George Galloway barred from Canada

Banning foreign MPs is soooooo last month. (meanwhile, Wilders has appealed against the decision of the Brits to ban him, so he will get some more TV-time out of this)
 
Nevertheless, Galloway financed a terrorist organization who until this day preached the destruction of one of Canada's allies.

You miss the point, the criticism of our current government here goes well beyond this guy. The tactics employed by this government against any and all to crush all those who don't tow their line are draconian by any measure.

And quite frankly, their moving Canada from honest broker in the Middle East to unabashed Israeli apologist is not going over well.

Fortunately, they've reached that point of cockyness that Canadians are finally starting to see through it, so they won't be our government for much longer.

FWIW, I agree that we should not be allowing Hamas financiers into this country, and I also supported the UK's ban on the Dutch MP.

Oda and I just think that the world needs to better understand what really motivates this government. It's shameful.
 
British Columbia?

Ha. Don't count on it. First, you would have to model yourself after a corrupt right-wing banana republic like Columbia. Then, you would need a gang of Marxists who were using locally grown weed to help finance your overthrow.

You would be better off inventing the Q-Bomb and declaring war on the US.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_YVQx2mczs
 
Saying he financed terrorists is a bit of a stretch. He gave money and vehicles to the elected government of Gaza.

He's a bit of a bollocks though so Canadians aren't missing much. Apart from the fact he's a "Left Wing Anti British Cat"...
 
Anyway, how come the same people that support Britain barring some dutch MP who said potentially offensive stuff have a problem with Canada barring a known financer of terrorism?

Which posters are they?
 
Luiz,

Geert made a video with quotes from the fairly tale collections Muslims read.

George Galloway provides actual monetary funding to the fanatic fairy tale perpetrators.
 
The tactics employed by this government against any and all to crush all those who don't tow their line are draconian by any measure.

Can you blame them for making partisan decisions in attempt to remain in power with a minority government?

And quite frankly, their moving Canada from honest broker in the Middle East to unabashed Israeli apologist is not going over well.

If we really have to bother supporting one or the other, and apparently we do, I think I would take my chances in Israel.

Fortunately, they've reached that point of cockyness that Canadians are finally starting to see through it, so they won't be our government for much longer.

You're working under the assumption that the majority of Canadians voted for them and I know with your understanding of our electoral system that is not correct.

FWIW, I agree that we should not be allowing Hamas financiers into this country, and I also supported the UK's ban on the Dutch MP.

I also agree that we should not be allowing Hamas financiers into this country, but I do not support the UK's ban on Geert.

Oda and I just think that the world needs to better understand what really motivates this government. It's shameful.

The same things that motivate any democratic government really.
 
I don't agree with it, but they seem to be within the right of law to do so. This just continues to prove my point: Democracy doesn't work. At least authoritarians are honest.
 
It's also worth mentioning that other political parties in Canada supported extending the sunset clause on bill C-36 so this cannot be pinned solely on the Conservatives.

Furthermore, so long as Canadians are dying at a profound rate in a part of the world where there are fanatical Muslims I would find Galloway's entrance a mockery of our commitment to Afghanistan.

For the record I find Galloway's speeches entertaining and humourous, especially the one he gave to the U.S. congress. But really, four more Canadians die today in Afghanistan and I want to listen to this guy preach about how evil the Western world is compared to the Middle East. Yeah, not really.
 
It's also worth mentioning that other political parties in Canada supported extending the sunset clause on bill C-36 so this cannot be pinned solely on the Conservatives.

Furthermore, so long as Canadians are dying at a profound rate in a part of the world where there are fanatical Muslims I would find Galloway's entrance a mockery of our commitment to Afghanistan.

For the record I find Galloway's speeches entertaining and humourous, especially the one he gave to the U.S. congress. But really, four more Canadians die today in Afghanistan and I want to listen to this guy preach about how evil the Western world is compared to the Middle East. Yeah, not really.
There are fanatical Muslims everywhere, including Canada. I bet you more Canadians die there than in Afghanistan.
 
"Disrespectful" isn't a reason to ban him from expressing his view. And we have no obligation to chose a side in the Middle East - except perhaps the side of peaceful cohexistence (and no, although they're not the worst offenders, that's not Israel's side)

Make no mistake. I support fulfilling our commitment in Afghanistan - and extending it, if it appears to be for the best. It'S one of the very few points where I agree with Steph and friends, and disagree with the Libs/Greens/Bloc. I completely disagree, therefore, with what Galloway would have to say.

But claiming he shouldn't be allowed to say it out of respect for the troops is spitting on everything we are supposedly trying to accomplish over there - whether defend western civilization (because last I checked, freedom of speech and freedom in general is at the heart of western civilization), or remove from power people who have no respect for human rights.

Among other mistakes, courtesy of Le Harper, we also have his idiotic decision to do practically nothing to foster relations and business with China. Good call there, mister Prime Minister - biggest country on earth, we share an ocean (and sea routes) with them so trade would be fairly feasible, and they're an emerging market, so monies are to be made. But looks like Canada couldn't think of a way to benefit from better relations with them.

("That's because they're dirty free market commies who don't respect the value of Free Speech. And anyone who say otherwise will be banned from Canada!" - Stephen)
 
Furthermore, so long as Canadians are dying at a profound rate in a part of the world where there are fanatical Muslims I would find Galloway's entrance a mockery of our commitment to Afghanistan.

For the record I find Galloway's speeches entertaining and humourous, especially the one he gave to the U.S. congress. But really, four more Canadians die today in Afghanistan and I want to listen to this guy preach about how evil the Western world is compared to the Middle East. Yeah, not really.

Exactly the point. The drive behind it all isn't that he finances terrorists, it's that he's telling the Tories and their supporters something they don't want to hear.

That is unfortunately the Tory Modus Operandi: if we don't like it, we shut it down.

Note to Oda: The Liberals also support Canada's involvement in Afganistan.
 
If this were about providing financial support to groups they find unsavory then officials of the Bush Administration would have been banned for their several hundred million dollar support of Islam Karimov and his penchant for boiling people alive, among other things. Unless they don't find such a government unsavory?
 
If this were about providing financial support to groups they find unsavory then officials of the Bush Administration would have been banned for their several hundred million dollar support of Islam Karimov and his penchant for boiling people alive, among other things. Unless they don't find such a government unsavory?
You clearly haven't paid much attention to the new laws they're trying to introduce regarding capital punishment if you think they'd have a problem with that.
 
If we really have to bother supporting one or the other, and apparently we do, I think I would take my chances in Israel.

No, There is obviously no requirement to do so. It is a deliberate act of your government, just as it is with the US.

Yeah, downtown Toronto is littered with IEDs and Muslims who want to deprive women of basic human rights.

Yeah, you don't openly support it with anti-Muslim rhetoric like that. Right...
 
No, There is obviously no requirement to do so. It is a deliberate act of your government, just as it is with the US.

Last time I checked we were in Afghanistan because we became a founding member of NATO and one of our allies was attacked by terrorist being given safe haven in Afghanistan. This wasn't a choice. In regards to Israel, its the obvious state to support in the Middle East. Why do we support it? Because we have commitments and vested interest in its survival.
 
Last time I checked we were in Afghanistan because we became a founding member of NATO and one of our allies was attacked by terrorist being given safe haven in Afghanistan. This wasn't a choice. In regards to Israel, its the obvious state to support in the Middle East. Why do we support it? Because we have commitments and vested interest in its survival.

Afghanistan, you're quite correct.

We have no commitment whatsoever to Israel, and as far as vested interests in its survival...perhaps, but no more vested interest than we have in the survival of any other nation (or at least democracy, if you're of that sort of frame of mind). And at the same time, we certainly have a vested interest in remaining outsiders to that conflict.

Moreover, cheerleading Israel accomplish exactly nil. It doesn't help them survive in any significant way. Whereas not cheerleading them does accomplish a few things for Canada (ie, maintaining the appearance of neutrality).

It's politically dumb whichever way you look at it, but not unexpected from the rank amateurs and the ideology-driven maniacs that make up the Conservative PArty.
 
Back
Top Bottom