.jpg)
'George Galloway, a British member of Parliament, has been banned from Canada on security grounds, the country's immigration service has confirmed.
A spokesman for Mr Galloway, a Respect Party MP, says he will use "all means at our disposal" to fight the ban.
British media reported the decision was due to his views on Afghanistan and the presence of Canadian troops there.
The anti-war MP was expelled from the Labour Party in 2003 because of his outspoken comments on the Iraq war.
Mr Galloway's spokesman said they were trying to clarify the situation and were awaiting "formal contact" from the Canadian authorities.
But he added: "We will resist it vigorously by all means at our disposal because this is refusing access to an elected politician on the grounds of their views."
'Mock trial'
A spokesman for Citizenship and Immigration Canada confirmed the MP would not be allowed into the country on national security grounds.
He said the decision had been taken by border security officials "based on a number of factors" in accordance with the country's immigration act.
Mr Galloway had been due to speak at a public forum, Resisting War from Gaza to Kandahar, in Toronto on 30 March.
In 2006 he was detained "on grounds of national security" at Cairo airport after heading to Egypt to attend a "mock trial" of then PM Tony Blair and then US President George Bush.
Mr Galloway became the figurehead for the anti-war Respect party after being expelled from Labour.
His expulsion followed comments on the Iraq war which Labour chairman Ian McCartney said "incited foreign forces to rise up against British troops".
The party acted following a number of TV interviews, including one in which Mr Galloway accused Tony Blair and President Bush of acting "like wolves" in invading Iraq.
Mr Galloway said it had been a "politically motivated kangaroo court". '
Ah, George, it's just one thing after another, isn't it? Why won't the world just wake up and see sense?
In all seriousness, would you let this man into your country if you had any say on the matter?
Posts
3 comments:
So if it's a racist Dutchman it's a crime against free speech, if it's a tolerant pacifist it's ok?
I guess free speech only applies if you're right wing enough.
Please read the BBC's article more carefully.
Galloway was banned for inciting violence against Canadian soldiers; Wilders was banned because other people might have acted violently on the basis of his beliefs. It's not the same.
Not that it will make any difference, but Wilders is not a racist, and Galloway is only 'tolerant' when it suits him, a bit like his 'tolerant, pacifist' friends in Hamas.
Please get a clue.
"a racist Dutchman"
Please offer evidence to back up your assertion that Geert Wilders is a racist.
Islam is a religion, not a race.
Post a Comment