Monday, March 23, 2009



Far be it from me to defend a Leftist nutcase... BUT

We read:
"Why should I care that a British MP has been barred from visiting Canada? George Galloway, a politician whose views offend many, was to speak at an anti-war conference in Toronto on March 30 -- until he was told he can't enter Canada. Barring someone from expressing views, even repugnant ones, undermines freedom of speech, civil libertarians say.

On what grounds was he banned? The government said Galloway is a security threat under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, Section 34. That seems like a good reason.

Section 34 allows the government to bar someone for espionage, terrorism, or acts of violence that "might endanger the lives or safety of persons in Canada," for example. It also covers "subversion by force."

But? The act contains broad language and can be "very problematic," said University of Ottawa law professor Errol Mendes. Section 34(1)(d) for instance, allows us to bar people for "being a danger to the security of Canada" without specifying precisely what sort of danger they are

Source

This is just as arbitrary as the British government barring Geert Wilders from Britain. Nobody has anything to fear from Galloway, anyhow. You can read the sort of crap he speaks in the media every day.

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

Well, lately I've been happy with Canada because they are deporting US Army deserters, you know, those traitors that sign up, get army benefits and training at taxpayer expense, and then decide they don't want to fight in an "illegal war" so they go to Canada to seek asylum.

Either way, the Canadian version of free speech is arbitrary, maybe Galloway was banned because the authorities fear his going to inspire the commie bastards to riot, destroy stores, and do all kinds of damage.

If this was happening in America, I would fight for his free speech rights, but Canada is not my country.

Anonymous said...

Bobby, in Amerika, it's the commies who have all the free speech rights. It's the rest of us who have to fight for those rights.

Anonymous said...

I find the outrage from Galloway rather amusing, as I didn't hear anything from him when Wilders was stopped from entering Britian.

Both should be given entry, and Galloway should have expressed equal outrage.

Anonymous said...

Banning British politicians should be standard practice until they renege on them banning Geert Wilders from entering the UK (especially as the banning of Wilders was illegal under EU treaties guaranteeing unrestricted travel for residents between countries).
I'm all for reciprocity in this, teaches the Brits a lesson.

Anonymous said...

The "Brits" in this case not being the entire population or even the whole government - but instigated by a few Members of Parliament headed by the token Muslim enobled to "Lord" in a pathetic attempt to show there is multiculturalism even in the venerable House of Lords. That muslim lord was misusing his position to attack the free expression of anti-islamic opinion.

Anonymous said...

George Galloway = best advertisment for Scottish independence i've ever seen