Galloway v. Kenney

I love the smell of victory in the review.

Dear rabblers,

This is a rabble alert to give notice of a story we’ve been working on.

Over the last week rabble.ca obtained copies of publicly accessible federal court documents in the case launched by British MP George Galloway (and sponsors of his 2009 visit) against the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, on the issue of Galloway’s banning.

The case is going to be heard by the federal court inToronto on April 26.

The review of these documents resulted in two stories– that we think are important — written by our news editor, Cathryn Atkinson.

In the first, Court documents put spotlight on minister in banning of British MP [http://rabble.ca/news/2010/04/galloway-ban-story-told-via-e-mail] emails presented to the court show Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Jason Kenney’s staff’s direct involvement in banning the British MP from Canada –despite Kenney’s past comments to media that his office had not been involved.

We’ve included all of the emails as attachments in the articles so you can read them yourself.  The emails include evidence of the Minister’s communications director frantically searching for George Galloway’s whereabouts to ensure that he would not be mistakenly allowed to cross the border, and communicating directly with public servants. A big question revealed in these emails is that the news of Galloway’s banning was leaked to the British media before Galloway was informed. This could be a violation of Canada’s Privacy Act — and the documents and testimony reveal some serious questions about where the source of the leak came from.

The second story: National security claim rejected by judge in bid to redact Galloway emails [http://rabble.ca/news/2010/04/government-lawyers-failed-redact-galloway-emails] follows another line of questioning: how these emails that make up the first story were mistakenly released to Galloway’s lawyers in the first place.

The federal government attempted to have the documents returned, unopened and unread, in order to redact large parts of the documents for issues of national security (sound familiar?). This claim was rejected by the court (with the minor exceptions primarily related to revealing direct contact info of some individuals).

We’ve made all the documents we reviewed available on our site, because we think all Canadians have a right to see the kind of machinations that have been happening behind the scenes in this government. You can view them here: http://digg.com/u1U7Ck and we hope you will crowd-source to help us find more threads to this story in them.

Our senior contributing editor, Murray Dobbin, contextualizes the findings so far. You can find his analysis here: Jason Kenney: Point man for a theocratic state? http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/murray-dobbin/2010/04/jason-kenney-point-man-theocratic-state

The U.K. Guardian has picked up this story: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/apr/21/george-galloway-canada-ban-hamas

But to date no mainstream Canadian media has picked up on the new angles we’ve raised: If you think this is an important story, we encourage you to please write to the newsrooms of Canada’s mainstream media and ask them to cover this story.

Stay tuned for more coverage of this story as the case is heard in federal court on Monday, April 26, and as Defend Free Speech rallies take place in Toronto and across the country

rabble.ca is supported by individual and organizational donations and memberships.  If you’d like to support our efforts as a non-profit independent media organization, please donate today at http://rabble.ca/donate

To become a member click here: http://rabble.ca/membership

To stay in touch with rabble.ca‘s news daily, sign up for our daily alerts here: http://rabble.ca/alerts

Thank you for your support! Yours sincerely, Kim Elliott, Publisher

21 responses to “Galloway v. Kenney

  1. Some of your links don’t work. The first one posted you can’t click on and the next one down goes to a 404 – page not found.

  2. so i guess the fact that Galloway publicly financed a terrorist organization and that this is enough to block him from entering canada by simple application of canadian law is lost on you geniuses.

  3. This one, from one of Saskboy’s links, is hilarious.

    “Did Minister Kenney’s director of communications directly interfere with the work of civil servants in Ottawa…”

    Duh!! Since when are civil servants allowed to ignore directives from their bosses? That’s grounds for immediate dismissal, fools!

    “Who leaked news of the banning of George Galloway to the British newspaper The Sun, which broke the story as an exclusive? The leak left staff from Canada’s High Commission in London scrambling to reach Galloway before the article was published. They were unable to do so — and Galloway later confirmed that the first he knew of the ban was when he saw it in the newspaper.”

    First of all, as we all know, all except Rabble and Saskboy, that is, Galloway was not banned. He was informed of the law against providing material support to a terrorist organization and that he could seek the Minister’s (ie. Kenney) permission to override that provision, which the law also allows. Galloway did not take that step, knowing full well that he was in violation of Canada’s law regarding support for terrorist organizations. No doubt Kenney’s office was advised of what was happening and immediately sought out information from authorities in Britain, should Galloway have chosen to seek an exception from Kenney.

    “Did this incident violate Galloway’s rights under Canada’s Privacy Act?”

    Since when does Canada’s Privacy Act apply to foreigners intending to visit our country?

    Rabble and Saskboy are such doofuses. No surprise there.

  4. Siobhan I just copy/pasted the email, and didn’t check all of the links, thanks for the notice.

    Jerome, he gave ambulances and equipment to a repressed people, through a democratically elected government populated by people many see as terrorists. He was “banned”, the emails prove it, and yet George Bush who is guilty of a lot more serious charges, has been permitted entry. Why did Kenney not go to the same trouble to stop Bush at the border?

  5. Jerome, he gave ambulances and equipment to a repressed people, through a democratically elected government populated by people many see as terrorists.

    “Repressed”?

    What exactly is “repressed” (or OPressed) about an organization that calls for the destruction of an entire country and the DEATH OF EVERYONE IN IT? What kind of people sabotage every effort at peacemaking by continually firing rockets into civilian areas for the expressed purpose of TERRORIZING AND KILLING innocent civilians (unlike the Israelis, who only actually target terrorists. Too bad the terrorists use their own people as human shields)? There is a reason that Hamas is on the list of terrorist organizations banned in Canada, you know.

    He was “banned”, the emails prove it, and yet George Bush who is guilty of a lot more serious charges, has been permitted entry. Why did Kenney not go to the same trouble to stop Bush at the border?

    Ah, here we go…

    I’m sorry…what terrorist organization does George Bush belong to, again? What ‘war crime’ has he been convicted of, exactly?

    You guys really need some new material.

  6. ROTFLMAO!!

    Fred from BC, of course you know that George Bush has been identified under Canadian law as a “terrorist” organization. /sarc

    Poor demented Saskboy just doesn’t want to acknowledge that the American Congress passed the Iraq Liberation Act authorizing the removal of Saddam Hussein in 1998 and it was signed into law by William Jefferson Clinton. The USA is a sovereign democratic nation and they don’t need that corrupt den of misanthropes housed in an office tower on Turtle Bay in New York City to approve their laws, or the decision that their executive in the Oval Office, has been authorized to make.

    Yet our dear demented Saskboy keeps throwing out this tired old totally debunkable argument again and again and again. What’s that saying about trying the same thing over and over expecting a different result? Oh yah. Insanity.

  7. Galloway’s own words: “Many of my friends have to give their cash to charities. But I, now, here, on behalf of myself, my sister Yvonne Ridley, and the two Respect councillors – Muhammad Ishtiaq and Naim Khan – are giving three cars and 25,000 pounds in cash to Prime Minister Ismail Haniya. Here is the money. This is not charity. This is politics.”

    Read all about him here.

  8. Lots more about your poster boy here and here.

    Seems Britain has a list of terrorists organizations with Hamas on it, too. Also seems that Taliban Jack and Mrs. Chow-Taliban Jack side with brutes a bit too often:

    “Galloway is a thug, a collaborator with totalitian Baathism, and one of the most sinister champions of a global Islamist reaction that has resulted in the jailing, torture and execution of tens of thousands of Muslim democrats, women’s rights leaders, socialists and liberals. A proper left-wing debate about what to do about someone like George Galloway might focus on whether he should be summarily executed as a counter-revolutionary, allowed to serve out the remainder of his miserable life in prison, or allowed to remain at large so that the people could laugh at him, insult him, or ignore him to their heart’s content.”

    Not that that matters to Saskboy and his fans.

  9. Louise, I don’t concern myself usually with claims from yours, transmontanus, and other blogs that are not based in the real world.

    Anyone using “Taliban Jack” is living in the distant past of make believe. http://milnewsca.wordpress.com/2010/01/29/taliban-jack-update/ the usual SDA fanboys are the only ones using the term, still.

    Louise and Fred, if you’d like to not stick out further in this coming decade as warmongers, try leaving your love of war behind you.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/27/britain-us-talks-taliban-afghanistan
    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/radwanski/reconsidering-taliban-jack/article780847/

    You both know as well as anyone that bulldozing homes and shooting white phosphorus (banned weapons) indiscriminately are war crimes or at the least are repression of the Palestinians. That doesn’t make Hamas a noble institution, both sides are violent and wrong.

    And I never said Bush was a “terrorist organization” you assumed wrong. He did however overthrow a sovereign nation, and that sort of criminal isn’t allowed in Canada, look it up, it’s in the Immigration Act.

  10. saskboy Says:

    Anyone using “Taliban Jack” is living in the distant past of make believe.

    In your opinion. I prefer “Jack Laytoon” anyway…the man IS a walking, talking cartoon character, isn’t he? He’ll be remembered most for that laughable incident during the Winter Olympics, remember? When he grabbed a girl’s arm and moved it out of the way so the camera could see him, Jack Layton, celebrating a Canadian victory in a bar surrounded by other sports fans? Priceless!

    Louise and Fred, if you’d like to not stick out further in this coming decade as warmongers, try leaving your love of war behind you.

    “Warmongers”, you say? My “love of war”?

    Typical left-wing character assassination. when your argument fails, attack the messenger.

    You both know as well as anyone that bulldozing homes and shooting white phosphorus (banned weapons)

    White phosphorus is NOT A BANNED WEAPON, sorry. It is completely and totally legal for use as a smoke munition…which is exactly what is WAS used for. That’s why the UN first made the accusation, then quickly BACKED DOWN when challenged.

    He did however overthrow a sovereign nation, and that sort of criminal isn’t allowed in Canada, look it up, it’s in the Immigration Act.

    He did no such thing. He led a coalition of the US, UK, Spain, Australia, Poland, Italy and Denmark into Iraq (many more countries supported this action, but didn’t have actual armies to offer) in support of UN Resolutions 1441, 660 and 678. Despite Kofi Annan’s attempts to play politics, the UN was forced to agree with these actions and legitimize them after the fact.

    You need to get out more. :)

  11. Aligning yourself with a warmonger like Louise seemed to indicate you’re quite happy with it. Your comments about the Iraq war only back it up.

    “the UN was forced to agree with these actions and legitimize them after the fact.”

    A comment about shutting the barn door after cattle rustler [or horse thief] Bush took the horses would be apt here.

  12. Although I don’t agree with him on everything (after all. he is a leftie, but he’s a smart one who still understands the difference between oppression and liberation), Terry Glavin towers above you Saskboy, in both intellect, knowledge and in experience. You’re writing here is often frivolous and boring, which, of course, you have every right to create ad nauseam, but Glavin’s is informed, insightful and based on in depth study and research. In short, it’s far superior to the barking out of the ill informed rote you always offer up. Just what is it that Glavin says that you disagree with?

    Oh, I’m sorry. I forgot you don’t read anything that may upset the fantasy world. I know it’s fashionable to overuse the word fascist these days, but Galloway is the real item. Some day you may wake up to the facts and be very embarrassed.

  13. Pingback: Galloway a “Terrorist” ; Walmart too Small « Saskboy's Abandoned Stuff – Site News

  14. Aligning yourself with a warmonger like Louise seemed to indicate you’re quite happy with it. Your comments about the Iraq war only back it up

    Again with the “warmonger”?

    Like I said…typical left-wing character assassination in lieu of an actual argument. I seem to know considerably more about the Iraq war than you do…so what? Is it my fault that I pay attention, think for myself and get my news from more than one source?

  15. IMHO warmongering is morally correct when the objective is to free a long-suffering people. You seem to forget, Saskboy, that I know people in Iraq and some of their relatives were victims of Saddam Hussein’s brutal regime. I’m just sorry they didn’t go all the way into Baghdad during Gulf War I and liberate the Iraqi people ten years earlier.

    I’m also pretty proud of my Dad for helping to liberate Holland during WWII. For many years following that war, a Dutch couple whom my dad had lived with for a while during the war, corresponded with my parents. There was no hard feelings there toward their liberators, but I don’t expect you could appreciate that. The absence of war is not the same thing as peace. Sometimes war is preferable to being under the jackboot of tyranny.

  16. Pingback: The Lies of Jason Kenney « Saskboy's Abandoned Stuff – Site News

  17. Pingback: So Angry | Saskboy's Abandoned Stuff

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s