Standing up for Canadian values

'engaging in an act of espionage or an act of subversion against a democratic government, institution or process as they are understood in Canada;'
This is a really startling statement. We are told we live in a democracy because we have a free vote. Palestinians voted overwhelmingly for the Hamas leaders in the most monitored election ever, and they are still not considered a democracy?(and the US alone donated millions of dollars to try to get Fatah elected)
If I remember correctly Kenney gave speeches about why Galloway would not be allowed into Canada. He was supported in his decision by B'Nai B'rith. We know who calls the shots for our governments of all stripes and it is not the Canadian people.
There is a huge outcry about Coulter not being allowed to speak at the UofO but our government decides who the country can listen to and we are supposed to roll over an play dead. And this was a matter of 'security'??? Reminds me of the argument for the redacted info given re the torture issue in Afghanistan.
Keep fighting Mr. Galloway. Canada needs you!

"We know who calls the shots for our governments of all stripes and it is not the Canadian people."

Who controls the government(s)?

We had heard before of that interesting "tip" to Kenney/Velshi from the anonymous "journalist," and I'd bet money, given his involvement in the story as it developed, that the "journalist" in question is Meir Weinstein of the notorious JDL (Jewish Defence League), whose activities have been described by the FBI in congressional testimony as "terrorist."

I'd bet more money, given Weinstein's involvement in the story particularly on British TV, that he could well have been the leaker, although Velshi crossed a few lines himself in that Sun interview.

The JDL has been designated a terrorist group and yet our government still obeys?
http://www.rabble.ca/babble/rabble-news-features/jdl-canada-toronto-star-leading-jewish-advocacy

Well if it turns out that the JDL set government policy, I'll agree with you. George's comment sounded more like a conspiracy theory to me.

To be precise, JDL Canada has never been officially designated as a terrorist group. And I don't believe the American version has that official designation either but the FBI has described them as such. As for government policy, I don't believe that the JDL or any similar advocacy group sets it, but they, or B'nai Brith, or NGO Monitor, or someone like that, certainly seems to have a lot of influence these days.

I think this government has its own clear and fixed agenda and picks the views lobbed its way that it already agrees with. The waxing and waning of a particular NGO's efforts may be more about who is in power than whether that group argues better than other groups.

And FWIW I think there is a massive distinction between the JDL and Hamas and Hamas has unambigously earned its label with multitudes of mass murders of non-combatants (typically accompanied by savage celebrations with masked gunmen handing out "sweets" to childrem).

I was careful how I put that description of the JDL's status: neither Canada nor the U.S. have designated the JDL a terrorist entity, but the FBI have said repeatedly, both before and after 9/11 in congressional testimony, that they "engage in terrorist activity."

I'm sure there is a massive distinction between the JDL in Canada and Hamas. The JDL in Canada are a small group of thugs. Hamas are the democratically elected government of the Palestinian people.

skdadl,

Hamas indeed is democratically elected. But I don't understand how Hamas' election cleanses it of its terrorist actions. If Hamas remains a terrorist organization and if Galloway crossed some line set by our democratically elected governement, then in principle I don't see why he is absolved of responsibility. If we had had laws in the 30's restricting ties with the Nazis (if only that were true), that's like saying that Hitler's Nazis were democratically elected such that someone who breached our should have been off the hook. That argument doesn't work for me.

To the broader point, all that the election of Hamas says to me is that the Palestinian people aren't terribly troubled by what Hamas has done. There's the difference-the JDL is marginal among its broad constituency but Hamas is maintstream among its people.

That's all you really need to know in order to understand the Arab-Israeli dispute.

To the broader point, all that the election of Hamas says to me is that the Palestinian people aren't terribly troubled by what Hamas has done.

Now there's an unfortunate generalization. Their alternative was Fatah, which had failed consistently to make any progress in ending occupation and which everyone (including you, I'll bet) had previously claimed was corrupt to its core. Hamas, meanwhile, had established a reputation for actually providing services to the residents of the territories and for being willing to stand up for them.

That's all you really need to know in order to understand the Arab-Israeli dispute.

What a complete load of racist crap. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Racist? I'm saying that if Hamas was democratically elected (as it was) then the people who elected them aren't likely to be all that interested in a two state solution. Hamas is a terrorist organization for good reason and, speaking of racism, its Charter cites with approval the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Now THAT's racist. But you've turned it around so it is racist to notice the anti-Semitic words and unapologetic terrorist deeds of Hamas.

Here we go 'round the mulberry bush, the mulberry bush, the mulberry bush ...

Doesn't matter how many concessions Hamas make in negotiations, how openly they have revised their charter. Doesn't matter how vastly disproportional the slaughter has been, the sadistic herding and entrapment of the Palestinian people by Israeli governments.

The apologists always return to their sadistic taunting: the Palestinians, who have been traumatized and displaced and raped and ground into their own raped land aren't like us sophisticated spoiled Westerners, which is why we should ally ourselves with the sophisticated spoiled Israelis. Fork that.

I'm saying that if Hamas was democratically elected (as it was) then the people who elected them aren't likely to be all that interested in a two state solution.

No, that's not what you said. Go back and read your own comment.

... the election of Hamas says to me is that the Palestinian people aren't terribly troubled by what Hamas has done.

You've already gone on at length about Hamas being responsible for terrorism so the obvious implication is that the Palestinian people support terrorism. But the JDL is marginal (among a population who aren't subject to a brutal occupation) so...

There's the difference...

That's all you really need to know in order to understand the Arab-Israeli dispute.

All you really need to know to understand the dispute is that Palestinians support terrorists but Jews don't. That's the obvious implication of your comment. And I'll say it again: what a load of racist crap.

skdadl,

OK-have they revised their Charter to remove those references? I wasn't aware of that so would be interested in any references and links.

Also, I'm not aware of Hamas ever having accepted the two state solution. So same request there.

I think Hamas is responsible for its actions and has free will---same thing for Israel's elected government even though there are those who would say Israel's misdeeds have a root cause in Palestinian misdeeds (of which there are many but which the far left chooses to filter out as inconsitent with its narrative, Bush like in its simplicity, that Israel is Bad and Palestine is Good).

The issue here is whether the government was right to restrict entry to Galloway. I haven't begun to absorb all the rabble.ca material yet but start from the principle that Hamas is a terrorist group under our law and that Galloway is alleged to have breached our law in his contact with Hamas.

It's hard to tell whether the counter argument is that he didn't breach the law or that the law is a bad law and should be reacted to with civil disobedience.

pogge,

I stand by what I said. As problematic as the settlement policy may be, the core issue remains whether there is acceptance of Israel for its stated purpose, recognized under international law, by Israel's neighbours. Hamas, as the democratically elected representative of the Palestinian people, does not recognize the two state solution or even the existence of a Jewish people. It also has a record of unapologetic anti-Semitism. Yet the (far) left, which criticizes apologists for Israel for their apologism (if that's a word), acts as apologists for an organization so inconsistent with liberalisnm that this phenomenon is indefensible and astounding.

Hamas espouses intolerance and anti-Semitism and has a record of deeds to back up its words. To notice this-and to note that it is noteworthy that a people voted for them in spite of this record-is not racism. What is racist is to turn a blind eye to and overlook the racism of Hamas and to infantalize the people that elected them.

I choose to view "rejectionism" as the core issue and don't think that choice is racist.

I stand by what I said.

And what you've said completely ignores the role in the dispute played by a four decade long occupation, the ongoing theft of land and the collective punishment as demonstrated by the siege of Gaza. You're simply dismissing all of the actions of Israel that might fuel the Palestinian acceptance of an organization that resorts to violence.

And you continue the tradition of the Israeli government by insisting that the other side make its concessions first before Israel will even come to the table. Thus, Hamas must recognize Israel in whatever form Israel chooses -- which will of course include all of Jerusalem and large portions of the West Bank -- before Israel will even consider recognizing the Palestinian right to a state. (See recent statements by Avigdor Lieberman which amounted to a threat to steal even more land and to show even less restraint should the Palestinians contemplate any kind of unilateral declaration of statehood.)

By all means stand by what you've said. It demonstrates that your original claim about being interested in open debate when you first wandered into my comment threads was just so much crap.

Marky, you choose to labour under the "white man's burden" is what you choose.

No sane and decent person would demand that people who are imprisoned and are being robbed, starved, and slaughtered year after year, decade after decade, should become "consistent" with her own politics before she spoke out against the occupation, the theft, the oppression, the murders.

You have to be an imperialist curling his lip at the barbarians before you feel justified in treating them as Israeli governments have treated the Palestinians.

And what skdadl said.

The issue here is whether the government was right to restrict entry to Galloway.

If you're actually trying to return to the original post, the issue is whether a cabinet minister lied.

And what you've said completely ignores the role in the dispute played by a four decade long occupation, the ongoing theft of land and the collective punishment as demonstrated by the siege of Gaza. You're simply dismissing all of the actions of Israel that might fuel the Palestinian acceptance of an organization that resorts to violence.

I agree with that completely. Both sides have played a role in where we are. But I think the majority of Israelies believe in "land for peace" and I'm skeptical that the same is true of the majority of Palestinians. And that belief isn't racist.

And you continue the tradition of the Israeli government by insisting that the other side make its concessions first before Israel will even come to the table. Thus, Hamas must recognize Israel in whatever form Israel chooses -- which will of course include all of Jerusalem and large portions of the West Bank -- before Israel will even consider recognizing the Palestinian right to a state. (See recent statements by Avigdor Lieberman which amounted to a threat to steal even more land and to show even less restraint should the Palestinians contemplate any kind of unilateral declaration of statehood.)

Ditto to a certain extent, and I abhor Avigdor Lieberman. I think Israel should have talks without pre-conditions, but again am skeptical of success given everything Hamas has ever said and done including their anti-Semitic charter. Did you read it? It's way worse than I thought. How can you tune it out as basically irrelevant yet refer to Avigdor Lieberman's position as somehow being dispositive? And since you didn't respond with any links supporting the statement that they have amended their charter I assume you concede that that hasn't happened?

Look, I take a J Street or even Peace Now type postition but I do defend Israel's basic right to exist as an independent state serving its stated function as the homeland of the Jewish People, consistent with notions of liberalism and self-determination. I don't think that being "pro-Israel" should be tantamount to being "pro-choice" at a Republican convention but that's how it feels.

We should be able to debate these issues yet you both seem quite hostile to the opposing view that I'm presenting to the point that you're calling me a racist, which pretty much ends the discussion in the same way that false accusations of anti-Semitism end the discussion.

I think the majority of Israelies believe in "land for peace"

Then why are they continuing to steal land, demolish houses and cut Palestinians off from their fields and orchards? (Or could it be that a government is doing something that doesn't have the support of a majority of its citizens? That idea seemed foreign to you upthread.)

I'm skeptical that the same is true of the majority of Palestinians.

The Palestinians are the ones on the receiving end of all that harsh treatment I keep listing. Your attempt to read something into their character based on the fact that some have embraced violent resistance against an occupier that has been brutalizing them for forty years and clearly has massive military superiority remains ... unfortunate.

You lament the crimes of Israel when there's no price attached to the admission. But when push comes to shove, you dismiss those crimes and put all the onus right back on everyone else to solve the problem. At the moment, Israel is clearly the aggressor.

As for this:
... since you didn't respond with any links supporting the statement that they have amended their charter I assume you concede that that hasn't happened?

What you can assume is that I have no intention of falling for your distractions. In this discussion, that's a distraction.

Then why are they continuing to steal land, demolish houses and cut Palestinians off from their fields and orchards? (Or could it be that a government is doing something that doesn't have the support of a majority of its citizens? That idea seemed foreign to you upthread.)

I don't support those policies. And touche re: where you went with it. I tend to think the majority of Israelis have given up in the possibility of a peace deal because in their view they've offered concessions and completed withdrawals but without peace breaking out. And since their economy continues to grow at an astounding rate, they're insulated from the harsh effects of there being such instability. Unlike many, I actually think Obama should effectively impose a (fair) deal on them and of course that applies both ways.

The Palestinians are the ones on the receiving end of all that harsh treatment I keep listing. Your attempt to read something into their character based on the fact that some have embraced violent resistance against an occupier that has been brutalizing them for forty years and clearly has massive military superiority remains ... unfortunate.

You lament the crimes of Israel when there's no price attached to the admission. But when push comes to shove, you dismiss those crimes and put all the onus right back on everyone else to solve the problem. At the moment, Israel is clearly the aggressor.

For me the basic issue is whether the neighbouring states accept an Israel or not. Most don't, and this question is far from settled. My belief is that if and when most Israelis feel secure that they are secure, then they will do their part, even if the right wing objects. I know for you that the Hamas Charter is a distraction, but for most Israelis it is pretty fundamental. You may say that Israel has military superiority, and that may be true today, but you're dealing with a very small area and also with a people with a long history of vulnerability and persecution. That being the case, there is a not surprising focus on or, if you prefer, obsession with security. If Obama wants to move them from that position he'll need to exercise some compassion together with any strong-arm tactics.

I'm not sure why this argument is reduced to a people's character or racism. I'm simply commenting on the undeniable position of Hamas, which as everyone points out is not a fringe group in its society. Do you think Trudeau would have negotiated with the FLQ even if they'd gone political and won an election?

The Palestinians are standing alone in trying to keep their ancestral land that is being stolen from them on a daily basis. What most Canadians don't understand about the situation is that we do not have the courage to do the same thing. We daily lose our rights and freedoms and do nothing. We have no concept how the Palestinians live without food and water, land etc. Their crops are destroyed, their animals killed, They live inside a wall(that was a bad thing in Berlin but OK in Palestine?) and have no access to medical care. They have the little bit of land they have left being taken from them. The statement by Golda Meir was that 'the Jews took a land that had no people' or words to that affect.
Israel has ignored almost 100 UN sanctions and no one does a thing. Israel has nuclear weapons and has not signed the nuclear proliferation agreement. The Israeli who blew the whistle on Israeli nukes is still in jail. Israel refuses investigators--Hussein allowed them and still was murdered and his country decimated.
We are killing and being killed in Afghanistan to save the women and bring them democracy and yet we 'stand with israel' in the face of these horrible crimes? Kenney, Harper, Ignatieff et al spent two weeks in Parliament boasting about which party supports israel the most. Not one word about Palestine.
We are complicit in these crimes against Palestinians. Our government has been bought and paid for and we are held hostage by their decisions. Will any one stand for truth and justice?

For me the basic issue is whether the neighbouring states accept an Israel or not.

You're going to sense more hostility in my response: bully for you. For many people in Gaza and the West Bank the basic issue is survival. That's a bit more fundamental and it ain't up to you.

And once again, the issue that began this thread is, for those of us who live here in Canada, what to do with a cabinet minister who continues to lie to us.

This has all been a most interesting derailing. For the record, if the US or, I dunno, China, ever invades Canada, takes my house, forces me to live in humiliation as not a second-class but a serf-class being, and kills say my daughter and a couple of assorted uncles, aunts or grandparents, I will if given the chance democratically support a political group whose stated aims involve killing as many of the bastards what done it as possible. This includes bastards what voted for the bastards what done it.
Some time after the bastards have been driven away I might, possibly, eventually cool down enough not to want to go over to where they came from and give them some of what they gave us. Maybe. The average Palestinian is basically much more forgiving than I am, frankly, and I would suggest that most Canadians are pretty much the same, quite likely including Marky Mark. Sanctimoniously talking about how they ought to be turning the other cheek when we're off in Afghanistan slaughtering people who didn't even do anything to us in the first place is a bit rich. I guess the rule is, white people decide who needs killing, brown people are supposed to be enlightened and forgiving when it turns out to be them.

But this is all irrelevant fluff. We let Coulter in, which I support. We treated her seriously, which I think shows how utterly crippled and worthless our media and political structures are. We didn't let Galloway in, which is a travesty. And now (surprise, surprise) it turns out the *reason* we didn't let him in was partisan political interference from the highest levels from someone who lied through his teeth about it when asked.
What we have here is a right wing minority government censoring and restricting the travel of people whose political beliefs disagree with theirs. A right wing minority government which loves to wrap itself in free-speech flags when convenient and represents a movement which does the same, but which clearly would prefer that freedom of speech apply only to those at the rightwards end of the political spectrum. It seems to be aided by a lobby movement for Israel with the same systematic approach, something that shows up time and time again: Free speech for their side but not the other, and indeed the frequent representation of the other side's speech as an infringement on their own, so that they may construct the only safety for their speech as being the suppression of that of their opponents.

This sort of thing is utterly unacceptable and must be stopped, and it is disgraceful the extent to which this kind of dangerous rights-denying sophistry has been normalized in our country's public discourse.

The Minister either was truthful or not regarding his stated reasons. The rabble.ca document dump needs to be absorbed carefully and not in blog time.

It's a separate issue as to whether the ban complied or didn't comply with our laws. I haven't seen an analysis either way but will poke around. But again, since we agree that Hamas is a terrorist organization under our laws, and since Galloway had dealings with them, it's fair to ask whether he did or not breach our laws and, if he did, if that's enough to be denied entry. Unless you're saying it's a bad law and who cares.

As for how we discuss the ME here in Canada, yes pro-Israel advocacy groups have complained about all sorts of things including plays, books and Pride. As far as I know none of these efforts were successful and the only so called "victory" would be the Galloway ban-but whether that had anything to do with George's theory is far from clear.

As for the merits of the ME dispute, the narrative that Israel invaded a country called Palestine and stole the land and kicked everyone out is not only false but spectacularly so. It's much more complicated and nuanced and not even that unique-think of the partition of majority Hindu India at the same time to form predominantly Muslim Pakistan.

But the most astounding thing to me-given that the Galloway incident actually is about Hamas-is the breathtaking reaction of the Left to everything Hamas is about and the Orwellian idea that to notice is to make the person who notices a racist.

Why on Earth is the Hamas Charter irrelevant to you? It's as if in dealing with Nazi Germany one were asked to ignore Mein Kampf. Actually that would have been more justifiable, as it was only the leader's book. This is a statement of what their whole movement is about.

The battle has been joined within the Left. Either accepting the right of Israel to exist at all is acceptable or it's as unacceptable as a pro-choice advocate at a Republican convention nominating Sarah Palin. This issue ain't going away.

Marky:

There are a number of distortions and straw men in your last comment. Maybe someone else wants to pursue them but I don't because I know from experience that it doesn't lead anywhere except around in the same circles.

If there was a sound legal reason for barring Galloway, why did Kenney and his spokesthingie find it necessary to misrepresent their involvement in it? Because clearly they did -- the emails included in that document dump place Velshi at the centre of it -- and that is the issue raised in the opening post.

OK pogge, thanks for the discussion. I'm going to read though the rabble stuff tomorrow. I hate to be in the position of defending Kenney, so I won't-I'm going to try to figure out from first principles whether the denial of entry was justifiable or not, based on our laws, regulations and standard administrative practices, and irrespective from the rationale expressed at the time. If it was justifiable I don't understand why he'd have lied about it but unfortunately everything about how we discuss the ME here in Canada has become a wedge partisan issue.

"the narrative that Israel invaded a country called Palestine and stole the land and kicked everyone out is not only false but spectacularly so."

Such a narrative would be false, but its falsity depends on the careful insertion of the text of yours I bolded--an insertion that nobody who cares about Palestinian rights is particularly interested in. Israel as a nation-state, and organized groups of people considering themselves Israelis acting on behalf of Israel doing deeds Israel as a nation-state proved very willing to take advantage of, invaded a place where there were people who had land, and stole the land and kicked lots of people out and victimized the rest. Quibbling about whether it was "a country called Palestine" is pretty much irrelevant to the nature of the injustice involved, irrelevant to the people who were killed, whose land was taken away, whose orchards and farms and villages were razed, who are oppressed to this day, et cetera et cetera. Even whether Palestinians originally constituted a genuine organic ethnic group of some sort, or whether Israelis constructed them as a group of "everyone who lives around here who isn't us" doesn't seem to me to make a major ethical difference.

Certainly my comment about my tendency to vengefulness if I were invaded and victimized does not depend on whether Canada happened to be a nation-state when the event took place. Infringement on Canada's sovereignty was not among the events that I suggested would arouse my ire. Afghanistan is barely a nation-state; its borders are artificial and its de facto governance largely tribal. But that doesn't change the fact that it is the place of the people who live there, not our place; our intervention is not legitimized by their different territorial and governance structures.

http://www.palestineremembered.com/al-Ramla/Imwas/Story8137.html
I suppose you all know about Canada Park built in Israel on three destroyed Palestinian villages? Our governments of all stripes are guilty of supporting genocide. Which makes us complicit.
But Canadians dare not hear the truth. Our politicians lie, Palestinians die, and we build parks?

David Climenhaga has a challenge for one MP about Galloway and free speech:

"...After all, as Mr. Rathgeber told the local press in St. Albert: “When the government defines free speech, when the government tells you what is and what is not acceptable speech, that is antithetical to true free speech.”..."

http://www.albertadiary.ca/2010/04/right-on-mr-rathgeber-opportunity.html

George, Library Guy, Israel was born out of UN resolution, a consensus of the world body you guys no doubt tout when they are condemning Israel. As soon as the State of Israel was declared, five Arab armies sought to destroy it and waged war on it. They failed then, and failed again in '56, then in '67, then in '73 and the Arabs have pretty much failed ever since. Arabs weren't "victimized". They were the "victimizers" but failed in their efforts to exterminate what was left of most of the world's Jewish population. And let's face it, Jews have turned an arid wasteland into a high-tech economy. There continued to be a Jewish presence in the Holy Land despite several wars of extermination launched by the Romans in the 2nd century. Jerusalem is integral to the Jewish historical, religious and cultural narrative. The Jews have a right to be there. They've earned it even if you don't subscribe to the whole "chosen people" thing. But you know that the Palestinians are not going to allow Israel to exist in any meaningful way as an autonomus Jewish entity because to do so would counter their own religious imperatives. So despite what concessions (territorial or otherwise) Israel has and will continue to make, the end game is always to liberate "Palestine from the river to the sea". You know this to be the case yet you pretend otherwise. Why all the acrimony against Israel guys?

Do you have anything to say about a cabinet minister who lies to the citizens he represents?

I certainly don't support elected representatives and members of cabinet being anything less than honest with their constituents. That being said pogge, the terms "lying" and "politicians" are synonymous and there isn't a political party anywhere in the world that has distinguished itself as a bastion of honesty and forthrightness. I haven't read the rabble story about Kenney and if he lied, well, he should be taken to task. But I wonder pogge whether you would have been as fastidious in your efforts to expose a government representative's dishonesty had said representative not been a conservative. And incidentally, however loathsome and odious I may find George Galloway to be, I don't support silencing him simply for his opinions. I don’t know whether there may have been other more compelling reasons to do so however in the case of Galloway, and I do note pogge that typically it is speakers associated with the right-wing that are typically silenced, often violently or at least with an impending threat of violence.

But I wonder pogge whether you would have been as fastidious in your efforts to expose a government representative's dishonesty had said representative not been a conservative.

Very good. First day here and you're already accusing me of hypocrisy with absolutely no foundation. Care to back that up?

On second thought, never mind. I know when I'm being baited. I've disabled both your accounts.

"the Arabs."

Well, there you go. Bigotry verging on racism (racism being a construct) on the face of it. That argument goes like this: Palestinians -- they're Arabs, and as we all know, Arabs are all the same. It doesn't matter where you put them.

That is the vicious logic that has worked for too long for Israel's apologists in North America. It has nothing to do with the real lives of the people of Palestine, and it's just another attempt to divert attention from historic crimes against humanity.

Glad I wasn't here while BigAl was, and I doubt I'll miss him or his sock puppet.

http://www.representativepress.org/IsraelHistory.html

Interesting link, George. I notice they recommend a book called The Gun and the Olive Branch. As it happens, I'm part way into it though I haven't gotten to the period when Israel was actually founded yet.

Sorry to be off-topic on the post, Pogge, but re the discussion here about Galloway's support for Hamas, I just thought I'd point out that Galloway defends Hamas as the democratically elected government but he supports Hamas' political rival Fatah, which is not on Canada's shitlist.

KAIROS invited Galloway to Canada to give a speech called :Resisting war from Gaza to Kandahar" .
KAIROS got its funding cut.

Alison, that may be true, but he also seems to believe in a one state solution, meaning no more Israel:

http://www.facebook.com/?ref=logo#!/note.php?note_id=386931573029&id=546638546

"RESPECT MP George Galloway said "Gil Scot Heron's proposed gig is a stab through the heart of everyone who loves his music and seen him as an icon of popular resistance against oppression. It's not too late for him to change his mind and to inform the Apartheid regime in Israel an 'air mail special' - that he'll only play in Palestine when the Palestinians are free."

If I'mn reading him right, he's saying that Tel Aviv is in Palestine. And he should be free to say that, but I think those of us who believe in the two state solution should be free to point out that for many who want to "Free Palestine," they're talking about destroying Israel itself and not just ending the occupation of the lands acquired by Israel in 1967 as a result of Jordan's attack in the Six Day War.

All of which is to say, at least for me, that he shouldn't be barred for his views and let's bring on the debate. Kenney shouldn't lie about his involvement. And we should get a better understanding as to whether what Galloway is alleged to have done vis a vis Hamas breached our laws or not. I still am unclear whether the argument is that he did NOT breach our laws or that we should ignore any breach because it's viewed as a bad law.

... he also seems to believe in a one state solution...

Wow. Huuuuuuge stretch based on what you've given us. I don't believe there's any way you can reach any kind of conclusion on Galloway's position regarding an ultimate outcome based on that. It certainly does nothing to rebut what Alison wrote. Using flimsy evidence like that as a way to associate Galloway with "talking about destroying Israel itself" is pretty poor form, in my opinion.

the lands acquired by Israel in 1967 as a result of Jordan's attack in the Six Day War

The lands acquired by Israel? A small point, I know, but it's a lousy choice of words when the lands are considered to be the subject of an illegal military occupation. And if the 1967 war was the result of an attack by Jordan, why did it begin with a pre-emptive attack by Israel on Egypt?

I'm not actually inviting a debate on the 1967 war. I'm pointing this out as an example of why I get so anal about staying on topic in these threads. You've just supplied four or five huge distractions in the course of one comment. And bluntly: you have a habit of doing exactly that. You seem always to have to squeeze in a bunch of "talking points" even if they're only peripheral to the actual discussion. It makes you look like just another pamphleteer.

Meanwhile, to get back to the point:

I still am unclear whether the argument is that he did NOT breach our laws or that we should ignore any breach because it's viewed as a bad law.

It's difficult to have a reasonable discussion on why Kenney and his spokesbully did what they did, when they won't admit what they did.

I know it's Wikipedia, but the link has a fair bit on Velshi and Galloway towards the end. In the link the narrative is that the initial decision was with Kenney and not with civil servants interpreting the law. Do you have anything readily at hand where Kenney is saying "not I" when the linked piece seems to have him admitting his role and defending the decision?

Re: the overall issue, yes, I do have my talking points I suppose--I see the same thing the other way so I try to get in my (equally valid) points. Yes, Israel did attack Egypt after Egypt's act of war in closing the Straits of Tiran and kicking out the UN, but Israel did not attack Jordan and in fact urged King Hussein not to get involved. Had he not attacked Israel there would be no occupation of the West Bank. I don't suppose it matters much anymore, because 242 and 338 clearly require Israel to withdraw as part of a comprehensive peace deal where it full receives recognition and an end to the state of war against her including things like the boycott. I do this because while I respect those who have the overall view that Israel is in essence a colonial enterprise and want to "free Palestine", I'd like those people to respect those who have a different view and think that Israel (within the '67 borders) represents a national liberation movement founded in principles of social justice. You can't really reconcile those views-at least not easily-but we should be able to talk about it in Canada.

Do you have anything readily at hand where Kenney is saying "not I" when the linked piece seems to have him admitting his role and defending the decision?

Oliva Chow has an exchange from question period up on a page of her website. This is Jason Kenney:

In the case, for instance, of Mr. Galloway, Mr. Galloway received a preliminary inadmissibility determination by an officer of the Canadian Border Services Agency, I presume based on the fact that he publicly and overtly handed tens of thousands of dollars to the leader of a banned anti-Semitic terrorist organization called Hamas.

My emphasis. If Kenney has to suggest that he can only "presume" what the reason for the CBSA determination is, I take that to mean that he's disavowing any involvement in making that determination. In this, and other comments I've seen, he sticks to the story that he had no part in the actual decision other than to say he wouldn't use his ministerial authority to override it.

At your link, Velshi doesn't appear to be explaining the reasons for the CBSA determination, only defending Kenney's refusal to reverse it.

OK thanks-this will be an interesting one to follow and it will pick up in earnest in court on Monday.

Do you have anything readily at hand where Kenney is saying "not I"

Jewish group proud of role in barring Galloway

OTTAWA – The Jewish Defence League of Canada is taking credit for lighting the spark that ultimately burned a British politician's plans to enter the country.

The organization advised the federal government early last week about the impending speaking tour of George Galloway, the controversial British MP who has been a bitter critic of Israel.

A letter – sent March 16 to Immigration Minister Jason Kenney, his cabinet colleague Peter Kent and opposition MPs – asked the government to keep that "hater" out of Canada.

"We asked that he not be allowed in," said Meir Weinstein, national director of the Jewish Defence League of Canada.

"Whether or not that had an effect on anyone – well, he's not in."

Four days later, Kenney's office confirmed the British MP would not be allowed into the country.

The government's opponents have accused it of political interference and launched two cases in Federal Court over a ban they say has no legal justification.

Kenney's office swatted away suggestions it was directly involved.

A spokesman said he first heard about Galloway's visit from the Defence League letter, and contacted departmental communications staff at Citizenship and Immigration to prepare media lines.

Kenney stressed that his political staff never contacted the Canada Border Services Agency – which made the call that the veteran politician was inadmissible under national-security grounds.

"Neither I nor my office have been in direct touch with CBSA officials about it," Kenney said in an interview.

OK thanks that's pretty clear.

I'm off to Spirit of Toronto but thought you'd like this link regarding the extraneous comments (and last one on my part in this thread)-it actually represents what I think (as I consider myself in the middle)--hope you enjoy it too!

Well, I sure don't like that link. I sure don't like racist smart-mouthed overprivileged bastards having a chuckle at human tragedy.

And you might notice, Marky Mark, that a racist troll has already been banned from this site for writing about "the Arabs" when the rest of us are thinking about the Palestinians. (Oh, sure, I'm sure you think they all look alike, and some of your best friends are ...) Feh.

Do Holocaust jokes make you laugh, MM? Nakba jokes? Apartheid jokes? First Nations jokes? What is your "middle" position on slavery?

One of the most mindless and immoral things I've watched through this past decade (and there has been heavy competition) is the imposition of the dogma that "bipartisanship" is good. Fork that. There is no sane middle position, no bipartisan position possible on war crimes, crimes against humanity -- just none.

skdadl, I didn't see any humour in that link. Rather, it was a reasoned argument against true dogma. When I said "enjoy" it, I meant enjoy it intellectually. What I read you as saying is tantamount to Bush's "you're either with us or you're against us." It is possible to be against a continued occupation and many government policies without being for a one state solution. You seem to want to brand anyone who thinks Israel has some arguments in its favour as racist and thereby excommunicate those people from the longstanding liberal coalition.