Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6 ... 10  Next

The reason is: he supports terrorism. What you don't understand in those simple words ?

   

I disapprove of what you say but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.

-- Evelyn Beatrice Hall

   

I didn't say that you personally supported Galloway or that you supported the garbage that he believes. I said, sorta, that you were making an argument that a non-Canadian citizen has a right to enter into our country and engage in an activity that is preventable by law. I'm not going to waste time debating your Rumsfeld canard because it's just a sidetrack. All I know about Galloway is that he's on record as supporting the assassination of Western political leaders, and supporting terror attacks by groups like Hamas and Hezbollah against both Western and Israeli civilian/military targets. As such he meets the definition of a propagandist for Islamist terror and by the wording of the existing law the Canadian government is within it's rights and obligations to deny him access to our country.

And to repeat, Galloway's public appearances and words are easily accessible via the internet for anyone who's interested in such things. So the freedom of speech argument doesn't work at all. Boiled down to the basics we have the right to deny access to Canada to anyone who meets our definition of an agitator or troublemaker. Galloway and his supporters simply don't have anything to stand on when complaining about their "rights" being violated. Canada is not a terrorist-supporting country so it's just tough titty for anyone who is.

   

How about enforcing the laws? If he enters this country, he'd be guilty of assisting a terrorist organization

Oh but you left wingers just hate enforcing laws.

Yeah I can generalize too.

   

Who said, "I disapprove of what you do, and I'm willing to pay to let you keep on doing it?" I applaud him on standing up for his convictions, but now he is no different than the child killers themselves.

Time to pay the piper George.

   

Who are the child killers to which you refer?

   

I knew that. It's pretty much all you do. Generally speaking.

   

The entire point of free speech is just that. Once you start putting qualifiers on it based on content then you start down the slope.

Arthur Carlson: What about this song Dr Bob?

Dr Bob: I'd have to say yes it should be banned.

Arthur Carlson: Why?

Dr Bob: It says there is no heavan. Thats blasphemy.

Arthur Carlson: No. It says "imagine".

   

If this guy was advocating slavery and yakking that he financially supported the slave trade would you be as willing to let him in?

   

I agree ... keep him out of Canada... but on the same note.. we let terrorists immigrate and open mom and pop shops daily..? interesting how their problems (middle east) are now our problems..

   

Yes because I trust my fellow Canadians to think for themselves even when being exposed to vile ideology. We are strong enough to listen to the rants of people and not just get swayed by a charismatic speaker.

(anybody get the reference yet?)

   

I don't think Rumsfeld is a canard at all. He's a perfect example of my argument. There's a guy who materially assisted a terror regime, and he's allowed into Canada anytime (presumably). It's just he supported the right terrorists at the right time.

If the government could actually some kind of security threat George Galloway presents, that would be one thing. But I don't think he is a security threat. Never mind george Galloway, I don't even think Hamas is much of a security threat to Canada.

   

This is not an issue of freedom of speech from where I'm sitting. The man is free to say whatever he wants, whenever he wants... just not wherever he wants.

Also, I don't think he would have been denied entry had it not been for the monetary support of Hamas. It's one thing to say you support a group classified in this country, in the US and in the EU as 'terrorist', but it's quite another to fund said group.

He knew perfectly well that supporting Hamas financially could have ramifications like this. This was only to be expected. He knew on the flight over here that he'd be turned away. I don't see why he bothered if not to make a symbolic gesture.

Also, as much as I abhor George Bush, the man was a foreign dignitary and the head of state for Canada's most important ally a the time of his visit. A far cry from some Scottish MP in no diplomatic function who just came here to fuel an already heated political fire.

That said, I think this is also clearly a demonstration of how easy it is for the Government to muscle their political adversaries around. I'm not sure I like it, but I don't see it being really abused.

   

Yes, in reference to his beliefs, but what about the active funding?
Letting him into Canada would be akin to condoning his attempts to make connections and gain funding from within this country.
Like has been said, he can shit out his mouth over the net if he wants, why make him welcome?

   

No, the pop culture reference involving Dr. Bob.

   

Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6 ... 10  Next