Wednesday, April 01, 2009

Galloway Live Video Feed Banned At Concordia?

This appeared last night on the CCD forum, so I am assuming we are not in April Fools Day territory yet:

The JDL can now claim further success because Concordia University just forbade a planned Galloway live video feed into their auditorium, citing Canada's banning his entry into the country.

He is definitely supposed to be speaking there today.

Meanwhile, the connections between the Shaidle clan and our federal government grow deeper, with Kenney adviser Alykhan Velshi making an appearance on BCF.

Update: I am informed that while Concordia did briefly cancel the event, but by this Monday had reversed themselves. Thanks to Laith Malouf of the SPHR.


Ti-Guy said...

If that's really a quote from Velshi, does he ever sound like a prissy little girl.

Harry Abrams said...

I always felt it was absurd that Galloway considers himself an "antiwar activist."

Here's a comment that I liked that tears that open rather well, I think.

Take a good look at the photo accompanying the letters to the editor on today's op-ed page. Yes, that is indeed British MP George Galloway exchanging hugs with Ismail Haniyeh, a senior Hamas leader. Or to put it another way, that is indeed George Galloway hugging a man who heads up a terrorist organization whose oft-stated goal is to kill every Jewish person in Israel. Might as well be hugging Hitler, George. It amounts to the same thing.

Why the antiwar crowd lionizes Galloway is beyond comprehension. Maybe "antiwar" doesn't mean the same thing anymore as it did in the days of the Vietnam protests when people marched with signs saying, "Make love, not war," and "War is not good for children and other living things."You cannot be "antiwar" while giving money and material goods to Hamas. That makes you pro-war, because fighting and killing is what Hamas is all about. And when you give money to Hamas, as Galloway has, purportedly for humanitarian aid in Gaza, you have zero guarantee that anyone will actually be aided by that money. It's far more likely the money will go to buying more weapons for use against Israel.

This week, a Federal Court judge turned down Galloway's bid to enter Canada by citing a law that says no one is allowed into the country who has given material aid to terrorists. The Toronto Coalition to Stop the War had invited Galloway to speak on March 30, but Immigration Minister Jason Kenney rightly refused to exempt Galloway under the law. The coalition's website says: "Our mandate is simple. We oppose war and occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan. We oppose Islamophobia, anti-Arab bigotry and all forms of racism." The phrase "all forms of racism" doesn't appear to include the Jews in Israel. Genuine antiwar sentiment would deplore the actions of someone who gives money to a group that advocates genocide. The coalition's hyperbole about pursuing "a strong co-ordinated voice for peace and justice" leaves some other people out of the equation, too--the girls of Afghanistan who had acid thrown in their faces by the Taliban for daring to go to school. The selectivity of these faux peaceniks boggles the mind--yes, let's just stop the war this minute and let the Taliban take the women of Afghanistan right back to the Stone Age. Just whom are "peace and justice" really for?

The topic of Galloway's speech was the rather puzzling one of "resisting imperialism from Gaza to Kandahar." What imperialism, George? Israel has been out of Gaza since 2005. Before it left Gaza, it transferred some 3,000 greenhouses in Gaza from Israeli ownership to the Palestinian Authority. The greenhouses were first sold to Jewish donors in America for $14 million, and those donors, including former World Bank president James Wolfensohn, who contributed $500,000 of his own money, then transferred ownership to the Palestinians. Thanks to generous American Jews, the greenhouses were an opportunity for the Palestinians to be self-sufficient and to prosper in Gaza. But on Sept. 13, 2005, Palestinians destroyed 30 per cent of the greenhouses and looted the equipment. Meanwhile, Hamas continues to spend money on whatever weapons fuel its fanatic goal to wipe out Israel. If the antiwar types in Canada were truly antiwar, they'd be anti-Hamas because the misery in which Palestinian civilians live is a direct result of their leaders' obsession with, and funding of, war and genocide.

Maybe what Galloway calls "imperialism" then is Israel attacking Hamas in Gaza after the terrorists had fired thousands of rockets for months into Israel. Do Galloway or his antiwar cheerleaders even care about the siege the citizens of Sderot were under before Israel finally retaliated? And if self-defence is imperialism, then how does Galloway feel about the RAF resisting the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain during the Second World War?Maybe that was intolerable imperialism on Britain's part, since it was as much self-defence as Israel's Operation Cast Lead in Gaza was.

No, antiwar is no longer antiwar. The activists do not care for truth; if they did, they'd urge the Arab terrorists to lay down their weapons and stop teaching their children to hate, because the simple truth is that this is the only way there will ever be peace in the Middle East. As for Galloway's come-on to Jason Kenney to debate him "like a man,"Kenney shouldn't even stoop to give that blowhard the time of day.

Ti-Guy said...

Here's a comment that I liked that tears that open rather well, I think.

Why do you wingnuts think different reformulations of the same old arguments make them magically more convincing?

bigcitylib said...

Harry isn't a wingnut.

Harry Abrams said...

Same old arguments?
(Ti-Guy taking cues from Dr. Dawg again?) :)

Oh, so Hamas is now NOT a terror cult? Since when? As Terry Glavin says:

Hamas is "the worst enemy the cause of Palestinian freedom has ever faced."

Tuesday, March 31, 2009

This (Galloway) Is Not A Story About Free Speech. This Is Not A Story About National Security.

Ti-Guy said...

Harry isn't a wingnut.

Anyone who takes that bit of hyperbolic idiocy from The Calgary Herald seriously qualifies as a wingnut in my books.

Frankly, the words "terrorist" and "terrorism" have lost all meaning.

Dr.Dawg said...

How the fick did I get into this? My views of Galloway should be reasonably well-known by now.

To compare what Israel just finished doing in Gaza, though, to the Battle of Britain, is an obscenity.

In any case I phoned media relations at Concordia yesterday and was told there was no cancellation. I figured it was just one of those Internet rumours. So it actually was canceled for a spell? Interesting.

Harry Abrams said...


"...Frankly, the words "terrorist" and "terrorism" have lost all meaning...."

Uh huh. So a Hamas rocket lobbed over the border from Gaza randomly hitting a school or day care centre or hospital is what?

And Taliban girls getting acid thrown in their faces because they want to attend school is what?

Or a police station that gets shot up in Lahore Pakistan to send a "political message' is what?

Ti-Guy said...

So a Hamas rocket lobbed over the border from Gaza randomly hitting a school or day care centre or hospital is what?

A statement wingnuts use in wingnut inquisitions.

And Taliban girls getting acid thrown in their faces because they want to attend school is what?

A statement that reflects the attention deficit disorder wingnuts are afflicted with.

Or a police station that gets shot up in Lahore Pakistan to send a "political message' is what?

A statement a wingut issues that implies that brown people are all the same.

There. Handled that rather well, I'd say.

Harry Abrams said...

Evasion noted.

Ti-Guy said...

Usual wingnut response to refusal to submit to Inquisition.

Demosthenes said...

Ah, yes, Harry, one is judged by the company one keeps.

Unfortunately, considering the ties between the JDL and their namesakes who are themselves classified as terrorist organizations, I'd say that the JDL has some explaining to do of their own.

(And so does at least one highly placed Liberal strategist.)

As for Harry, I think the attempt to distract from Galloway by cherrypicking the most onerous behavior of the Taliban(!) speaks more to his credibility than any number of hysterical lengthy screeds about "material support" that carefully avoid Galloway's claim that the "material support" was humanitarian aid.

I realize it is popular in some segments to claim that humanitarian aid in countries (or occupied areas) run by people you don't like is somehow immoral. I pay more attention to how many kids would really be killed by the absence of such support than hypotheticals about daycare casualties intended to score rhetorical points.

Guess I'm old fashioned that way.