British MP banned from entering Canada

[#juan]

quote=Colpy
BTW, Hamas won an election once.....then it took complete control of Gaza by murdering its political opponents. It refuses to recognize Israel. It continually attacks Israel, and in doing so aims its weapons at civilians.....in fact, the Globe and Mail today had an article about Israel destroying 17 truckloads of Iranian weapons bound for Hamas......in Sudan.
Hey, it is usually the Israelis who murder Palestinian politicians. The bomb strikes usually take out the families as well as several of the neighbors.

To call the gov't in Gaza "democratic" is....disingenuous.

I don't need any propaganda to tell me what is obvious.....Hamas is an organization of Islamo-fascist loonies, armed, supported and instructed by the whacko religious leaders of Iran, who maintain power in Gaza by murdering any opposition, who aim their weapons at civilians, and who would happily butcher every Jew on earth, given the opportunity.
And the Israelis are a bunch of American-supported Zionist loonies who maintain power with the multi billion dollars in weapons given to them every year

Compared to Israel.....a modern western democracy in which the Arab population votes, has democratic representation, and enjoys the protection of the Israeli justice system against the worst instincts of radical Zionists.

Oh yeah. Tell that to the millions of Palestinians living in filthy refugee camps while their homes are bulldozed. There have been a couple hundred resolutions in the UN calling for the Israelis to get out of Palestinian land and all have been vetoed by the U.S.,

 

[L Gilbert]

You may consider our laws "a whim". I doubt most other Canadians would.

Some are whimsical.
Dumb Laws in Canada. Crazy Canada Laws. We have weird laws, strange laws, and just plain crazy laws!

At any rate, banning someone because of their views is stupid. Banning them because of their activities isn't. BTW, Paul Martin apparently supported a few terrorist groups, why didn't we ban him?

 

[Trex]

Hamas is an outlawed terrorist organization in Canada.
It is banned.
Supporting or donating to an illegal terrorist organization is no different from supporting hate crimes or pedophiles or rapists.
It is illegal and criminal.
Canada is not required to allow foreigners who practice illegal activities into the country.
Other countries are not required to allow Canadian criminals to visit their countries at will.

Canada does not really require any new laws.
It just needs to start enforcing the ones we have a little more vigorously.

Trex

 

[Machjo]

I have a question. If Galloway were a Canadian MP, what would havehappenned to him? Imprisonment? If so, then considering that he's tolerated in the UK Parliament, then is the UK Parliament not complicit in terrorist activity? So then, how can the Canadian government in all conscience maitain diplomatic relations with the Uk while accusing a person tolerated in its government of being complicit in terrorism? Isn't there a double standard being applied there?

 

[L Gilbert]

I have a question. If Galloway were a Canadian MP, what would havehappenned to him? Imprisonment? If so, then considering that he's tolerated in the UK Parliament, then is the UK Parliament not complicit in terrorist activity? So then, how can the Canadian government in all conscience maitain diplomatic relations with the Uk while accusing a person tolerated in its government of being complicit in terrorism? Isn't there a double standard being applied there?

It's politics, Machjo. Have you never encountered double standards and hypocrisy in politics before?

 

[Colpy]

I have a question. If Galloway were a Canadian MP, what would havehappenned to him? Imprisonment? If so, then considering that he's tolerated in the UK Parliament, then is the UK Parliament not complicit in terrorist activity? So then, how can the Canadian government in all conscience maitain diplomatic relations with the Uk while accusing a person tolerated in its government of being complicit in terrorism? Isn't there a double standard being applied there?

If Galloway were a Canadian MP funneling money to Hamas he would be charged......if not there would be a scandal. Rightfully so.

it is not our affair how the Brits handle their idiots. The USA let him in as well. Not our affair either.

BTW, Juan, I believe Hamas was added to the list of Terrorist Organizations by the Liberals.....although I may be wrong......

 

[Machjo]

Some are whimsical.
Dumb Laws in Canada. Crazy Canada Laws. We have weird laws, strange laws, and just plain crazy laws!

At any rate, banning someone because of their views is stupid. Banning them because of their activities isn't. BTW, Paul Martin apparently supported a few terrorist groups, why didn't we ban him?

Businesses must provide rails for horses.

If you are released from prison, it is required that you are given a handgun with bullets and a horse, so you can ride out of town.

Don't they ever review these laws now and then?

I remember Victoria having an old bi-law still in effect that all horses must be tied if left alone, and that pigs were not allowed in the downtown core, and that was just a few years ago. To be fair though, I guess they should stay in the books just in case one of those types to like to always look for loopholes in the laws and push the laws to their limits decides to do so.

 

[L Gilbert]

If Galloway were a Canadian MP funneling money to Hamas he would be charged......if not there would be a scandal. Rightfully so.

Not necessarily charged, nor was it a huge scandal:

http://webhome.idirect.com/~sluna/elegu.htm


Turning a Blind Eye to Terrorism

 

[Machjo]

It's politics, Machjo. Have you never encountered double standards and hypocrisy in politics before?

Always. When laws are consistent, whether we agree with them or not, we can be sure that the government is sincere in its beliefs, rightly or wrongly. When laws contradict each other and are inconsistent, either the government is incompetent or that there is some other hidden agenda.

To take this case as an example. If the government sincerely beleives Hamas to be so dangerous, I can guarantee that it would want to revise the law ASAP to break all diplomatic relations with the UK government until it should take measures to break ties with Hamas. Or inversely, if it doesn't see Hamas as a seious threat, to revise the law disallowing Galloway to enter Canada. If neither of these happens as a result of this incident, then we know that this law is serving a purpose other than the publicly proclaimed one.

 

[L Gilbert]

Always. When laws are consistent, whether we agree with them or not, we can be sure that the government is sincere in its beliefs, rightly or wrongly. When laws contradict each other and are inconsistent, either the government is incompetent or that there is some other hidden agenda.

To take this case as an example. If the government sincerely beleives Hamas to be so dangerous, I can guarantee that it would want to revise the law ASAP to break all diplomatic relations with the UK government until it should take measures to break ties with Hamas. Or inversely, if it doesn't see Hamas as a seious threat, to revise the law disallowing Galloway to enter Canada. If neither of these happens as a result of this incident, then we know that this law is serving a purpose other than the publicly proclaimed one.

Or else the gov''t considers other matters to be of more importance.

 

[Machjo]

If Galloway were a Canadian MP funneling money to Hamas he would be charged......if not there would be a scandal. Rightfully so.

it is not our affair how the Brits handle their idiots. The USA let him in as well. Not our affair either.

BTW, Juan, I believe Hamas was added to the list of Terrorist Organizations by the Liberals.....although I may be wrong......

But this still doesn't answer to the objectives of this law. Is it not intended to protect Canadians against potential terrorist threats? If so, then certainly Canada should perceive Galloway a threat to Canada whether he's within our borders or not, if the law were consistent. Or is it intended more as a childish snubbing law? If so, that's fine (embarrassing, but fine). But then we should at least not pretend that it's intended for national security purposes and just state flat out that it's a snubbing law.

I do believe that no law should be allowed to be passed without also making its intended objectives explicit. After all, how can we judge the success of a law without knowing what it was intended to achieve in the first place? Going back to this law as an example. As a security law, if fails completely since Galloway could still endanger the lives of Canadians abroad, in which case the Canadian Embassy should at the very least announce a travel warning. Either that, or scrap the law.

If it's intended as a snubbing law, that's fine, but then at least state that that's what it is. And as such, this law can prove very successful and can thus be legitimately, albeit embarrassingly, defended as a marveous success.

 

[L Gilbert]

lol Lots of things should be, but aren't. You seem to be requesting that politics be changed. Good luck in your endeavor.

 

[Machjo]

lol Lots of things should be, but aren't. You seem to be requesting that politics be changed. Good luck in your endeavor.

So I've created this new thread in response:

http://forums.canadiancontent.net/canadian-politics/82993-should-all-laws-legally-challengeable.html

I do think that if laws were legally required to prove themselves successful in achieving their stated objectives in order to stay in the books, politicians would need to be much more honest when passing new laws, with the real (not just publicly proclaimed) objectives having to be explicitely stated.

 

[Machjo]

Good luck in your endeavor.

You're right. When we look at the average voter, it makes us wonder about democracy?

 

[earth_as_one]

...BTW, Hamas won an election once.....then it took complete control of Gaza by murdering its political opponents...

Colpy your statement above defies common sense .

Please explain why a democratically elected government would resort to violence to take something it won in the election?

Hamas won the election in a clear majority:

1996 ELECTION 1) Fatah: 55 seats
2) Independent Fatah: 7 seats
3) Independent Islamists: 4
4) Independent Christians: 3
5) Independents: 15 seats
6) Samaritans: 1 seat
7) Others: 1 seat</B>
8): Vacant: 2 seats

2006 ELECTION 1) Hamas - 74 seats
2) Fatah - 45 seats
3) PFLP - 3 seats
4) Badeel - 2 seats
5) Independent Palestine - 2
6) Third Way - 2

Given that after the above election, Fatah ended up in control of the West Bank and Hamas in control of Gaza, Colpy's statement that Hamas seized power by force doesn't make sense.

Normally the loser hands over power to the winner. Hold on...

Who was it again that used force in defiance of the will of the Palestinian people????

If the loser doesn't recognize the election results, doesn't hand over power to the winner and a civil war ensues, who is responsible?

And while we are talking about responsibility for the Palestinian civil war, here are some other related facts:

10/12/06
...Thousands of M-16 assault rifles, made in the U.S., were delivered to Fatah forces in Judea and Samaria as part of the effort to strengthen Abbas in his opposition to Hamas leader and PA Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh.

Fatah is the political party headed by the late terrorist chieftain Yasser Arafat. The Al-Aksa Brigades terror group operates under its authority.

According to PA security sources quoted by the Middle East Newsline (MENL), "The weapons are meant for PA forces but they end up with Fatah in the war against Hamas." The deal, meant to increase Abu Mazen's power in the struggle for control of the PA government, was approved by Israel.

The two factions have been fighting bitter clashes in Gaza, leading to speculation that a civil war may ultimately hit the streets....

US Supplies Fatah With Arms, Rice Decries "Occupation" - Politics & Government - Israel News - Israel National News

Vanity Fair

...With confidential documents, corroborated by outraged former and current U.S. officials, the author reveals how President Bush, Condoleezza Rice, and Deputy National-Security Adviser Elliott Abrams backed an armed force under Fatah strongman Muhammad Dahlan, touching off a bloody civil war in Gaza and leaving Hamas stronger than ever.
by David Rose April 2008

The Gaza Bombshell | vanityfair.com

Sure sounds like the US and Israel are behind Fatah's defiance of the will of the Palestinian people. How is that supporting democracy?

Colpy: I don't need any propaganda to tell me what is obvious...

eao: What you think is "obvious", is really "obvious propaganda".

 

[CDNBear]

As usual, it all comes back to Israel with the fringe people...

I'm not surprised that most of the fringe missed the post on how Galloway tried to ban Le Pen on opinion alone.

At least we banned him for something of substance. I look forword to him suing Canada, as he's insinuated he will.

Should be interesting when a Judge explains the difference between being called a terrorist (as he now claims Canada has done), and being called a supporter of a terrorist group ( which is what was said about him).

Looks like reading comprehension issues run rampant throughout the fringe community.

 

[L Gilbert]

Please don't let this thread wander off to the Israel/Palestine no-man's land.

lol I'd like to see the look on his noggin when the lawyer tells him to forget the suit.

 

[gopher]

''a million Iraqis died because of the embargo''


Galloway did not invent the idea as several researchers agreed with that number:

Iraq sanctions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Therefore he had no role in it as you insist.

 

[gopher]

''The "Canucklehead" government has a law that people that give money to terrorist organizations are not allowed into the country.''

Then why the hell did your goverment allow Bush into your borders, brainwave???

 

[Cannuck]

Then why the hell did your goverment allow Bush into your borders, brainwave???

What organization that the "Canucklehead" government deems a terrorist organization did Bush donate to?