Log in

View Full Version : Oops! Political interference on the Galloway ban



blake 3:17
22nd April 2010, 21:55
Evil, incompetent, anti-democratic? All three? Nice to see Kenney's office screwed up good.

From the Guardian:

George Galloway: leaked papers reveal Canada's torment over banning MP

George Galloway's lawyers will argue that the Respect party MP is not a threat to Canada's national security

Ewen MacAskill (http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/ewenmacaskill) in Washington
guardian.co.uk (http://www.guardian.co.uk/), Wednesday 21 April 2010 21.34 BST



Documents leaked today reveal the contortions the Canadian government went through over its decision last year to ban the British MP George Galloway (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/georgegalloway).

The leak, on a Canadian website, comes just days before the start of a court case in Toronto in which Galloway and his supporters will seek to overturn the ban which has turned the British MP into a cause célèbre.
Galloway was banned from entering Canada (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/canada) to speak round the country on the Middle East and Afghanistan. The government claimed it was acting on national security grounds because he had provided material support to the Palestinian organisation, Hamas (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/hamas), which is proscribed in the country as a terrorist organisation.

Galloway's defence team will argue in the federal court on Monday that he poses no threat to national security. Although he took a convoy of aid to Gaza, which is controlled by the elected Hamas government, his lawyers will say that he is neither a member, or supporter, of Hamas, and that, in fact, he has been a lifelong supporter of Hamas's rivals, Fatah, which is not branded a terrorist organisation.

The 66 pages of emails and letters, covering the four days up to the ban and available at rabble.ca (http://rabble.ca/), reveal how opinion within the government was deeply divided over the decision.

One of the documents, written by the Canadian high commissioner in London, Jim Wright, cautioned against the ban. "There is no question that George Galloway is outspoken and, while extremely clever and media savvy, is not taken seriously in the UK. Denying him entry to Canada will simply give him a greater platform."

Link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/apr/21/george-galloway-canada-ban-hamas

From rabble.ca:

Exclusive: Fed court docs raise questions about Harper Minister and gov's use of national security claim

By Kim Elliott (http://rabble.ca/taxonomy/term/1741)
| April 21, 2010







The controversy behind the Canadian banning of outspoken British anti-war MP George Galloway is set to deepen, with potentially damaging implications for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Jason Kenney, and others; and with possible repercussions for the government's use of national security claims for withholding information from the public.
rabble.ca has reviewed publicly accessible Federal Court documents that outline a short but intense campaign on the part of Kenney's office and government officials to keep Galloway out of Canada, and the lengths they were willing to go to do so.
The documents number more than two hundred pages and include emails, memos, government letters, articles, and court files. Sixty six pages of documents of particular importance were mistakenly released to Galloway's legal team, and the Canadian government legal team requested their return - unopened and unread - for redaction on grounds of national security. With some minor exceptions, a federal judge declined their claim.

In articles written by news and feature editor Cathryn Atkinson (http://www.rabble.ca/taxonomy/term/9312), and published on April 19 and April 20th, rabble.ca explores questions these documents raise including: Why did the government want to redact these pages so badly that they made a claim of national security? How was the Prime Minister's office, who were included in email exchanges, involved? Did Minister Kenny's office directly interfere with the work of civil servants in Ottawa and London in the case - with or without the Prime Minister's blessing? Who leaked the news of the banning to the British media before Galloway himself was informed, potentially violating Canada's Privacy Act?

Part 1 Court documents put spotlight on minister in banning of British MP (http://rabble.ca/news/2010/04/galloway-ban-story-told-via-e-mail)

Part 2 National security claim rejected by judge in bid to redact Galloway emails (http://rabble.ca/news/2010/04/government-lawyers-failed-redact-galloway-emails)

Recognizing that there are more questions to be asked, and that Canadians deserve to see the original documents, rabble.ca has made copies of the Federal Court documents available below, and embedded in the stories and invite crowd-sourcing for further angles to this story.



Source: http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/rabble-staff/2010/04/exclusive-fed-court-docs-raise-questions-about-harper-govs-use--0

blake 3:17
26th April 2010, 19:20
How George Galloway was barred from Canada in less than 2 hours

http://beta.images.theglobeandmail.com/archive/00474/George_Galloway__474804gm-a.jpg British MP George Galloway attends a protest in London on Jan. 29, 2010, ahead of testimony by former prime minister Tony Blair at an inquiry into the Iraq war. Getty Images

The British MP went from controversial to 'inadmissible' in just 102 minutes, and evidence suggests politics likely had a hand in slashing the red tape

Cambell Clark
Ottawa — From Monday's Globe and Mail Published on Sunday, Apr. 25, 2010 1:10PM EDT Last updated on Monday, Apr. 26, 2010 1:11PM EDT

It took less than two hours for Canadian Border Services Agency officials to declare controversial British MP George Galloway inadmissible to Canada. There was little doubt that’s what Immigration Minister Jason Kenney wanted.

Though last year’s decision to bar Mr. Galloway from Canada for allegedly supporting banned Mideast group Hamas fuelled headlines for weeks and a court case that will be heard on Monday, it was a decision that was pushed through the bureaucracy at record speed.

From the first e-mail that Mr. Kenney’s communications director, Alykhan Velshi, sent on March 16, 2009, at 2:09 p.m. to immigration bureaucrats – the subject line was “inadmissible” – only 102 minutes passed before an official in the National Security section of the CBSA had agreed that Mr. Galloway should be barred for being a member of a terrorist organization.

Monday’s arguments in a legal case contesting the government move will raise a host of crucial questions for Canada’s immigration system. Mr. Galloway insists he was never a member of Hamas, and he’s being barred for his political and pro-Palestinian views.

But the court record has already revealed much about how the Galloway affair began: not in routine work by security officials, but because it was triggered by political aides, then pushed quickly by high-ranking officials, and approved by the Prime Minister’s Office.

A year ago, Mr. Kenney insisted it was a CBSA decision, and portrayed it as one that came up through the channels of bureaucrats. That’s not what an immigration officer in London told Mr. Galloway’s assistant, Kevin Ovenden, according to records the government filed with the court this week.

“I stated that Mr. Galloway has been deemed inadmissible by Canada’s immigration minister, Jason Kenney, and that he [Mr. Galloway] would be denied entry at a Canadian port of entry,” Robert Orr, the Immigration official in London, wrote in an e-mail to Canada’s High Commissioner to Britain, James Wright.

It was Mr. Kenney’s communications’ aide, Mr. Velshi, who set the wheels in motion a few days before, on March 16.

He sent an e-mail at 2:09 p.m. to the Immigration Department’s director-general of communications, Edison Stewart, saying he had a media call asking “why we’re letting in the following person even though he’s publicly called for money to go to a banned terrorist entity in Canada [Hamas] and that makes him inadmissible.”

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/how-george-galloway-was-barred-from-canada-in-less-than-2-hours/article1546100/
Mr. Velshi sent along copies of articles quoting Mr. Galloway’s articles, as Mr. Stewart forwarded the case to senior officials including Stéphane Larue, the director-general of the Immigration Department’s case-management branch, who said he would ask CBSA to do a “very quick inadmissibility assessment.” Mr. Velshi chimed in that if it came up to Mr. Kenney, “I can fairly predict that he will not ever give a [entry permit] to someone who advocated the kind of things George Galloway advocates.”

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/how-george-galloway-was-barred-from-canada-in-less-than-2-hours/article1546100/

Red Commissar
27th April 2010, 04:00
Wasn't Ann Coulter crying a while ago that Canada lets all sorts of 'vile leftists' speak in their country but didn't let a god-fearing conservative like herself do the same? :laugh:

I'm obviously biased inthis regard but I think it's clear that Galloway's ban is more of an outright infringement on speech and political expression.

NaxalbariZindabad
27th April 2010, 05:16
Wasn't that ***** Ann Coulter crying a while ago that Canada lets all sorts of 'vile leftists' speak in their country but didn't let a god-fearing conservative like herself do the same?Please don't believe Ann Coulter's lies. She was never banned in Canada. She spoke in different campuses across the country and tried (quite successfully it seems) to scam people into thinking she was banned from speaking at University of Ottawa, when in reality she herself canceled this particular speech when a couple dozens of peaceful protesters showed up (who weren't a threat to anyone, even according to the cops). See this piece: Ann Coulter's 'Free Speech' Scam (http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2010/03/30/FreeSpeechScam/)

Rusty Shackleford
27th April 2010, 09:38
Wasn't that ***** Ann Coulter crying a while ago that Canada lets all...

hate to be a nosey person, but couldn't you have found a better word?

Red Commissar
27th April 2010, 17:18
hate to be a nosey person, but couldn't you have found a better word?

Oh, sorry, I just don't like that person. I'll change it then.

Nosotros
27th April 2010, 20:50
This fucker was on TV earlier babbling about how he would back Labour, what the fuck is it with people like him and Mark Steel, they're fucking idiots. They say theiy're revolutionary and then they back fucking Labour, you should get more left-wing as you get older not right-wing.