Canada’s double standard

Question: If you are a member of the government of one of Canada’s closest allies, and you provide support for regimes that are the cause of over 1000 civilian deaths, are you allowed access into our country?

Depends on which side you support.

Apparently our government has signalled that it’s okay to invade a sovereign nation against the will of the United Nations, and violate the Geneva Convention with your prison, but not to provide civilian support for those suffering in a besieged region.

That’s right. Our government will let international war criminal George W. Bush walk free across our land, but fears the potential influence of one British MP George Galloway.

Of course, some supposed “free-speech” advocates claim that our anti-terrorism laws ought to prevent Mr. Galloway’s entering the country. But I must ask: do Britain and the USA not have similar laws concerning financing terrorist organizations? Because he’s allowed to speak in both of those countries, and thanks to the science of satellite links, Mr. Galloway will appear tonight on The Hour and at his promised speech from New York City.

So really Ezra Levant, you must declare that either we let Galloway in, or else you must decry Harper for letting Bush in. You can’t have it both ways.

Free speech is free speech, and if we’re going to have it then we have to have people we don’t like here sometimes.

Luckily for Mr. Galloway though, his getting banned earns him a lot more attention then had the Harper SoCons just ignored him.

5 thoughts on “Canada’s double standard”

    1. At times he’s credited as being a strong free speech advocate (even if he wants the right to just act like an ass, which I support to a point), but this is proof he’s just a right-wing hypocrite.

  1. Levant has been an ideologically driven ass for decades (I used to be an avid reader of the Alberta Report in my hardcore mormon days).

Comments are closed.