By now you all know that the judge upheld the government's decision to bar George Galloway. Judges uphold just and unjust laws - they don't bite the hand that sets them up above the people.
You'd think that would be the end of it, but the media are not finished upholding the issue of free speech while simultaneously supporting the government's bilious view of anti-war, anti-occupation activism.
The Calgary Herald says: Galloway and supporters are hypocrites
Justice Luc Martineau was right to say that "non-citizens do not have an unqualified right to enter . . . Canada,"-- but Galloway is no "threat" beyond the queasiness one might feel after listening to him...If activists are truly not supporting across the board free speech, then this should be pointed out, but the media also need to fess up to their own internal censorship of anything that threatens the power structure du jour.
James Clark with the Toronto Stop the War Coalition helped organize Galloway's visit and is part of a website called Defend Free Speech, which seems to apply only in this case. Clark never once uttered "defend free speech" during the Danish Muhammad cartoon controversy and the prosecution of Ezra Levant for republishing those cartoons--Clark's group was among those participating in protests against freedom of expression in this case.
This man is going to lecture us on the importance of freedom of speech?
Or take the Canadian Islamic Congress (CIC) --perhaps best known for its human rights complaint against Mark Steyn and Maclean's magazine.
My own support of free speech goes so far as to allow even "hate speech", though I do find the branding of whole segments of a population as evil or threatening extremely repugnant. I have no hesitation in going after their self-professed leaders, however, be they officially deemed sacrosanct or not.
It is the "hate speech" component of our laws, along with the resulting demonization of certain resistance organizations, that is causing all the trouble. It gives rise to an attitude that says "if you don't allow this, how come you allow that?" On both sides. And rightly so.
It creates ambiguities as to what does and does not constitute "hate speech" or a "threat to security". Even the word "security" is ambiguous in meaning.
Rather than worry about what somebody might do, why not wait to see if they actually do it, as with all other crimes? That's the only way there is any hope of proving the intention. One thing is certain, by the time the courts get around to prosecuting hate speech, the deed could have been done long ago!The hate speech law operates like universal vaccination - rather than find cures for the disease when it occurs in a relative few, innoculate everybody, make a pile of money, and to heck what it does to the immune system.
Our justice system has been rendered null and void by anti-terror, anti-hate legislation, while providing a good living for lawyers. When the government, having succumbed to lobbyists and foreign pressure, calls the shots in our courts - and it's looking more and more like they do - we're in serious trouble.
If we criminalize cartoons that insult Jews and prosecute people like Zundel who question the holocaust, yet close our eyes to all sorts of insults to Christians and Muslims, we are showing a bias that is contrary to our Charter.
Especially since this is 60 years after Hitler's "final solution", with a second occurrence of it nowhere in sight, and at a time when many Jews are happier to live in North America or Russia than in Israel, not because they fear Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran, but because the taxes are too high, and well, frankly, the place is way too ideological for the average secular Jew.
Another bizarre inconsistency is that Hezbollah and Hamas were branded terrorist groups long before the Tamil Tigers were.
Not to mention that in order to ban a Galloway yet give carte blanche to a Bush or an Israeli war criminal - and have absolutely no opinion on state terror - international law must be ignored if not completely abandoned.
There is no consistency whatsoever; it's all at the whim of a government that does not act on principle, but rather on expediency. It's all political, and it's all about money at the bottom line - who pays the most into the election campaign coffers, and whose trade deals are currently the most lucrative.
It is not incorrect to call our politicians whores - most of them do indeed prostitute themselves to the highest bidder.
Related:
Canadian Muslims Call for 'Consistent' Government Stand on Free Speech
=====
John in Manitoba likes this quote from Gilad Atzmon's Lexicon of Resistance:
In the old days, antisemites were those who didn’t like Jews, nowadays, antisemites are those the Jews don’t likeIt sure hits the nail on the head with regard to "hate speech".
=====
Lia Tarachansky writes: My latest story - Israeli War Crimes
(Lia, by the way, is an Israeli who doesn't want to live in Israel anymore, but not because of the taxes, rather because of the occupation and Israeli atrocities.)
Video: Israel only listens to its own=====
Nissenbaum: Israel's skepticism of UN means it will probably only examine reports from its own soldiers
Description: Dion Nissenbaum, Jerusalem bureau chief of McClatchy Newspapers speaks to The Real News about the accusation that Israel committed war crimes in its recent attack on Gaza. He says, "I'm not sure what impact this UN report is going to have." He continues to explain, "I think the only thing that the Israeli government will look at is reports from Israeli soldiers. Israel has always been skeptical of the United Nations, the international press, and they are certainly skeptical of what comes out of the Palestinians.
Bio: Dion Nissenbaum covers the Middle East as Jerusalem bureau chief on his blog. Dion has covered the conflict in Iraq, working as both an embedded reporter with the U.S. Marines and as a unilateral reporter based in Baghdad. In 2004, Dion helped cover the landmark Palestinian elections after the death of Yasser Arafat.
(Correction: at roughly 6:29, the wrong lower third comes on the screen, please ignore.)
From Ron in Montreal:
UN vote proves Canada a racist state *
Any and all doubts about the true nature of the Canadian state were laid to rest by Canada's recent UN vote in favour of Israeli settlement activity. It is worth noting that even the past colonial powers of France, Netherlands and the United Kingdom voted to halt Israel's racist colonial settlement enterprise. But not Canada. Canada proved to the entire world that it fully supports Israel's ongoing Apartheid colonial settlement activities.
So let us all stop being naive about the true nature of Canada. It is high time Canadians faced the facts about what the Canadian nation is all about. Canadians must recognize what is amply clear to the rest of the 6 billion people on this planet. That Canada is truly a racist state which fully supports racist Apartheid and colonial settlement activities.
The lack of action by Canadians to alter these shameful actions by our government should be proof enough to all Canadians that Canada is a racist state from top to bottom. From its haughty elected officials to its government bureaucracy to its so-called media to its corporate elite to its university administrations to its community groups to its general population.
To the great shame of us all, Canada is Racist A Mari usque ad Mare.
Canada is a racist state. And most Canadians don't care.
Indeed you get the lousy state you deserve.
Take the maple leaf off your knapsack. It don't mean nuthin' good. Just shame.
* UNITED NATIONS
Press Release
Human Rights Council
AFTERNOON 26 March 2009
Council Adopts 10 Resolutions on Human Rights Situation in Palestine and Other Occupied Arab Territories and on Combatting Defamation of Religions, Among Others
excerpt:
In a resolution (A/HRC/10/L.5) on Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory,
including East Jerusalem, and in the occupied Syrian Golan , adopted by a vote of 46 in favour, one against, and no abstentions, as orally revised, the Council deplores the recent Israeli announcements of the construction of new housing units for Israeli settlers in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, as they undermine the peace process and the creation of a contiguous, sovereign and independent Palestinian State; expresses grave concern at, inter alia, the continuing Israeli settlement and related activities; the increasing number of newly built structures amounting in 2008 to 1,257; the implications for the final status negotiations of Israel's announcement that it will retain the major settlement blocks in the Occupied Palestinian Territory; the expansion of Israeli settlements and the construction of new ones on the Occupied Palestinian Territory rendered inaccessible behind the wall, which create a fait accompli on the ground that could be tantamount to de facto annexation; the continued closures of and within the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including the repeated closures of the crossing points of the Occupied Gaza Strip; the continued construction, contrary to international law, of the wall inside the Occupied Palestinian Territory; and the latest Israeli plan to demolish more than 88 houses in Al-Bustan neighbourhood at Silwan which will be resulting in displacing more than 1,500 Palestinian residents of East Jerusalem. The Council urges Israel, the occupying Power, to reverse the settlement policy in the occupied territories as a first step towards their dismantlement, to stop immediately the expansion of the existing settlements, including "natural growth" and related activities; urges the full implementation of the Access and Movement Agreement of 15 November 2005, particularly the urgent reopening of the Rafah and Karni crossings; calls upon Israel to take and implement serious measures, including confiscation of arms and enforcement of criminal sanctions, with the aim of preventing acts of violence by Israeli settlers; and urges the parties to give renewed impetus to the peace process in line with the Annapolis Peace Conference and the Paris International Donors' Conference for the Palestinian State and to implement fully the road map endorsed by the Security Council in its resolution 1515 (2003).
The result of the vote were as follows:
In favour (46): Angola, Argentina, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Chile, China, Cuba, Djibouti, Egypt, France, Gabon, Germany, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mauritius, Mexico, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Switzerland, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Uruguay and Zambia.
Against (1): Canada.
Abstentions (0):
=========================
Image borrowed from Dreamtimes










