Tuesday, March 31, 2009

This Is Not A Story About Free Speech. This Is Not A Story About National Security.

(UPDATE: The full half-hour CHQR World Tonight radio interview version of this post's contents is here).

In his contribution to the cacophony about L’affaire Galloway, Christopher Hitchens is not wrong in the substance of the opinions he expresses here. It is just that they are wholly immaterial to the matter at hand. Hitchens is wholly wrong in his assumptions. He didn’t do a lick of homework. He fails, and fails utterly.

(UPDATE II: Appended to his Slate column today, Christopher writes: In my last column, it seems I may have done an injustice to the government and people of Canada in the matter of George Galloway's canceled visit to that country. For elucidation, please consult the following blog post. For my part, let me say it was not so much that Hitchens didn't do a lick of homework, but that the references he relied upon - Canada's national newspapers - are what led him astray).

The pretended difficulties that the fascist thug George Galloway has encountered in making his Canadian appointments are of his own construction and design. This has nothing to do with Geert Wilders, Skokie, or Jean Marie Le Pen. It certainly is not about “the risk of giving the power of censorship to any official.” It is not really a story about Canada's national security, either. None of these things are at stake here, any more than it was ever going to matter who won or lost when Galloway’s Canadian friends launched a court case to try and get Galloway in, the roundabout way.

This is a media circus of the same sort as the midway freak shows that involve displays of Britney Spears as she’s caught driving her SUV with a suckling infant on her lap, or Amy Winehouse snorting coke in a leaked home video. Dress it up anyway you like, that is the function the Galloway rumpus-making serves the news media.

Nevertheless, in the real world, something rather important did happen, and it actually did involve George Galloway.

A couple of weeks ago, a Canadian High Commission official in London had a conversation with someone in George Galloway’s parliamentary staff about the MP’s travel plans. The official then showed George Galloway the personal courtesy of writing him directly to advise him that a preliminary assessment of his admissibility to Canada was not favourable.

In that letter, Immigration Program Manager Robert J. Orr politely referred Galloway to certain provisions of Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, specifically, Section 34 (1), which, among other things, cites “engaging in terrorism” as grounds to prevent a person from entering Canada. This provision concerns itself with the national security of peoples in faraway places; in this instance, with the security of the Palestinian people, and the Israeli people. In Canada, engaging in terrorism includes raising money for terrorist groups. In Canada, the death cult Hamas, the worst enemy the cause of Palestinian freedom has ever faced, is listed as a proscribed terrorist group.

Mere days before Orr wrote his letter, Galloway had delivered roughly $2 million (Cdn.) in vehicles, various goods and cash, directly to Hamas boss Ismail Haniyeh. Galloway boasted about this, and openly dared British and European authorities to charge him for breaking the sanctions against Hamas, and he went so far as to stage an event for Al Jazeera television in which he handed over a wad of cash in the equivalent of about $50,000 (Cdn.) directly to Haniyeh. Around the time Orr was composing his letter to Galloway, the British Charity Commission was preparing an investigation into the transactions Galloway was involved with in Gaza.

There is nothing occult about any of this.

In his letter, Orr noted that Galloway was not expected to make his Canadian appointments before March 30, and so he extended to Galloway the further courtesy of inviting him to make a submission to address his preliminary assessment of inadmissibility. The alternative would be that a Border Services Agency official might find himself obliged to make a final determination at some border crossing, informed only by the preliminary assessment, but without the benefit of a submission from Galloway himself. Orr also suggested an alternative to Galloway, to apply for a Temporary Resident Permit, but he also showed Galloway the further kindness of letting him know that it would be unlikely that such an application would succeed.

Instead of proceeding as he was so politely invited, Galloway had a Canadian law firm dash off a letter to Orr that included a citation from Galloway's Wikipedia entry, a denial that he was a member of Hamas, a complaint about Ottawa's affections for Israel, and several other subject-changing diversions. The letter did not deny (because it could not deny) what Galloway had openly boasted of doing.

Galloway hasn't even tried to enter Canada, remember. Instead, he has taken the opportunity to combine with his Canadian admirers to exploit the gullibility and general slovenliness of the press in order to tell a pack of lies, monger a lurid conspiracy theory about a secret plot hatched in Ottawa to silence critics of Canada’s engagements in Afghanistan, fabricate a free-speech controversy, and blame it all on the Jews.

That’s the story Hitchens missed, but he needn't feel lonely, because he wasn't the only one. It is a rare thing, though, when Christopher Hitchens falls for a story that never even happened. In all the foreign and domestic sniggerings, objections, protests and complaints about the way Canada and its officials have handled the Galloway file, you will have to look very hard before you find one - just one - that does not wholly depend upon an embarassing error of fact, a delusion, a conspiracy theory, or an outright lie.

Try it. You will be looking for a long, long time (see also Comrade Weiss, who has opened up a southern front for us on this point in The New Criterion).

To be clear: Despite what all Galloway's friends will tell you, Immigration Minister Jason Kenney did not ban George Galloway from speaking in Canada, or from not speaking in Canada, and neither did any Canadian official do anything of the kind, either. It did not happen. It did not occur. And it won't do to say, well, yes, but however you put it, the whole thing has only only served to draw more attention to Galloway and his "odious opinions." Something has given Galloway the attention he craves, to be sure. But he hasn't been given anything like the attention he properly deserves, and as for why this is so, well, that is a very good question. It is one of the more important questions raised by this whole affair, so I'll take a shot at answering it.

The bigger story in which l'affaire Galloway is a kind of defining moment involves a phenomenon that is playing out on the same tectonic scale as the emergence of a distinctly Canadian democratic socialism in the 1930s, the Quiet Revolution in Quebec in the 1960s, and the rise of libertarian prairie populism in the 1990s. As is often the case in such upheavals, journalists are the last to notice.

Something wholly new is emerging in Canada, in all the spaces where the Left used to be, in its activist constituencies, its traditional institutions, and its lexicon. Whatever name you want to give the thing, its noticeable features include a betrayal of progressive internationalism, a pathetic weakness for conspiracy theories, and a routine apologetics for antisemitism and terror. Its outlook is generally parochial, but its global engagements tend to align with fascism’s contemporary Islamist variants, even to the point of objective support for the Taliban.

To read most Canadian newspapers, you probably wouldn't have a clue that any of this was going on.

When Galloway visited Ottawa two years ago, he was every bit as famous as he is now. He was the guest of honour at a publicly-advertised 74th birthday party for the Syrian Social Nationalist Party. The SSNP is an unambiguously fascist movement with shiny boots and uniforms, its own distinctive swastika, and an anthem sung to the tune of Deutschland, Deutschland, Uber Alles.

Not one Canadian news organization reported Galloway’s Ottawa visit.

In these ways, a dirty thing goes unreported when it shows its true face, but when it shows the face it wants us to see, it is "widely reported," and this is the face the news media has grown accustomed to presenting to us. In these ways, stenography masquerades as journalism, and journalism becomes something else again. Remember: the "news story" about Galloway that ended up going viral these past few days never even happened.

In that story, Immigration Minister Jason Kenney became so frightened that Galloway would say something fatally witty about Canada’s mission in Afghanistan that he lost his mind and invoked some little known police-state power to keep Galloway out of the country, and thus irretrievably contaminated Canada’s vital bodily free-speech fluids.

This is the story we were all invited to freely discuss. To guide us in our deliberations, the usual pundits took pains to affirm the virtue of their own avant-garde tastes and prejudices by condescending to explain that Galloway is really just a flamboyant British philanthropist, and Ottawa was being mean to him because of his humanitarian work among the Palestinians, and well, you know, the Jews were being beastly about it.

Do you notice how this commentariat consensus wouldn't be so ubiquitous if some Zionist cabal was controlling the media in Canada? Good. Thank you for noticing. Here's something else you will want to notice.

George Galloway is what we used to call a fascist thug. But nowadays, his Canadian fan base, his megaphone-carriers and his booking agents include New Democratic Party MPs, Bloc MPs, the Council of Canadians, the Ottawa Peace Assembly and a legion of student leaders, trade unionists and “anti-war” activists.

Whatever name you want to give this phenomenon, it hasn't been getting the attention it properly deserves. It's been underway for quite some time.

We should be paying attention.

152 Comments:

Blogger PaleoAnarchist said...

It's a story of total Zionist control of Canada. ziofascism.net

8:59 AM  
Blogger PaleoAnarchist said...

And another thing: how many of the leaders in Isr-el were involved in terrorist massacres in Palestine? Quite a few I would say.

I guess Hamas won't be considered legitimate by Canada until they slaughter a few thousand more!

Sharon was a child killer and rapist, piss on his corpse.

Isr-el is the world's gangster state, spreading terror, slavery, drugs and lies across the world.


The real terrorists are and always have been the Isr-eli Zionists.

9:12 AM  
Blogger James O'Hearn said...

Paleo...ur so rite. Ain't nowhere left to hide. The Joos kontrol the wurld.

In other news...

...Terry, are you getting overflow from the dollar store loony-bin? Don't delete that post. It's too sweet. Almost as good as "Kill the Juice."

On to the topic at hand...

Are you sure you want to take on the Hitch? I mean, after all, he is a dude who's had his ass kicked by Syrian Nazis. Dude can blow harder than gale up the straight!

9:18 AM  
Blogger JustAnotherWesterner said...

'bout time somebody did the research and laid it out there. Thank-you for that.

10:24 AM  
Blogger Terry Glavin said...

Elsewhere I have been asked a very good question. How and why did the original conversation between the Canadian High Commission and Galloway's office begin?

It appears that Galloway’s people called the Canadian High Commission to determine whether there was some way around the law, in order to get Galloway into Canada. The court evidence shows they were concerned that if Galloway presented himself at a border entry point he would not just have been turned away, but he would have been detained.

In their failed application to the federal court, Galloway’s lawyers asked the judge to grant Galloway an exemption from the ordinary application of the Act, and also to grant Galloway an exemption from the ordinary assessment of admissibility a border agent would normally have undertaken had Galloway presented himself at a border entry (remember - in spite of all the “Galloway barred from Canada” headlines, Galloway hasn’t even tried to enter Canada).

The applicants also expressed the fear that Galloway “may even be detained” if he were to try to enter Canada.

In Galloway’s case, as I’ve tried to show, the best course is to cut out the journalistic middleman and go straight to the facts, so here is the judge’s decision, which sets out the background to the case:

http://tinyurl.com/d2phjz

12:23 PM  
Blogger Flea said...

I am not certain how this argument refutes my claim Galloway was barred on national security grounds. If your argument is that he was not barred - only that he was told he was likely to be barred - I stand by my case. If your argument is that we should be more concerned about broader considerations than this Galloway incident then I agree wholeheartedly... and my case stands.

Having said that, I hope my friend and colleague Jay Currie reads this carefully; Galloway's freedom of speech was and is not at issue.

1:12 PM  
Blogger Terry Glavin said...

Flea: I'm not attempting to refute any argument about Galloway and Canada's national security, just pointing out the facts, and observing that this isn't really about "national security" at all.

The term "national security" as a kind of catch-all phrase to described the reasons why Galloway is so obviously inadmissible under Section 34(1) is actually helpful as a kind of euphemism, but otherwise unhelpfully imprecise, as it tends to a meaning that misses the specific mark.

Galloway is a Hamas fundraiser, and Hamas is banned in Canada. It's illegal to rease funds for Hamas in Canada, but this is only indirectly a Canadian "national security" issue.

1:38 PM  
Blogger truepeers said...

I think you nail it Terry.

I haven't found the time or desire to blog on this but I'm guessing many in the anti-HRC free speech camp feel they can't deny someone a Canadian platform and not begin to erode their own defense of free speech; if this fascist is denied entry, then when Olivia Chow is immigration minister in the coalition government who knows what might be justified on the precedent...?

But I think you're absolutely right that where there is a good prima facie case that person x is a terrorist or terrorist funder, then he needs to be kept out, and preferably criminalized in his own country.

But whatever the facts in this case, there is a dimension to the free speech question that needs to be discussed. This is the paradox that a maximally free and open society is not simply maximally free: freedom and openness depend on various forms of closure to work. You can't have a maximally free conversation if it is interrupted by people intent on monopolizing what is said, for example. You can't have a free society if you allow freedom for terrorists and their supporters to operate and propagandize openly. You can't have a free society where crime of any kind is rampant. And so that can mean shutting down doorways that might reasonably be seen to lead to rampant crime. E.g. no freedom to leave your property a derelict mess.

This is a reality difficult to tackle for the friends of freedom because recognizing it comes rather close to the justifications that those who would invoke "hate speech" laws to limit non-PC free speech make. But I don't think we can avoid the reality by trying to stand by some universal or absolute, unbending principle. Reality is what it is - society is always a mix of openness and closure - and has to be tackled by a spirit ever open to the need to measure, model, differentiate, and argue things through, never complacent, never able to rest on laurels. That's what free speech is for, in good part.

In most situations I would of course prefer if ordinary citizens take on the job of ostracizing that which diminishes our free exchange. But sometimes only a branch of the government can do the job. Now even though Terry is right that Galloway wasn't excluded by a Kenny who feared what might be said, it is right that any serious terrorist or funder who might open his mouth in Canada be denied entry. Free people have to know their enemy and how to kick him where it counts.

2:13 PM  
Blogger David I S said...

So Glavin, Hamas, the elected government of Gaza is summed up in your piece simply as a "death-cult". Very well, they are guilty of much.

Yes, sporadic acts of largely impotent violence (primitive rockets) from inmates of the world's largest open air concentration camp, Gaza, are criminal, ill-advised, irrational --and met by widespread devastation by the 4rth most powerful military in the world.

And, yes, they do resemble a "death cult" especially when one of these elected leaders recommends a quick nuclear cleansing of their neighbors--oops, my mistake, that was Avigdor Lieberman, the new Israel minister of Foreign Affairs.

Obviously, your definition of what meets the definition of a "death-cult" has nothing to the actual body count of targeted innocent civilians, or the workmanlike ongoing ethnic cleansing by the state of Israel.

Nobody believes your phony crocodile tears over the "cause of Palestinian freedom".

2:18 PM  
Blogger Steve said...

Using women and children as human shields, storing weapons in or near schools and hospitals, killing or torturing the opposition,firing rockets into Israel ,knowing full well that Israel will retaliate and civilians will be caught in the crossfire. Yes that is a death cult.

2:36 PM  
Blogger Terry Glavin said...

This comment from David (I know who he really is, by the way) is such a deliciously "teachable" moment that I can't let it pass up.

It is a textbook case of the apologetics for antisemitism and terror I identified in the post. "David" is also either illiterate or willfully blind; I did not simply sum up what he characterizes untruthfully as the elected government of Palestine by calling it a death cult; I pointed out something that David and every one of his deranged friends deliberately and strenuously avoids facing, which is that Hamas is the greatest enemy the cause of Palestinian freedom ever had.

It takes a particular kind of stupidity to think the kind of automatic meme-generation that "David" engages in here will be convincing to any intelligent person, least of all when its duplicity is so obvious, by trying to have it both ways. He can say the Hamas rocket attacks are bad and criminal, but that Hamas is the elected government of Palestine, but this requires a distortion, an obscene perversion of the truth.

Galloway tried the same when he said Hamas boss Ismail Haniyeh is “the elected prime minister of all of us,” and later, out of the other side of his mouth, Galloway said that he in fact supports Fatah.

As I have pointed out elsewhere, the elected government of Palestine is little more than a figment of the imagination. Haniyeh is not the prime minister of Palestine, but the deposed prime minister of the Palestinian Authority, the infant Palestinian state, and Haniyeh was deposed for the crime of smothering that infant in its cradle.

Nice boots, David.

3:03 PM  
Blogger Mark, Ottawa said...

I don't see speech being restricted, merely physical presence :

'George Galloway suggests it's "poetic justice" that Immigration Minister Jason Kenney's attempt to silence him backfired.

The British MP delivered a speech on television in Toronto from New York last night after being denied entry into Canada.

Galloway said "come out and debate me like a man, Jason Kenney," adding they will debate the issues of "war and peace, of freedom of speech and censorship."

The Canada Border Services Agency advised Galloway that he had been deemed inadmissible to Canada on the grounds he allegedly engaged in terrorist activities. A Federal Court upheld the ban on Galloway after his supporters asked the court for an emergency injunction allowing him to enter Canada.

Galloway has denied links, but he has openly voiced support for the Palestinian cause.

His hour-long speech on Monday evening focused on Afghanistan, Israeli-Palestinian conflicts and Kenney and the Canadian Government.'

Sound. Fury. Bad guy. Still heard. Nice bloody bugger and a curious ditch to defend, after which to think there might be a worthy wall. One can but dream of situations in which these demandeurs face reality, or even difficult moral and practical choices, themselves.

Attitude, dude, only attitude.

Mark
Ottawa

5:23 PM  
Blogger Terry Glavin said...

Such weirdness where journalism used to be.

"Galloway has denied links, but he has openly voiced support for the Palestinian cause."

He has never denied "links" to the Palestinian cause. He has boasted about his "links" with Hamas, then prevaricated by saying he really supports Fatah, whose officials Hamas has slaughtered in their hundreds.

He "has openly voiced support for the Palestinian cause"? Who hasn't? I support the Palestinian "cause." Most Israelis support the Palestinian "cause." All Galloway and his friends have done is deliberately conflate support for an Islamist war against Fatah, against modernity, against Jews (and against the Freemasons and even the Shriners, if you don't mind) with the Palestinian "cause", when in fact what Galloway and his friends support is opposed to everything about the Palestinian cause of freedom, peace, and co-existence with Israel.

And this: "A Federal Court upheld the ban on Galloway after his supporters asked the court for an emergency injunction allowing him to enter Canada."

No such thing happened. There was no "ban." The federal court decision upheld no "ban."

Crikey.

5:43 PM  
Blogger Louise said...

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Not so much for your stellar take down of the buffoon in jackboots but for your expose of the mindless blob that the main stream media has become. There is a vile and hideous fascist breathing in their faces and not only have they not noticed him, but they are doing his bidding.

6:27 PM  
Blogger sylvia said...

Funny you should mention Amy Winehouse and it's somehow apropos in context with Galloway. The same month I was among a handful of people at Galloway's Respect rally in London's Brent district, I almost ran into Amy in Camden Town, and she had drawn a substantially bigger crowd than Curious George. All manner of well-financed paparazzi were chasing her down the street towards me, as she lurched headfirst into lampposts and such, but I ditched my journalistic instincts and left my camera in my pocket as I beat a hasty retreat across the street and headed in the opposite direction. My loss, as I could have sold the photos for real dinero, especially if she had accosted or assaulted me.

Meanwhile, anything I said about or photographed at George's appearance in Dudden Hill wouldn't have netted me a fuckin' farthin'. Which is about all he's worth. He's a nobody in jackboots.

7:17 PM  
Blogger MacD said...

David.... there is MUCH evidence to suggest that this is indeed a death-cult. You have not presented any sort of argument to dispute this.

I suggest you brush up on your debating skills and do a little Googling (no not dailykos either).

There are thousands of pictures and first hand accounts by JOOS and non-joos and even (shhh) Muslims (gasp).

8:22 PM  
Blogger Paul Franks said...

Terry, this is really eye-opening. You put the media to shame. Keep up the good, anti-fascist work!

10:08 PM  
Blogger Blazing Cat Fur said...

Excellent work Terry.

When asked if fascism could ever come to America, Huey Long (the Depression-era governor of Louisiana) replied, “Sure, only here they’ll call it anti-fascism.”

5:29 AM  
Blogger Fred said...

"the world's largest open air concentration camp,"

That would be Cuba, not Gaza

8:53 AM  
Blogger Lakish said...

Thanks Terry this was more than useful. In fact I am now beginning to understand.

Must also say that Bernie Farber of the Jewish Congress was also right on point. I heard him twice on Television make the point that this was never a free speech issue and always one of funding terrorism. Every time he said this the interviewers would respond "but what about free speech"? I could see Farber wanting to pull his hair out. He was nonetheless poised and clear. People just refuse to listen.

Thanks for your good work here. Hopefully Hitchens will get it as well but don't hold your breath

12:22 PM  
Blogger Terry Glavin said...

Lakish:

You're welcome, but as for "Hopefully Hitchens will get it as well but don't hold your breath," let's just say for the moment that Hitchens now gets it, and he sees how he was taken in. More later on that.

And remember - pretty well everyone who has offered an opinion on this story has pretty well gotten it wrong, because the news media in Canada has almost invariably gotten its basic facts wrong on this story from the get-go.

1:08 PM  
Blogger Lakish said...

So Terry maybe I misunderstood your response but are you saying that Farber got it wrong? Seems you and he are on the same page. I'm confused

1:33 PM  
Blogger Terry Glavin said...

Lakish:

(Just had the pleasure of deleting a post from a crazy David Icke character who called me an American imperialist and apologis tfor global empire and Bu$h or something).

Anyway, no, I did not say Farber got it wrong; I was on a radio panel with him last week and we seemed to be on the same page. He may have got it wrong in parts, in the early going, I don't know. Who didn't? We were all reading the Globe, the Star, and listening to the CBC, ater all.

1:53 PM  
Blogger Mitka said...

Man oh man how gullible can people be? Thank goodness for people like you Terry and Farber who continue challege us to be vigilant. I hope the word spreads.

3:38 PM  
Blogger Will said...

Fucking hell.

7:06 PM  
Blogger Gwalgen said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

8:07 PM  
Blogger Terry Glavin said...

Hah. Gwalgen.

Accuses me of racism, hate crimes, and being a supporter of war crimes against the Palestinians. In a long, long, long screed.

Which vanishes instantly, with the mere click of a mouse.

Life, alas, is so unfair.

8:19 PM  
Blogger Bill Horne said...

I see that "PaleoAnarchist" has a blog called "Ziofascism - SHINING A KLIEG LIGHT ON THE SCURRYING MINIONS OF THE ILLUMINATI".

I guess that must be some kind of a "blitzklieg" ;-0

How this person could possibly have any real anarchist beliefs escapes me.

8:36 PM  
Blogger Gwalgen said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

8:36 PM  
Blogger Derek Kite said...

Terry: Thanks for this. Oddly today I was listening to Steve Paikin interview among others the editor of the Toronto Star and the G&M, who wondered who would replace the 350 journalists they hire to get to the truth when newspapers disappear.

Heh.

I find this desire to coddle the most odious very strange.

Derek

8:45 PM  
Blogger JC said...

Just because Harper has decided to designate Hamas a terrorist organization to please a vocal constituency does not entail that Hamas *is* any longer a terrorist organization. It has not committed a terrorist act since 2005, renouncing suicide bombing in 2006. But I wouldn't expect Terry to pay much attention to such nuances. I'm sure the mere fact of my pointing out such facts automatically makes me an antisemitic jackbooted fascist in the blinkered vision of the Gavins of the world.

11:22 PM  
Blogger JC said...

"To be clear: Despite what all Galloway's friends will tell you, Immigration Minister Jason Kenney did not ban George Galloway from speaking in Canada, or from not speaking in Canada, and neither did any Canadian official do anything of the kind, either. It did not happen.". Terry fails to mention what *did* happen. Kenney refused to exempt Galloway from an interpretation of the Act which would ban him, which it was in Kenney's power to do. Drawing a distinction between banning someone and upholding a ban, as Terry tries to do, is sophistry in my books.

11:40 PM  
Blogger Kurt Langmann said...

I think the real reason Canada won't let Galloway in is because border services has determined he's actually a citizen of planet Draco, shape-shifted into a British dole recipient. After all, we let self-styled "Son of God" Icke in, no problem, and unlike Galloway he can sell hundreds of $50 tickets for his conspiracy-theory presentation in Vancouver. I think Icke has infiltrated Canadian border services.

12:41 AM  
Blogger Terry Glavin said...

JC is not a jackbooted fascist. He is a deluded illiterate who is incapable of reading the content of the post he's commenting on. He has come up with another interesting epithet for Jew, though, I see: "Vocal minority."

"Drawing a distinction between banning someone and upholding a ban, as Terry tries to do, is sophistry in my books."

No. I draw no such distinction. Galloway was not banned; no ban on Galloway was upheld.

8:37 AM  
Blogger Will said...

Fucking nora

5:52 PM  
Blogger beg to differ said...

Galloway's 2006 Ottawa appearance was for the Syrian Canadian Club, not the SSNP. The appearance was covered by CanWest, as can be seen here -
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/politics/story.html?id=b1a53168-0a3c-46f0-b94c-f6e1d7252ed2&k=28974
The misinformation (disinformation) can be sourced simply by putting Galloway and SSNP into Google. Several dozen sites appear, with most parroting the same story with the same wording, as does the post above.
The information about the SSNP comes from an article written by Ehud Yaari,who is a fellow with several think tanks which specialize in Israeli security issues. His source in turn seems to be Daniel Pipes. Daniel Pipes is not a good source for objective information.
I find a lot of the sources for information in this blog to be equally weak. For instance, the link provided to support the notion that Canada's Left is under the thrall of Islamofascists (found in post "Where Is The Outrage") turns out to be a poorly argued rant in an obscure listserve written by an equally obscure submitter. Not exactly convincing.
Too, the links in "Company We Keep", the original post on this issue, which purport to show why Galloway is a "dirty little blackshirt", are generally inconclusive accusations which don't amount to anything.
With all the invective in these posts, one would think there'd be a little more substance.

9:56 PM  
Blogger Terry Glavin said...

Beg to Differ:

Nice try. You are wrong.

The Ottawa event I refer to was precisely and exactly as I said, a 74th birthday party for the SSNP, at which Galloway was the featured speaker. Google to your heart's content: As I said, no newspaper even bothered to notice what Galloway was doing in Ottawa. Are you blind? The advertising poster that appears right before your very eyes in my reference to the event is emblazoned with the SSNP swastika. It was not a secret then, and it is not a secret now.

If you want to mount a defence of the SSNP on the grounds that Daniel Pipes and an Israeli researcher have said something uncharitable about them, you can fill your nice shiny boots with it. Among the sources I consulted was an overview of the SSNP that appeared in the Atlantic Monthly some 22 years ago,and it does not matter whether the author's name was Ehud Ya'ari or Cathleen NiHoulihan.

If you want to defend the blackshirt cult MAWO on the grounds that their party line will show up as a "poorly argued rant in an obscure listserve" to which one of their key windbags is "an equally obscure submitter" by my guest.

The facts remain. You lose.

In sum, you are the one making "inconclusive accusations which don't amount to anything," but I would not have expected "a little more substance" in your invective because you are an apologist for the blackshirt politics of the Galloway / SSNP / MAWO type. Hiding behind your new pseudonym won't help you.

You lose, on all counts.

You fail.

11:11 PM  
Blogger Gila said...

Well said.

11:15 PM  
Blogger Terry Glavin said...

Actually, I'm not finished with you, "Beg to Differ." Further to the point about blackshirt politics:

There is nothing "inconclusive" about Galloway's blackshirt politics. They are evidenced in everything he does, everything he stands for, and every movement and tyranny he supports, and this is a matter of public record. With his distinctively Mosleyite flair, he is objectively and subjectively pro-fascist. In the specific case of Afghanistan, he sides with a "resistance" that slaughters innocent Afghans and murders the UN-sanctioned troops who are there to hold back the Taliban.

That is precisely and exactly the party line embraced by MAWO. In Afghanistan, they summon the "Left" to back the Taliban side. Not in carefully couched phraseology, but quite clearly and succinctly.

"Blackshirt" is putting it mildly in MAWO's case, and so is blackshirt "cult" putting it mildly. Their own stupid members have publicly confessed to a MAWO recruitment, indoctrination and discipline regime of sleep deprivation, pressuring cult members to fork over their personal savings, emotional bullying, forced "hikes," mandatory "education classes", getting browbeaten for not producing an Iraqi flag with the words "Alahu Akbar" on it, sleeping in meat freezers, assault and various other kinds of thuggery, harassment, e-mail hacking, psychological torture, general-purpose bullying, and one hilariously depraved numpty famous for masquerading as a Muslim convert in local mosques.

You will have no trouble using your expert Google skills to find any of that, BtD.

11:57 PM  
Blogger vildechaye said...

I came across this nice article about MAWO doing a google search, written in the Peak at SFU. Based on the reporter's comments, MAWO sounds like a 21st century version of the brainwashed Marxist-Leninist cult I encountered during my McGill University days in the mid-1970s.

Here's the article:

The Fool on the Hill : The crazy cult of MAWO
By Dave Roberts, Columnist

When it comes to getting accosted in the hallways by the supporters of an annoying off-campus group, one most likely thinks of last spring’s blitzkrieg by the Canadian Federation of Students and their phalanx of volunteers. But don’t let their determination make you forget about that other group that just as belligerently tries to canvass the support of SFU students — the Mobilization Against War and Occupation.

If you’ve been at SFU for at least a semester, I can guarantee you’ve seen these people around. For a small group, MAWO has a very active presence on campus. Often seen with a table in the AQ or outside of Higher Grounds handing out flyers that denounce war and promote “self-determination,” MAWO volunteers love to espouse their beliefs to any unsuspecting students who get close enough to them. If this ever happens to you, I suggest doing anything (legal) to remove yourself from the situation.

I remember last fall I was standing outside of Higher Grounds waiting for an athlete to come by so I could interview him for The Peak. MAWO had their table strategically set up to be seen by all students exiting the MBC or the coffee shop. They were even serving free coffee (the audacity!). I stood a distance away from their table, hoping that I could spot the athlete and then quickly move out so as not to be confronted.

I soon got the coffee shakes, however, so I decided to take MAWO up on their offer so I walked over to the table and I feigned interest in their materials as I grabbed my coffee. The MAWO guy immediately started asking me all these questions about how I felt about war. I made a quip that without war, I would probably not be alive (my grandparents met during WWII).

My mouth has historically gotten me into trouble. This time was no exception. I thought he was going to rip off his shirt and beat his chest until I knelt before him and submitted to his anti-war crusade. Luckily, I managed to escape once the athlete showed up.

Had I stayed longer, I would have probably been subjected to some of the following beliefs: that any kind of humanitarian intervention in Darfur is wrong, that Iraqi insurgents who behead foreigners are vindicated as warriors against “imperialism,” and that pretty much any terrorist organization in the world is justified in their actions because they are actually “freedom fighters.” Some people like to talk because they like to hear their own voices. MAWO volunteers talk because they have been brainwashed.

Erin Millar, of Maclean’s “OnCampus” blog wrote a fantastic article on MAWO last March that showcased some of the audacious measures that MAWO takes in order to further its interests — including trying to plant students at student newspapers to help print MAWO propaganda. What are MAWO’s interests? On the surface, they promote a popular anti-war slogan but according to a source that Millar used in her piece, MAWO members are actually drones who are indoctrinated in Marxist ways by their leader, who even controls their university reading lists.

The Student Society may receive some heat from the student populace for some of their decisions, but it should be commended for consistently refusing to provide MAWO with any additional funding other than a basic club grant. At least twice last year, MAWO approached the SFSS Advocacy Committee seeking both political and financial backing, and both times they were soundly rejected.

But MAWO has always attracted its fair share of campus controversy — four years ago, two students were banned from Langara’s Student Union property for charging MAWO items to the union’s budget. When confronted, they said they were being harassed, claiming a violation of “women’s rights.” Even the principle women’s rights group at Langara refused to support them, calling their claim “ridiculous.”

A more recent scandal occurred last year when one of MAWO’s co-chairs was arrested at the U.S. border by the Canadian Boarder Service Agency. She cried foul, and claimed that the charges against her — which she claimed were being brought forth because of her anti-war views — were false. I think I can categorically say that CBSA does not just charge people for fun. As it is the case with every other law enforcement agency in this country, the CBSA must follow the Canadian Charter of Rights. According to sources, rather than because of her political views, the woman was arrested simply because there was a warrant out for her arrest.

The next time you walk by a MAWO table, unless you want to become entangled something similar to the aforementioned actions, remember to fiddle around with your iPod until you are at least twenty feet away from them.

1:17 AM  
Blogger Will said...

Terry,

do you still link to harry's Place?

5:34 PM  
Blogger Patrick Ross said...

Excellent work, Terry. I'm embarrassed to admit that I've paid very little attention to Galloway until now.

I've found this post to be extremely useful in learning a little more yet about Galloway.

But I do have to take exception to your characterization of Hamas as a death cult. To categorize them as a mere "death cult" ignores the fact that, although we loathe to admit it, they do have some legitimate grievances against the Israeli state.

That being said, we must still reject the methods they use to express those grievances, and we must also condemn their recent treatment of Fatah.

All I'm going to say about it is: let's be realistic in our critique. We don't have to like Hamas' methods in order to recognize that some of their grievances are legitimate.

12:15 AM  
Blogger shlemazl said...

Great post.

4:09 AM  
Blogger Terry Glavin said...

Sorry, Patrick, but no.

Whether or not Hamas has "legitimate grievances" against Israel cannot stand as an objection to calling Hamas a death cult, or a terrorist organization, or the Palestinian wing of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is also true. You are right that this is not all there is to be said about Hamas, but that is not all I wrote about Hamas. I did not write that Hamas is a "mere" death cult, or that it is merely a death cult. I didn't, but I might also have said that Hamas glorifies death, summons its followers and even the pre-adolescent children of its followers to invite death, and to seek it out death as a religious obligation. It has made a pornographic fetish out of death and blood and dying. You cannot separate these "methods" from its madness. Its methods are as much a part of its madness as its lurid "grievances" against Israel arise from its method-madness pathology. You can't separate this stuff out like that.

The point I was making, in passing, is in relation to the nature of Hamas and its politics, and Galloway's apologetics for Hamas and its politics.

That Hamas may (or just as likely may not) have legitimate grievances against Israel is immaterial, in the same way that it is immaterial that among the many things the Nazis gave us was the Volkswagen, or that the Charles Manson cult may have had legitimate grievances against some bad movie that featured the appearance of Hollywood actress Sharon Tate, whom they butchered with a carving knife, if memory serves.

But even on the subject of the grievances Hamas may claim to have against Israel, you will want to be accurate about those grievances and where they come from, and the context in which they are articulated. The primary grievance Hamas itself has cited against Israel is that it is a Jewish state, the function of an global Jewish presence, and is specifically the instrument of an ancient Jewish scheme to subvert and destroy any society it inhabits, and that the Jews are behind global capitalism, and were behind the Bolshevik Revolution, and the French Revolution as I recall, and this war and that war unto the present day, and among the functions of this vast and ancient Jewish conspiracy are Rotarians, Lions Club members and even the Shriners, if you please.

If you like, we cold simply walk away from this by saying the only mistake Hamas is making here is that they are obviously just confusing the Jews with the Irish.

It is my joke.

Anyway, there are many and various specific and "legitimate" grievances the Palestinians and their Israeli friends and their friends in faraway places may claim against the state of Israel in its various and specific policies and actions. That Hamas propaganda may from time to time echo one or more of those grievances does not lend these grievances any legitimacy, either way, whatsoever.

Stiffen your resolve, Comrade Patrick.

No. Fucking. Parasan.

1:53 PM  
Blogger beg to differ said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

3:54 PM  
Blogger Terry Glavin said...

Beg To Differ, with your stupid made up name and your attempts to be clever: You can't even read. The one true thing you wrote: "I'm apparently a blackshirt apologist."

Not welcome here. No Pasaran.

Go use your Google skills on that.

4:32 PM  
Blogger The Contentious Centrist said...

"You unequivocally state that Galloway's 2006 appearance in Ottawa was not covered by the mainstream media, but it was."

http://www.georgegalloway.com/page.php?page=content/news_canadatrip.html

This is from Galloway's blog, which faithfully records every mention of him in the media.

In "News from Canada" there is a list of three items.

"Galloway lashes 'disgraceful' Canadian foreign policy" with no attribution of source. Googling the article tracked it to WorldPressNetwork which got the article from Galloway's blog.

Then, there is a Toronto Star article, linking to The Star indeed:

http://www.thestar.com/article/121006

And concluding with "A few photos" of the usual Gallowayan buffoonery.

_________

I don't know about you but I doubt that one desultory article in one newspaper can be said to be "coverage by mainstream media".

And even in this, there is a problem. The article does not cover Galloway's 2006 appearance in Ottawa.

It is merely a "preview of the message he'll deliver tonight [Nov 18, 2006] to a Toronto audience." in what the author of the piece describes as:

"Galloway arrived in Toronto on Thursday evening for a whirlwind tour of speaking engagements in Toronto, Montreal and Ottawa."

It is of course possible that my google search came up short, and begtodiffer can indeed provide some links to Canadian mainstream media coverage of Galloway in Ottawa 2006.

4:37 PM  
Blogger Terry Glavin said...

Contentious:

The David Icke character "Beg to Differ" did provide a link:

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/politics/story.html?id=b1a53168-0a3c-46f0-b94c-f6e1d7252ed2&k=28974

He did so in in the course of his attempts to deny the fact that Galloway was in Ottawa to attend a birthday party for the 74th anniversary of the fascist SSNP, and did attend that party as its guest speaker, and that nobody in the news media even noticed - that's what I reported. He also claims Galloway's visit was merely a dinner with some men's club that has golf tournaments or something, and demanded evidence of the SSNP event, and it was there all along, and is still there, in my original post(I link to it in the post that produced this comment thread). It's there, in front of his very eyes, in the poster advertising the Galloway Ottawa event, emblazoned with the SSNP swastika.

I expect the one cub reporter who wrote that one tiny story about Galloway dropping in at some Syrian Club that day didn't have a clue, either.

One aspect of this I haven't raised lately is that it was also right about that same time that the SSNP was brought into the ruling Syrian Baathist coalition headed by Galloway's friend al-Assad.

5:21 PM  
Blogger Patrick Ross said...

Terry, you're comparing apples to oranges here and drawing some untenable conclusions.

First off, you must understand that to label Hamas as a death cult risks reducing their entire purpose to the worship of death -- death being the overriding purpose of their actions, and to ignore their laundry list of political and social grievances against the Israeli state.

You aren't the only public intellectual to make this mistake. Michael Ignatieff did the same thing in The Lesser Evil.

To label Hamas as a death cult implies that we should simply dismiss them as religious nuts. It risks dismissing their grievances right alongside their methods.

Certainly, their methods should be more than dismissed or condemned -- their methods should be suppressed by any and all means possible, right up to the forcible dismantling of that group.

Their grievances, however, should not be dismissed. Their grievances should be examined, considered, then either discarded or rectified as each particular grievance warrants.

Comparing Hamas to the Manson family is probably about the most ill-conceived comparison in the long, sad history of ill-conceived comparison.

Charles Manson was a sociopath, and he gathered around him a group of people so sycophantic as to eventually become sociopaths themselves.

Manson had a collection of beliefs with no basis in reality that seem to amount for whatever motives he may have had for the murders they committed. One was a noted love of death. Another was his belief that Armageddon ("Helter Skelter") was coming. On a final, perhaps more important note, the act was meant to intimidate Beach Boy Dennis Wilson who -- if I recall correctly from 100 Most Socking Moments in Rock & Roll -- had owned the Tate home at the time when Manson been associating with him.

On the last note, the murders couldn't actually be confused with terrorism due to the fact that Manson never believed he would, or even intended to, gain anything from the murders.

Very different from Hamas, who believe -- wrongly -- that they'll liberate the Palestinian people by destroying Israel.

(They so easily forget that Palestinians are just as oppressed by many of the Arab states they also congregate in.)

Believe me, Terry, no one's resolve against organizations like Hamas is any stiffer than my own.

But by the same token, I recognize that we do ourselves no favour by ignoring their grievances -- which also provide the bedrock from which they gather strength and support. Solving these problems bring us much closer to solving the problem of terrorism itself -- although this cannot be done in absense of dealing with the terrorists themselves.

Realism, Terry. It isn't fun, and it's rarely flattering.

5:35 PM  
Blogger Terry Glavin said...

From the horse's mouth:

The SSNP itself, on its own web page, confirms Galloway's visit, and there is even a suggestion that his entire whirlwind tour of Canada was an SSNP endeavour:

http://www.ssnp.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=print_topic;f=1;t=002598


"t was a magnificent event, George Galloway was as great as ever. We had a sellout crowd
(over a 1000 seats sold in 3 days). a very well organized event, over 50 girl and guy working in a very well organized fashion thanks a to well laid plan (Thanks to Bassel Alken). Mr. Galloway had the crowd so excited that they had giving him over 30 ovations.

"We had a succesful event despite many obstacles thrown in our faces by the University administration ub=nder pressure from the Zionists, despite cheap and low attacks by the same Zionists, and an almost total media boycott of the event. Mr Galloway was pleaseantly surprised and combative because of it.

"We had a dinner with him (organizers and some other Roufakaa and close friends). Very happy with the results and hopefully all of our chapters have as or more succesful events."

I note that the news media wasn't paying attention and should have been, remember. The SSNP here actually complains that Galloway didn't get enough news media, "an almost total media boycott," for which they insinuate the "cheap and low Zionists" are to blame.

If you're still reading, BtD, it's like I said the first time you showed up here in an effort to cover Galloway's tracks:

Nice try. You lose. You fail.

5:37 PM  
Blogger Terry Glavin said...

Patrick:

"First off, you must understand that to label Hamas as a death cult risks reducing their entire purpose to the worship of death. . ."

No, no such risk at all, whatsoever, and as I told you before, I did no such thing anyway. But for argument's sake, I will say "their entire purpose," to distinguish them from the conventional Palestinian "national liberation" movement, is pretty damn close to "worship of death" when you add it up and strip away all the irrelevant stuff and the lunacy.

You are wrong, too, if I may so presume, to conflate the Palestinian freedom struggle with the objectives Hamas has taken on for itself.

Two struggles, Patrick: One is a democratic struggle for a free and independent Palestine. The other is a global war against liberal democracy, women's rights, modernity itself, and of course, as always, the Jews.

Hamas is not engaged in the former, except as a cover. As Hamas itself says, Palestine is but a stepping stone.

Hams is engaged in the latter war, against all those things i mentioned, plus they're against the Shriners. Did I mention the Shriners?

"It risks dismissing their grievances right alongside their methods."

You've made this mistake already. See my previous response.

As for the Manson-Hamas comparison, which I originally just made for fun, you have now actually managed to convince me that I was maybe more right than I thought or intended to be. You list the Manson cult's weird ideas. They are nothing compared to the ideas that animate Hamas. You really should look it up. It's in all in their founding charter. I don't think even Manson was crazy enough to want to pick on the Shriners. Have you seen those guys on their Harleys? Terrifying. Dang.

"...the murders couldn't actually be confused with terrorism..."

See what I mean? You're reading way, way too much into this. I never suggested anything of the kind. Did I say Charlie Manson was a terrorist? Next thing you know you'll be saying nice things about Volkswagons.

"Hamas, who believe -- wrongly -- that they'll liberate the Palestinian people by destroying Israel."

Do go and have a look at what it is Hamas actually believes. It is by no means as simple as that. Of course yes, it would be great if we all had a clear-eyed understanding of these people, you are right, but don't kid yourself about Hamas and its appeal. They did not win power in the Palestinian Authority elections because of the way they articulated Palestinian grievances against Israel, or for articulating any particular anti-Israeli grievance.

This is important.

Hamas won power as the result of a long, determined and well-funded campaign of ingratiating themselves with the Palestinian people (this is the whole "Hamas is really just an association of nurses and social workers" thing you'll still hear from McMaster University profs, as I had to put up with in a radio panel discussion only last week) and then convincing ordinary, oppressed, bullied Palestinians that Hamas was the only thing available to throw off the corrupt, duplicitous shakedown-artist tyranny of Fatah. At the time Hamas got elected, there was not even one Zionist to whom I put the question, "How would you have voted, in their place?" who did not say, without hesitating, "Hamas." It really was that bad, and really is that bad.

Hamas has since consolidated its power by creating a gangster statelet in Gaza and gouging out the eyes of any oppositon that might rear its head, and by inflaming and inciting the Palestinians by every and all means at its disposal to lay all their problems at the feet of Israel, and the Jews. And the Shriners.

The "grievances" Hamas claims against Israel are irrelevant to "the bedrock from which they gather strength and support." As we have seen, what support they have among Palestinians is and was almost solely dependent upon their capture of the popular grievances against Fatah, not Israel. And those were indeed "legitimate" grievances, just as there are legitimate Palestinian grievances against Israel.

But this is not what Hamas is about. Yu can look it up.

6:24 PM  
Blogger Patrick Ross said...

"No, no such risk at all, whatsoever, and as I told you before, I did no such thing anyway. But for argument's sake, I will say "their entire purpose," to distinguish them from the conventional Palestinian "national liberation" movement, is pretty damn close to "worship of death" when you add it up and strip away all the irrelevant stuff and the lunacy."

Terry, I don't want to be a dick about this.

But can I draw your attention to the meaning of the words "death" and "cult"?

"You are wrong, too, if I may so presume, to conflate the Palestinian freedom struggle with the objectives Hamas has taken on for itself."

I accept this as a valid criticism. You're entirely right. Hamas does have a political agenda that envelops, but exceeds, the Palestinian freedom struggle.

Certainly we see this when Hamas starts rounding up members of Fatah and tortures and executes them.

Most of the broader goals of the Palestinian freedom movement are held by goals. But you're right to note that these don't entirely embody Hamas' cause.

But I'd remind you that these are demands on behalf of Hamas that we would refuse upon examining them.

"Two struggles, Patrick: One is a democratic struggle for a free and independent Palestine. The other is a global war against liberal democracy, women's rights, modernity itself, and of course, as always, the Jews.

Hamas is not engaged in the former, except as a cover. As Hamas itself says, Palestine is but a stepping stone.

Hams is engaged in the latter war, against all those things i mentioned, plus they're against the Shriners. Did I mention the Shriners?
"

Hold on, Terry, how could you not be against the Shriners? Have you seen those little cars they drive?

I'm told they don't need drivers' licenses to drive those things. I think they should be subject to the same traffic laws as the rest of us.

All joking aside, I once again cannot help but partially disagree with you here.

The Palestinian freedom struggle -- at least as they see it, and let's keep in mind that they have different, even perverse, definitions of freedom -- is more than simply a cover for Hamas.

If Hamas were only waging a war against liberal democracy, as you suggest, Israel and Gaza are not fruitful theatres for that war.

There are places Hamas could be far more effective than in a place where they get their asses kicked everytime they step out of line.

Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq come immediately to mind.

The only reason for Hamas to be active in Gaza is to advance their perverse notions of Palestinian freedom. Again, their notions of freedom are perverse. But there are plenty of other grievances Hamas has against the Israeli state that are legitimate.

"Did I say Charlie Manson was a terrorist? Next thing you know you'll be saying nice things about Volkswagons."

When I was a kid, The Lovebug was my favourite movie.

Shit. Does that make me a Nazi?

"
Do go and have a look at what it is Hamas actually believes. It is by no means as simple as that. Of course yes, it would be great if we all had a clear-eyed understanding of these people, you are right, but don't kid yourself about Hamas and its appeal. They did not win power in the Palestinian Authority elections because of the way they articulated Palestinian grievances against Israel, or for articulating any particular anti-Israeli grievance.
"

I'm reminded of a joke on The Daily Show -- a bumper sticker reading "it's the death to Israel, stupid!".

Many Palestinians blame their general lot in life on Israel. On many, many counts they're wrong. But on some of these counts they're right.

"Hamas won power as the result of a long, determined and well-funded campaign of ingratiating themselves with the Palestinian people (this is the whole "Hamas is really just an association of nurses and social workers" thing you'll still hear from McMaster University profs, as I had to put up with in a radio panel discussion only last week) and then convincing ordinary, oppressed, bullied Palestinians that Hamas was the only thing available to throw off the corrupt, duplicitous shakedown-artist tyranny of Fatah. At the time Hamas got elected, there was not even one Zionist to whom I put the question, "How would you have voted, in their place?" who did not say, without hesitating, "Hamas." It really was that bad, and really is that bad."

No one here should be pretending that Hamas is a benign group. They aren't.

And no one's pretending that Fatah are angels, either. But that certainly doesn't make Hamas rounding them up for torture and execution A-OK.

"Hamas has since consolidated its power by creating a gangster statelet in Gaza and gouging out the eyes of any oppositon that might rear its head, and by inflaming and inciting the Palestinians by every and all means at its disposal to lay all their problems at the feet of Israel, and the Jews. And the Shriners.

The "grievances" Hamas claims against Israel are irrelevant to "the bedrock from which they gather strength and support." As we have seen, what support they have among Palestinians is and was almost solely dependent upon their capture of the popular grievances against Fatah, not Israel. And those were indeed "legitimate" grievances, just as there are legitimate Palestinian grievances against Israel.
"

Shriners also wear really funny hats.

Have you ever seen them, Terry. Really, really funny hats.

And the grievances that help lead to terrorism are anything but irrelevant. Not in the case of the Hamas, and not in the case of any other group.

The problem starts somewhere. These things just don't sprout up spontaneously.

10:20 PM  
Blogger Terry Glavin said...

"But I'd remind you that these are demands on behalf of Hamas that we would refuse upon examining them."

You think they intend to give anyone the choice to refuse? "Sorry lads, this article here just won't do, and this section needs a thorough rejigging. There you go, run along and mend it, mind how you go."

They don't want to talk about it, Patrick. Read the Hamas Charter: "There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors."

And this bit is upside down: "The Palestinian freedom struggle - at least as they see it, and let's keep in mind that they have different, even perverse, definitions of freedom - is more than simply a cover for Hamas."

Right side up: There is nothing perverse about the cause of Palestinian freedom, a free Palestinian state, or co-existence with Israel. It is a cover for Hamas. Who says so? Hamas says so. Read what they say, read their charter, their founding principles, and you will find that their intentions are batshit-crazy religious whackjobbery, totally and irrationally irreconcilable.

"These things just don't sprout up spontaneously" is correct, but if you think the Hamas ideology sprouts from "legitimate Palestinian grievances," you would be fatally wrong. Its ideology precedes the creation of Israel. "End the occupation"? Israel did end the occupation of Gaza, and look what happened to Gaza under Hamas.

Hamas seeks explictly to conquer and destroy Jews everywhere, not just Israel. Its beef with Israel arises not from any grievance, but arises, as it admits in in its own charter, "by virtue of its being Jewish and of having a Jewish population."

Hamas isn't obtuse about its purposes. It's global "jihad" they're calling for. They expect to unleash this holy war in its full fury by sundering the Jews from Israel, capturing the magical Al Aqsa mosque, "the navel of the world," and this, by some hey-presto abracadabra event (because Mohammed jumped off it on a horse or something) will set off Allah and his jihadis to victory.

In closing, I can only conclude you're just trying to wind me up with your "apples and oranges" and yes, buts and whathaveyou, and you are just being a scamp.

So to end this, agreed about the Shriners then. It's all their fault, so: Blindfold, wall, bang; Trench, shovels, quicklime.

Death To The Shriners.

Happy now?

11:27 PM  
Blogger Chen said...

Hi
Got Here from Harry's Place.
Don't know much about the story really. So what is it about exactly? I know the immigration minister of Canada sent a letter to GG that he funds terrorist and so will not be allowed to enter Canada. But what exactly was written in the letter? And what exactly did GG need to do in order to enter Canada (face a court or a tribunal or something)?

thnx
Isy

Oh and BTW, Patrick you said:
There are places Hamas could be far more effective than in a place where they get their asses kicked everytime they step out of line.

Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq come immediately to mind.

The only reason for Hamas to be active in Gaza is to advance their perverse notions of Palestinian freedom. Again, their notions of freedom are perverse. But there are plenty of other grievances Hamas has against the Israeli state that are legitimate.


Don't want to but in to your disscution but Hamas is an extention of the Muslim Brotherhood and are funded by Iran

6:00 AM  
Blogger Chen said...

* meant to say that Hamas is funded by Iran and is an extention of the MB and so is more of a tool to destroy Israel and for Iran and Shitty Islam to have more influence in the ME (and maybe the rest of the world). I for one felt a Cold War "vibe" between Iran and the US durring Bush administration........although I'm probably overexagerating.

6:05 AM  
Blogger Patrick Ross said...

"You think they intend to give anyone the choice to refuse?"

Certainly not, but by dealing with their legitimate grievances, we undermine any sense of legitimacy they can cling to. If not amongst the Palestinian community, then at least in the rest of the world.

"They don't want to talk about it, Patrick. Read the Hamas Charter."

I think you're misunderstanding me, Terry. I'm not suggesting we negotiate with Hamas, or anything of the sort.

I think I've even used the words "destroy Hamas" somewhere in this discussion.

But destroying Hamas isn't enough. Preventing the further spread of Hamas or the ascension of similar organizations by dealing with the conditions that has supported its existence is absolutely crucial.

Hamas continues to feed itself off of issues such as Palestinian poverty and the alienation of the Palestinian people from the land they occupied for centuries.

"There is nothing perverse about the cause of Palestinian freedom, a free Palestinian state, or co-existence with Israel. It is a cover for Hamas. Who says so? Hamas says so. Read what they say, read their charter, their founding principles, and you will find that their intentions are batshit-crazy religious whackjobbery, totally and irrationally irreconcilable."

The broader notion of Palestinian liberation certainly isn't perverse. The way that Hamas would choose to pursue that liberation -- by imposing an Islamic theocracy over them -- is perverse.

There's very little liberty in a theocracy. I'm sure you won'd disagree with this.

And I don't think a Palestinian state is a solution for this, either. The issue will only be solved when Israelis and Palestinians learn to share that country mutually.

"So to end this, agreed about the Shriners then. It's all their fault, so: Blindfold, wall, bang; Trench, shovels, quicklime.

Death To The Shriners.

Happy now?
"

Or at least funny hats and tiny cars for everyone. Or at least for me.

3:16 PM  
Blogger Terry Glavin said...

"Certainly not, but by dealing with their legitimate grievances, we undermine any sense of legitimacy they can cling to. . ."

Forgive me, Patrick, but if you still want to think Hamas has legitimate grievances, or cares to cling to any sense of "legitimacy" - least of all "in the rest of the world" - or that they are at all interested in the "liberation" of the Palestinian people, or that it is just "the way that Hamas would choose to pursue that liberation" that is the crux of the matter, then I don't think there's much more I can say to dissuade you.

But let's please agree that this is not about the "occupation." Israel ended its occupation of Gaza years ago, shutting down and evacuating all the Israeli settlements, and cleared the way for billions of dollars of goodwill investments that Europe and America and the Arab world was poised to invest, in the great hope of turning Gaza into a Dubai on the Mediterranean.

This did not matter one speck to Hamas.

It was right and legitimate to end the occupation of Gaza anyway, of course, just as it is right and legitimate to call (as most Israelis do, by the way) for Israel to end the occupation of the West Bank.

But this will not matter one speck to Hamas, either.

Its "grievances" are not legitimate, rational, achievable or reconcilable with any "legitimate" grievance" or counter-grievance. Its aims and intentions are non-negotiable and specifically informed by what it calls a "universal" program that is based in no small measure upon a deep and foul antisemitism such that Hamas itself cites in its favour the lie of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

We might just as well walk away from this by resort to something similar that I suggested earlier. Let's say Hamas is just legitimately and sincerely confusing things with the Protocols of the Elders of Kilkenny, the global domination program of my own tribe, which by our our cunning in letting the Jews get all the bad press, we are advancing, by stealth, as any fule nose.

Cheers,

TG

4:10 PM  
Blogger The Contentious Centrist said...

I think I'm beginning to understand Patrick Ross's game plan. He wants to re-adjust, or shrink the manouvering space of the choices Israel can entertain vis a vis the Palestinians. It's not a choice between the status-quo and two states, one Hebrew, one Arab. No. He wants Israel to be facing another set of choices: between a secular bi-national state and an Islamic theocracy in which Jews will be dhimmi at best.

Faced with this choice, he hopes that Israel's Jews will of course opt for the first, ostensibly saner, alternative in which at least temporarily they can hold equal or some power in the governance of their own country.

That's why he insists on the "legitimate" part of Hamas' grievances while expressing the need to destroy Hamas. It's that "legitimate" part which calls for the dissolution of the state of Israel which must be preserved at all cost.

It's no different than any other anti-Zionist view which considers Jewish presence in Israel as merely deserving of toleration, if that.

Why can't he just say it as clearly and simply as that? It's not really about the "occupation". It's about Israel's existence and legitimacy.

4:51 PM  
Blogger ModernityBlog said...

I enjoyed the interview, you were very sharp :)

6:47 PM  
Blogger Brian from Toronto said...

Terry,

Wonderful to read someone actually making sense about the Galloway affair.

I find it intersesting that none of the pundits in the national media try to explain why Galloway should be exempted from our anti-terrorism law.

I think the one who came closest to addressing the issue was Jeffrey Simpson in the Globe and Mail (http://tinyurl.com/cn3txe).

Like the rest of the pundits, Mr. Simpson mutters about free speech, but for him that’s just a free point. Jeffrey’s real concern is that he’d dearly like Canada to have a seat on the UN Security Council, and there's no way Canada can get that seat unless we show that we too hate the Jews - oops -that we too hate Israel.

I'm not implying that Mr. Simpson is an antisemite. For Jeffrey, it’s nothing personal; rather his particular delusion is that he fancies himself a foreign policy realist.

8:51 PM  
Blogger Central Content Publisher said...

@JC

Harper didn't decide to add Hamas to Canada's list of terrorist organizations. Jean Cretien's government added Hamas to the list in 2002.

The date of Hamas' last terrorist act could be considered grounds for changing their status - I suppose. However, to accomplish this feat, one would have to retroactively classify missile launching as non-terrorist acts. The only way I can see to do that is to fall back on the argument that only non-governmental organizations can be classified as terrorist organizations. It's a valid argument, but hinges on whether or not terrorist organizations can be considered legitimately elected governments.

@Everyone else

I think it was pragmatic to refuse Galloway entry. Once in the country, anyone could have pressed criminal charges against him and the government would be compelled to pursue those charges. Throwing foreign MPs in jail is bad mojo.

11:47 AM  
Blogger Chen said...

Wait I thought he wasn't refused in in the first place. I'm confused. Can someone explain please?
Nice blog BTW

11:57 AM  
Blogger Terry Glavin said...

Hi Chen.

Galloway, was not refused entry in the first place. It never happened, no matter what you might have read about this. That's what the post is about; how the press was misled, and the newspapers misled their readers, and none has had the courage to say: "Sorry, but just about everything we told you about the Galloway thing was wrong."

12:14 PM  
Blogger Chen said...

SO what exactly DID happen? This is why I'm confused. All I understood was that this minister wrote a letter to GG about the immigration laws that got him all angry. As I've said in a preveous comment I don't understand the Canadian laws of immigration (ie what a person has to do to get it) so I don't understand what GG needed to do in order to try to get in (you said something in this article about a tribunal but I didn't quite understand).
The main source of my confusion is that to my knowledge GG SAID he wanted to get into Canada (even though according to your article he didn't do anything about it) and resieved a letter from the immigration minister that if he tries the court won't allow it because of his terrorist funding. So doesn't that amount to banning at least in principle or am I getting this all wrong?

12:37 PM  
Blogger Terry Glavin said...

Chen: I think your confusion comes from thinking there is some bureaucratic rigmarole involved in visiting Canada. There isn't. Galloway is a British subject, and he doesn't even require a visa to come to Canada. So it was impossible to simply turn down a request from him to come to Canada because he isn't required to make any such request, and he didn't make any such request, so, as you can see, we didn't turn him down.

There was no "letter from the immigration minister that if he tries the court won't allow it because of his terrorist funding."

We did nothing that would "amount to banning at least in principle," either.

It didn't happen.

He was told - apparently because his parliamentary staff asked Canada what we would think about Galloway's admissibility if he wanted to come to Canada - that a preliminary assessment of his admissibility indicated that if he tried to enter Canada, he would probably be found inadmissible, because after all, he had only days earlier boasted about doing something would make him inadmissible according to Canadian law.

He was also told it was only a preliminary assessment, and he was invited to challenge it, and he was advised of other things he might try in order to get in by other means, and so on.

What happened is simple and straightforward.

Galloway asked for an advance exemption from the ordinary admissibility requirements we expect all visitors to Canada to be able to meet. He asked to be held above the law. He asked for advance assurance that no Canadian border guard would treat him like an ordinary person.

We said, no, you're just like everybody else, George. No special rules for you.

With that, Galloway decided not to try to enter Canada. We didn't even get a chance to "ban" him or "bar" him.

It didn't happen. It didn't occur.

1:07 PM  
Blogger Chen said...

Ooooooohhhhhhh. Now THAT makes sence. Few. thanks for clearing that up

1:53 PM  
Blogger march21 said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

5:04 PM  
Blogger Terry Glavin said...

Life. So unfair. So positively capricious in its meting out of unfairness. . .

That last post, which I just deleted, was perhaps 1,000 words long. And all for nought. For nothing.

It began thus: "Terry wants us to believe that Mr Galoway's shipment of food and medicine shipment to Gaza, made with Israel's agreement, and its delivery to the Hamas government was a "terrorist" act. . ."

Actually. I don't want anyone to believe anything. Mr. Galloway did not simply deliver food and medicine to Gaza. I don't care if Flann O'Brien himself (pbuh) approved or disapproved of it. And I didn't say that giving it to this strangely named "Hamas government" was a "terrorist act," although Mr. Galloway himself obviously believed that the act would be read as an "engaging in terrorism" activity proscribed by IRPA Section 34(1), otherwise he would not have sought an exemption in advance from that Section of the Act, in the event that he might attempt to enter Canada, which he did not do, thus relieving Canada of having to decide whether to bar him or ban him, which Canada did not do.

That's just what was wrong with the first sentence. The rest was the usual spittle-flecked ad homimum tirade about how bad Israel is.

Try a Stormfront site, March 21. They will laugh at you, but they won't delete you.

How like life!

5:27 PM  
Blogger march21 said...

"It was right and legitimate to end the occupation of Gaza anyway, of course, just as it is right and legitimate to call (as most Israelis do, by the way) for Israel to end the occupation of the West Bank."

This is IMHO part of the problem. Now what it wrong with such evasive, vague language which is simply meant to obscure not only the very "facts on the groud" but also the diplomatic record. It has seemed clear to me that being for "a two state solution" really means nothing is that state doesnt at all resemble what UN resoltions call for, meaning a complete withdrawal to the 1967 borders, as Glavin well knows. Now the problem with his statement that most Israelis agree with this, is that it obscures far more then it illuminates and ends add adding to our general misunderstanding of the problem.

Can Terry name me one Israeli government that has regonised a Palestinian state within its full 1967 borders? Of course not, meaning that under any reasonable defintion that when it comes to international law every single Israeli government whether left or rigth has been rejectionjist, and this rejectionsm is on the increase as the current government does not even acknowledge the rheotorical two state solution being discussed.

But that's just goverments terry now brings up the issue of the Israeli population. He says most support the two state solution. Well the problem is again what on earth this even means. The continual construction in the largest Israeli settlement blocs of Ma'ale Adummim, Modi’in Illit, Ariel, Gush Etzion, Pisgat Givat ringed around East Jerusalem is illegal by International Law, Amnesty International, the World Court, Human Rights Watch, European Union and U.S. both are members of the Middle East Quartet) and numerous countries outside the Middle East and North Africa. It also hampers the creation of a viable Palestinian state or independent Palestine on its internationally accepted 1967 borders. Most of thse settlemens are growing.

Now i've seen polls and its clear that if you ask Israelis if they are willing to give up the last settlements around East Jeruselam, like Ma'ale Adummim which has a population of 33,259, the answer is no. But Ma'ale Adummim is an illegal settlement. John Dugard for the United Nations Commission on Human Rights stated that the "three major settlement blocs - Gush Etzion, Ma'ale Adumim and Ariel - will effectively divide Palestinian territory into cantons or Bantustans. Even under Barak's deal, framed by Israeli apologists as "generous" Israel would keep this settlement intact and craft a solution to Palestinian continuity by creating bypass roads.

So its clear that one can be for a "two state solution" but the problem is that such a position ends up being useless if the two state solution is robbed of any significance or meaning. There's a need for Terry to be much more exact in his language, or else he simply ends up being complicit in cluterring up the debate with inaccuracies, vagueness and useless semantics

5:28 PM  
Blogger Mitka said...

But Terry here is where I am really confused. The issue (if he tried to enter Canada) we all seem to agree is Galloway's funding of terrorist groups, specifically Hamas. Yet Galloway has publicly claimed that he will be suing both CTV and Bernie Farber of the Jewish Congress for claiming, wait for it....you got it...that he has provided funds to a terrorist group hence he funds terrorism. How can he do this?

5:29 PM  
Blogger march21 said...

Okay, I dont think that my contribuation was at all ad hominem, in fact it was an attempt to add what i thought was some much needed clarity to the debate. That said i agree with Terry that it as probably far too long for this blog, and contained a very longish quote from Christopher Hitchesn, which I could imagine came off as clutter. Here, then, is a shorter version that I'd like to at least be part of a dialogue.

I want to strongly take issue with what I consider to to a horrendously misleading bit of propaganda found in Terry’s response to Patrick. He says that Israel ended its occupation of Gaza, which is the claim of the Israeli government its spokespeople, who have the blood of 400 Palestinian children on their hands, and it is also endlessly repeated by official apologists of the Israeli occupation whether it be the CJC and others. The problem is that under international law and regulations it is a blad face lie.

While Israel has indeed removed the settlements from the tiny coastal Strip, they have in no way ended the occupation. They remained in control of the borders, the airspace and the waterways of Gaza, and have carried out frequent raids and targeted assassinations since the disengagement. Under UN defintions, and I imagien that Terry respects international law, Israel is indeed defined as an occupier of Gaza.
Furthermore, since 2006 Israel has imposed a comprehensive siege on the Strip. For over two years, Gazans have lived on the edge of starvation and without the most basic necessities of human life, such as cooking or heating oil and basic medications. This siege has already caused a humanitarian catastrophe which has only been exacerbated by the dramatic increase in Israeli military aggression.

I'd ask respecfully how Terry can simply say that Israel ended its occupation of Gaza. I am interested in a just solution which acknowledges history and affirms the right of both people to live on the land in peaceful and just conexistence and I view international law as a mechanism to do this. I'd like to frame my points around objective facts but also a philisophical viewpoint which I believe comes from the left, not stormfront. I dont think tis fair that you say I wantr to "blame Israel" even if you disagree with my points. cheers

5:37 PM  
Blogger Terry Glavin said...

Mitka:

"Yet Galloway has publicly claimed that he will be suing both CTV and Bernie Farber of the Jewish Congress for claiming, wait for it....you got it...that he has provided funds to a terrorist group hence he funds terrorism. How can he do this?"

I am not familiar with what Bernie said on this matter, exactly, and I am not a lawyer, but I am familiar enough with libel law to know that simply referring to a widely-reported fact that is without controversy and which nobody even disputes (Galloway does not dispute having given money to Hamas; he has bragged about it) cannot be actionable in law. And we will see if Galloway sues anyone, and we will see who wins.

5:48 PM  
Blogger Terry Glavin said...

March 21:

You didn't help your case by bringing the Irish struggle into it and getting that so hideously and disgracefully wrong, let me tell you.

"I'd ask respecfully how Terry can simply say that Israel ended its occupation of Gaza."

By saying Israel ended its occupation of Gaza, that's how, and I am by no means interested in engaging or entertaining such as you about whether in some finer point of interpretation of international law (which governs relations between states, and Gaza is not a state) Israel's actions in ending its occupations do or do not constitute ending its occupation.

Boring, irrelevant, besides the point, diversionary, subject-changing, compulsively weird obsessions about these matters of Israeli policy are wholly uninteresting to me.

5:54 PM  
Blogger HS said...

Terry, you need to learn to make your point more clearly, in fewer words. Try twitter. You've also clearly become obsessed by this news story. Try twitter again.

6:40 PM  
Blogger Terry Glavin said...

HS: Piss off.

Brief enough?

6:53 PM  
Blogger march21 said...

International law doesn't only govern relations between states, it also sets parameters for occupying powers as well. What Israel's relatioinship to the people of Gaza, whether it reserves the right to invade, impose blockades, control access points and airspace may seem to you to be "finer points of international law" but it matters for Palestinians in Gaza, as these powers Israel holds effects their lives, and it also should matter for those intesrested in ending the occupation in its totality. In other words what may seem like semantics to you or boring may have greater importance.

During the roundly condemned invasion of Gaza, which lets never forget killed 400 Palestinian children, Israeli apologists and spokespeople continually asserted that they were not an occupying power in Gaza. It was part and parcel of their propaganda campaign and was articulated by their apologists like Bernie and the CJC here. They obviously found it important to not discuss the "finer points of international law" as they cruelly justified the use of white phosphorius during a military campaign rightly condenmned by Manesty International amongst other groups, not to mention a growing number of left liberal jews, leading to the strengthening of J Street and other left, liberal jewish groups in North America hoping to displace the power of right wing apologists of the occupation whether it be the CJC or AIPAC.

So in other words, these factual points matter, apologists for Israeli violence know this. Palestinians lives are effected by these "finer points" and they should register for people of conscious as well

7:18 PM  
Blogger march21 said...

"Boring, irrelevant, besides the point, diversionary, subject-changing, compulsively weird obsessions about these matters of Israeli policy are wholly uninteresting to me."

Right its much easier to say that Israelis in polls support a two state solution without defining what this state would look like, or what the term two state solution means. Who cares that its Palestinians would would have to live in this putative state which in reality would more likely resemble a banstutan, with huge settlements cutting off Palestinians from each other and acting as a constant remimnder that their disposssion was justified and that they must remember as Israeli army chief Moshe Yaalon said that Palestinians are a defeated people.

No all this messy policy stuff is simply boring and besides the point whether or not it effects the lives of a long suffering and stateless people. Who cares?

7:26 PM  
Blogger Terry Glavin said...

The only reason I'm leaving your posts up March 21 is that they expose just how narcissistic and lame the supposed "friends" of Palestine can be.

I hate to break it to you, but none of the silly things you say here "effects the lives of a long suffering and stateless people," and you can try to make yourself feel all righteous, bleating about how Israel is occupying Gaza because it "reserves the right to invade, impose blockades, control access points and airspace," and I might amuse myself by answering that Hamas reserves the right to be rather much more nasty, even to Shriners, and back and forth it will go, in a boring, stupid, waste of time. And you want me to indulge you so you can think you're clever by chucking in the white phosphorous and the worn-out Moshe Yaalon quote and all the "liberal Jews" who are mad at Israel and "lets never forget killed 400 Palestinian children," oh no, let's never forget that.

It makes you feel so good about yourself, doesn't it? After all, you are such a great friend of the Palestinians, aren't you, because it is all about you.

Numpty.

7:56 PM  
Blogger march21 said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

8:34 PM  
Blogger march21 said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

8:37 PM  
Blogger Terry Glavin said...

Sorry folks. Just dealing with some grafitti.

8:43 PM  
Blogger march21 said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

8:52 PM  
Blogger Terry Glavin said...

"This is crazy. You refuse to engage in dealing with the substance of my posts. . ."

Yes. I do this because I am sane.

9:25 PM  
Blogger march21 said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

9:33 PM  
OpenID alakurda said...

"No all this messy policy stuff is simply boring and besides the point whether or not it effects the lives of a long suffering and stateless people. Who cares?"

Palestinians are Arabs. Arabs have 22 States. Arab population is more than 200 million. Money, arms, and diplomatic support is pouring into Palestinian territories from all corners of the world. Even the US wants to see an independent Palestine. Palestine is already represented with its own seat in the UN. A lot of people care about Palestinians. A lot!

If you really, truly want to support "a long suffering and stateless people" then you ought to shift your gaze to Kurds. Not only you'll see that Arabs, Turks and Persians are gang-pressing on Kurds, but you'll also see that every nation-state thinks a Kurdistan just for 5 million out of 30 million Kurds will be disastrous -nay, apocalyptic!- to the entire world.

Have I told you yet that while Kurds support an independent Palestine, the Palestinians oppose an independent Kurdistan?

11:30 PM  
Blogger Paul Prescod said...

My parents did not teach me anything negative about Jews. My peers at school did not say anything bad about them, and on the single occasion that I heard the word "Jew" being equated with something bad, 15 years ago, I confronted the speaker (and in fact, she professed that she also had no reason to fear or dislike Jews).

So anti-Semitism is not merely something I repudiate, but something I simply cannot understand and have no experience of. That there are people who hate Jews is as mysterious to me as that there are people who hate Hutus.

And yet, if when I read political blogs, I hear that if I disagree with Israel's actions, I "must" be an anti-Semite or at least an apologist for anti-Semites. It's infuriating. It is, frankly, the only negative experience I EVER HAVE with Jewish people: is being brow-beaten by Jewish writers for "anti-Semitism" because I think that the settlements are wrong and evil (even as it is self-evident that suicide bombers are also wrong and evil).

This is not the way to win friends and influence people. I don't need to be "with you or against you" in George Bush terminology. We are not children. This is not a playground. These issues are too important to demand that people vote a strict party line lest they be accused of "anti-Semitism."

Frankly I think that that word needs a vacation so that it can recover its meaning. I have reason to believe that there are still real, honest to goodness, irrational, Jew-hating anti-Semites in the world (even if I've never met one). When I do meet one, I want to be able to apply that word correctly, and I hope it still means something by then!

11:42 PM  
Blogger Terry Glavin said...

"I hear that if I disagree with Israel's actions, I "must" be an anti-Semite."

Odd. I keep hearing that people keep hearing this, but I have actually never, ever heard this myself.

Maybe you should take that vacation you're talking about, Paul, or at least stay away from those strange blogs where you keep hearing these strange things.

And maybe, everybody, could we just end the comments at 86, right here, please

12:21 AM  
Blogger Ti-Guy said...

When Galloway visited Ottawa two years ago, he was every bit as famous as he is now. He was the guest of honour at a publicly-advertised 74th birthday party for the Syrian Social Nationalist Party.

I may have missed is, but where is the evidence to support this claim?

5:48 AM  
OpenID alakurda said...

The evidence? Zionists ate the evidence. No, that's a joke, obviously.

Zionist controlled media decided not to report it so there is no evidence. Happy?

No, that can't be true either. Because if that were true then why would the same Zionist controlled media would create a free speech hero out of that fascist thug, Galloway. (Ahem! I keep saying Zionist, instead of Jews, so that people won't mistake me for an anti-semite, eh! Wink wink, nudge nudge. That's so clever of me, innit?)

OK. Evidence! Evidence? That Galloway was in Canada a year ago? That he appeared on a function organised by an Arab clone of the Nazi Party? That not a single media organisation in Canada considered it worthy of report? You want evidence?

It is staring at you right in the face mister, Ti-Guy!

On the first page of Glavin's blog, you'll see two posts on Galloway. The second one is the one you've just quoted from and commented on. The first one is a little further down, titled "The Company We Keep". Therein is the evidence. The document is a promotional flyer.

Admittedly, the flyer is in Arabic. But the SSNP's stylised swastika logo and their fascist patron's face is unmistakeable. Followed by date, time and place of the celebrations, in English.

In case some people wanted more evidence, I did a further google search. Surely, not all of the Canadian media would have ignored the auspicious presence in Concordia University of such a fine contestant from the UK's celebrity Big Brother show. But, nope! Nada! Terry is right, there is none! Maybe because that was before he had flunked his parliamentary duties for embarrassing acts in embarrassing costumes on Big Brother in order to reach four million people instead of just four hundred.

I found this though on the web page of... yep, SSNP:
(copy & paste)
"It was a magnificent event, George Galloway was as great as ever. We had a sellout crowd
(over a 1000 seats sold in 3 days). a very well organized event, over 50 girl and guy working in a very well organized fashion thanks a to well laid plan (Thanks to Bassel Alken). Mr. Galloway had the crowd so excited that they had giving him over 30 ovations.

We had a succesful event despite many obstacles thrown in our faces by the University administration ub=nder pressure from the Zionists, despite cheap and low attacks by the same Zionists, and an almost total media boycutt of the event. Mr Galloway was pleaseantly surprised and combative because of it."
http://www.ssnp.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=002598

See? The Zionists attacked, the media boycotted. The Zionists, mind you, not the Jews. No, not the Jews. Make sure you say 'Zionists', so that Jews won't take you for an anti-semite or anything like that.

(Apologies to Terry for taking the liberty and shoving in the evidence. Sometimes, time is of essence.)

7:17 AM  
Blogger Andrew said...

I fear that the death of print will mean that this post is lost to posterity. In talking about this specific event you crystalize a number of historically significant themes of our time. Namely the death of the left and the rise of an anti-semitic, nativistic, self-loathing, anti-liberal barbarity that sees the buffoon Galloway as some kind of hero and his principled opponents as some kind of criminal. Very good stuff, sir.

Read Bernard Henri-Levy's Left in Dark Times if you haven't already. As you are Canadian (I'm Texan and followed the link from Hitchen's column this week) I'm sure you could read it in the original French.

Two other things. PaleoAnarchist doesn't speak for all anarchists, at least not this one. And if you like post-left, anarchist thought (and Hitchens lovers) check out the site I write for The Deliverators. Hope that putting up a legit comment doesn't get me the spam treatment...

9:13 PM  
Blogger L said...

Holy cripes, Captain, you're in the thick of things this week; not merely footnoting Hitchens and debating Currie -- you were just linked out of Mark Steyn's website too ya know. You could hardly have caused a bigger kerfuffle if you'd married Omar Khadr's sister, like this dude, who I can only assume is a real optimist:

http://www2.macleans.ca/tag/zaynab-khadr/

The most enjoyable part of opposing worldwide theocratic fascism is, you can count on bizarre developments, eh? Stay focused and keep writing, comrade.

PS. Galloway should've been permitted to speak, in person, and in Canada. You can't deny you've split some hairs in this uproar, and even split a few again...

1:52 AM  
Blogger Marcos El Malo said...

At the risk of insulting Mr. Hitchens, I'd like to point out that he's a class act for both admitting his error, and the means by which he made amends.

That said, I'd like to point out that comparing the Manson Family to Hamas is not mere hyperbole. The fact is that in addition to being a sociopath Charles Manson was political. He believed his group's brutal acts would trigger a race war between whites and blacks. That was his stated goal. How is that not terrorism?

Thank you and keep fighting the good fight.

8:49 PM  
Blogger JC said...

TG: No. I draw no such distinction. Galloway was not banned; no ban on Galloway was upheld.

Sure, Terry. Galloway being informed that he is "inadmissible" is not a ban. Just like I'm not going to ban Jews from my coffee shop. I'm just going to let them know that they are "inadmissible". So that's ok, then. sophistry....

12:44 AM  
Blogger JC said...

Following Terry's impeccable logic, JC' coffee shop would like to announce a new policy. Anybody supporting war crimes is now inadmissible. Since elements of Israel's forces commit war crimes, any supporter of Israel, and hence any zionist, supports war crimes. As Terry continually insists, anytime we say "zionist", we mean "jew", hence any Jew supports war crimes. Jews are thus inadmissible to the coffee shop. As coffee shop owner, it is in my power to exempt anyone from this policy. I choose not to. But don't worry, I'm not the slightest bit racist, since Jews aren't banned from my coffee shop. They are merely inadmissible.

1:02 AM  
Blogger The Contentious Centrist said...

Why does JC pick on that particular metaphor to make a point? Why does he choose to speak in ostensibly satirical tone about Jews and Israel, rather than, for example, about Iranians and the Iranian Regime, Arabs and the Saudi regime, Africans and the Zimbabwe or Sudanese regimes? Why does he insert "Jews" into his argument, as if it is the most natural, self-presenting example?

Eve Garrard once offered an explanation:

"....when we examine the actual words and practices of the boycott supporters, something rather different may come to mind. In their perverted use of Nazi comparisons, in their determined silence about the war crimes and crimes against humanity which have been committed against Israelis, and in their obsessional demand ... then perhaps what we hear is not so much the whisper of the closet anti-Semite as the rustle of the dirty raincoat - the repetitive, harassing, creepy sound of the stalker."

Antisemitism can be regarded as a pathological stalking of Jews qua Jews writ large. JC, in his instinctive, vindictive, obsessive, picking on them yet again to make a point about Galloway, only proves that he has that turn of mind.

http://normblog.typepad.com/normblog/2008/03/portrait-of-the.html

6:54 AM  
Blogger Terry Glavin said...

JC:

That's got to be the most perverse attempt at argument by analogy that I've ever read. We end up with George Galloway cast as a Jew who has been banned from a coffee shop.

Creepy.

For starters, George Galloway was neither banned, nor was he told that he was "inadmissible" to Canada. You have to ignore these facts before you even get off the ground with your lurid metaphor, so your allegation that I'm making a hair-splitting distinction between the two rests on a falsehood to start with.

If you're looking for an analogy in this particular case that has to involve sophistry and a Jew-banning coffee shop, this is what you would be looking for.

Say Canada has a law that denies entry to coffee shop owners who ban Jews. A coffee shop owner who bans Jews asks to be exempted in advance from the ordinary application of that law since he might be found inadmissible; after all, his coffee shop only bans people who attend synagogues, or whose families count among their traditions the occasional attendance at synagogues, or whose last names might end with berg, stein, and so on and so on.

That is precisely the kind of sophistry at work in this case. Galloway asks us to ignore the fact that Ismail Haniye is the deposed prime minister of the now-comatose Palestinian authority, and that Galloway himself described his donations to Hamas by saying "This is not about charity. This is about politics." Then he asks us to accept the sophistry that he is not a bagman for a death cult that Canada lists as a terrorist group, on the grounds that he is merely a philanthropist who donates charity to the prime minister of Palestine.

Meanwhile, I see also that that Linda McQuaig's hypercaffeinated version of the conspiracy theory that's been making the rounds to explain all this has now been published, word for word, in the conpiracy-mongering Tehran Times.

8:02 AM  
Blogger Chen said...

hat's got to be the most perverse attempt at argument by analogy that I've ever read.

I was just about to say that. You took the words right out of my......keyboard :)

9:10 AM  
Blogger Marcos El Malo said...

I think JC is being dishonest about why he wants to ban Jews from his coffee shop. His real grudge is because they killed Jesus. Now his initials make some sense. Happy Easter and Passover, everyone!

6:36 PM  
Blogger Gert said...

Wow! This Terry Glavin is a 'journalist'? An Israel-Firster certainly, but a journalist???

To call Galloway a fascist is plain absurd. To claim he wasn't de facto banned for Canada takes a stretch of the imagination.

Terry: Galloway's worst is better than your best.

8:56 AM  
Blogger Gert said...

And Terry:

"I hear that if I disagree with Israel's actions, I "must" be an anti-Semite."

Odd. I keep hearing that people keep hearing this, but I have actually never, ever heard this myself.


Very odd indeed...

Earth to Terry: it's very common for those who criticise Israel and Zionism to be called anti-Semites, everybody knows that. I've been at the receiving end of that insult many, many times. It's widely publicised and debated about.

Now, you see, I've 'never, ever' actually witnessed an anti-Semitic attack (physical) with my own eyes, should I conclude reports of anti-Semitic attacks are fabricated too?

You twit...

10:19 AM  
Blogger ModernityBlog said...

Gert wrote: "Now, you see, I've 'never, ever' actually witnessed an anti-Semitic attack (physical) with my own eyes, should I conclude reports of anti-Semitic attacks are fabricated too?"

you can conclude whatever you choose, but IF you are truly concerned with anti-Jewish racism then read the reports at CST and other places, see http://engageonline.wordpress.com/2009/02/07/guardian-editorial-7-february-2009/

"On average, there is an antisemitic attack of some kind every single day in the UK: graffiti, vandalism, arson and occasionally actual physical assault. Jewish schools have been granted extra protection."

and http://jta.org/news/article/2009/03/02/1003385/report-eu-lax-in-anti-semitism-monitoring


"The report, released Monday by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, examined both official and unofficial data on anti-Semitic incidents across 20 European countries from 2001 to 2008.

Only France, Germany and Sweden collect sufficient data to provide for a trend analysis, the report said.

In France, anti-Semitic activity increased markedly over the period considered, though it has declined substantially since the peak years of 2004 and 2002, when 974 and 936 incidents were reported, respectively. In 2007, the number of reported incidents dropped to 386.

In Germany and Sweden, the numbers remained relatively steady over the seven years. Germany reported 1,541 incidents in 2007 and Sweden 118."

10:36 AM  
Blogger Gert said...

Nice try, Modernity...

Of course anti-Semitism exists. That was part of my point. Now if the Israel-firsters stopped calling those who criticise Israel anti-Semites, then the term would still have some residual meaning.

But thanks for your spiel.

And David H. (Engage) is a complete twat: I have it on very good authority from a few Jewish anti-Zionists.

10:47 AM  
Blogger ModernityBlog said...

Gert,

"Nice try, Modernity..."

so you are arguing in bad faith?

never mind, I'll remember to ignore you in the future.

Terry,

I didn't realize it was that high.

Is it partly the influence of the American neo-Nazi movement? sort of cross border stuff?

I've follow the rise of hate groupings in the US, but I am unfamiliar with Canada and the extreme right, is there a connection?

11:12 AM  
Blogger Terry Glavin said...

Modernity:

Canada has half the the population of Britain, but in 2008, three times the incidence of antisemitism in Britain.

In 2008: In Canada, 1,135 antisemitic incidents, an increase of 8.9% over the 2007 figures. PArt of a rising trend over several years. See:

http://tinyurl.com/ct6n9m

I keep reading about people who keep hearing about people who keep seeing people get accused of antisemitism for merely criticising Israel.

I guess I don't pay close enough attention. Never seen it happen. Ever. Never come upon any evidence of it, not documentation of any sort to allow even an inkling of anything remotely approaching an evidentiary threshold that could be described as proof, even in the most generous definition of that term, that such a phenomenon exists.

11:14 AM  
Blogger Terry Glavin said...

Modernity: Our comments got inverted!

I think the B'nai Brith report deals with that issue; There have been American neo-Nazi influences showing up, most noticeably in Alberta (whose booted skinheads have shown up at "anti-war" rallies) but I think you'll find the phenomenon is at least tangentially related to something new and nameless - the thing I touch on in this post.

11:23 AM  
Blogger vildechaye said...

The problem with guys like "Gert" is that they think that when they call Israel a "nazi" or "apartheid" state that has "no right to exist" and is "committing genocide" or "a holocaust" on the Palestinians, that they are "criticizing" Israel. Well, Gert, criticizing Israel or israeli policy is saying "i think israel is wrong to settle/occupy the west bank" or "I think Israel should change its policies toward the Palestinians" or something like that. What folks like you call "criticism" actually is "demonization" and since this demonization is applied to only one country in the entire world and that country happens to be the world's only Jewish country, and claims of "genocide" and "holocaust" are clearly hurtful distortions of the truth, it's fair to single out those kind of "criticisms" for what they really are, namely, anti-semitism. Now if you criticize this or that Israeli policy but don't pretend that everything the country does is a war crime, i'm sure you'll never be called an anti-semite again. Until then, though, if the shoe fits wear it.

12:03 PM  
Blogger vildechaye said...

And Dert, as for those Jewish anti-zionists over in the UK, i'm sure they do think David H. from Engage is a "twat" since he routinely demolishes their arguments, has managed to shut down their stupid, anti-intellectual "boycott Israel" campaigns (the boycotts are just more "criticism," i suppose) and shows them up for the narcissistic hypocrites they truly are on a routine basis. If i held their noxious views and saw how guys like David H., Howard Jacobson and Anthony Julius counters them and shows them up for what they are, i would think he and they were twats too. Since I don't hold those views, i think you're rather a twat yourself.

12:09 PM  
Blogger vildechaye said...

RE: hurtful "distortions" of the truth

should actually read hurtful "mockeries" of the truth.

12:11 PM  
Blogger ModernityBlog said...

Terry,

Thanks for that stuff, I scanned that report, very clearly written and informative, but a strikingly depressing theme.

12:21 PM  
Blogger Marcos El Malo said...

"I guess I don't pay close enough attention. Never seen it happen. Ever. Never come upon any evidence of it, not documentation of any sort to allow even an inkling of anything remotely approaching an evidentiary threshold that could be described as proof, even in the most generous definition of that term, that such a phenomenon exists."

I guess you want links for documentation, but all I have is an anecdote. ONE TIME in my 45 years on this planet, I was called an anti-semite for disagreeing with the policies of Israel, by a rabid rabbi who didn't know at the time I am half Jewish by birth. You know the type. Ultra Nationalist that wants Palestinians eradicated. A sick individual with too much influence over other people, unfortunately. They might be few and far between, but such people are out there (and due to Israel's parliamentary system, they wield a disproportionate amount of power, IMHO).

On the other side of this, I've heard, over the course of my lifetime, thousands upon thousands of anti-semitic remarks from people of all political stripes, to the extent that one might almost say that such remarks are unremarkable. I've also heard thousands upon thousands of slurs about other races and cultures and I've made a few myself. (I'm an Equal Opportunity Hater.)

What is insidious is when such prejudice is woven into a conspiracy theory. And the pattern I've seen, on both the left and the right, is the people that lean heavily on such conspiracy theories are those that yearn for authority or worse. Those that are governed by fear and those that seek to govern by fear.

12:22 PM  
Blogger ModernityBlog said...

as Marcos suggests, those with a predisposition towards conspiracy theories are often drawn into anti-Jewish racism and notions of some hidden hand controling events, you only need to see the recent kerfuffle over Finkelstein and Google, it really has exercised a lot of "anti-Zionists"!

:)

12:43 PM  
Blogger Terry Glavin said...

Come to think of it, only a couple of days ago I was subjected to an absurd real-life inverted version of the "If you criticize Israel they will call you an antisemite" canard. It came in the form of a threat that my personal reputation would be traduced as "a nasty combination of anti semitism and anti americanism" because I had hesitated to allow advertisement-spam on this very weblodge from the very numpties who routinely broadcast the "If you criticize Israel they will call you an antisemite" canard.

I think this is what is meant by pot-kettle-black.

1:36 PM  
Blogger Terry Glavin said...

p.s.

All canards have some basis in fact, mind you. For instance: I can personally attest that the Easter recipe for soda bread in my household calls for the blood of a Protestant.

Sincerely,

Seamus O'Hooligan, recording secretary, Protocols of the Learned Elders of Ballybunnion.

1:41 PM  
Blogger Gert said...

Terry:

"I keep reading about people who keep hearing about people who keep seeing people get accused of antisemitism for merely criticising Israel."

You're an asshat. To deny that criticism of Israel, even "reasonable" criticism, is often met with allegations of anti-Semitism is to deny reality. Perhaps you deny the Holocaust too?

As regards the allegations of Galloway's fascism, think about the following.

So Galloway spoke to the SSNP once.

When in 1982 the AOF (aka IDF) allied itself with the fascist Christian Phalange in Beirut it resulted in the slaughter of 300 - 3,000 Palestinians in the Sabra and Shatila massacre. Who are the real fascists here?

You can say what you like about the SSNP (a subject that in all likelihood you know very, very little about) but at least they fought the Zionist occupiers.

What have you done, huh? Apart from sign up to a Neocon manifesto, that is...

Prat...

3:46 AM  
Blogger Gert said...

And here's what Angry Arab thinks about your Comrade Hitchens' latest Beirut exploit in 'defacing a Nazi symbol'. Apparently he got off lightly too.

Your sole and only purpose with this post is to try and slander Galloway, because he's a vocal and articulate critic of Israel's policies towards the Palestinians and an indefatigable defender of their cause.

That, Terry, that riles you. The rest is fluff. Good luck with promoting Eretz Yisrael...

5:38 AM  
Blogger The Contentious Centrist said...

"To deny that criticism of Israel, even "reasonable" criticism, is often met with allegations of anti-Semitism is to deny reality. Perhaps you deny the Holocaust too?"

Gert,

Antisemitism cannot be allowed to pass for reasonable criticism of Israel. And since you continue to insist that ""reasonable" criticism, is often met with allegations of anti-Semitism" then surely it cannot be so difficult to produce an example or two, can it? Perhaps, before you search for examples you might want to define what YOU would consider antisemitic and unacceptable.

It is interesting that you consider Holocaust denial with denying your untested unproven allegation about criticism of Israel. What does it mean, in actual terms? Do you really intend, by this comparison, to reduce and trivialize the Holocaust to the slanderous lies that rabid anti-Zionists tell about Israel's defenders? Isn't that a new and rather original form of Holocaust denial? Can Holocaust denial be considered antisemitic, by your standards, Gert? Does Holocaust denial constitute a legitimate criticism of Israel?

Try to answer my questions without sarcasm and noise, can you? We'll take your contempt for your interlocutors as a given.

6:19 AM  
Blogger Gert said...

You know what CC? Your whole post is a strawman. I'm under no obligation to answer your questions. I've fought anti-Semitism as well as other forms of racism all my life but right now? Don't think for one minute I'm going to sit here and defend myself on your deliberate distraction about AS. Frankly, there are more important and pressing matters than your favourite obsession.

What you think of me leaves me stone cold.

And the defenders of Zionism? People who can't get their priorities right. Like you. Like Terry. Like Hitchens.

7:28 AM  
Blogger ModernityBlog said...

well done, Contentious

You put the right questions, as Gert seeks to drag down discussion on the issues.

But you'll never get a straight answer, basically cos "anti-Zionists" like Gert, have so much rubbish in their heads it is hard for them to reason logically.

You only have to juxtapose Gert's most recent statements to see the mess in his head:

"I'm under no obligation to answer your questions. I've fought anti-Semitism as well as other forms of racism all my life but right now?"

With his previous remark of "Now, you see, I've 'never, ever' actually witnessed an anti-Semitic attack (physical) with my own eyes, should I conclude reports of anti-Semitic attacks are fabricated too?"

So on the one hand, he's "fought anti-Semitism" yet he "'never, ever' actually witnessed an anti-Semitic attack " which is a pile of contradictory nonsense.

I think what happens is, "anti-Zionists" like Gert bring up topics in the heat of the moment, never thinking about the implications of their own words or anything else, then when picked up on it they'll reply "I'm under no obligation to answer your questions"

Thus, Gert would like us to take *him* seriously but when you point out the fallacious nature of his comments he'll respond with "I'm under no obligation to answer your questions"

Which is why it is best to ignore slow minded, irrational "anti-Zionists" like Gert, who seem to have all of the reasoning skills of a log.

Any ways, vildechaye answered Gert's points long ago, sadly he didn't even read them, which tells you much.

7:49 AM  
Blogger The Contentious Centrist said...

Sometimes a non-answer is ample answer.

7:58 AM  
Blogger Gert said...

MB:

"So on the one hand, he's "fought anti-Semitism" yet he "'never, ever' actually witnessed an anti-Semitic attack " which is a pile of contradictory nonsense."

Listen thicko, let me spell it out for you. Search my blog and you'll find entire posts dedicated to the fight against anti-Semitism, including some real nasty fights with said anti-Semites. One begged me to take down my post about him because he felt it might affect his future career. Though.

And yet I have never witnessed with my own eyes a physical manifestation of it, other than through media.

There is no contradiction between the two statements, nor is the latter intended as a diminishment of the level of anti-Semitism in the UK or elsewhere.

Here, that wasn't so hard now, was it?

All you and CC here are doing is the same as you're doing over at 'Broccoli Bob's' (except he can't even be bothered to show up): create distractions and throw up straw men.

Like I said to CC, what you think of me is of no concern at all to me.

8:08 AM  
Blogger Gert said...

Here's a bit more smearing by those lovely, balanced, life-loving Zionutzis

8:23 AM  
Blogger ModernityBlog said...

yeah Contentious, I think what Gert meant was that he's had an occasional physical fight with a BNPer, which is not really the same as intellectually fighting them

I suppose that if Gert ever sat down and argued with a BNPer over antisemitism and Jews they'd probably have a lot more in common than they think. Those same old slow reasoning skills.

But you have to hand it to "anti-Zionists" like Gert, he doesn't seemingly care what people think of him, is not concerned to debate points that he himself raised, yet he wants people to engage with him on his own terms?

strange eh?

----

shorter version for Gert,

if you want people to answer *your* questions and take *you* seriously, then you had better learn to argue in good faith, respond to their questions, etc, otherwise that won't happen and you'll end up howling at the Moon.

8:27 AM  
Blogger vildechaye said...

Hey Dert:

With all that wind you're expelling, I do note that you haven't deigned to respond to my points. Perhaps the demonization = criticism -- NOT hit home, or, more likely, was too difficult to understand.

By the way, your so-called "anti-Zionist" critique leaves me stone cold. Why don't you just go back to your buddies at Jews without Frontiers or the other anti-"Zionist" froth shops you hang out in, continue ignoring true fascists like those in the Syrian Baath Party and just keep moping and complaining about us quasi-fascists. you'll feel better (and no doubt so will we).

Terry this guy is totally off the rails. Perhaps it's time to do what you do so well.

cheers

8:30 AM  
Blogger vildechaye said...

Just checked out Dert's link to the ubiquitous Jewish "smear": It's nothing more than some people taking issue regarding a vicious anti-Zionist's receiving tenure at Columbia. Just words mind you, no pipe bombs or even threats.

hardly compares to, say, a boycott of Israeli academics or a campaign of physical intimidation. we know who participates in those. If only Dert were 10% as concerned about much greater "smears" and other verbal and physical abuses emanating from the anti-"zionist" side he froths on about so fervently.

8:36 AM  
Blogger Gert said...

MB:

"yeah Contentious, I think what Gert meant was that he's had an occasional physical fight with a BNPer, which is not really the same as intellectually fighting them"

You really are an incredibly dense and pedantic little man, aren't you?

The anti-Semites I practically drilled into the ground weren't BNPers (bar one, actually), nor have I ever had a physical fight with a BNPer, how dare you suggest I would engage someone in a physical fight!

And what, pray tell, does 'intellectually fighting them' mean to you? Reading the obsessives over at Engage?

Google for scott george mccombe and look at search results #1 and #2. 'Intellectual enough' for you?

Do you also deny that the charge of anti-Semitism is often unjustly (but not always unjustly) leveled at critics of Israel? Is boycotting Israel anti-Semitic?

9:03 AM  
Blogger Gert said...

Vildechai:

"Terry this guy is totally off the rails. Perhaps it's time to do what you do so well."

Yeah, that's right buddy, go ask Uncle Terry to exercise his right to censorship. Real freedom of speechish. Coward...

BTW, your points on demonisation are noted. What you call demonisation and what I call demonisation may be different things though. Calling Hamas a "dealth cult" I suppose passes for honest and objective critiqueing?

BTW, over at JSF they'd like to know who you are and what you stand for, care to oblige (not my request, BTW)?

9:09 AM  
Blogger ModernityBlog said...

Any ways we have taken up too much of Terry's hospitality.

So I will bow out with one final recollection, many years back the British SWP were very vigorous in fighting neo-fascists and racists on the streets of Britain, they could always be counted upon to fights the NF or BNP directly and physically.

They helped setup the Anti Nazi League, organised Rock against Racism, etc

In total, they did a lot.

And if today you asked them about neo-fascists, etc I am sure they would strongly oppose them.

Yet the same organisation, the SWP, hosted an anti-Jewish racist for four years. Not, one year, but *four* years.

Yep, that's right, they willingly hosted and lionised Gilad Atzmon at their premier yearly event, Marxism, even took him on tour.

So all Atzmon had to do was use the word "Zionist", instead of "Jew", in his rants and it fooled the SWP.

There's a lesson there, for those that want to learn it.

9:34 AM  
Blogger Terry Glavin said...

Vildechaye:

I'm finding Gert's tantrums too amusing to delete them.

Gert: I neither know nor care who or what JSF is. So far, you've called me a neocon, a prat, a defender of Zionism, a twit, an asshat, and a promoter of Eretz Yisrael, so do go and tell your JSF friend or friends whatever your like. There is no mystery as to my identity. See right side of this very weblodge for a selection of my books, essays, and so on. See also my comment here from yesterday.

- Seamus O'Hooligan, recording secretary, Protocols of the Learned Elders of Ballybunnion.

9:38 AM  
Blogger Gert said...

MB:

"There's a lesson there, for those that want to learn it. "

Mistakes are made. No need to throw away the child with the bathwater. The Left are still good. Euston sells out to the right. Half the non-signatories here are pro-Israel wingers.

Terry:

You are slandering a good, good man (Galloway), who is right on just about everything when it comes to Iraq and I-P. Criticise all you like but to call someone like him a fascist? That smells of internecine bloodletting, not of serious critiqueing...

The question about JSF was addressed to Comrade V., not you (that should have been clear).

Have a nice day now...

10:02 AM  
Blogger vildechaye said...

Where to begin...

1. So the clowns at JSF want to know who I am and what I stand for? Is that a joke, it's such a good caricature of the university-left I've grown to despise (as a social democrat). Well, I am a human being.. and I stand by my comments. The only reason i can discern for wanting to know more would be to fire off ad hominem insults (you know those, you guys talk about them so much) and dismiss the content of my argument just because of "what I stand for." I can just imagine how deep their commitment to "free speech" goes and how much of it they would allow if they were ever to actually take power (god forbid) anywhere in the West.

2. Yes we have different ideas about demonization. And nice of you to throw the Hamas "death cult" thing in... not that I ever called Hamas a death cult, though I certainly don't disagree with that description... it glorifies suicide bombings and shaheeds (martyrs), so the death cult description is apt... in any event, the demonization of Israel goes far beyond calling the country a death cult and zionists "death cultists," but rather Nazis, and perpetrators of "genocide," "holocaust" etc. Also I and I expect most here certainly believe the Palestinians have a right to their own state, if only the other side could bring themselves to say that about Israel.

3. Galloway is an apologist for regimes so despicable they are off the scale. Iraq??? the guy was so far up saddam hussein's arse he could touch francois mitterrand's toes. Soviet Union? Its dissolution was reportedly the worst day in his life.. The scumbag is a paid shill for iran, the charming country that viciously persecutes and murders bahais, gays (oops, no sorry, the leader there says they don't have any) and unchaste women, or women with cameras; not to mention pro-zionist jews. And does George's kindness extend to Darfur? or, for that matter, to Zimbabwe, Burma, Tibet, etc.
No, that "good good man" George never met an anti-Western dictator he didn't like. You could say he has a yen for the totalitarian.

4. Freedom of speech. Buddy, this is a blog. YOu anti-Zionists are free to shout from the rooftops and go on hundreds of blogs. However, free speech does not mean you get to be published wherever you want. Publishers, and blog supervisors have every right to delete, without infringing on your "free speech" rights. what a load of nonsense that is. Incidentally, I was barred from a nice leftie site, alternet, for having the nerve to go after blatant anti-semitism (as in Joew Lieberman, for instance), and even though it was ridiculous, i didn't go whining about my "freedom of speech" being impinged.

5. Yes i deny the charge of anti-semitism is OFTEN unjustly thrown around at true "critics" of Israel. It does happen, from those on the extreme right, and hyper-sensitive Jews on occasion. But you would be hard pressed to find such criticism on sites like this or any other centre-left (or for that matter, centre or centre-right) site. Very hard pressed. In fact, most of us have our own criticisms of this or that Israeli policy. However, we don't "throw out the baby with the bathwater," as it, dump everything on the only Western, democratic country in the mideast and overlook all the abuses from the dicatorship and totalitarian regimes on the other side. When you express the hope that this one country "disappears" or is "wiped off the map" or whatever, though it has existed for 60 years, that sounds pretty anti-semitic to me.

6. Yes I think a boycott of Israel is anti-semitic in intent. Unless of course, there are similar boycotts in the works for the U.S. and U.K. for invading Iraq and Afghanistan and killing way more people doing so than the Israelis have ever killed in Gaza or anywhere else; against China for Tibet; against Sudan for Darfur; against Burma and Zimbabwe... etc. etc. etc.The fact that some deluded Jews also support such boycotts doesn't make them any less anti-semitic in intent. When you single out one state, and it happens to be the world's only jewish state, esp. given the jewish people's recent history of true genocide, i think there are some nasty psychological forces at play, regardless of whether the person is jewish or not.

7. Your lack of response to CC was very revealing. Apparently, you only like to expel wind on your own terms, but when asked probing questions to really flesh out your position, you invoke the right not to answer and are as mum as a John Cage composition.

11:36 AM  
Blogger Gert said...

Sheesh, Comrade V, talk about hyperbole. Turning everything into a caricature doesn't make it true, you know...

But what about the settlements V., what about the continuing expansion of settlements? You gonna protest when 'the only democracy in the ME' has gone full Eretz Yisrael? Or are you gonna blame it on the 'death cultists' too?

I thought so. Ziopuke...

Now talk to yourself. I'm outta here.

12:04 PM  
Blogger vildechaye said...

What about the settlements?

1. well i don't agree with the settlements and think they should be evacuated, and have always thought so. however, i'm not sure why you're bringing them up in the context of your previous rants and my response to them.

2. Hyperbole? Caricature? I thought i wrote pretty clearly. You are evading the points, and throwing in settlements. Link the settlements to any of my points, and we can talk. But you can't, can you? And besides, you won't even say what was hyperbole, what was caricature. In short, you're full of it.

3. Will I protest when Israel goes full eretz yisrael? a. Eretz Israel is not gonna happen. b. if israel were to become non-democratic, i wouldn't support it, but then, of course, it would be a state just like its neighbours, with the only difference being Jews vs. Arab/Muslims. So i still wouldn't single it out, as you are so wont to do.

3. Blame what on "death cultists". You are blathering.

4. "i'm outta here." good riddance. enjoy the intellectual stimulation provided by your one-note samba israel-bashing pals.

5. Being called "ziopuke" by the likes of you is an honor.

12:26 PM  
Blogger Marcos El Malo said...

Mentioning the settlements is a valid point of criticism, but it's not going to undo all of Gert's duckspeak. Quack quack!

12:33 PM  
Blogger Paul Prescod said...

You asked for examples where criticism of Israel (or its supporters) is equated with anti-Semitism:

Example 1:

http://open.salon.com/blog/amytuteurmd/2009/03/15/if_glenn_greenwald_told_the_story_of_passover#comment_383573

"In my opinion, Glenn Greenwald definitely is an anti-Semite. That's because he holds Israelis and Jews to a special standard that he does not apply to anyone else."

So there: we have a pretty blatant re-definition of the word anti-Semite.

Example 2 (accusation and critique):

http://www.ordinary-gentlemen.com/2009/03/the-anti-semitic-accusation-as-throw-away/

Example 3:

http://www.nouse.co.uk/2009/02/13/university-defends-council-member-accused-of-posting-potentially-offensive-photograph/

That's all I have time for today.

4:59 PM  
Blogger Terry Glavin said...

Paul: Sorry, no.

You entered the conversation this way: "I hear that if I disagree with Israel's actions, I 'must' be an anti-Semite."

I responded by pointing out that I've never encountered that actually happening, even though I routinely hear that it happens all the time. I would have thought that if this were so - and indeed I have heard that the phenomenon is so widespread that it has had the effect of "stifling criticism" of Israel - that evidence would not be hard to find.

I have no doubt that you could find in an obscure blog comment somewhere a Slag-Israel-And-You're-Antisemitic statement. But you haven't even provided evidence of that. And you actually went looking. That should tell you something.

Your first link is to an obscure blog (something about obstetrics and gynecology) where you found a comment from someone in response to a blog post, and the comment asserts that Glenn Greenwald is antisemitic, not merely for criticizing Israel, but "because he holds Israelis and Jews to a special standard that he does not apply to anyone else."

That's something altogether different than merely criticizing Israel. I don't even know that Greenwald does what the commenter alleges he does, or whether it would be necessarily and inescapably antisemitic to do what he is alleged to be doing, but in any case the post is by no means evidence of mere criticism of Israel being met with a charge of antisemitism.

Your next submission isn't anything of the kind, either, and indeed it's helpful to my case because the author of the blog post cites a Jeff Golberg essay as evidence of the Slag-Israel-And-You're-Antisemitic phenomenon that is "remarkable only for how typical it is."

As I have said, it is my view that this is a canard, an urban legend, a myth. Where is this bloggers' evidence? Goldberg wasn't even referring to anyone's criticism of Israel, let alone calling it antisemitic. He was making a joke about the paranoia abroad among certain sorts of bloggers that attributed Chas Freeman's to some cunning plan "coordinated by AIPAC or by Steve Rosen, the former AIPAC official now charged with espionage." Goldberg jokes that maybe he'd "missed a couple of Elders of Zion meetings."

In absolutely no way can it be said that Golberg is guilty of engaging in Slag-Israel-And-You're-Antisemitic behaviour; what he was joking about wasn't even criticism of Israel, remember.

The third bit of evidence you cite fails even more miserably as evidence for this allegedly ubiquitous phenomenon. It is an article that concerns complaints about a "‘fundamentally racist’ photo of a depiction of anti-semitic stereotypes." Indeed, the article itself provides a classic case of the sort of antisemitism masquerading as anti-Zionism which, I happen to suspect, is the more widespread phenomenon at work when one encounters the "Criticize-Israel-You're-Antisemitic" canard. The rabbi is quoted as saying: "Underlying themes of anti-semitism are being brought out through this conflict.”

I'll say. Perhaps, Paul, the shoe fits, and it fits you so comfortably you don't even notice you're wearing it.

5:54 PM  
Blogger Paul Prescod said...

According to you, "Holding to a higher standard" is different than (and more properly condemned than!) "criticizing."

You would rather twist words to be right than actually engage in bidirectional communication.

That's fine. We all have our hobbies.

I am curious about one thing though: I've looked at that picture of Tzipi Livni over and over and I'm trying to see a single thing in it that is an "ethnic stereotypes against Jews". I have heard both positive and negative stereotypes about Jews (as I have most other races in the world) and I don't see any I recognize in that picture.

Is the picture ugly? Yes. I would not caricature another person that way. But it is an ugly picture of the Defense Minister of a nation, not of a whole race.

I thought it was beautifully ironic of you to end the discussion by accusing me of anti-semitism. Thanks for that. Now I have a fourth link.

6:41 PM  
Blogger Terry Glavin said...

"According to you, 'Holding to a higher standard' is different than (and more properly condemned than!) 'criticizing.'"

I said nothing of the kind. I actually suggested that "holding to a higher standard" is not necessarily something that would invite any criticism.

But I am beginning to see your problem. You have serious trouble reading, at least when it comes to these issues. You don't see things that are staring you in the face and you see things that aren't even there.

Yes, I hinted that you might have trouble recognizing antisemitism if it walked up to you and punched you in the face, but I did not accuse you of criticizing Israel. I don't know nor am I interested in what criticisms of Israel you might or might not be in the habit of making.

So thanks for proving my point.

You appear to see this canard we've been engaging in "bidirectional communication" about everywhere you look, and yet you can't show me an example of it happening.

And now you're accusing me of engaging in it.

You need to take that holiday you were talking about.

7:17 PM  
Blogger Chen said...

don't mean to but in but what exactly do you mean Paul saying that critisism and holding to higher standereds than others is the same thing? Is saying for example that Israel should be condemned that she alone could not achieve world peace, not solve the problem of world hunger and couldn't find a substitute for oil to energy all in.....lets say 2 months (something no country in the world is capable of doing obviously) legitimate critisism?

11:39 PM  
Blogger JC said...

TG: Sure my analogy was hyperbolic, so is calling Hamas a "death cult". That doesn't mean you are not splitting hairs about the difference betweeen being inadmissible and being banned.

Vildechaye, centrist, etc; I was out there protesting Serbia's bombing of kosovo, were all such protesters "anti-serbites"? I don't think so. The reason Israel gets singled out over Sudan is that Israel is supposedly a friend and ally of the western nations. Those who continually ask "why pick on Israel and not Sudan..?" do you really want us to consider Israel in the same company as Sudan? That seems to be what you are demanding....

12:11 PM  
Blogger JC said...

"That's something altogether different than merely criticizing Israel. I don't even know that Greenwald does what the commenter alleges he does, or whether it would be necessarily and inescapably antisemitic to do what he is alleged to be doing, but in any case the post is by no means evidence of mere criticism of Israel being met with a charge of antisemitism."

That's exactly what it appears to be. But essentially, Terry, what you appear to be saying is that mere criticism of Israel is indeed anti-semitism unless it is accompanied with criticism of all the other nations doing similar things? That appears to be the only interpretation of your response.

12:24 PM  
Blogger Terry Glavin said...

JC:

You have a really, really big problem with the simple task of reading. This is what you wrote, viz Greenwald: "Terry, what you appear to be saying is that mere criticism of Israel is indeed anti-semitism."

That's not just "hyperbolic." That's lunacy. It's an upside down version of what I wrote, viz Greenwald, who wasn't even addressing himself to Israel. I wrote: "I don't even know that Greenwald does what the commenter alleges he does, or whether it would be necessarily and inescapably antisemitic to do what he is alleged to be doing. . ."

And you're back to "splitting hairs about the difference between being inadmissible and being banned."

George Galloway was not banned. George Galloway was not told he was inadmissible.

Jaysus H Christ.

1:05 PM  
Blogger The Contentious Centrist said...

"But it is an ugly picture of the Defense Minister of a nation, not of a whole race."


Not Defense Minister. Foreign Minister.

And it is antisemitic for reasons which you wouldn't be aware of, unless you bothered to read about Jewish history and how Jews were regularly demonized.

Example:

"Christians believed that Jews possessed magical powers which they had obtained by making a pact with the Devil. Jews were therefore associated with Elizabethan witches. The stereotypical Jewish features consisted of a long, hooked nose and a swarthy complexion and the Jews were believed to worship the devil. Witches were also believed to worship the devil and were also stereotyped as having long, hooked noses, warts and wrinkles. Jews celebrated the Sabbath, witches celebrated at their Sabbat."

http://www.elizabethan-era.org.uk/queen-elizabeth-i-jews-catholics.htm

"Sorcery was a very real and terrifying phenomenon in those days, and many medieval Christians looked upon the Jew as the magician par excellence. The allegiance to Satan, attributed to Jews with an insistence that almost drowned out its true implication, was not merely a form of invective or rhetoric. Satan was the ultimate source of magic, which operated only by his diabolic will and connivance. Christian writers make it quite clear that this is the connection to which they refer.1 Secular and religious authorities took action time and again against the Jews expressly on this count, and the Inquisition"

http://sacred-texts.com/jud/jms/jms03.htm

____________

I'm afraid you will have hard time convincing me that the depiction of Livni as a wicked witch was simply coincidental, and that
there was not some awareness on the part of the artist, whether vague, unconscious or fully-intended, of this historical resonance.

When I encounter this type of demonization (this can hardly pass for "legitimate criticism of Israel's policies" can it?) I usually wonder at the incontinence of these malign authors that they need to bludgeon Jews with invoking past memories of the most painful and frightening type. Many Jews were burned at the stake as a result of such depictions. Yet here you are, maintaining with full confidence that there is nothing to it but mere "ugliness".

6:06 PM  
Blogger Paul Prescod said...

Contentious Centerist: I suppose that these are also anti-semetic:

http://www.iowapresidentialwatch.com/images/cartoons/Melting-Md.jpg

http://www.freakingnews.com/Nancy-Pelosi-Witch-Pictures-31744.asp

http://media.photobucket.com/image/coulter%20witch/prizonice_2/coulter_witch-1.jpg

http://images.cafepress.com/product/314870252v7_240x240_Front.jpg

If you are looking for racism, you will find it everywhere.

A few years ago, I complained about loud neighbors at a hotel, they accused me of racism against blacks: the problem is that they presumed wrongly that I was not also black. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar: they were being loud. I wanted to sleep.

Think about what you're saying: a standard, negative iconography for female politicans (where are the cries of sexism?????) becomes racist when it is directed at people who happen to be Jewish -- because of really nasty stuff that happened four hundred years ago. (which is not to say that antisemitism died out then, or is dead now...all manner of ridiculous superstitions survive into the 21st century: young earth creationism, flat-earthism, homophobia and anti-semitism being prominent examples)

If I happen to draw a female politician as a witch, and she happens to be Jewish, you will presume I knew that she was Jewish, knew that in the sixteenth century Jews were associated with witches and that it was my intent to make that association. You know the intent of the artist (and in this case, the photographer at the protest) better than the individual does.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Women politician are portrayed as witches when men wish to demean them. In this particular case, the artist was also making a statement about the power of words and of claims of racism, so "magic" was part of the theme.

10:26 PM  
Blogger Paul Prescod said...

PaleoAnarchist: nothing on the site that you linked to makes a jot of sense. It is all bat-shit crazy. Nobody will be convinced of anything by reading that site. Perhaps it seems "convincing" to people who are already convinced.

10:39 PM  
Blogger The Contentious Centrist said...

"Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. "

Yes, but in "Burbank with a Baedeker: Bleistein with a Cigar" a cigar is not just a cigar, is it?

You provided a few pictures with ladies as elegant witches. No ugliness in the depiction of Hillary or Nancy, which the media likes to compare to witches. It is humourous more than it is offensive. (I will, however, grant you that while not racist it is certainly sexist. No man politician is ever depicted as a witch.)

The caricatured Livni is rendered a monstrosity of ugliness and malice, a voracious mouth, talon- like fingers, medieval clothing. She is represented as conniving and deliberately deceitful, saying one thing which she clearly does not believe in her heart, that is, she is inherently untrustworthy for being Jewish. She carries a wand, topped by a star of David. She is not merely an Israeli politician; most of all, for the "artist", she is a Jew. The caricature bears all the marks of a Jewish medieval stereotype. It is antisemitic.

12:43 PM  
Blogger march21 said...

http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2009/04/30yearold-palestinian-resident-of-bilin-killed-in-weekly-nonviolent-protest-against-the-wall.html

10:30 AM  
Blogger Chen said...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/7988828.stm

11:14 AM  
Blogger JC said...

Terry: "Galloway was not told he was inadmissible?"

What the **hell** are you smoking? You write in your **own** article:

"The official then showed George Galloway the personal courtesy of writing him directly to advise him that a preliminary assessment of his admissibility to Canada was not favourable.... In his letter, Orr noted that Galloway was not expected to make his Canadian appointments before March 30, and so he extended to Galloway the further courtesy of inviting him to make a submission to address his preliminary assessment of inadmissibility."

"A preliminary assessment of inadmissibility" is just that...being told that you are inadmissible. The fact that the assessment was "preliminary" doesn't change anything. I don't see how that's a hair that even you can split.

6:33 PM  
Blogger Terry Glavin said...

What I wrote was: "George Galloway was not banned. George Galloway was not told he was inadmissible."

That is the truth. Those are the facts. He was politely told about a preliminary assessment by the Border Services Agency (an assessment Galloway's staff appear to have requested)that he would be found inadmissible if he tried to enter Canada. Galloway was advised that this was fucking obvious, but he was also told it was only a preliminary assessment, and he was invited to challenge the assessment, and was specifically directed to the specific provisions of IRPA (34) that rendered him inadmissable. There was no decision by any Canadian politician, border guard, High Commission official, hockey player, shipwright, swiler or wheat farmer to declare Galloway inadmissible. It was a perfectly reasonable (and indeed unavoidable) opinion based on s simple fact of law. The IRPA renders Hamas bagmen inadmissible to Canada. Only days earlier, Galloway happily and publicly served as a bagman for Hamas. He publicly boasted that he was doing just that, and publicly taunted British authorities to arrest him for doing so.

You've already embarrassed yourself by making it clear that you don't understand what you yourself called "a distinction between banning someone and upholding a ban."

I will now give you the opportunity to stop embarrassing yourself here with you your damn whining about your stupid hero George Galloway who is himself not denying what you show up here to deny that he did. You need to go away somewhere and learn how to read. Grow up. Here's the favour I'm doing you:

You are now banned from this here little weblodge. Consult your dictionary to learn the meaning of the word "banned."

6:56 PM  
Blogger I LOVE YOU said...

AV,無碼,a片免費看,自拍貼圖,伊莉,微風論壇,成人聊天室,成人電影,成人文學,成人貼圖區,成人網站,一葉情貼圖片區,色情漫畫,言情小說,情色論壇,臺灣情色網,色情影片,色情,成人影城,080視訊聊天室,a片,A漫,h漫,麗的色遊戲,同志色教館,AV女優,SEX,咆哮小老鼠,85cc免費影片,正妹牆,ut聊天室,豆豆聊天室,聊天室,情色小說,aio,成人,微風成人,做愛,成人貼圖,18成人,嘟嘟成人網,aio交友愛情館,情色文學,色情小說,色情網站,情色,A片下載,嘟嘟情人色網,成人影片,成人圖片,成人文章,成人小說,成人漫畫,視訊聊天室,a片,AV女優,聊天室,情色,性愛

9:28 PM  
Blogger 劉德華Andy said...

That's actually really cool!!AV,無碼,a片免費看,自拍貼圖,伊莉,微風論壇,成人聊天室,成人電影,成人文學,成人貼圖區,成人網站,一葉情貼圖片區,色情漫畫,言情小說,情色論壇,臺灣情色網,色情影片,色情,成人影城,080視訊聊天室,a片,A漫,h漫,麗的色遊戲,同志色教館,AV女優,SEX,咆哮小老鼠,85cc免費影片,正妹牆,ut聊天室,豆豆聊天室,聊天室,情色小說,aio,成人,微風成人,做愛,成人貼圖,18成人,嘟嘟成人網,aio交友愛情館,情色文學,色情小說,色情網站,情色,A片下載,嘟嘟情人色網,成人影片,成人圖片,成人文章,成人小說,成人漫畫,視訊聊天室,性愛,a片,AV女優,聊天室,情色

1:01 AM  
Blogger Billy O. said...

I thoroughly enjoyed the original blog post and all the comments. Well done Terry, I shall read more of your stuff.

4:33 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home