[R-G] The Canadian state is setting itself up as the arbiter of which opinions Canadians should and should not hear

[Suzanne de Kuyper]

The position of arbiter of what citizens should and should not hear has been a holy grail in the US since Ted Turner sold his CNN to the feds.  Suzanne                   suzannedk at gmail.com

--- On Wed, 3/25/09, Sid Shniad <shniad at sfu.ca> wrote:

> From: Sid Shniad <shniad at sfu.ca>
> Subject: [R-G] The Canadian state is setting itself up as the arbiter of which opinions Canadians should and should not hear
> To: "suzanne  de Kuyper" <suzannedk at yahoo.com>
> Date: Wednesday, March 25, 2009, 3:55 PM
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.vancouversun.com/opinion/British+gains+from+hamfisted+decision/1425401/story.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Ottawa Citizen
>                                   
>                                                                          
> March 25, 2009 
> 
> 
> 
> British MP gains from hamfisted decision 
> 
>    
> 
> The Canadian state, by keeping Galloway out because of his
> opinions, is doing more than curtailing Galloway's
> expression. It is setting itself up as the arbiter of which
> opinions Canadians should and should not hear. 
> 
> 
> 
> There's little doubt that the Canadian government is
> keeping British MP George Galloway out of this country
> because of his political leanings, rather than any
> "security" concern. 
> 
> 
> 
> Immigration Minister Jason Kenney's office insists that the
> initial decision was made by border officials for, yes,
> security reasons, but the ultimate decision rests with the
> minister. It would be useful for Canadians to know exactly
> what those security concerns are. Ever since 2001, civil
> libertarians have warned that governments are too quick to
> invoke amorphous "security concerns" as a way of limiting
> people's movements or activities. 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, Canada does have a duty to control its own
> borders, and if government officials truly saw a security
> threat, they were within their rights to say so. But the
> minister can issue a permit overturning that decision. And
> that's where the case gets political. 
> 
> 
> 
> Alykhan Velshi, Kenney's spokesman, has said, "We're not
> going to overturn that assessment in order to let into the
> country someone who has provided financial support for
> Hamas, a banned terrorist organization in Canada, and
> someone who is, in a sense, a popinjay for those Taliban
> fighters who are trying to kill Canadian soldiers in
> Afghanistan." Velshi's remarks have been getting global
> attention, not least because of his fondness for fusty
> vocabulary. (He seems to be using "popinjay" in its archaic
> sense, as a synonym for "parrot"; he also described Galloway
> as "infandous," an obsolete word that means "too odious to
> be expressed or mentioned.") 
> 
> 
> 
> The only real security concern the Canadian government
> seems to have about Galloway is the suspicion that he
> materially supports Hamas -- a charge he has denied.
> Velshi's justifications say nothing about any specific
> activities that might have posed a security risk to
> Canadians, nothing about any plans to fundraise or recruit
> for Hamas; instead, they focus on Galloway's character and
> opinions, and specifically his opinions about the war in
> Afghanistan. 
> 
> 
> 
> As writer Ezra Levant has pointed out, Galloway is not a
> citizen and has no right to come to Canada. But Levant's
> contention that this is not a free-speech issue is true only
> in the strictest technical sense. The Canadian state, by
> keeping Galloway out because of his opinions, is doing more
> than curtailing Galloway's expression. It is setting itself
> up as the arbiter of which opinions Canadians should and
> should not hear. That should disturb Levant, who is an
> ardent defender of the right to live free of unnecessary
> government interference. 
> 
> 
> 
> Galloway is reacting to the government's decision in his
> usual over-the-top way. And consistency is not his strong
> suit: In 2004, he argued that Britain should stop a
> far-right politician, Jean-Marie Le Pen, from crossing its
> border. 
> 
> 
> 
> Galloway is a misguided, foolish and distasteful man, and
> he is wrong about many things. 
> 
> 
> 
> But in a democracy people are allowed to be misguided,
> foolish and distasteful. 
> 
> 
> 
> He has, arguably, a soft spot for militant Islam, which
> makes him eccentric to be sure but not in and of itself a
> security threat. 
> 
> 
> 
> The Canadian government's ham-fisted decision to block
> Galloway at the border has served only to give this
> exhibitionist politician extra publicity, here in Canada and
> abroad. He didn't deserve such a lucky break.
> _______________________________________________
> Rad-Green mailing list
> Rad-Green at lists.econ.utah.edu
> To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/rad-green
>