George Galloway Banned from Canada (II)

After my post yesterday about George Galloway being banned from Canada, I get the impression that some people find it hypocritical to be against the British Government's treatment of Geert Wilders, but supportive of the Canadian Government's policy on Galloway.

This is simply not true - the two positions are actually very different. George Galloway is a terrorist supporter. He has given his own cash to an organisation which is banned in Canada as a terrorist group, and incited hundreds if not thousands of other people to do the same. An organisation responsible for hundreds of deaths directly, and many thousands more indirectly.

Galloway incites, or at the very least is sympathetic to, violence against NATO troops in Afghanistan and elsewhere in the Muslim world. He is a mouthpiece and a shill for some of the worst forces in the 'pro-Palestine' movement, and supports groups which have unashamed connections with religious bigotry, pan-Islamism and Arab nationalism.

Galloway embraces Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh إسماعيل هنية on his recent trip to Gaza.

Yes, Galloway is an elected British MP, but being an elected official in an EU country is the only thing which Galloway and Wilders have in common.

If this is not the case, why does Wilders receive hundreds of death threats every year and Galloway none?

Galloway has been banned from Canada because he is potentially quite dangerous, or at least his rhetoric is. Wilders was banned because of the potential actions of other groups against what he was saying and his right to say it, not in favour.

For all the student union types calling this a Zionist conspiracy - does that mean you're saying Wilders' ban from the UK was an Islamic conspiracy? No? Thought not.

There is a far greater case for asserting the latter point of view, however, culminating in a British peer, whose only loyalty should be to the British Crown and its subjects, threatening to lead a group of 10,000 Muslims on Parliament - all because he was himself a Muslim and disagreed with Wilders.

No thought was given for the ancient liberties of the country which took him in and raised him to its upper echelons.

Galloway has far more in common with Nazir Ahmed than Geert Wilders - both men use the grievances of Muslims as a stick to beat Western Civilisation, our culture, our values, Israel, America and Britain.

Wilders stands as one of the last defences of the West and its ancient liberties and values - Galloway is very much on the opposite side of the line. Wilders also only presumes to speak for himself and those who vote for his party - Galloway pretends the entire civilised world is behind him, and was most recently seen debasing my flag to chants of 'Allahuakbar' from thugs and terrorists.

Therefore, I applaud Canada's decision, and I don't feel this is at all in conflict with my wish to see Geert Wilders speak here. Jason Kenny, Canada's Immigration Minister, said:

“I’m sure Galloway has a large Rolodex of friends in regimes elsewhere in the world willing to roll out the red carpet for him. Canada, however, won’t be one of them.

We’re going to uphold the law, not give special treatment to a street-corner Cromwell who brags about giving ‘financial support’ to Hamas, a terrorist organization banned in Canada.”

That's the way to do it! Are you taking notes, Jacqui Smith?

I am also grateful to the Canadian immigration authorities for introducing me to the word 'infandous', meaning 'too odious to be expressed or mentioned'.

It surely is the perfect word to sum up George Galloway.