Anti war protestor George Galloway Banned from Canada

[JoseCuervo]

George Galloway banned from Canada

• Anti-war MP banned on grounds of national security
• 'This idiotic ban shames Canada,' says Galloway

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

I forgot we lived in communist China. Someone in border security really f'ed this one up.

[evman150]

Embarrassing.

Preventing a foreign politician from one of our allies from entering the country because of his views?

Pretty shocking.

[jammies]

From what I've read about him, he sounds like an irresponsible demagogue. That being said, he is a serving member of an allied democratic government and should accorded diplomatic courtesies.

The idea that he is somehow a danger to national security is, indeed, absurd, so all this does is give him a valid pretext to promote his agenda in a way which might actually get him some sympathy.

[4X4]

"We're going to uphold the law, not give special treatment to this infamous street-corner Cromwell who actually brags about giving 'financial support' to Hamas, a terrorist organisation banned in Canada," he said. "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."

[Canuck-Hater]

Unbelievable. I mean really Canada. Like hes the only one in Canada that shares this view about the war in afghanistan, does this mean we should ban all Canadians who are against the war?

[MarchHare]

Galloway is a radical whose extremist views are shared by few (especially so on this forum), but he is an elected MP from one of our most important allied nations. Shame on the Canadian government for allowing this to happen.

[Edit]
And if he is such a threat to our national security, how is it that the British government allows him to be a Member of Parliament? Isn't it a requirement that all MPs receive a security clearance?

[CaptainCrunch]

He got banned because he has given money and vehicles to Hamas which is a terrorist group in Canada, not his views.

Thats the rules plainly written. He probably knew it and planned his trip anyways in the hopes that he would get tossed so that he could embarress the government.

Pretty cut and dry.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

He got banned because he has given money and vehicles to Hamas which is a terrorist group in Canada, not his views.

Thats the rules plainly written. He probably knew it and planned his trip anyways in the hopes that he would get tossed so that he could embarress the government.

Pretty cut and dry.

Exactly, it has to do with Canada's Terrorist Groups list. He has supported one of them, ergo, he does not get to come here.

[Hemi-Cuda]

don't see what the fuss is about. i wouldn't want people who fund terrorists coming anywhere near this country, regardless of their position. why should he get special treatment because of who he is?

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Exactly, it has to do with Canada's Terrorist Groups list. He has supported one of them, ergo, he does not get to come here.

The laws on the Guardian article don't say anything about denying entry to people who have given money to terrorist organizations, only to people who are members of terrorist organizations. Are the two things equal in the eyes of the law?

[PsYcNeT]

Aren't they basically the same thing in principle?

[Resolute 14]

If he sent financial support to a terrorist group, then he is a terrorist himself and should not be granted access to Canada.

The embarrassment here is not the actions of the Canadian government, but the actions of British voters who elected this clown.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Aren't they basically the same thing in principle?

I'm not sure. Is the intent of the law to punish anyone remotely associated with the organization, or to make sure that the organization is not able to operate in Canada or use Canada as an asylum or to generate funds in Canada?
I would think that it would be the latter, and Galloway is unlikely to be coming here to do any of these. If he comes to Canada and actually advocates the terrorist organization, that's a completely different matter.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by octothorp

The laws on the Guardian article don't say anything about denying entry to people who have given money to terrorist organizations, only to people who are members of terrorist organizations. Are the two things equal in the eyes of the law?

You can be banned at the border if you are either a member of a terrorist group, or if you lend support to a terrorist group. The latter was put in place because Canada was seen as one of the more fertile fundraising countries for extremist groups.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by octothorp

I'm not sure. Is the intent of the law to punish anyone remotely associated with the organization, or to make sure that the organization is not able to operate in Canada or use Canada as an asylum or to generate funds in Canada?
I would think that it would be the latter, and Galloway is unlikely to be coming here to do any of these. If he comes to Canada and actually advocates the terrorist organization, that's a completely different matter.

I think its irrelevant in any case, whether he was here to fund raise or not he had given $25000.00 to Hamas and a bunch of vehicles, therefore he's heavily linked to Hamas. There's no way he's coming over the border.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

You can be banned at the border if you are either a member of a terrorist group, or if you lend support to a terrorist group. The latter was put in place because Canada was seen as one of the more fertile fundraising countries for extremist groups.

Okay, if there's a law specifying that you can be banned for lending support to a terrorist group, I don't have any problems with that or with Galloway being banned.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by octothorp

Okay, if there's a law specifying that you can be banned for lending support to a terrorist group, I don't have any problems with that or with Galloway being banned.

Kenney could issue a special exception for this guy, but its not bloody likely.

[Bagor]

Wrong call IMO.

Not that I totally disagree with it and don't understand the reasoning behind it, just that it benefits Galloway and hurts Canada more than if they had allowed him to enter. He's going to get more airtime and media out of this than if he had sneaked in, done his debates or whatever they are and left.

As extreme as he may be, he's no Fred Phelps. The man can put forward an articulate argument for his side and wil stand his ground and debate his viewpoint. Canadians should have been able to exercise their own thought process as to the merits of these views. They don't need mollycuddling.

And FTR, I can't stand his views but enjoyed watching him rip apart Norm Coleman and the US senate. Also loved watching him and BBC's Jeremy Paxman go at it.

Sorta a no win situation for Canada but I feel if they hadn't given him the attention he merits, he would have been in and out with minimal publicity.

[peter12]

Charter rights do not apply to foreigners. The Canadian government had no obligation to recognize his freedom of speech. In fact, I would argue he is a security risk as his past support of terrorist regimes would indicate.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by octothorp

I'm not sure. Is the intent of the law to punish anyone remotely associated with the organization, or to make sure that the organization is not able to operate in Canada or use Canada as an asylum or to generate funds in Canada?
I would think that it would be the latter, and Galloway is unlikely to be coming here to do any of these. If he comes to Canada and actually advocates the terrorist organization, that's a completely different matter.

I'd liken it to an unlawful accessory.

Sure, you didn't murder the bank guard, you just drove the getaway car.