite.

And yes Gallloway is retarded.

KO'd N DOA
27th March 09, 02:38 AM
.

The Respect party MP was also set to address a second public forum in Mississauga, just south of Toronto, on March 31.

....



LOL...he must be a drunk Scotts man if he thinks there is anything south of Hog town. We will welcome him home when he sobers up...

Robot Jesus
27th March 09, 04:09 AM
there is an election comeing up, this is just fear mongering.
also, my MP hard at work. Did I mention he is openly and volenteraly celibate?

Sun Wukong
27th March 09, 05:02 AM
Come on, this is fucking ridiculous.

Craigypooh
27th March 09, 05:57 AM
Obviously it's wrong on all sorts of levels, but how damaging is it going to be between the countries. I don't know where this guy sits in UK politics other than his wacky middle east stuff. Is Gordon Brown quietly applauding, or likely to raise a stink?

Gordon will be seriously pissed-off, if George isn't in Canada then he'll be hanging around parliament annoying people. The more often Gorgeous George is out the country the better.

Here George's finest moment on Celebrity Big Brother:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e80_1215044352

Sun Wukong
27th March 09, 06:05 AM
Jewish Defense League can get a guy banned from the country, and people are afraid that this one guy is going to what, single-handedly destroy a city or something?

Banned for what? "Uhhh... he has an opposing view on an issue!!!" This is why the US > Canada. We allow all sorts of idiots into the country and let them say pretty much anything they want


Except for Cat Stevens.

Craigypooh
27th March 09, 08:04 AM
Except for Cat Stevens.

There's the link! Gorgeous George pretended to be a cat - perhaps they thought he was related to Cat Stevens?

Truculent Sheep
27th March 09, 08:22 AM
Galloway is a vile authoritarian shit bag who consorts with Islamist shit bags as a means of propogating his own sinister Stalinist agenda on their backs.

(Who is the useful idiot in this case remains to be seen.)

For some reason, the British like giving these dickmongers the benefit of the doubt for some reason; qf. Tony Benn and Tommy Sheridan.

rw4th
27th March 09, 09:26 AM
Layton lives in his own mind.

so does harper.

Harper, Layton, Ignatieff, Duceppe, and the green party nut job are all politicians and they therefore all live in they're own little world where their shit doesn't stink and it's always the other party's fault.

Galloway is an idiot, but I agree that they should probably not of banned him. At the most, if they have any actual credible intelligence that he could be up to something, they could of placed restrictions on him.

kracker
27th March 09, 09:47 AM
Obviously it's wrong on all sorts of levels, but how damaging is it going to be between the countries. I don't know where this guy sits in UK politics other than his wacky middle east stuff. Is Gordon Brown quietly applauding, or likely to raise a stink?

Brown is a hardcore globalist authoritarian who isn't even pretending to be otherwise. He's probably jizzing his pants with happiness over this IMHO.

TM
27th March 09, 10:59 AM
Streetcorner cromwell. That's hilarious. Considering his posse must be retarded naturally they would be the roundheads.

WarPhalange
27th March 09, 03:14 PM
Except for Cat Stevens.

There's no telling what he could hide under that beard.

Zendetta
27th March 09, 03:19 PM
Pretty lame, Canada, pretty fucking lame.

Cullion
28th March 09, 08:41 AM
Obviously it's wrong on all sorts of levels, but how damaging is it going to be between the countries. I don't know where this guy sits in UK politics other than his wacky middle east stuff. Is Gordon Brown quietly applauding, or likely to raise a stink?

George Galloway was a left-wing Labour MP but founded his own political party called 'Respect' and won an Inner City London seat with a high muslim population from the Labour party encumbent in protest against the invasion of Iraq. There have been repeated attempts to smear him with provably false allegations. His main real source of sympathy with the muslims of the middle east is that he has a Palestinian wife.

By contrast, Gordon Brown is a member of 'Labour Friends of Israel'.

Gordon, if he finds time at all to react to a British MP convicted of no crime being banned from a commonwealth country, will say something heavy-handed and stupid that has no real effect.

Virus
28th March 09, 10:01 AM
If you want to see Galloway's dirty laundry then watch this debate between him and Christoper Hitchens. I promise you will be entertained.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6804714963382152969

Cullion
28th March 09, 10:05 AM
It's two hours long, what dirty laundry does it mention?

Craigypooh
1st April 09, 06:33 AM
It's two hours long, what dirty laundry does it mention?

His support of the actions taken by insurgents in Iraq,
Sharing a platform with Assad in Syria while at the same time condemning other Arab countries as dictatorships supported by the West,
Meeting and befriending Sadam and his government while in full knowledge of the atrocities they had committed,
He was accused of but denied taking oil for food money

Artful Dentures
1st April 09, 03:53 PM
I don't like banning or punishing people based on them being stupid.

but having him in the past publicly support insurgents and coming to speak in Canada right after 3 Canadians die in Afghanistan would have been pretty shitty.

Cullion
1st April 09, 04:56 PM
I don't like banning or punishing people based on them being stupid.

but having him in the past publicly support insurgents and coming to speak in Canada right after 3 Canadians die in Afghanistan would have been pretty shitty.

Is Donald Rumsfeld banned from Canada? Because he sold Saddam Hussein biological weapons in the 80s. Galloway is somebody who made speaches where he said 'why are you surprised they're fighting back when we invaded'.

No?

Cullion
1st April 09, 04:57 PM
He was accused of but proved himself innocent of taking oil for food money

Fixed.

Craigypooh
2nd April 09, 04:09 AM
Fixed.

I was just quoting from the speech. Hitchens had apparently been handing out leaflets repeating the charge that George had taken oil for food money and asked him to deny it. George just stated that he'd already denied this charge on oath.

Artful Dentures
2nd April 09, 09:24 AM
Is Donald Rumsfeld banned from Canada? Because he sold Saddam Hussein biological weapons in the 80s. Galloway is somebody who made speaches where he said 'why are you surprised they're fighting back when we invaded'.

No?

Rumsfield should be banned

Again having a guy stir up shit during a period when you're burying soldiers is stupid.

He's not a Canadian citizen he's not owed a platform so too bad for him

KO'd N DOA
2nd April 09, 10:06 AM
So they did a live feed, where he said "Na na na na naaaa na. Harper and Kenney can't stop me."

Very anti climatic.

http://media.mississauga.topscms.com/images/b2/7a/993b5a8c4ef0bfbaed31de6b1291.jpeg

http://www.mississauganews.com/article/25653

Cullion
2nd April 09, 02:57 PM
Rumsfield should be banned

I don't like Rumsfeld at all, but I'd rather they both be free than both got banned.



Again having a guy stir up shit during a period when you're burying soldiers is stupid.

He's not a Canadian citizen he's not owed a platform so too bad for him

So, you don't believe in freedom of speech at all then?

rw4th
2nd April 09, 11:17 PM
So, you don't believe in freedom of speech at all then?

Please define "freedom of speech".

Artful Dentures
2nd April 09, 11:41 PM
I don't like Rumsfeld at all, but I'd rather they both be free than both got banned.



So, you don't believe in freedom of speech at all then?


Freedom of speech means people can't stop you from saying something it does not mean people are free from the consequences of what they say.

He wants to talk shit that supports and encourages people trying to kill Canadian soldiers at time when 3 soldiers were recently killed?

Fuck him

Canada doesn't want him.

BTW he's free, he hasn't been jailed, Canada didn't arrest him but since he's not a Canadian citizen Canada is under no obligations to allow him to enter the country

You're probably just hoping he would come here and not be allowed back in the UK

HappyOldGuy
3rd April 09, 12:05 AM
Freedom of speech means people can't stop you from saying something it does not mean people are free from the consequences of what they say.
The ability to express your opinions without fear of legal reprisals is pretty much the textbook definition of free speech.

I suppose your definition might make sense in the matrix if agent smith is going around erasing peoples mouths.

Which would be cool.

Artful Dentures
3rd April 09, 08:48 AM
The ability to express your opinions without fear of legal reprisals is pretty much the textbook definition of free speech.

I suppose your definition might make sense in the matrix if agent smith is going around erasing peoples mouths.

Which would be cool.

You are 100% wrong.

Freedom of speech in the 1st amendment in the US and other places has always had restrictions

You can be sued for libel, You can be jailed for hate speech in some countries and face legal reprisals for plagiarism, and jailed for violating obscenity laws, To name a few legal repercussions.

Freedom of speech was never intended to give people cart blanch on saying and doing what ever they want.


Plus I am not taking about just legal reprisals,

I.E no one can stop someone from saying stupid things and being an ass, but the ass can't and shouldn't be surprised when people are offended, bothered, insulted by what he says and refuses things like granting him access to another Country.

Again Galloway is not a Canadian citizen, he has no legal rights to enter the country.

If he was a Canadian citizen then let him say what he wants unless he violates the above mentioned tenants.

But he is not.

Entering Canada is not a right but a privilege.

So once again Freedom of speech gives him the right to talk against Canada's involvement in the war in Afghanistan.

Canada as a sovereign nation has the right to react to what he says and not allow him in.

Virus
3rd April 09, 09:16 AM
Are you saying that the state barring entry of a person because it was offended by something he said is not a curtailment of freedom of speech?

Artful Dentures
3rd April 09, 09:36 AM
Are you saying that the state barring entry of a person because it was offended by something he said is not a curtailment of freedom of speech?


I am saying that the essence (and legal definition) of freedom of speech is that you can say and do what you want unless it causes harm to someone.

That criticizing Canada's roll in Afghanistan and encouraging resistance to it runs the risk of encouraging actions that can cause Canadian soldiers death.

Given a review of what Galloway has said, and how he has said it there is enough to constitute a risk that his words might inflame contribute to the physical harm of Canadian soldiers.

There is also the potential of mental duress and harm to the familys of soldiers fighting there and killed there.

So therefore by the legal definition of freedom of speech Canada has every right to deny him entry based on the potential risk of causing physical, emotional and mental harm to it's citizens.

Artful Dentures
3rd April 09, 09:41 AM
Are you saying that the state barring entry of a person because it was offended by something he said is not a curtailment of freedom of speech?

Also my point on offence was more to the point when people are surprised that people react negativly to what they say.

Case in point the Dixie Chicks criticized Bush and were shocked when their red neckl fan base turned on them.

What the hell did they expect.

Freedom of speech allows them to criticism Bush, and freedom of choice allows people not to but their music, or radio stations to play their songs.

If you want to take a hard an unpopular stance be prepared for the consequences and don't whine about it using "freedom of speech" as some sort of shield.

Again Galloway has the right to say what ever he wants and Canada has the right as a result of that to not allow him in the country, legally and morally.

rw4th
3rd April 09, 09:52 AM
Also my point on offence was more to the point when people are surprised that people react negativly to what they say.

Case in point the Dixie Chicks criticized Bush and were shocked when their red neckl fan base turned on them.

What the hell did they expect.

Freedom of speech allows them to criticism Bush, and freedom of choice allows people not to but their music, or radio stations to play their songs.

If you want to take a hard an unpopular stance be prepared for the consequences and don't whine about it using "freedom of speech" as some sort of shield.

Again Galloway has the right to say what ever he wants and Canada has the right as a result of that to not allow him in the country, legally and morally.

While I agree with you, I still think it was a bad move to deny him entry, all they succeeded in doing is giving him more publicity. The only way to get rid of him is to ignore and marginalize him, not bring more attention to him.

HappyOldGuy
3rd April 09, 10:26 AM
You are 100% wrong.

Freedom of speech in the 1st amendment in the US and other places has always had restrictions

Yes, you cannot make a direct threat to a named person. And all restrictions are subject to strict scrutiny and must be content neutral. Which pretty much shoots your argument to hell.

Artful Dentures
3rd April 09, 11:21 AM
Yes, you cannot make a direct threat to a named person. And all restrictions are subject to strict scrutiny and must be content neutral. Which pretty much shoots your argument to hell.


No you are still wrong.

For example if I wanted to paint and sell pictures of men having sex with children, even if I made up the images so they were based on no real people, I would still be breaking obscenity laws and face severe legal repercussions. Legally no one could stop me from painting the pictures however they could stop me from selling or distributing them.

So no the threat doesn't have to be directed to a named person. It can be a threat to society in general.

Which is the case for hate laws in countries like Canada and Germany.

As for restrictions being subject to strict scrutiny

No one argued against that, that's what courts, law officers or immigration officials and guidelines are for.

Regardless of specifics what I am against is the idea of "Freedom of speech" being some magical get out of jail free card.

It's not

Neither legally, morally or ethically.

In this particular case in Canada the criteria was if his words possessed a risk of inciting harm to Canadian citizens

Immigration officials decided yes it does and did not allow him to enter

Had they decided otherwise I would have been ok with that as well

The issue is the governments responsibility to manage freedom of speech and the naive use of the phrase "freedom of speech" for not taking responsibility and consequences for ones actions.

Artful Dentures
3rd April 09, 11:24 AM
While I agree with you, I still think it was a bad move to deny him entry, all they succeeded in doing is giving him more publicity. The only way to get rid of him is to ignore and marginalize him, not bring more attention to him.


That may be the case, but I am not arguing specifically if it was the right thing to do strategically just that the Government of Canada has a right to allow or not allow people in its country based on its obligations to its citizens safety and that the

"Freedom of speech" objurgating this is a tired hacknyed response from people who don't really understand what "Freedom of Speech" means.

So simply saying Canada should allow him in or they are violating his basic right of "Freedom of speech" is naive, silly and frankly dumb.

HappyOldGuy
3rd April 09, 11:35 AM
For example if I wanted to paint and sell pictures of men having sex with children, even if I made up the images so they were based on no real people, I would still be breaking obscenity laws and face severe legal repercussions.
Wrong again. (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-795.ZS.html)

Not to mention that Galloway is not accused of obscenity, which is an entirely seperate issue. Your government is attempting to punish an unpopular political opinion. Yes, other countries do that. But it is censorship of free speech. Period.

Artful Dentures
3rd April 09, 11:40 AM
Nope I am right


Personal possession of obscene material in the home may not be prohibited by law. In writing for the Court in the case of Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557 (1969), Justice Thurgood Marshall wrote, "If the First Amendment means anything, it means that a State has no business telling a man, sitting in his own house, what books he may read or what films he may watch." However, it is not unconstitutional for the government to prevent the mailing or sale of obscene items, though they may be viewed only in private. Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002), further upheld these rights by invalidating the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996, holding that, because the act "[p]rohibit[ed] child pornography that does not depict an actual child..." it was overly broad and unconstitutional under the First Amendment. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote: "First Amendment freedoms are most in danger when the government seeks to control thought or to justify its laws for that impermissible end. The right to think is the beginning of freedom, and speech must be protected from the government because speech is the beginning of thought."

HappyOldGuy
3rd April 09, 12:01 PM
Nope I am right
No, you are wrong. No such case has been upheld since the 70's.

And unless you have evidence of Galloway trafficking in kiddy porn, obscenity is a red herring.

Artful Dentures
3rd April 09, 12:12 PM
No, you are wrong. No such case has been upheld since the 70's.

And unless you have evidence of Galloway trafficking in kiddy porn, obscenity is a red herring.


Number I have no idea nor am I going to check records of obscenity cases to see if the circumstances match that. But the supreme court ruled that its not unconstitutional to stop the sale of private obscenity.

yes it's a red hearing

The original point was freedom of speech has limitations when it comes to the effects of the speech on the welfare of others.

You can argue weather Galloways vocal support of recognized terrorist groups encourages them to acts of violence.

But I can't see how you can argue against the government of Canada's right to determine and bar access to a non Canadian citizens when they determine their action via speech and association puts Canadian citizens at risk.

Again it goes to the idea that the right to free speech removes all consequences from your words and actions.

billy sol hurok
3rd April 09, 03:02 PM
Yes, you cannot make a direct threat to a named person. And all restrictions are subject to strict scrutiny and must be content neutral. Which pretty much shoots your argument to hell.

FIRE!!!

HappyOldGuy
3rd April 09, 03:05 PM
FIRE!!!
Brandenburg v. Ohio

billy sol hurok
3rd April 09, 03:40 PM
Brandenburg v. Ohio
If you're talking to Goju - Joe, then attaboy.

If you're talking to me -- and the typeface suggests you are -- then Brandenburg does not support your contention that speech restrictions must be content-neutral.

The more fruitful course would be distinguishing "prior restraint" from "post-speech beatdown." Legally speaking.

Yes, Galloway is a turd of the first water.

No, he should not be handed an opportunity to claim the moral high ground, to play the victim, to distract from his own venality. (What ever became of the Poor Little Aisha Fund, or whatever that backdoor ratline to Saddam was called?) He should be allowed entry, and Canada should point and laugh.

Unless Canada is barring him on the grounds of having aided and abetted terrorist groups, which is a different matter. (BTW, does Canada still treat Hezbollah as a qualified charitable recipient?)

Artful Dentures
3rd April 09, 03:51 PM
First of all the content neutral issue was off a tangent form the assertation the free speech is not with out restrictions.

I brought up the 1st amendment and issues of Libel and plagiarism. as examples of how free speech has restrictions.

The nature of those restrictions is a red herring in that we are talking of Canada not the us.


My point still stands in that even under the 1st amendment there are restrictions.

and 2

again I am debating the whole idea that Canada is somehow violating Galloway's human rights and right to free speech by not letting him in.

Legally and ethically Canada has the right to keep him out of the country.

whether that's the smart way is irrelevant.

and I am pretty sure Hezbollah is not treated as a charitable recipient.

HappyOldGuy
3rd April 09, 03:56 PM
If you're talking to Goju - Joe, then attaboy.

If you're talking to me -- and the typeface suggests you are -- then Brandenburg does not support your contention that speech restrictions must be content-neutral.

The more fruitful course would be distinguishing "prior restraint" from "post-speech beatdown." Legally speaking.

Speech restrictions do not have to be content neutral, however if they aren't then they are held to an even sillier high standard, to the point that non content neutral restrictions on political speech are limited to direct threats and incitements to immediate illegal action. Which was my point. And the point I was making in brandenburg.

Artful Dentures
3rd April 09, 04:28 PM
Once again as pertains to the subject Canada is not subject to the US interpretation of freedom of speech or 1st amendment.

And even if they were Galloway is not a Canadian citizen.

Immigration doesn't have to prove he is a risk to deny him entry just that he is a potential risk

rw4th
4th April 09, 01:38 AM
Immigration doesn't have to prove he is a risk to deny him entry just that he is a potential risk

They don't have to give him a reason at all, they can just say "no" the same way US Customs can just say no because they don't like how I look. You don't have a "right" to enter a foreign country, it's privilege that is granted to you.

Cullion
4th April 09, 05:37 AM
He wants to talk shit that supports and encourages people trying to kill Canadian soldiers at time when 3 soldiers were recently killed?

Er, no he doesn't. That's an absurd thing to say.
You're basically trying to prevent somebody from making political points.

Artful Dentures
4th April 09, 06:49 AM
Er, no he doesn't. That's an absurd thing to say.
You're basically trying to prevent somebody from making political points.

Neither you nor I know what he might say.

All immigration has to consider is if there is a risk that he might say something inflammatory along those lines and given his past history it's a reasonable assumption.

Plus no one has stopped him from saying anything or making any political points

Denying him entry into Canada doesn't take away his ability to say anything

Once again he's not a Canadian citizen, and the Canadian government is under no obligation to give him the benefit of doubt.

To fucking bad for him.

AAAhmed46
7th April 09, 07:59 PM
Long ago, id be with you goju-joe, such as the danish cartoons. Remember how hard i argued in that thread?


But now i see that trying to censor something is stupid and often leads to that POV getting more grossly spread.

Galloway is retarded, but Jason Kenny is just as much of a douche bag, too damn partisan for his own good.

I would not have even known he would be coming to the country if it wasn't for the news, and im sure many canadians didn't even know who he was until they looked at the local newspaper.

Artful Dentures
7th April 09, 09:00 PM
Long ago, id be with you goju-joe, such as the danish cartoons. Remember how hard i argued in that thread?


But now i see that trying to censor something is stupid and often leads to that POV getting more grossly spread.

Galloway is retarded, but Jason Kenny is just as much of a douche bag, too damn partisan for his own good.

I would not have even known he would be coming to the country if it wasn't for the news, and im sure many canadians didn't even know who he was until they looked at the local newspaper.

I wouldn't say you're wrong

But it's not an issue of censorship that annoys me about this thread. If immigration had let him in I would have been ok with that as well.

I took exception when people start talking about his right to free speech and getting several issues confused.

Denying a non citizen entry into a country doesn't deny him his rights of free speech. He's not being locked up nor are his views being blocked.

It just irritates me cause it's such a whiny liberal entitlement view that the world owes someone something.

He's not a Canadian citizen and has associated with people and organizations on Canada's terror list.

As a non-citizen entering the country is a privilege not a right.

My argument with HappyOldGuy was that free speech has never meant speech with out consequences.

Whether those consequences are legal or social.

Of you really believe in what you say you shoudl be prepared to pay the price

Again I go back to the Dixie Chicks, because it was there situation that put this in perspective to me.

Blasting Bush cost them fans, air play sales and revenue. They complained about how unfair this was an a violation of their free speech.

If they were right to say what they did (And I think they were) they should have accepted the consequences.

Life isn't easy, taking a stand isn't easy.

If your views are important enough to you stand by them and take the consequences.

The right to free speech is not a get out of Jail free card.

As to the issue of fighting POV by censorship I agree. I have always hated hate crime laws because making stupidity illegal is a gray slippery slope, but that's a different issue.