George Galloway barred from Canada

#1
I had missed this originally, but basically Canada barred George "that utter cnut" Galloway from entering. Seems that the immigration minister isn't his biggest fan.

Globe and Mail

It took less than two hours for Canadian Border Services Agency officials to declare controversial British MP George Galloway inadmissible to Canada. There was little doubt that’s what Immigration Minister Jason Kenney wanted.
 
#2
crabby said:
I had missed this originally, but basically Canada barred George "that utter cnut" Galloway from entering. Seems that the immigration minister isn't his biggest fan.

Globe and Mail

It took less than two hours for Canadian Border Services Agency officials to declare controversial British MP George Galloway inadmissible to Canada. There was little doubt that’s what Immigration Minister Jason Kenney wanted.
Well done them. Good decision on the basis of their legal system. Wish ours was as robust.

No more than the self serving cock deserves.....
 
#4
It's interesting how a lot of the comments on that article are against the decision to ban his entry - they obviously don't realise what a complete low-life he is. Now, they did allow a very right wing nutjob in called Ann Coulter, which was a surprisingly poor decision. I'm up for banning anyone who decides to preach hatred and is morally corrupt.
 
#5
I dislike this. He is an utter cnut, a commie, and a terrorist sypathiser. But we are a country that values free speech. Galloway revealed (by letting him speak) is Galloway reviled. He may have had to answer some very uncomfortable questions had he been allowed to speak. This way he just becomes a martyr for the Che guevara- t- shirt and keffiyeh crowd, and emboldens them. Bad choice Kenney. I am disappointed
 
#6
Were he an utterly racist, gentile-hating Israeli settler or an inflammatory Muslim cleric, they would have let him in. Hypocracy knows no bounds with our Conservtaive( misnomer) govt. shameful.
 
#7
Flagrantviolator said:
Galloway revealed (by letting him speak) is Galloway reviled
It would not have been though. He was invited by the "stop the war coalition" in Toronto and would merely have stood up there, defended his mate Saddam, blamed the Zionists, collected a fat cheque and smuggly gone about his way. He was not going to be here to be interviewed by someone who has done indepth research on his background or ask the right questions.
Were he an utterly racist, gentile-hating Israeli settler or an inflammatory Muslim cleric, they would have let him in
He is utterly racist, he believes the entire western media is controlled by Zionists who are out to get him. They made a good call on this one.
 
#8
I disagree with your assumption that anti-zionism=racism.Free speech is paramount. When a society starts allowing govt. to make decisions as to what is " proper" or "acceptable" speech, they tread a very fine line. Look at the state of your country for a perfect illustration of this. Anyone could have bought a ticket to this event and asked uncomfortable questions of this tit. To shut him down only emboldens his kind, and their followers.
 
#9
And bear in mind before you respond, that anyone who trots out the tired old " fire in a theatre" canard automatically loses the argument, much as the first one to bring up Hitler loses.
 
#10
Flagrantviolator said:
I disagree with your assumption that anti-zionism=racism.Free speech is paramount. When a society starts allowing govt. to make decisions as to what is " proper" or "acceptable" speech, they tread a very fine line. Look at the state of your country for a perfect illustration of this. Anyone could have bought a ticket to this event and asked uncomfortable questions of this tit. To shut him down only emboldens his kind, and their followers.
Canada is now "my country". At times I find the state far more restrictive than the UK ever was. The event his was being brought in for wasn't an "ask questions" kind of event. I'll just quote dear Georgey here
On the last occasion I was re-elected despite all the efforts made by the British government, the Zionist movement and the newspapers and news media which are controlled by Zionism.”
At that point for me "Zionism" becomes Racism and would also be paranoia if I didn't think that he is merely using it to further himself with certain groups.
 
#11
And one more thing, Zionists have a lot to answer for. NOT Jews, ZIONISTS. It is a racist, discriminatory ideology of hate and division. Funny how the friends of Israel ALWAYS fall into on one hand, shouting that Israel is a multi-ethnic democracy in a sea of theocracies,, but on the other hand whenever anyone dare to criticise Israel, go into polemics about " racist attacks on the Jewish State" So which is it?
 
#14
Flagrantviolator said:
And one more thing, Zionists have a lot to answer for. NOT Jews, ZIONISTS. It is a racist, discriminatory ideology of hate and division. Funny how the friends of Israel ALWAYS fall into on one hand, shouting that Israel is a multi-ethnic democracy in a sea of theocracies,, but on the other hand whenever anyone dare to criticise Israel, go into polemics about " racist attacks on the Jewish State" So which is it?
Agreed - I am not fan of the Zionist movement. I am also a critic of Israel, as well as a critic of Hamas and several other movements within Palestine that cause hardship and suffering for the people of Palestine. At times Israel acts in ways that I think are appalling - the expansion of settlements on disputed land, use of white phos, ROE for the last Gaza incursion etc. However, they are still a state under attack from several sides and organisations like Hamas use indescriminate weapons and actions of terror in a way I could never condone. Galloway's love affair with Hamas, Palestine and the Iraqi people just doesn't seem quite right when you think about the suffering they have caused to their own people (far outweighing the suffering inflicted by Israel or "Westerners")
 
#16
thegimp said:
Sorry, free speech is where its at, whether you like whats been said or not or who its aimed at
No, I don't agree. There comes a point where a society is quite within its rights to limit the extremism within its ranks. That are what laws are for....
 
#19
in_the_cheapseats said:
thegimp said:
Sorry, free speech is where its at, whether you like whats been said or not or who its aimed at
No, I don't agree. There comes a point where a society is quite within its rights to limit the extremism within its ranks. That are what laws are for....
Nope laws are there to protect the population not criminalise opinions.

Especially when some opinions are taken more seriously than others, not wanting a gay couple in your B+B appears to be much more serious than squealing death to the infidels, chop their heads off

Blah Blah Blah
 

Latest Threads