British MP banned from entering Canada

[wulfie68]

There is some logic in your post. However, for justice to be served (in the absense of justice for the Palestinians in Israel), there has to be some consensus from external parties to decide on what would be just. In this case it would be the United Nations. The UN has (IMO rightfully) ruled against Israel in virtually every instance of "ownership" of the land.

Of course the Likudniks would have you believe that the UN discriminates unfairly against Israel. This "spin" is so widespread that many Israeli supporters actually believe it.

Even in Canada, the First Nations have the laws available to them to pursue land claims (and I am aware that the pace of justice here is slow), and Canadians accept the decision of the courts. The fact that it may be many generations later is not relevant when it comes to the law. Palestinians have no such right in Israel and the theoretical right even in the occupied territories has shown to be a sham.

Bottom line....somebody has to administer justice and there is no better tool than the UN at the moment.

The absence of better tools for "ruling" on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict doesn't mean that the UN is impartial or will rule fairly for all involved. Things like the number of member/nation states (the bulk of the Arab nations) opposed or openly hostile to Israel cast doubt as to whether the UN would ever pass anything akin to a "fair" judgement on the matter and who is going to willingly submit to such a judgement if they doubt process in which it is derived? There has to be a dispute mechanism that all parties have faith in, for it to work, and the UN has repeatedly shown itself to be too susceptible to the nationalist (and populist) goals/agendas of its members. For all the good intentions of some members, I wouldn't want/trust the UN administering what it calls "justice" on my country either.

I'm not pro one side or the other in the Palestinian conflict: I see a lot of blame and reasons for distrust on both sides and until someone emerges, be they an individual, organization or nation that both sides are willing to trust, this will continue as it has been.

Back to Galloway, I still fail to see how banning a foreign national from entering the country when he may have violated our laws regarding supporting terrorism is a violation of freedom of speech, especially when there are no restrictions on broadcasting or publishing his views (and whatever else people want to say about the gov't they have been emphatic on that point). Trying to draw comparisons to Jason Kenney or members of the Liberals attending rallies of "questionable" doesn't work for both the reasons of citizenship and the degree of involvement: its not a crime in this country to listen to a "terrorist" organization, or anyone else's views, its just a crime to give them material support.

 

[earth_as_one]

Galloway is no supporter of terrorism. But he did give the democratically elected Palestinian government money intended for humanitarain relief which our government has interpreted as support for terrorism. I'd say his action is debatable, if given a chance tonight, I plan to question Galloway about the money.

 

[earth_as_one]

If the law includes humanitarian relief, then the law is flawed. Its intent was to stop people from arming "terrorist" organizations as defined by the Canadian government. Most governments don't consider the political wing of Hamas a terrorist organization. Canada is one of the few exceptions.

 

[CDNBear]

Thx for the link TenPenny and Colpy

So some Liberals pulled a Jason Kenney and went to a gathering that was primarily for supporters of a terrorist organization. They are no more "supporting" terrorism than was Jason Kenney.

Glad you were able to recognize that.

As far as being barred, Canadian citizenship doesn't matter either. We have shown we will even bar Canadians when no actual charges have been laid. We also appear have a problem with the idea of bringing home Canadians to face a judicial decision more in the fairness of our court systems when a Canadian is receiving punishment that is not in line with our views of human rights, OR not even being given a fair trial at all.

If you go to a foreign country and break their laws, pay the price.

That's why when I was in other countries, 1, I made sure to be aware of any cultural or legal issues that I may not necessarily be aware of otherwise. 2, I did my very best to keep my nose clean.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse in Canada, so is it in other Nations. As it should be.

and attempts by the Harper government to muzzle criticism o Israel's war crimes and crimes againt humanity.

So you still think this is about free speech eh...have fun listening to him tonight through that censored vid...:roll:

If the law includes humanitarian relief, then the law is flawed. Its intent was to stop people from arming "terrorist" organizations as defined by the Canadian government. Most governments don't consider the political wing of Hamas a terrorist organization. Canada is one of the few exceptions.

What did the leader of Hamas do with the funds eao?

 

[Cannuck]

If the law includes humanitarian relief, then the law is flawed.

If a chicken was a cow it would moo!

 

[Ron in Regina]

Now Galloway, from New York where he broacast himself to the
chuch basement (or where ever he was watched in Canada), is now
calling out Jason Kenney through the media to, "Come out and debate
Me like a Man!!!" Huh??? 8O About what???

Don't they still have media back in Britian for this guy to pander to, or is it
just that Britian and their media are tired of hearing about this guy too???

 

[CDNBear]

Now Galloway, from New York where he broacast himself to the
chuch basement (or where ever he was watched in Canada), is now
calling out Jason Kenney through the media to, "Come out and debate
Me like a Man!!!" Huh??? 8O About what???

Don't they still have media back in Britian for this guy to pander to, or is it
just that Britian and their media are tired of hearing about this guy too???

Bingo!!!

And the fringe are so clueless, they pimp themselves to this guy willingly and with great zeel.

 

[Ron in Regina]

If a chicken was a cow it would moo!

If my Aunt had ****'s, she'd be my Uncle.

 

[OkiefromMuskoki]

wulfie98

I'm not saying the UN is the "perfect" arbitrator in this case. Only that it is the only arbitrator that has "some semblance" of neutrality and the power to enforce it's resolutions (if backed by the Security Council). The issue of lack of neutrality is more perception than reality due to the power and influence of AIPAC in the US particularly.

We have no idea what Hamas did with the cash handed to the Hamas official. It theoretically could have been used to buy some AK47s for the Palestinians to fight off the Merkevas, the Caterpiller D9s and the F16s. Therefore, once the issue arose, the government had no choice but to deny Galloway entry based on this.

 

[Colpy]

wulfie98

I'm not saying the UN is the "perfect" arbitrator in this case. Only that it is the only arbitrator that has "some semblance" of neutrality and the power to enforce it's resolutions (if backed by the Security Council). The issue of lack of neutrality is more perception than reality due to the power and influence of AIPAC in the US particularly.

We have no idea what Hamas did with the cash handed to the Hamas official. It theoretically could have been used to buy some AK47s for the Palestinians to fight off the Merkevas, the Caterpiller D9s and the F16s. Therefore, once the issue arose, the government had no choice but to deny Galloway entry based on this.

If you think the UN is "neutral" on the ME, you probably believe in the tooth fairy as well. Did I say that before? Old Timer's disease.

Anyway, take a close look at the Durban, SA conference on racism in 2001 (or was it 2002?) It closely resembled at Nuremberg Rally, complete with Jew posters, hook-noses, long fingers dripping blood....yeah right.

Did anybody notive the UN Human Rights body adopted a resolution against "Defamation of Religion"? Only one religion was mentioned, of course. Wanna guess which one?

While the UN ignores Zimbabwe, pays lip service to the Sudan, etc etc etc.......it issues resolution after resolution condemning Israel.'

After Srebrinica, anyone that thinks the UN General Assembly is good for anything other than a debating society just isn't paying attention.

 

[CDNBear]

wulfie98

I'm not saying the UN is the "perfect" arbitrator in this case. Only that it is the only arbitrator that has "some semblance" of neutrality and the power to enforce it's resolutions (if backed by the Security Council). The issue of lack of neutrality is more perception than reality due to the power and influence of AIPAC in the US particularly.

8O Are you kidding?

Have you read the provisions of the UN's document on religion? It specifically mentions Islam for protection and ignores the rest of the religions of the world.

How about the countries with the worst records on human rights being on the human rights council?

You really should brush up on things you wish to talk about, before you open your mouth.

 

[OkiefromMuskoki]

Colpy

To quote Wikkipedia

Final text and subsequent reaction

In the end, the Conference delegates voted to reject the language that implicitly accused Israel of racism, and the document actually published contained no such language.[10]
Several countries were unhappy with the final text's approach to the subject, but all for different reasons. Syria and Iran were unhappy because their demands for the language about racism and Israel had been rejected by the Conference, the latter continuing its insistence that Israel was a racist state. Australia was unhappy with the process, observing that "far too much of the time at the conference [had been] consumed by bitter divisive exchanges on issues which have done nothing to advance the cause of combating racism". Canada was also unhappy.[10]
The language of the final text was carefully drafted for balance. The word "diaspora" is used four times, and solely to refer to the African Diaspora. The document is at pains to main a cohesive identity for everyone of African heritage as a victim of slavery, even including those who may have more European than African ancestors. The "victim" or "victims" of racism and slavery (the two words occurring 90 times in the document) are defined in only the most general geographic terms. The word "Jewish" is only used once, alongside "Muslim" and "Arab", and "anti-Semitism" is only used twice, once alongside its assumed counterpart of "Islamophobia" and once alongside "anti-Arabism". The difficulty that this generates is that it is politically impossible to act when the 219 calls for action in the Programme are couched in such
generalities that only the "countless human beings" that the document explicitly talks of can be identified.[11]

Yes, there was Anti Semitism expressed at the conference but the end result was about as unbiased and balanced as it could be. Also useless, but that is another issue. This conference is certainly not evidence of UN bias as an institution, individual members bias yes, but that is to be expected. Perhaps Israel keeps cropping up in resolutions is because it is the UN member refusing to act on all previous resolutions looking for a solution to what is probably the longest running and most dangerous conflict in the world?

 

[OkiefromMuskoki]

Re the Defamation of Religion. I found this link COMBATING DEFAMATION OF RELIGIONS : REVISED DRAFT RESOLUTION fairly quickly and reading it, I see Muslim mentioned once, the context being the aftermath of 911. Looks to me like it also would apply to Anti Semitism.

Personally, I am not comfortable with anybody telling me what I can or can't read but my beliefs are not the issue here.

 

[Zzarchov]

Zzarchov

The other is saying our ancestors had it then your ancestors took it from us. Either taking land from someone because of their ancestors actions is wrong or it isn't. Either way Palestinians are hosed by simple logic. Ya, the 19th century was a bad time for colonists taking land, deal with it like everyone else, because thats when the majority of the "Land theft" occurred. The talk of 1948 as some kind of magic date is absurd, thats the date when it came to a head. It like pretending all the colonization of Canada happened in 1867 and in 1866 it was still entirely occupied by first nations.

There is some logic in your post. However, for justice to be served (in the absense of justice for the Palestinians in Israel), there has to be some consensus from external parties to decide on what would be just. In this case it would be the United Nations. The UN has (IMO rightfully) ruled against Israel in virtually every instance of "ownership" of the land.

Of course the Likudniks would have you believe that the UN discriminates unfairly against Israel. This "spin" is so widespread that many Israeli supporters actually believe it.

Even in Canada, the First Nations have the laws available to them to pursue land claims (and I am aware that the pace of justice here is slow), and Canadians accept the decision of the courts. The fact that it may be many generations later is not relevant when it comes to the law. Palestinians have no such right in Israel and the theoretical right even in the occupied territories has shown to be a sham.

Bottom line....somebody has to administer justice and there is no better tool than the UN at the moment.

The "Land Claims" refer to specific treaties we signed. Notice that the courts don't actually even pretend that they are going to give back natives anything more than a tiny fraction of a percent of their land.

The pace is "slow" isn't really cutting it, and if natives show even passive force we respond overwhelmingly with active force.

This is not unique to us, this is the entire world, including the Arab world.

There is no notion of removing Arab colonists from Egypt, hell the Sudan is still conducting Genocide to remove all the indiginous Blacks from Africa in the name of Arab colonization. The charges placed against him are one of a rare few against the Arab world.


The UN is not impartial, it was never designed nor empowered to act as any kind of "World Government".

There is no true power of a sovereign nation, that is the very defition of the word sovereign.


Nobody has any magic right to their ancestors land. If the Arab Palestinians have a right to claim it from the Jewish Palestinians/Israelis, then the Jewish Palestinians had every right to take it back from the Arabs, and if you can round up some Romans, or Macedonians or Hittites, make sure they move in.

 

[Colpy]

The "Land Claims" refer to specific treaties we signed. Notice that the courts don't actually even pretend that they are going to give back natives anything more than a tiny fraction of a percent of their land.

The pace is "slow" isn't really cutting it, and if natives show even passive force we respond overwhelmingly with active force.

This is not unique to us, this is the entire world, including the Arab world.

There is no notion of removing Arab colonists from Egypt, hell the Sudan is still conducting Genocide to remove all the indiginous Blacks from Africa in the name of Arab colonization. The charges placed against him are one of a rare few against the Arab world.


The UN is not impartial, it was never designed nor empowered to act as any kind of "World Government".

There is no true power of a sovereign nation, that is the very defition of the word sovereign.


Nobody has any magic right to their ancestors land. If the Arab Palestinians have a right to claim it from the Jewish Palestinians/Israelis, then the Jewish Palestinians had every right to take it back from the Arabs, and if you can round up some Romans, or Macedonians or Hittites, make sure they move in.

As Mark Twain noted well over 100 years ago, nobody on this earth lives on land that was not stolen time after time after time after time down through history.

Possession, as goes the old saw, is nine tenths of the law.

 

[lone wolf]

Land claims also assume rights to land which Great White Mother assigned in other treaties. As long as there are a three-way overlaps in territorial claim, there will never be a settlement. Personally, I believe Treaty terms should only be valid for four successive generations. In that time, even Europeans should have learned the ways of the land....

 

[Cannuck]

I disagree with honoring any treaty made with any nation that is race based.

 

[Colpy]

Re the Defamation of Religion. I found this link COMBATING DEFAMATION OF RELIGIONS : REVISED DRAFT RESOLUTION fairly quickly and reading it, I see Muslim mentioned once, the context being the aftermath of 911. Looks to me like it also would apply to Anti Semitism.

Personally, I am not comfortable with anybody telling me what I can or can't read but my beliefs are not the issue here.

You are wrong there......your beliefs (and mine) are the entire issue.

I don't like seeing Christianity defamed.

But I'd never try to ban such speech or action.

Islam would ban all criticism of Islam.

 

[JBeee]

This country makes me sick....almost as much as the United States does, but getting there.

 

[Colpy]

This country makes me sick....almost as much as the United States does, but getting there.

So, where would you rather live than North America?

Maybe we could take up a collection, buy you a plane ticket.

:angry3: