Calgary Herald Column: Galloway & His Band of Hypocrites

This week's Herald column from yours truly argues that British MP George Galloway should have been allowed into Canada, but Galloway's supporters - and Galloway himself - are in no position to be lecturing us about freedom of speech:

 

As the nation's media waited with bated breath, a federal court judge ruled Monday that controversial British MP George Galloway would not be coming into Canada.

However, in a somewhat-less-ridiculous world, whether some blowhard Brit addressed a few dozen radical antiwar types would matter not a whit.

Indeed, visits to Canada by Galloway in 2005 and 2006 warranted scant attention, and a speech just last week in New York drew only about 100 people --including the Canadian reporters who were there because of this controversy.

At least according to this judge, Ottawa's decision to deny Galloway entry into Canada was legally correct, but it was also a needless decision and, frankly, the wrong one.

This is more about the rights of those Canadians who invited him here to speak: freedom of speech obviously entails the freedom to hear.

Justice Luc Martineau was right to say that "non-citizens do not have an unqualified right to enter . . . Canada,"-- but Galloway is no "threat" beyond the queasiness one might feel after listening to him. Although Galloway's defenders are in the right here, their sudden zeal for freedom of speech seems to me to be very sudden indeed.

In fact, many of Galloway's supporters--including his biggest fan (himself) --ought to avoid the words "free speech" altogether, be-cause we can easily see how spectacularly uncommitted they are to the very notion.

Not two months ago Galloway had some rare and enthusiastic praise for the British government: specifically, a decision to deny entry to controversial Dutch politician Geert Wilders. I'm sorry, but if it's a wonderful thing that the U. K. shut its doors to an outspoken politician, then Galloway ought to have immediately acquiesced to the Canadian decision.

From there, it's a trickle-down effect: James Clark with the Toronto Stop the War Coalition helped organize Galloway's visit and is part of a website called Defend Free Speech, which seems to apply only in this case. Clark never once uttered "defend free speech" during the Danish Muhammad cartoon controversy and the prosecution of Ezra Levant for republishing those cartoons--Clark's group was among those participating in protests against freedom of expression in this case.

This man is going to lecture us on the importance of freedom of speech?

Or take the Canadian Islamic Congress (CIC) --perhaps best known for its human rights complaint against Mark Steyn and Maclean's magazine.

As for George Galloway, the CIC maintains that people should be free to "draw their own conclusions" about what he has to say. The spectacle of the CIC leading the charge for freedom of speech is certainly absurd, but the depths of their hypocrisy reach even deeper.

In 2007, the Fraser Institute held a conference on immigration, security and terrorism which included a speech by Egyptian-born British author Bat Ye'or.

Did the CIC feel that Canadians could "draw their own conclusions" about what Bat Ye'or might have to say? Of course not: it demanded Bat Ye'or be banned from Canada.

Then there's the NDP. Given the support for the CIC case against Maclean's from NDP Leader Jack Layton, I'd immediately be suspicious of NDP support for free speech. But sure enough, it is on the bandwagon, too. Immigration critic Olivia Chow argues that just because some might not like what Galloway is going to talk about, "that is not a reason to keep him out."

It's not? That's funny, because last year the NDP was demanding Canada keep out members of the anti-gay Westboro Baptist Church. Yes, Canadians--and pretty much everyone--don't like what they have to say, but I thought that was not a reason for keeping people out.

Galloway's supporters are certainly entitled to keep challenging the government's decision, and I wish them well. However, they have no business lecturing the rest of us on the importance of freedom of speech.

Galloway & Hypocrisy

Within the George Galloway controversy there is an abundance of hypocrisy. 

We have, of course, Galloway's own flagrant hypocrisy in that he applauded the British government's decision to deny entry to Dutch politician Geert Wilders.

 

We have, as well, some of my fellow conservative free-speechers who (rightly) criticized that decision by the British government but (wrongly) supported the decision by the Canadian government.

 

We also have the case of the federal New Democrats, who have jumped on the Galloway bandwagon:

 

Harper's Conservatives are wrong to bar MP George Galloway,” said New Democrat Immigration Critic Olivia Chow. “The Minister of Immigration is becoming the ‘Minister of Censorship’. This bunker mentality indicates a government afraid of hearing contradictory points of view."

Minister Kenny’s reasons for denying George Galloway entry are an affront to freedom of speech and show the Harper government is frightened of an open debate on an unpopular war.

 

Well, Galloway's hardly anti-war - rather, he's pro-war, just on the other side.

 

In any event, the NDP logic in this case is that government should not be sheltering us from opinions even if they are offensive. Where was that logic last November:

 

Canada's public safety minister needs to stop a notorious American anti-gay group from entering the country, according to Vancouver East MP Libby Davies of the NDP.

The Westboro Baptist Church is planning to come to Vancouver next week to protest the performance of the Laramie Project at Havana Theatre on Commercial Drive.

The play is about the death of Matthew Shepard, a young man who was beaten to death in Wyoming in 1998 for being gay.

Davies wants Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan to make sure border officials block the group, because she says their anti-gay message breaks Canadian law.

"In Canada, it's against the law to incite hatred against gays and lesbians or any other identifiable group," Davies told CBC Radio on Wednesday morning.

Of course, the hateful words of the Westboro Baptist Church are included in the play itself, so Canadians are already exposed to them. In this case, though, the NDP sounds exactly like those wanting to keep out Galloway.

 

The BC Civil Liberties Association has been consistent on these issues. Here's (PDF) what they said at the time:

 

So too here, we should not use government law enforcement agents at borders to filter what is said and heard in this country and to exercise a paternalistic judgment of what is fit for us to hear. Going down that path would be dangerous.

 

If only speech that the government of the day or some border agent likes us to hear is allowed to enter the country, one of our most precious freedoms will be impaired.

 

UPDATE: If it's hypocrisy you like, there's plenty more where that came from. Take those valiant defenders of free speech (hah!) the Canadian Arab Federation and the Canadian Islamic Congress: here's (PDF) their news release:

 

"It’s also unfortunate that Minister Kenney thinks Canadians need him to protect them from Mr. Galloway’s opinions -- that they are unable to draw their own conclusions about the merit of what Mr. Galloway has to say,' observes Valiante adding, 'I certainly think that given the facts on either side of an argument, that Canadians can reason for themselves."

 

(Via BCF) So, to re-cap: the CAF & CIC both claim to believe that Canadians are mature enough to be exposed to different ideas and that border agents should not be in the business of screening people for their views. Hmm, that's funny, because less that two years ago both groups were calling on a controversial speaker to be kept out of Canada (emphasis added):

 

The Canadian Arab Federation (CAF) and the Canadian Islamic Congress (CIC) issued a joint statement today protesting an upcoming Toronto conference on "Immigration Policy, Border Controls, and the Terrorist Threat in Canada and the United States," organized by the far-right Fraser Institute.

(...)

 

The CAF and CIC are therefore asking municipal and federal authorities to respond to the June conference in three areas of concern:

* Immigration authorities are urged immediately to bar Bat Ye'or from entering Canada

Herald Column: Donuts are Healthier than Fascism

This week's Calgary Herald column from yours truly looks at the aftermath of Calgary's now-defunct trans fat ban, and the opportunity it presents:

 

...It now requires minimal effort to be informed about trans fat content--people can check labels, check websites or simply listen to companies boasting of their reduced or eliminated trans fat content.

 

However, if a company truly believes its french fries taste better with trans fats and its fully informed customers agree, then, sorry, but none of us have any business in the matter.

 

Yes, I have no doubt that the regular consumption of french fries will inevitably lead to health problems. And, yes, I realize we live in a society with universal health care; however, "universal" means everyone --even the stupid. A mammoth government program is a poor excuse for further encroachment on people's lives--maybe fewer government entitlements would encourage smarter and healthier habits. If the ban is the sword of the nanny-state crusader, surely the health-care system represents his shield.

 

(...)

 

Also, the late Dr. David Kritchevsky--who was a renowned biochemist and nutrition expert--constantly warned about the "demonizing" of trans fats, calling it "the panic du jour."

 

(...)

 

Governments and advocacy groups should confine themselves to raising awareness and promoting healthy choices and healthy lifestyles. Unleashing the food police is both counterproductive and an affront to individual choice and freedom.

 

The rest is here. Earlier blog posts from me on this subject are here and here.

 

Further background here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.  

 

UPDATE: I guess I really am evil - a reader writes to say:

 

After reading your article, you have left me disgusted. Your approval of killing the uninformed with premature heart attacks so corporations can make a few extra dollars tells me a great deal about your character.

Herald Column: Censorship is Not Your Friend

This week's Calgary Herald column from yours truly revisits the issue of free speech on campus, and finds it very interesting that previous friends of censorship are now suddenly crying foul about the suppression of their point of view:

 

Now, the same forces that would gleefully gag pro-life groups are suddenly aghast at the decision by Carleton University and the University of Ottawa to ban an anti-Israel poster. These universities, we're told, are guilty of unfair, arbitrary censorship. You don't say.

Of course, just as the Genocide Awareness Project could objectively be described as offensive in nature, the same is true of this particular poster.

It depicts an Israeli military helicopter killing a Palestinian child (complete with clutched teddy bear). Given the ugly history of the Jews-kill-children libel, there are some disturbing overtones to an already offensive poster.

However, banning a poster which echoes an ancient conspiracy theory is an effective way to fuel another conspiracy theory: that of undue Jewish influence --a. k. a. the notorious "Zionist Lobby."

Strange, then, that these all-powerful conspirators are unable to prevent Israeli Apartheid Week or to silence anti-Israel professors and students. Nor have they prevented the intimidation of Jewish and pro-Israel student groups. All-powerful conspiracies ain't what they used to be, I guess.

If the supporters of Israeli Apartheid Week and this controversial poster truly believe in a free exchange of ideas, they ought to mean it. They need to accept the presence of pro-Israel views, speakers, and counter events. Let's remember that intimidation is censorship, too.

Ask former (and possibly the next) Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu about his visit to Concordia University. Ask former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak about his visit to Concordia (oops, never mind--they didn't let him come speak).

The rest here. The poster was also the subject of this post.