Originally Posted by Lord Vader

The issue is that Galloway is not a citizen of Canada. His rights in this country do not exist. If Galloway was a Canadian citizen then blab all he wants. There is no law that states the country of Canada must allow anyone in who wants to come.



The Westboro wing nuts were banned because they were entering canada for the purpose of causing trouble. I don't think Galloway is big on the Jews, but clearly his only intention in coming to Canada is to shoot his mouth off and stir the pot.



I'll say again. Galloway has no rights to anything in this country. If a Canadian citizen wishes to express the views of Galloway then that is their right to do so. However, as pointed out regarding the Dutch politician, the left seem to believe that certain rules only apply to them. In fact, I think part of the reason Galloway was banned was because of this interview.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=bJIzsNmkbHY

Originally Posted by dbd33

I don't care for the idea that Canadian citizens in Canada should have more rights than the public at large. Modern Canada is built on the idea that foreigners are necessary to the country and, by implication, superior to the locals. That being the case citizens would do well to stay silent and learn from people willing to visit their distant corner of the planet.

Originally Posted by Lord Vader

In a sense you are correct, the locals blew the call on letting you in.

Originally Posted by iaink

Scotch is a drink, not a nationality

Originally Posted by iaink

Scotch is a drink, not a nationality

Originally Posted by Alan2005

This is very naive. If there was real evidence he absolutely would have been prosecuted - he was nothing but a thorn in the side of the UK government at the time.

Still, a nice smear campaign was all that was required to defuse the harm he could do (if you remember, his anti war stance was the majority opinion in the UK). No need to fabricate court level evidence, just enough to castrate him as a political force (which was the actual end result). You think this wouldn't happen? The authorities would never stoop to this? Well, Saddam might not have been a saint, but you forget that the government completely invented the evidence about WMD's and Saddams ability to deploy them in 45 minutes (well, if you are going to lie, lie big).

You should stop googling opinion and speculation on the internet that matches your own world view and start looking at the broader picture of who gains and who loses from these allegations and the subsequent actions taken. Motivations are usually clearer when you do this.

And also, please stop conflating my defence of Galloway from lies with support for either him, his opinions, or Saddam (which you seemed to imply for some reason). He's a publicity seeking attention whore and Saddam was a brutal, albeit WMD'less, dictator.

Originally Posted by airbornesapper

My own worldly views are formed from a fair bit of personal experience (on many a far flung and usually shitty shore)....I am quite happy with them but thanks for the concern.

Sorry you don't like the way I present things and for the delay getting back to you. I was suffering from conflatstipation.

I'm over it now......

Originally Posted by airbornesapper

“Galloway probed for ‘inflammatory’ speech at rally” Say it's not so.

This took place a few months ago in Tower Hamlets.

"4 Jul 2010 -Police are examining complaints that George Galloway gave an inflammatory speech at a rally attended by thousands of Muslims in which he claimed that far-right English Defence League (EDL) activists would have to fight their way “through 10,000 dead bodies” if they interfered with members of the Islamic faith in Britain."

Here is the link to the article and another to a video for anyone interested: http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/p...ally-1.1039069

http://youtube.com/watch?v=HLs7EgbXp...layer_embedded

At about 1min 23 secs....some of Galloway's comments kick in. Looking forward to a bit of Googling to find out how this turned out.

As for Tower Hamlets and its Council....if you want to contact them and congratulate them on a lovely fun and tolerant filled gathering with speakers like Galloway...here you go:

http://sps2ksrv.towerhamlets.gov.uk/...ActivityID=241

Another WTF moment......

Originally Posted by airbornesapper

My own worldly views are formed from a fair bit of personal experience (on many a far flung and usually shitty shore)....I am quite happy with them but thanks for the concern.

Sorry you don't like the way I present things and for the delay getting back to you. I was suffering from conflatstipation.

I'm over it now......

Originally Posted by John_B

Here's my two pence worth.

I lived Bow (East London) before moving to Canada. We had a good Labour MP in Oona King. Then Georgie boy decided he would move all the way down from Scotland to represent Bethnal Green and Bow. The question I had at the time, was why on Earth would he do that? It became clear that he looked around the country for a constituency with a huge Muslim community, knowing that he would have a better chance of being elected in such a community.

To me that was disgraceful. He didn't have any connection with the area other than he just wanted to be elected and this was his best chance. He ran a disgraceful campaign, deliberately stirring up racial tensions just to satisfy his own agenda.

Originally Posted by John_B

I've never agreed with his politics, and I don't believe he ever had the best interests of Bow and Bethnal Green at heart.

Originally Posted by Jingsamichty

In party politics, having a connection to the seat you represent is by no means a pre-requisite - anyone can stand, anywhere. Winning a seat means that you have more supporters in that seat that anyone else - the record books show that not as many people wanted to keep Oona King as their representative. As a seasoned campaigner, she should have know how to deal with GG. She didn't, she lost.

Originally Posted by John_B

I understand this, but it still doesn't seem honest. I always felt that politicians should have some connection to their constituency. It seems wrong that a politician should be allowed to scour the country to look for an easy seat. He used the fact that it was a large Muslim community to get back into politics, not because they would benefit from him.

Originally Posted by John_B

I understand this, but it still doesn't seem honest. I always felt that politicians should have some connection to their constituency. It seems wrong that a politician should be allowed to scour the country to look for an easy seat. He used the fact that it was a large Muslim community to get back into politics, not because they would benefit from him.

I'm not being naive, I understand that there is nothing (technically) wrong with what he did. I just don't agree with it.