Friday, March 20, 2009

Four more dead - for what?

"My fellow Canadians", the manner in which the Right Honourable John George Diefenbaker often opened an address, is employed to-day because what follows addresses rights and freedoms.

Upon reading that a Scottish Member of the Westminster Parliament had been denied admission to Canada as a threat to national security my thoughts and actions turned from the Daily Digest to learning more and eventually to composing this post.

Returning to the site where first I'd learned of this action a new headline had appeared: "Four Canadian soldiers killed in two separate bombings in Afghanistan" . - all 257 news articles .

Steven Harper is quoted as saying Canadians ready for U.S. passport requirement, but Americans not so.  Well, this Canadian is not.  The Americans have turned themselves inside out internally, on the previously undefended border, and in attacking Afghanistan and Iraq in their reaction to the events of 9/11.

Obtaining a passport in order to visit what is in many ways now the former "Land of the Free and Home of the Brave" would be allowing myself to accommodate irrational paranoia.

At some point the latest foreign troops in Afghanistan will leave, bet on it. They, we, will leave and the Afghans will duke it out until there is a victor or they arrive at a power sharing agreement.  Four more Canadians dying to-day (and how ever more doing so before we and the others leave) will not affect the outcome: thus it has been, thus it will be.

You may feel threatened by the Taliban.  I do not.  You may feel threatened by Islamacists and terrorists, I do not.  This I just came across dealing with how fear has been used to obtain political power. "Understanding Neocons: The Power of Nightmares "

How is this related to a Scots M.P. being declared inadmissible to Canada?  Simple, we are to view him as a security threat because his views on the conflicts in Afghanistan and the Palestine differ from the standard versions presented to us by both government and media.

Galloway is no tangible threat to national security.  The wisest action would have been to let him come and speak. He would attract an audience of the likeminded and an article in the local press. Refusing him entrance has created a cause célèbre . Google at this point has Results 233 related articles in papers from many countries.

A Comment was written to this article "'George Galloway banned from Canada on grounds of national security " Included in he article are the terms of the Act, none of which have been specifically cited as applying to Galloway..

Minister Kenney's spokesman states he "falls afoul of numerous criteria" in this Video: in which Britisher Sue Turton talks to Canadian immigration spokesman Alykhan Velshi about his country's decision to deny entry to MP George Galloway. 20 Mar 2009.

Canadians have and will die in a far away land to protect us from threats that have not manifested themselves in Canada. Our way of life has been and is being reshaped. Declaring an individual inadmissible as a speaker because of his beliefs is an example.

The Law, to my understanding, is to be applied equally to all - and yet it was not this week nor will it be in the circumstances raised in the Comment below.

Four more are dead - for what? Most certainly not for the action of the Government of Canada barring a speaker entrance, unless this be evenhandedly applied to all who have done grievous harm to others through acts of war.

         Joe .

"The Government of Canada will be seen as having responded to this: "His proposed visit prompted the Jewish Defence League of Canada to write an open letter to the country's government urging it to do 'everything possible to keep this hater away'.

Galloway may be a hater or not depending on perspective. A threat to Canada he is not .

"Mr Kenney's spokesman Alykhan Velshi said the act was designed to protect Canadians from people who fund, support or engage in terrorism."

This loose interpretation of  section 34(1) of the country's immigration act whereby  "'A permanent resident or a foreign national is inadmissible on security grounds for:" stated reasons undoubtedly will not be applied evenhandedly.

Were it, based on an article in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz "IDF in Gaza: Killing civilians, vandalism, and lax rules of engagement " no individual from Israel participating in the recent conflict in Gaza would be admissible to Canada.

Google the headline from Haaretz for details: "IDF in Gaza: Killing civilians, vandalism, and lax rules of engagement" "