George Galloway
Like my colleague Luke Savage, I am disappointed that the Harper Government not too long ago barred George Galloway from entering Canada. I say this not because I share Galloway’s views (they are reprehensible and misguided) or find him to be an admirable person (he is a pathetic and disgusting human being), but because I believe in the right to free speech and movement. Yes, there are limits to both - I endorse restrictions on incitements to violence and persons with criminal records entering the country. But a brief reading of Galloway’s profile does not put him in either of those cases. Of course, I am open to further investigation if prompted by the right facts.
In fact, I think it’s necessary that people like Galloway enter the country, or people like Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn top best seller’s lists. Their very existence and fame disproves their claims that capitalist, western societies are undemocratic and systematically repressive. The free market seems to provide plenty of attention to critiques that undermine its very raison d’etre.
My only problem with Mr. Savage’s article is the insinuation here:
Despite the Immigration Ministry’s assertions that it was not directly responsible for the ban, it’s likely that the move was motivated by a request from the Jewish Defence League. A pro-Israel organization, the League wrote an open letter to the government requesting that it “keep this hater out of the country.” The director of the organization’s Canadian chapter, Meir Weinstein, participated in a joint interview with Galloway for Britain’s Channel 4 News on March 20th (widely available on YouTube), in which he stated: “We are determined to uncover any proxy agents of Hamas and Hezbollah, and we’ve been successful with regards to Mr. Galloway […] we will be looking into these organizations in Canada that have invited him […] their links to terror groups as well.” Galloway responded by promising that if the ban was not overturned, he would speak using “other means,” possibly via video conference. Weinstein replied, “If he uses those other means we will see to it that the Canadian government will be monitoring every individual and organization that has anything to do with it.”
I am not here to disprove this claim, because I have no facts to go either way. But the evidence in the article itself doesn’t seem sufficient: 1) Harper is pro-Israel 2) the JDL is intrasigently pro-Israel and 3) the JDL promised to have Galloway barred from entering the country. But there is no reason to believe for the claim that the JDL has the influence within Conservative circles to pull off such a move. My own experiences suggest that it is not even influential enough among Canadian Jews (though I may be wrong) and certainly doesn’t speak for all Israel supporters. I say this with concern because speculations of Jewish influence peddling don’t play well in the realm of public opinion. I’m a little late to the debate in the comments section, but I would suggest (and request) more facts.
I’m very relieved you agree Josh: there is simply no case for banning someone based on their views. Anyone who believes Galloway to be a security threat should simply watch his cat performance on UK’s Big Brother.
No doubt, Galloway is a self-promoter, a populist, and a non-intellectual (I really don’t think you can group him in with Noam Chomsky or Howard Zinn, two of the world’s most accomplished scholars, though I’m sure you completely reject their views). I think he gives more reasoned critics of Israel a bad name and himself has declared that free speech “has limits”, once calling for a ban on France’s Jean-Marie La Penne.
Now to address your concern: The Harper government has moved more zealously to support Israel than probably any other government west of Tel-Aviv. This ban on Galloway clearly has nothing to do with security concerns the the JDL has enthusiastically claimed responsibility for the ban. Canada’s Immigration Minister Jason Kenney cut funding to the Canadian Arab Federation, a secular student group that is predominantly non-Arab (now I won’t answer for everything that this organization has ever said and done, but clearly there is a bias motivating this decision) and Stephen Harper publically dismisses even the most moderate of critics as anti-Semites. I am not pursuing some silly Zionist conpiracy theory here, but merely examining the facts at hand. Of course, there is no way to prove the the JDL is completely responsible for the ban, but I was merely intending to comment on the particularly strong relationship between the Israel lobby in Canada and its current government.
As for whether or not Western socities are non-democratic and repressive that, alas, is a highly interesting topic which we will have to discuss some other time.
The Muslim Student Union at UC-Irvine is bringing Galloway to our campus May 21. I plan to attend, let him have his say then have my say during the Q&A. This guy, who hates our country, has many skeletins in his closet.
gary fouse
adj teacher
uci-ext
fousesquawk
You might want to think before you go making statements such as that Gary. A critic of a country’s policies is not the same as a “hater”. By that definition, the well over 2/3rds majority of Americans who disaproved of the Bush Administration towards the end of his tenure who be “haters”. For god sake man, you don’t have to agree with someone not to accuse them of hate speech or thinking that is, by your narrow definition, counter-patriotic.
Sorry for the late rersponse. I just happened to see your comment. I attended the event and during Q&A, I asked him about all the “long live Hitler-Jews to the ovens” comments we heard in jan during rallies in Ft Lauderdale, LA, sf and Toronto. He called me a liar. I have since posted the youtube videos on my blog fousesquawk that document the statements and chants.
Galloway acted like a thug at uci. He is nothing but a demogogue.
Do you think there aren’t similar racists amongst the Pro-Israel rallies?
It’s very shallow and hypocritical of you to point this out. Are you a tribal Jew? I could understand then (Jewish before anything else, and throw out the common sense with the humanism).
Galloway is a blowhard and is not an intellectual. He is the type of speaker that appeals to most people though because they view him symbolically and he obliges. It’s not like he’s going to enlighten us.
His debate with Hitchens is a great example.
I’m curious though, what is it about Galloways’s views that you do not like, Josh?
Are you a Zionist?
Ugh, nevermind.
Just read your ‘about’ section. Should have done that first!