And we ban people from entering to speak. If enough people kick up a fuss.
I don't rightly agree with many of George Galloway's views. I say that first and foremost.
I don't rightly agree with many of George Galloway's views. I say that first and foremost.
But I am made extraordinarily queasy by this. All of these things coming together at the same time make me fear that there is a hardening of orthodoxy and small-mindedness at work. That rather than embrace the world at large, we are fast becoming a people content to retreat into parochialism, so long as our U.S. stories continue to entertain us, and no one acts too self-important.
Heather Malick's an entertaining writer who gets herself in trouble sometimes. I've run into her a few times at various events in Toronto. I remember fondly getting squiffed with her on the patio at a packed book launch.
She says some things better than I could, and puts a bit of taste into my fear.
Banning this argumentative, energizing Scot will make Canada look even more like what we are rapidly becoming: a hamster of a country, petting and fattening its dullness, silencing dissent, mocking artists, musicians and anyone who's creative, or odd, or not entirely mainstream.
Governments with tidying, controlling tendencies are fanatical about two things: borders and loose talk. Travel and chatter — these are the things that make the right wing nervous.
The more they praise free speech, the more you come to realize that they detest it and would in fact like to put a pillow over your face, right there in airport Customs.Free speech is no longer a cause. It is a weapon used against those who wish to speak by those who don't wish to let others hear it.
I wish to hear Galloway speak and not only because he speaks so well. I am ashamed of what this country is turning into, a humourless place that celebrates unreason and the subtraction of ancient freedoms.
It strikes me that whatever problems this country faces, they can't be solved by hearing fewer voices or opinions on a given subject.
My studies of totalitarian societies, and the haunting thing I took from reading Orwell's 1984, is that if you can control the conversation -- stifle it, then you can excuse and sweep away all manner of injustice, and finally, evil.
We are silent too much in this country. It's killing us as a nation. It makes me understand anew why the clever, the ambitious, and the passionate so often leave.
My studies of totalitarian societies, and the haunting thing I took from reading Orwell's 1984, is that if you can control the conversation -- stifle it, then you can excuse and sweep away all manner of injustice, and finally, evil.
We are silent too much in this country. It's killing us as a nation. It makes me understand anew why the clever, the ambitious, and the passionate so often leave.
20 comments:
i agree with you on media concentration and i think your opinion on the galloway affair may be the first victim of such a concentration.
in canada, it's illegal to financially support terrorist groups. 2 weeks before trying to enter Canada, Galloway gave $2 million in vehicles and cash to Hamas, which (for better or worse) the Canadian government has declared to be a terrorist organization.
in advance of his trip, and in true polite canadian fashion, Immigration Program Manager Robert J. Orr sent a letter to Galloway, indicating that his recent financial contributions would create a problem with his initial assessment of entry at Border Services. He invited him to address the problem, before it became difficult to enter the country.
instead galloway cried foul and began the media circus that everyone now seems happy to perpetuate.
if some blowhard gave $2 million to the FLQ during the October Crisis, and he wanted in to the US, I would hope they'd kick his ass to to the curb too.
Jesus, and so it starts.
Hamas is a piece of shit.
It's also the duly elected government.
Do we actually deal with problems here, now? Or do we just retreat behind our labels? The context of that contribution could easily have been considered by government -- and then condemned by you, by the JDL, and by ME, by the way...
One of the first things I learned when I moved here and started studying history was how different it all seemed to me. Benedict Arnold as a loyal subject to the British Crowne. Hearing about the British Generals not because of their oppression of the American people but because of their record in wars against the French.
I learned that but for a quirk of history, Ben Franklin, George Washington, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Jefferson, etc....would have been terrorists. Traitors. Seditionists.
What about that traitor Louis Riel? That traitor or Founding Father, depending on your perspective.
If just once, history classes were taught across this country to EXPLAIN why the French Canadians feel the way they do, maybe the petty regionalism that keeps us divided might have been mitigated.
You read Zinn's People's History of the United States and suddenly the picture is different.
You hear people...with differing views...speak, and you move forward and judge.
When you ban the discussion, you guarantee that simple labels and spin wins. That doesn't help democracy. That doesn't help anyone.
I'm with Denis, according to Galloway he gave humanitarian aid to Gaza in the wave of the recent attack by Israel. Gaza's government just happens to be Hamas.
At the same time a man who with ties to Israeli terrorist organizations was allowed in. So it is not an anti-terrorism stance. It's about Galloway's point of view, not terrorism.
Having said all of that, as always happens in these situations, banning Galloway and his point of view has resulted in far, far more attention for him and his point of view than he would have gotten if they'd just quietly let him in.
So, in essence, the Canadian government is helping Gallaway and by extension Hamas. Tsk .. tsk.. aiding terrorists. Harper is out of the country right now. Should we let him back in?
A few examples of the wonderful effect I mentioned:
Last year Young People Fucking got more press attention than any Canadian film in recent memory - why? Because of the reaction of the government and various segments of the public's reaction to the title. If not for the collective freakout it probably would have gotten no more attention than the dozens of other Canadian films that lost money and quietly went away after a few screenings last year.
Back in 1988 a little film called the Last Temptation of Christ proposed the radical notion that while hanging on the cross with nails through his hands Jesus had some second thoughts about his plan and wondered what life might have been like if he had just gotten married, had a few kids and settled down to a quiet life as a carpenter. The film probably would have gone unnoticed if religious groups hadn't generated hundreds of millions worth of free publicity with their protests and boycotts.
Short of letting him address parliament I don't know what more the Govt. could have done to help Gallaway and his cause.
Seriously... I think you should reserve your opinion until you check out Terry Glavin's post on this subject.
http://transmontanus.blogspot.com/2009/03/christopher-hitchens-is-wrong.html
Admirable that he got three quarters of the way through without touching the third rail and throwing out the accusation of anti-semitism...but there it was all the same.
So it's settled then. We call each other names and no discussion is possible.
Great. How wonderful to know that the fight will continue forever.
It also nicely reinforces my point that the Govt. did Gallaway a tremendous favor by denying him entry.
Oh and Denis, while he did wait to throw the anti-Semitic thing out there he got to "fascist thug" in paragraph 2, sentence 1.
"facist thug" is actually far more attention grabbing than anti-Semitic, which has been thrown around too much to have much of a shock factor left.
David Mader's wading in on this, and he seems to be making "the sense" ...and raising a couple interesting questions.
http://www.maderblog.com/archives/2009/03/index.html#002663
The new link doesn't really add any new facts to the mix. Sorry but
"In other words, media reports to the contrary, Galloway has not been refused entry to Canada; instead, he's been told--by an official of the Department of Foreign Affairs, it seems--that he would be denied entry"
If Foreign Affairs says that I will be denied entry, I'm not likely to go to the border to verify it. I'm going to assume that I've been denied entry.
The reality has not changed, by taking the position they did the Govt. helped Gallaway considerably and made themselves, and Canada, look bad in the process.
I tried to track down my MP's e-dress re: the CBC bridge financing motion before the House as I type these words via Parliament's website.
"You are not authorized to view this page
You do not have permission to view this directory or page using the credentials that you supplied. "
Yeah, Justin, maybe you wouldn't go to the border...but then, that would have been your decision, and your action, regardless of what the motivation was. The other party would not have yet turned you away, and the authorities involved would not have even made a decision.
You can't even get away with that logic as a six year old. Hey Mom, I hit him because he said he was going to hit me.
Sorry to say, but this logic is the same logic used to defend pre-emptive war. It was the basis of the entire WMD argument.
Compare:
I didn't go to the border because they would have denied me.
We invaded that country because they would have attacked us.
Both are based on an unproven hypothetical. That there may be strong circumstantial evidence in support of a possible outcome doesn't turn hypothesis into fact.
Type III conditionals sure sound authoritative, but the other name for that sort of conditional phrase is the "past unreal."
James I don't know who you are trying to be an apologist for. None of this changes the fact that the Govt. helped Gallaway considerably
AND
Your insults kind of fall flat, your analogy makes no sense.
My logic is more like this:
He said if I went out to the playground he would hit me, so I didn't go out to the playground.
There is nothing preemptive about it, it's not "I acted before he could" it's "I didn't act based on what he said."
If I say to you "You can try to come to the party if you want but I won't let you in the door." And you don't come to the party at all is it entirely your fault you didn't make the party because you didn't show up and try?
You sure know alot of big words, but I'm not sure you know what they mean.
I've never been a fan of Ezra Levant - but I have to admit he has gone far in recent times in confronting some of our worst Hamster impulses - lest we make the mistake here of thinking they somehow fall solely under purview of the Tories.
The Canadian state apparatus decided to try to impede the ability of its citizens to merely HEAR the views of a British Parliamentarian whose views differ from those held by the Government. Come on, that's not just stupid, it's dangerous.
This is an interesting post for me because I came here to participate in another discussion altogether here:
http://heywriterboy.blogspot.com/2009/03/keep-it-together.html
And in that discussion I came to add the same thing you say here: the more voices, the better. And they may be harsh. And they might be discordant. And you might always agree with them.
But the more voices, the better.
And in that post, you disagree with me.
You know, if I thought for one second you actually believed what you were writing instead of trying to employ a cheap rhetorical trick, I'd be a bit horrified by how much I misjudged your smarts.
But instead, I'll respond to your cynical rhetorical trick with one of my own. A bit 'o sarcasm.
Well done, Ouimet. Yes. Barring a duly elected British MP from the country because we don't want him to give a speech, and the possible effects on democracy, and a conflict that KILLS PEOPLE EVERY DAY, is exactly the same thing as when the famously dyspeptic, paranoid and narcissistic Joe Clark and Allan of the Creepy Tod Maffin Obsession, opine daily in your online slambook on the ways they hate every single person who's a) in a position of power, b) on air, or c) "inside" in any way they are not.
Yes. Internet trolls & The Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Exactly the same thing.
I'll tell you what, though -- the minute you want to run Joe or Allan for MP, I'll show up to that speech. That'd be some heap good fun.
god, i dunno what crazy power the internet and skipping my afternoon coffee has on me, but i'd like to start over. hopefully this time i won't sound like an ass.
hi, i'm rob, i'm a long time subscriber and i love your posts, and canadian content. i post here.
here's my thinking on this: galloway wasn't allowed to enter canada because of his financial support for hamas. he wasn't denied entry because of his views.
this makes me distinguish between two questions: the first is, do you think those who support terrorists groups should be allowed into canada?
on this question, i tend to agree that they shouldn't. only because my liberal values are contingent upon a minimum standard of appreciation (i.e. you don't blow me up when we disagree). if you don't meet that minimum, you don't get the courtesy of my liberal values; like free speech and so forth.
the second question is, should hamas be considered a terrorist organization? here, the answer is not so clear. who decides? harper? and hamas today is a lot different from a few years ago. I don't think labeling it a terrorist organization does any good for anyone.
the decision to deny entry was a legal decision, and rather perfunctory and boring. the decision to label hamas a terrorist organization was a political one. and that's the source of this problem.
There's a very interesting and informative interview here that you should watch - it's the Head of the Canadian JDL and Mr. Galloway.
There's a lot of interesting things said, but keep your ears open at around the 9:55 mark and tell me the implications of what's said doesn't scare you just a little bit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NezETjHGNSM
That is pretty scary there, Brandon.
And to be fair to Ouimet, above...that part actually does sound a bit like The Teamakers...:)
Post a Comment