Historicist: "The city that nobody loves"
Vandalist: My Dog's Name Is "Shadow"
Skin Deep
Weekend Planner: November 21–22, 2009
Incendiary British anti-war MP George Galloway was scheduled to speak at a Toronto Coalition to Stop the War event tonight. On March 20, though, he received a letter from Robert J. Orr, Immigration Officer for Canada in London, England, informing him that the Canadian Border Services Agency (CBSA) had made a "preliminary determination" that he was inadmissible to Canada on grounds of national security, raising national furor over what his Toronto lawyer, Barbara Jackman, termed an abrogation of the right to freedom of speech. Meanwhile, Alykhan Velshi, senior aide to Jason Kenney, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, took the liberty of calling Galloway an "infandous street-corner Cromwell who actually brags about giving 'financial support' to Hamas," a man who "I'm sure ...has a large Rolodex of friends in regimes elsewhere in the world willing to roll out the red carpet for him."
Galloway, MP for the anti-war party Respect, is notorious for his outspoken declarations against the war in Iraq (for which he was ejected from the Labour Party in 2003) and his support for Palestine. Velshi claims that his provision of aid to the beleaguered Gaza strip, which included a $45,000 contribution to Prime Minister Haniyeh's administration, constitutes support for Hamas, a terrorist organization in Canada, and makes him persona non grata under section 34(1) of Canada's Immigration Act. According to evidence presented by Jackman in the Federal Court of Appeal on Sunday morning, Orr's letter was apparently sent four days after Minister Kenney received another letter, this one from the Jewish Defense League—deemed a terrorist organization in the U.S.A., though not in Canada—requesting action from the government on keeping Galloway out of the country.
Galloway's legal challenge to the ban was presented at the Federal Court of Appeal on Queen Street West yesterday at 11 a.m. Torontoist arrived early and just barely managed to grab a seat at the front; as many or more people as in the public gallery were accommodated in another room that was linked by video to the Toronto courtroom and the Ottawa office from which Judge Martineau spoke.
Jackman argued that Galloway's aid to Gaza (through Viva Palestina, a charitable organization that he founded) was not directed towards violence or terror but humanitarian aid, as most of the items donated went to the Red Crescent Society. With regard to the cash donation, Jackman noted the irony in Canada's claiming it terrorist support when it passed muster with the Israeli administration, saying that the cash went to "the Prime Minister of Gaza, not the head of Hamas. That may be a case of the same people wearing different hats, but the different hats are important."
According to Jackman, the aid to Gaza was a symbolic political act and, as such, qualifies as an act of expression. Since Galloway's appearance threatens no violence on the part of either his supporters or contenders (he has appeared to sold-out audiences in Canada on several previous occasions), the censorship is a breach of the right to freedom of speech. And not just Galloway's, either; James Clark, speaking for the Toronto Coalition to Stop the War, claims that "it's not just supporters that come to hear him; there are other people who come to challenge his views, to argue with him. We want that to happen, but right now Mr. Kenney's decision is preventing it." To that end, Jackman included a statement on behalf of his potential audience, arguing that "speech is not one-way," and that his listeners' deprivation of face-to-face engagement with the British MP constitutes an "irreparable loss."
However, the most interesting argument made by Jackman—one that will not appear in Judge Martineau's written decision, but may very well carry past this single instance of censorship—was on the basis of misapplication of the law. Jackman argued that Orr's letter constituted a preliminary assessment of Galloway's eligibility to enter the country; though CBSA has the authority to make such decisions in cases where a visa or work permit is required, Orr's letter should have no legal authority in Galloway's case, as Galloway is coming to Canada as a visitor (his speech is pro bono, though his travel expenses are being covered). The Crown's representative claimed that Orr's letter was informational, not decisive, and that all speculation on Galloway's reception at the border is purely hypothetical. However, Jackman argued that the letter will almost certainly count as evidence in a border officer's examination of Galloway's admissibility as a foreign national, tainting what she argues should be a fair process and virtually guaranteeing his detention. As a member of parliament with commitments in the British House, Galloway cannot risk what would almost certainly result in a forty-eight-hour courtesy call to a Canadian jail for seeking admission to Canada as a supporter of terrorism.
The Crown's statement, full of dispassionate legal jargon, was less engaging (and convincing) than Jackman's. But a notable exception to this was Crown counsel's barely perceptible physical reactions to Martineau's merciless grilling on the legal basis for Orr's letter and Galloway's chances of being detained at the border, especially the full-body twitch that accompanied Martineau's characterization of Veshni's statements as "defamatory." Meanwhile, Jackman's team rounded off its case with a pithy comparison from Hadayt Nazami to an era "thirty, forty years ago, in the United States: take the immigration language and replace the word 'communism' with 'terrorism,' and you get the same result," giving a powerful if bold injunction to rectify what it successfully framed as a regress in Canada's humanitarian rectitude.
Judge Martineau's decision will arrive in counsels' inbox by 2 p.m. today. If Galloway wins, that should get him to Toronto in time for his 7 p.m. speech. If he gets the axe, supporters travelling in a "Freedom Caravan" will meet him on the Montreal side of the border crossing north of Burlington, Vermont, and hear him speak from an amplified telephone, says Clark. Galloway is currently on tour in the United States, and he has appeared and spoken in several cities without hindrance.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
If donations to political parties/figures count as expression protected by the Charter, what becomes of campaign contribution restrictions? I'm sure there are dozens of CEOs ready/willing/able to "express" their regime of choice into the PMO for the next century.
Galloway was my MP in 1990-91. He is a complete tool.
Here's more background on Galloway's credentials as a great statesman and friend of humanity:
Galloway the Cat
Galloway and Saddam
Note that he saluted Saddam's "courage" in 1994, after the Iraqi leader had started two separate wars of aggression by invading neighbouring countries and committed genocide against his own people.
Galloway should be able to give whatever speeches he wants, but please spare us this crap about how he's a martyr for free speech and is being oppressed by the evil Tories.
It's amusing that the author thinks that legal analysis is a matter of characterizing the lawyers' styles, as if failing to be "engaging" and being too "dispassionate" matters to the judge. This is a lawsuit, not a new production of West Side Story.
It doesn't matter how stupid he is, or how wrong or right (subjective words, to be sure) his opinions, the only thing that matters is whether his entry into this country will contravene any laws.
I am so sick of hearing how great this man is. As a former constituent I am not impressed by anything he does other than his truly amazing ability to bolster his own celebrity while continually making himself unavailable for those that have voted for him.
More MPs than just Galloway lost their position because of their opposition to the Iraq war. Some were even Cabinet Ministers and had a lot more to lose in terms of their career.
It is also worthwhile remembering that if he does come over for his speaking tour that that will be time that he is away from his constituency and the Parliament. The UK Parliament is still in session with debates, questions and votes still going-on but then why should that matter to a politician who has one of the worst voting records in UK government history? 9% since leading Respect (from Publicwhip.org.uk).
He does a great line in show-boating but unfortunately lacks greatly when it comes to substance.
Precisely. Does the 9% figure not raise questions about the author's moist contention that "As a member of parliament with commitments in the British House, Galloway cannot risk what would almost certainly result in a forty-eight-hour courtesy call to a Canadian jail for seeking admission to Canada as a supporter of terrorism"?
If this guy's so terrible, why does he keep getting elected? Looks like most of his constituents like him.
I don't much care for Galloway's perspective personally but I do find it unfortunate that the government and (just minutes ago) the courts are banning him from the country. It says a lot about us as a country that we're so fragile we have to ban a duly elected parliamentarian from an allied nation from speaking because he might hurt a few feelings.
I have no idea why he gets re-elected. I can only guess that he shakes a lot of hands during election time and the alternatives are *really* bad. I voted for him, Once, but then I learnt how ineffective he is as a representative.
I also agree that this decision does make Canada look a fragile and insecure in its politics. Also, it will only add to Galloway's overblown sense of self-importance.
Yes. I'd like the author to explain how Galloway can't risk 48 hours in jail but can be away from the work of representing his continuency in parliament, work UK tax payers pay him for weeks?
Apologies; I thought that the placement of the sentence would make it clear that this was Barbara Jackman's moist contention and not my own.
You sure its the Jewish Defense League that petitioned the government?
Yes; that letter was cited in court by Barbara Jackman.
It's even possible multiple people sent letters. In Canada, the mailing of letters remains permitted. Even for groups that hold the wrong opinions.
Does that mean that any UK citizen who gives money to Oxfam UK, an org. that supplies Gaza with aid would also face similar problems? http://www.oxfam.org.uk/oxfam_in_action/emergencies/gaza_crisis.html
Or is it just that George is a bit gobby? I guess I'm not sure where the line is drawn.
Does that mean that any UK citizen who gives money to Oxfam UK, an org. that supplies Gaza with aid would also face similar problems?
No. The Oxfam program to which you link is delivered in cooperation with a Palestinian humanitarian NGO, presumably to avoid cooperating with the Hamas administration. Further, we don't even know whether the preliminary CBSA opinion was based on Galloway's recent food-for-Hamas program, or on other activity. That's what makes it so frustrating -- there just isn't much evidence that is aired publicly.
Kenney is flirting with some serious stuff here. He is technically right that noone is automatically allowed into the country -- just as he is, I would imagine, technically right that a organization that claims to speak for a particular ethnic group, but that spends most of its time publishing potty language and focussing on a narrow political issue, is not going to be the winner in too many who's-most-responsible contests for public funds.
But by just sort of deciding all these things himself in a directly political manner, rather than in an open process that is removed from political interference, he is making his government look like a tinpot dictatorship. If he thinks about it, surely he will see that that is in nobody's interest.
Thanks
just trying to get my head around the whole thing
Albeit that the Minister has the authority to bar any foreigner from setting foot in Canada, it is an unusual thing to do. This punter probably hasn't supported terrorism, but there's enough shadow of doubt for the Minister to hang his decision on it. But really, what harm would it do to let him in? So he hasn't got a lot of great ideas - that's no reason to stop someone from speaking. More importantly, it's no reason to stop Canadians who would choose to do so from listening.
Galloway hasn't a right to enter Canada, neither had Bill Ayers, neither had the Dalai Lama a right to enter South Africa, but you see where it all leads. The government of Canada ought to have better things to do than meddle and interfere in the free exchange of ideas, which has got to be all this is about. The claim that it's about terrorism is not credible. If it were, Galloway wouldn't have smelled Newark Liberty let alone speechified at Columbia. Nor would Ahmedinejad for that matter, a couple years ago. Open societies don't behave like this government behaves.
If any of you are interested in reading a really embarrassingly bad article defending the government's decision to ban Galloway, an article that not only explicitly justifies the ban based on evidence that doesn't actually exist (it's all "alleged," and even what's "alleged" is largely disproven), but that ends by straight-up aping the government's exact words on why they banned Galloway in the first place, enjoy this article from The Varsity.
Anyway, I'm with Geoelh: "The government of Canada ought to have better things to do than meddle and interfere in the free exchange of ideas, which has got to be all this is about." It's not about Galloway, who may or may not be a tool, or about his opinions, which may or may not be deplorable. It's about letting a man who is an elected official in a friendly, democratic country speak. I propose an exchange with England: for a week, they can take Rob Ford in exchange for Galloway.
David - worth noting that Galloway is a member of the United Kingdom Parliament. Not just England.
Good catch, thanks. Northern Ireland is welcome to Ford, too.
As much I hate Galloway's ban, it's funny to see the left getting a taste of its own medicine. Human Rights Commissions (arguably inventions of the left) have attempted to silence dissenting opinions for some time now, and although the mechanism which has banned Galloway is unrelated to the HRCs, the chilling effect on freedom of expression is the same. Enjoy your fascism!