British MP banned from entering Canada

[CDNBear]

Sarcasm mustn't be something you allow others to express. Nice! :roll:

So you don't really think of Conservatives as Jackbooted?

You said it twice, and had all the context of being serious around it.

 

[Spade]

So you don't really think of Conservatives as Jackbooted?

You said it twice, and had all the context of being serious around it.

Certainly not all are. Those who do not uphold free speech, well... Where are you on free expression?

 

[YukonJack]

Re #28 and #29, both from OkieFromMuskoki.

If you refer to former President George W. Bush as "SHRUB", surely you should not object if one referred to the current President as Dumbo. Reasons (on both sides of his head and the empty space in between) should be obvious.

Maybe you did not excercise your constitutional right to vote, or you are just being obtuse, but SURPRISE!! Stephen Harper was duly elected to be Prime Minister of Canada.

 

[OkiefromMuskoki]

Re #28 and #29, both from OkieFromMuskoki.

If you refer to former President George W. Bush as "SHRUB", surely you should not object if one referred to the current President as Dumbo. Reasons (on both sides of his head and the empty space in between) should be obvious.

Of course I have no objection. Feel free:lol:

I voted but unless you missed it, a majority of Canadians did not vote for the Reformatories:lol: Matter of fact, a majority decided they didn't want the neocon policies of Harper.

 

[CDNBear]

Those who do not uphold free speech, well... Where are you on free expression?

Free Speech for all, not just the left. Up to but not including yelling fire in a crowded theater. But not allowing this asshat into Canada, has nothing to do with free speech. It has everything to do with the rule of law. It applies to all without prejudice. If he supported in any way a terrorist organization, directly or indirectly. He is not, nor should he be, eligible to enter Canada...period. I would support that law for anyone, on any organization that uses violence as a method of coercion. Including several Native leaders in the States, that are barred from entering Canada.

It has nothing to do with suppressing free speech. It has littel to do with the Conservatives. Beyond they be the shop keepers at the moment. It was a Liberal policy, inacted by the LPoC.

Certainly not all are.

And none are. When you realise that, you'll be able to keep your cheese on your cracker. Study history, read up on what a Brown shirt is and what a Jackbooted thug really is.

 

[Spade]

Free Speech for all, not just the left. Up to but not including yelling fire in a crowded theater. But not allowing this asshat into Canada, has nothing to do with free speech. It has everything to do with the rule of law. It applies to all without prejudice. If he supported in any way a terrorist organization, directly or indirectly. He is not, nor should he be, eligible to enter Canada...period. I would support that law for anyone, on any organization that uses violence as a method of coercion. Including several Native leaders in the States, that are barred from entering Canada.

It has nothing to do with suppressing free speech. It has littel to do with the Conservatives. Beyond they be the shop keepers at the moment. It was a Liberal policy, inacted by the LPoC.
And none are. When you realise that, you'll be able to keep your cheese on your cracker. Study history, read up on what a Brown shirt is and what a Jackbooted thug really is.

earth_as_one opened a thread and you and your merry bully band proceeded to pile on mocking him without a shred of common decency, and you rile over a little push back? Well, if you really were honest in your support of free speech, you would have argued as passionately as you wished but from reason rather than derision. Further, I need no history, polemics, or reminders from you on bully tactics of the far right!

 

[tracy]

The man is a bit of a nut to be sure. I don't think he's dangerous to Canada, but immigration rules can be applied to him same as anybody else. I think this is a bit of manufactured outrage though, which fits with his past behavior. In the end, it's no harm no foul. If they want to hear him speak it's easy enough to accomplish thanks to our amazing technological abilities.

 

[gopher]

''This man has financially supports a terrorist organizations.''


If that is so, then Canada should have excluded Senator McCain as he has openly supported the self-admitted terrorist Contra group.

 

[CDNBear]

earth_as_one opened a thread and you and your merry bully band proceeded to pile on mocking him without a shred of common decency, and you rile over a little push back? Well, if you really were honest in your support of free speech, you would have argued as passionately as you wished but from reason rather than derision. Further, I need no history, polemics, or reminders from you on bully tactics of the far right!

Far right? Me? I've been called a commie, a Liberal pansy...and a Neo Con by your ilk...go figure. I guess it might have something to do with the fact that I'm not party affiliated and I hold no political stripe. I just go with my own flow...but hey, don't let that and critical thought get in the way of labeling me...



And you do need history lessons hunny...:roll:...if you didn't, you wouldn't merrily throw around the asinine terms you do.

 

[Cannuck]

Cannuck

From the Canadian Government site The Anti-terrorism Act - Frequently Asked Questions

"
7. What are some of the safeguards built into the Anti-terrorism Act?

The ATA, like all Canadian laws, was crafted with due regard to the rule of law and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The ATA includes a number of safeguards that balance the need to protect individuals from the threat of terrorist acts while ensuring their rights and freedoms are respected. Some of the safeguards in the ATA include:

• the definition of "terrorist activity" requires that intent and purpose elements be satisfied. The definition expressly excludes "advocacy, protest, dissent or stoppage of work" (where these are not intended to result in serious forms of specified harm);
• judicial review, appeals, and judicial oversight mechanisms are incorporated into provisions like the listing process and seizure, restraint and forfeiture of property;
• section 145 of the ATA required a committee or committees of Parliament to conduct a "comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of the Act," within three years from the date that the Act received Royal Assent, which was December 18, 2001. This review has now been completed. (See FAQs 12 to 19 below.)"

My bold
In addition, supplying food and medicine to starving Gazans does not qualify except in the minds of the Likudniks and their supporters.

This asswipe has financially supported Hamas which is a terrorist organization. That makes him a terrorist.

 

[gopher]

''Hamas which is a terrorist organization.''


Hamas was democratically elected.

Reich wing hero Bush started a war on Iraq first to stop non existent WMD and secondly to promote democracy. Since he has gotten so much support from the far right and we are spending nearly a trillion to uphold his mandate, this validates Hamas.

 

[gopher]

George Galloway's designation of Senator Norm Coleman as ''lick spittle'' got quite a lot of air time here in Gopherland. The funny thing was Coleman never heard of the term before that!

 

[CDNBear]

''This man has financially supports a terrorist organizations.''


If that is so, then Canada should have excluded Senator McCain as he has openly supported the self-admitted terrorist Contra group.

Are the Contra's on Canada's terrorist organization list?

''Hamas which is a terrorist organization.''


Hamas was democratically elected.

Reich wing hero Bush started a war on Iraq first to stop non existent WMD and secondly to promote democracy. Since he has gotten so much support from the far right and we are spending nearly a trillion to uphold his mandate, this validates Hamas.

What did Mom say about two wrongs...


And Spade...I think you left something behind too. Need a hug?

 

[gopher]

As supporters of democracy, we are all obligated to accept Palestinians' will. They wanted Hamas, they got it. That's their right.

 

[Francis2004]

My question to my fellow Canadians is as follows.

The Canadian Red Cross has been supporting and assisting the Gaza Crisis. Since much of the money recently has come from the CANADIAN Government does that not make them as guilty or as Liable via third party as much of this money is going to Palestinians ?

Gaza Crisis

The hostilities in Gaza have had a tragic impact upon its population. It is estimated that more than 1,300 Palestinians have been killed, some 5,500 injured and 20,000 houses destroyed or damaged. There is now an urgent need for medical supplies and equipment, emergency shelter and household items to alleviate the suffering in what the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has described as a ‘full blown humanitarian crisis’.

The ICRC reminds the parties to the hostilities that international humanitarian law requires that a clear distinction be drawn between military objectives and the civilian population and civilian objects. In particular, the ICRC underlines the obligation of the parties to take all feasible precautions to spare the civilian population the effects of hostilities. Medical facilities and personnel must also be protected.

Red Cross response

The International Red Cross Red Crescent Movement (ICRC) is at the forefront of the humanitarian response, able to act because it is understood to be a strictly politically neutral, impartial and independent intermediary that seeks to meet unmet humanitarian need.

The ICRC and Palestinian Red Crescent Society (PRCS) continue to provide emergency care in the Gaza Strip to patients that require post-operative care including amputee orthodics and psychosocial support. They are also providing relief items such as temporary shelter to those whose homes have been destroyed.


The Magen David Adom (National Society of Israel) is continuing to provide medical services in southern Israel to people affected by the rockets launched from Gaza.


In support of the Red Cross Movement response, the Government of Canada has provided $1 million to the ICRC and the Canadian Red Cross has provided $75,000 from its International Disaster Response Fund to the PRCS. Contributions are supporting the Red Cross Movement entities which are active and where the needs are greatest.

Gaza Crisis- Canadian Red Cross

Canadian Red Cross supports humanitarian work in the Middle East

(Ottawa, April 4, 2002) - In response to the recent escalation of violence in Israel and the Palestinian Territories, the Canadian Red Cross has contributed $50,000 to support the humanitarian programs of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) in the region.

​

"The Canadian Red Cross is extremely concerned about events in the Middle East," said Theressa Bagnall, Program Manager, Middle East. "In recent weeks, increased violence has severely restricted the ICRC from carrying out their humanitarian programs, including several instances in which medical personnel were prevented from performing their life saving duties." The Red Cross also deeply regrets all forms of attack on innocent civilians. These instances represent violations of international humanitarian law. "The Canadian Red Cross joins the ICRC in appealing to all those employing armed force to respect international humanitarian law and in particular the Fourth Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilians in Time of War."​

Despite huge difficulties, the ICRC has nevertheless been able to provide basic medicines and food to orphanages, hospitals and individual homes. The ICRC is also helping to restore damaged water and electrical infrastructure.​

The ICRC has had a permanent presence in Israel and the Palestinian Territories since 1967. Since the beginning of 2001, some 21,000 families in the West Bank and Gaza Strip have received ICRC assistance. The ICRC supports the Palestinian Red Crescent Society (PRCS) medical services with its 220 emergency medical technicians and 100 ambulances. ICRC also cooperates with the Magen David Adom (MDA) in the field of emergency medical services, disaster preparedness, tracing and International Humanitarian Law (IHL). The Magen David Adom is the equivalent of a Red Cross/Red Crescent Society in Israel.​

Canadian Red Cross supports humanitarian work in the Middle East - Canadian Red Cross

While one can crafty say the Red Cross cannot be counted as a support organization for any terrorists I question in the following aspect.

Indirectly it can be used as a peon by any Government / Organization.
​

 

[earth_as_one]

SF2004: If you hold the Red Cross to the same standard as Gallaway, they are supporting terrorism. By the same logic as applied to Galloway, the Red Cross should not be allowed to operate in Canada.

 

[Francis2004]

SF2004: If you hold the Red Cross to the same standard as Gallaway, they are supporting terrorism. By the same logic as applied to Galloway, the Red Cross should not be allowed to operate in Canada.

My point is made that we hold a double standard held by the Government.

 

[Francis2004]

SF2004: If you hold the Red Cross to the same standard as Gallaway, they are supporting terrorism. By the same logic as applied to Galloway, the Red Cross should not be allowed to operate in Canada.

Now that said I don't believe the Red Cross should be in the business of supporting terrorism but should continue to do humanitarian work.

 

[Colpy]

As supporters of democracy, we are all obligated to accept Palestinians' will. They wanted Hamas, they got it. That's their right.

As supporters of democracy, we are all obliged to accept the Israelis will. They wanted a government that hates Hamas, they got it. It is their right.

Gimme a phuckin break.

yep. There was an election in the PA.............Hamas got elected. That will be the LAST real election. Guess what.

That is NOT democracy.

 

[Colpy]

SF2004: If you hold the Red Cross to the same standard as Gallaway, they are supporting terrorism. By the same logic as applied to Galloway, the Red Cross should not be allowed to operate in Canada.

That is idiotic.

When did the Red Cross begin promoting Canada turning tail on its allies and leave Afghanistan?

And, if we wanted to kick out non-Canadian members of the Red Cross.....we have every right to do so.

we have NO right to stop Canadian Red Cross people from running that organization in Canada.....

The entire analogy is just ridiculous.