Monday, March 23, 2009

Galloway, Go Away!

In recent days the Canadian government has been stalwart. Four years ago I would not have believed it possible that official Canadian policies could be so sensible and — ahem — Islamophobic.

And here we see Bernie Farber of the Canadian Jewish Congress telling it like it is about George Galloway. In the USA, no media persion, government official or major politician of either party would ever say such things:

Time for some ’60s nostalgia — let’s run away to Canada!

Update: Error corrected. Duh!

Hat tip: TB

[Post ends here]


Czechmade said...

He works regularly for Iranians - on the satellite state TV station "PressTV".

spackle said...

Hurray for Canada. But even a broken clock is correct twice a day.

Conservative Swede said...

Baron B,

Thanks for the post.

Face the fact. The image of America as right-wing and tough, through the prism of the current theater, is merely a chimera. The issue we are dealing with is not Marxism or socialism, but PC, MC and most foremostly anti-discrimination dogmatism, and in this the USA is #1, and the main laboratory of this civilizational poison. Your country is right-wing mainly in the sense of George Soros libertarianism.

And no, don't give me that Lynchburg routine again. I'm speaking of America as a *polity*, and as such it's NOT the sum of its people (you should very well know since you are not counted). Quite as Islam as an empire is not the sum of the individual Muslims.

Surely Sweden, France, Britain and Germany is as bad off (none of which either as a sum of its people). Either for being paralyzed by post-WWII myths, or for being a model nation of social contract dogmatism quite as America. But most countries aren't. E.g. not even Canada.

For those of you who understand Scandinavian tongue, I give you here a breath of fresh air from Norway

Homophobic Horse said...

A preemptive strike at "Gordon" and possibly others:

Free speech = Geert Wilders

Support for terrorism, treason and incitement to violence = George Galloway

"Either for being paralyzed by post-WWII myths"

What kind of myth?

Winston Smith said...

Newsreader: "What about the issue of the right to free speech?"
Bernie Farber: "Well there is a right to free speech but there is not a right to support terrorism and that's what the government is leaning on and rightly so.......this is a man who, on record has spoken of the support of terrorist causes including banned terrorist causes..."

Canada has made the right decision.
What we have seen here is that madness of cultural relativism take root in society, meaning that our enemies should be allowed to live next to us, meaning that if they kill us then that's all right as that maybe acceptable in their culture.
This is the madness of Sharia and Islam. How long before a Muslim man kills a western woman as she wasn't dressed properly and the Sharia courts let him off, meaning that he can't be tried under British Law, as it will make Sharia Law defunct, that will be granted status to run in the UK and West?

People forget, Galloway supports terrorism and that's the bottom line. He is anti western yet chooses to live in the West. Why? is it because he knows the West is a far superior place to the Middle East and Muslim countries? The stupidity of the imbeciles and morons like Galloway, is that they are unable to see that the mess of places like Palestine and Islamic countries is not because of the West but because of Islamic Culture and Islam itself. He would like to bring the Muslims to all live in the UK and the West, even though the fool doesn't realise that them coming here, taking control would mean the UK and the West turning into yet another Islamic sh*thole.

Western civilisation if it swapped places with the middle East would have a vibrant economy in less than 50 years, while their old home, now occupied by Muslims would be a place of bloodshed and war, extreme poverty and disease and a dead economy.

Well done for Canada. Now its up to the UK government in the future to remove this arse-wipe once and for all - preferably Palestine under exile.

jeppo said...

Bernie "Burny" Farber is no "Canadian official", he's a censorious far-left moonbat. Farber and the CJC are anti-white, anti-Christian Muslim-cuddlers who are, in my opinion, no better than "Gorgeous" George Galloway and his ilk. But hey, don't take my word for it.

Avery Bullard said...

The biggest news story in Canada today is the repatriation of four more fallen Canadian soldiers from Afghanistan, followed closely by Fox News 'personalities' making fun of Canada's armed forces:

CBC News

In a five-minute segment broadcast March 17, Gutfeld mocked the Canadian Forces, noting Lt.-Gen. Andrew Leslie's recent comment that the military may need a year to recover after Canada's mission in Afghanistan ends in 2011.

"Meaning, the Canadian military wants to take a breather to do some yoga, paint landscapes, run on the beach in gorgeous white Capri pants," Gutfeld said.

"I didn't even know they were in the war," panellist and comedian Doug Benson added. "I thought that's where you go if you don't want to fight. Go chill in Canada."

The panellists continued by joking about soldiers needing a break for "manicures and pedicures," how Canada should be invaded and poked fun at the RCMP.

More:Over the past few days, the Red Eye segment has sparked outrage from a range of Canadians, including thousands of comments on YouTube and Facebook.

"Our soldiers are dying for them and they have the audacity and the ignorance … to say something like that, it is insulting. It's the most ignorant thing I've ever heard," Sam Warren told CBC News after watching the segment.

This is more bad news for Harper's Conservatives as they, rightly or wrongly, are seen as being close to US 'conservatives' (ie neocons).

What is so annoying is that Americans themselves will not take the necessary action (immigration control) to ameliorate the Muslim terrorist problem and so the Canadians and others are dying in Afghanistan are probably dying in vain. That pro-war Americans, like Greg Gutfeld and co., don't even know of the sacrifices being made by Canadian soldiers just adds further insult to injury.

Avery Bullard said...

jeppo is right about Bernie Farber. He is one of Canada's foremost opponents of freedom of speech.

X said...

Then the left are eating their own. Good!

Zenster said...

Con Swede: The image of America as right-wing and tough, through the prism of the current theater, is merely a chimera.

So, please do us all a gigantic favor and (without reference to the recently installed bunch of Muslim arse-kissers), point out which other current world superpower is doing more than measurable lip service in the fight against Islam and Muslim terrorism.

Anonymous said...

I was not amused by the newsbabe's description of Galloway as "outspoken". Has she no sense of proportion? Galloway is not "outspoken", he's a direct supporter of people who would throw her in a burka after raping her as a spoil of war.

Rose said...

This Canadian is proud we turned his filthy terrorist loving arse away from our border. It is a criminal offense to financially provide to terrorist organizations. It's also a crime in Canada to provide Material support (cars and stuff to Hamas) to terrorists ergo he's not allowed to enter our country lawfully.

It's suppose to be illegal to provide material support and financial support to terrorists' organization in England thus why hasn't he been charged with aiding and abetting terrorist? Brown allows the enemies within to support terrorist and they do nothing. No wonder England is circling the the crapper with no toilet paper at hand.

laine said...

Bernie Faber is what fellow Jew Ezra Levant (only publisher of the Danish cartoons in Canada and persecuted for it) describes as "an official Jew" i.e. one who makes his living from scaring elderly Jews into donations for B'nai Brith used to pursue phantom nazis.

He and his organization helped bring about the kangaroo courts in Canada misnamed Human Rights Commissions that trample on actual human rights (free speech, freedom of religion, property rights etc.) pursuing the invented human "right" freedom from offence.

For decades, the main complainants under the speech clause of the HRC's were Jews and gays or third parties taking offence on their behalf and the only defendants were white Christians. There was a 100% conviction rate. Although a few Christians tried to fight fire with fire and filed some grievances of their own, they were mostly rejected outright or lost at the tribunal stage. There were fixed client groups and offender groups and woe to you if you sought individual justice but belonged to the wrong group.

Faber was very happy with this state of affairs, basically curtailing the free speech rights of all Canadians to soothe Jewish neuroses about another holocaust looming in a country that FOUGHT the nazis and was the most peaceable kingdom on earth in the sixties at the time liberal Jews helped midwive the Rosemary's baby HRC into being.

Even as Faber bravely fought off phantom nazis, he played handholding kumbaya with various Muslim organizations and gave cover to the infamous prof. Elmasry who said in a TV interview that all Israelis over 18 were justifiable targets for suicide bombing.

Then a fly entered the ointment. Muslims started using the Commissions the same way Jews had, to file complaints about people and remarks that offended them, the most famous to date Maclean's magazine for an article by Mark Steyn. Ironically, B'nai Brith was also the object of a frivolous complaint that was recently dismissed after five years "investigation". (As Levant makes clear in his new book "Shakedown", the process is the punishment). Even so, Faber did not want to give up his pet commissions which have helped him refight the last war so well.

He is a fool and hypocrite and should withdraw from public life for providing ecumenical cover for Muslim inroads in Canada and for defending the Human Wrongs Commissions that interfere with Canadian citizens' right to speak about and defend against the very real and growing Islamic threat. His foolish enabling of Muslims has certainly not made Jews one whit safer.

I am also sorry to say that Galloway has gotten more exposure for his vile ideas by being barred than had he been allowed to speak in Canada. Everyone seems to stumble on free speech when it comes to defending a person with whom one violently disagrees, pretending that their case is "different" somehow. Even Levant came a cropper on this one.

Wilders should have been allowed into Britain and Galloway (spit) should have been allowed to speak in Canada. Making a free speech martyr out of an apologist for totalitarian Islam is counter-productive to say the least.

Dymphna said...

The notion of America as a chimera raises some interesting images...

The definition of chimera is:

an imaginary monster compounded of incongruous parts

Well, if that ain't the good ol' US of A, what is?

'Cept for the imaginary thingie. Our incongruous parts are pretty real...

las said...

Laine said: "...and Galloway (spit) should have been allowed to speak in Canada."

Laine, I would agree with you "only if"... only if Galloway was spouting his usual blather. Former Immigration Minister, Monte Solberg, stated on Coren's show last night that the decision was the right decision. If Canada has a law, regarding admittance to those advocating and working to support terrorism, then it has to be applied. That's why the law exists... to be applied when idiots come knocking.

Initially I was skeptical (or should I say ambivalent) of Ezra Levant's support for Farber's position. But after analysis of the Immigration position and the real issue (support for terrorism) I held my nose and accepted the rationale, despite all the relativists out there that would wrongly conflate Galloway's situation with that of, say, Wilder's.

las said...


Canadians have been astounded by what is happening in Canada of late. Conservative policy under Harper has placed Canada in a very strange position... totally out of step with Europe and Obama's new one party state.

This never used to be the case... Canadians were regularly treated to the leftist and Trudeauopian idiocy flowing from parliament.

The explanation for Canada's relative sanity (I emphasize the corollary "relative") is twofold.

The first explanation is that two biblical principles are in operation: support for Israel and Christian heritage. They are embodied in these scriptures: "And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed" (Genesis 12:3); as well as the reference from Psalms 33:12; "Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord."

Although irrelevant to some, these principles still operate on many levels in Canada. In spite of the fact that Canada is slipping from a post-Christian position to an anti-Christian posture, as surmised by Baptist theologian James White, I suspect that past historic adherence to Christian faith is still in operation shielding Canada in large measure. For how much longer this remains, moral behaviour and politics ultimately determine.

If Biblical principles do play a role, vis-a-vis support for Israel, then Canada betrays some surprising truths. For example, Canada isn't (yet) suffering the multicultural self immolation Europe is. Canada isn't suffering to the same extent the economic meltdown and collapse as Europe and the US. Canada's social cohesion is relatively intact in comparison to the culture wars in the US and the confrontation with Islam that Europe is facing. Canada is not yet the target of Muslim belligerence anywhere near the extent already seen in the US... a reality taken in the context that Canada has nearly 3 times the numbers of Muslims per capita contrasted with the US.

From a Bible perspective, you can take it or leave it. But from a existential perspective, it is remarkable even if simply surface observations. A deeper analysis would be instructive for sure.

One thing is certain - as the US drops its support for Israel and implements it's "Changing Course" agenda by seeking a "New Direction for U.S. Relations With the Muslim World", part of Obama's "Respect Islam" compaign, more than just American exceptionalism is in danger.

The second explanation for Canada's relatively intact sanity is that Canada still remains a sideshow for Islam. Once America is maimed and brought down Canada's demise will be just a hiccup in the death throes of the Great Satan.

Rose said...

He wasn't prevented from speaking in Canada, he was denied access. Second he was denied access for his actions i.e. providing material support to terrorist. He was denied access because of his actions, how did we prevent him from exercising "free Speech" is he so stupid he can't organize a teleconference?

Anonymous said...

Bernie Farber would have everyone here locked away for your awful "Islamophobia"

+ + +

Red Eye" is a comedy show, and the host apologized for going "over the top" with his comment.

[A genuine apology BTW, not "I'm sorry if you're offended]

He's also quite conservative.

Joanne said...

las - Canada will not go down without a fight.

The first man in the video didn't have anything to do with Galloway being denied access to Canada, he just had an opinion, even if few may respect him otherwise.

I am proud of Canada and especially Harper for not allowing trash from entering the country. It's too bad, we can't get rid of the ones in Canada who ARE supporting terrorism - Toronto is full of them for starters.

las - I don't know what you believe biblically speaking, but Ephraim in the Bible is Britain and her commonwealth of nations - all subjects, including Canada. Manasseh is America.

Genesis 48:19-20 Ferrar Fenton version translated directly from original Hebrew

"But his father refused, saying, "I knew it my son, I knew it. He also shall be a nation,--and he also shall be great,--but nevertheless his younger brother shall be greater than he, and his race shall be a multitude of nations, and when blessing in that period they shall say, 'The Blessing of Israel be upon you! May God make you like Ephraim and like Manasseh,' and they will place Ephraim above Manasseh."

This was when Jacob/Israel was placing his hands upon the heads of Joseph's two sons - the right hand on Ephraim, the younger, and the left hand on Manasseh, the elder.

Anonymous said...


You seem at a loss describing Canada.

The fact is most Canadians have always been very Conservative.

The stupid 77 constitution just gave too much power to the courts and is virtually unamendable in the legislature.

Also thee are too many appointed positions, such as the GG, Senate, CBC head etc, meaning liberal elites are favoured.

+ + +

As for Canada as a Christian nation.

On the one hand it was not founded by Christ hating terror supporters like Jefferson, true, and the constitution clearly states that God is supreme.

However with the no abortion law, and abortions committed in the 9th month of pregnancy or even as the baby is in the birth canal, Canada is damned to Hell.

Joanne said...

las - I would just like to point out - GREAT Britain, Ephraim, and a GREAT people, Manasseh; what other nation and commonwealth and what other people are referred to as GREAT throughout history, if it not be them?

Anonymous said...

Re: "Wilders should have been allowed into Britain and Galloway (spit) should have been allowed to speak in Canada."

There's no connection.

Wilders should have been admitted t the UK because he's an EU citizen, a fellow parliamentarian accepting an invitation from the House of Lords, and is no threat to anyone but evil Muslims.

Galloway is a complete foreigner with no right of entry, who supports the Taliban etc who Canadian soldiers are fighting. Even if (if) he were right to do so, it would be obscene for the government to admit him while supporting the military mission he wants Canadians soldiers dead for.

Anonymous said...

Re: " what other people are referred to as GREAT throughout history, if it not be them?"

Russia. Rus'. Velikaya Rus. Великая Русь.

Anonymous said...

Re: "what other people are referred to as GREAT throughout history, if it not be them?"

What people are you talking about? Celts and Saxons and Vikings are not "a people"?

What history? You mean from 1707?

las said...

You said that I seem to be "at a loss describing Canada." Ok! Address what it is you don't understand. Nothing you stated pertained to anything I wrote. In fact you seem to be all over the map. Focus and concentrate, then we can discuss.

In your response to laine:
saying there is no connection between Wilders and Galloway. You are mistaken. In fact the connection is being made all over in the media, you perhaps just missed it.

Wilders is a parlimentarian member from an EU country disallowed into a fellow EU country. Galloway is a parlimentarian from a Commenwealth country disallowed into a fellow Commonwealth country. The connections don't end there. Both Galloway and Wilders are considered controversial, even racist by their opponents who are making the same arguments about banning either of them. Of course this enters the quagmire of relativism, but none of this removes the fact that there is no moral comparison equivalence between the two. But the comparison is nonetheless being made.

Anonymous said...

Re: "Address what it is you don't understand."

Respect for Christian heritage. Canada's an evil infanticidal nation.

"no connection between Wilders and Galloway. You are mistaken. In fact the connection is being made all over in the media, you perhaps just missed it."

They can try to make something, but there is no connection, as I explained.

"Wilders is a parlimentarian member from an EU country disallowed into a fellow EU country. Galloway is a parlimentarian from a Commenwealth country disallowed into a fellow Commonwealth country."

Commonwealth citizens have no right to enter Canada, or it would be full of Kenyans and Pakis.

Conservative Swede said...


Your comment underlines exactly how mentally puny America is as a superpower. The mental reach does not go beyond comparing oneself with lesser powers, which are defeated in the current order. The British empire would never have taken pride in being slightly better than China.

America has by far the greatest military power today. But what does she do with it? There's no will power to do anything sensible with it; quite the opposite.

The proper object of comparison for a superpower as America is not concurrent lesser powers of significantly lesser strength, but previous empires such as the British empire or the Roman empire.

But the times are so very different today, someone will argue. Well, the times of today are exactly like they are because America is the superpower. The world we see around us today is a reflection of Americas mentality; its moral, ideological and mental weaknesses.

Simple as that. But the current world order is about to fall.

Baron Bodissey said...

CS --

Yes, you are exactly right. The current world order is about to end.

America's hegemony is drawing to a close. Both Russia and China sense the change. Watch the Spratly Islands and Estonia for the signs.

The situation has been smoldering for decades, and with the banking crisis it burst into flame. Obama has just poured a tanker-load of gasoline onto the fire, and the world economy will be burned to a crisp.

Americans will not be the only ones hurt. The whole world will suffer from his narcissistic foolishness.

And it is not the American order that is ending: the entire Western order is ending. The American Empire took up where the British, the French, the Dutch, the Portuguese, etc. left off. But this is the end of the whole enchilada.

Goodbye to all that.

las said...


I believe my evaluation of "Christian" Canada was somewhat more nuanced than your "evil infanticidal nation".

I'll just reference Barbara Tuchman from her Book "Bible and Sword", a history of England's relationship to Palestine wherein she rightly maintains that:

"even the opponents of religion in the nineteenth century were religious... In our day it has become almost impossible to appreciate justly the role of religion in past political, social and economic history."

From that perspective I evaluate Canada as a Christian nation.

On the abortion issue. Abortion is but a relatively modern phenomenon in public discourse. It has little historical resonance as I am sure you would agree. I won't quibble however, I also agree it is a great evil.

The observance of commonwealth rules are left up to the members' themselves. You are correct... there is no automatic right to immigration.

But the parliamentary connection of visiting MPs is not lightly dismissed. But of course, that too is changing. The point being that the connection has been drawn, and I, for one, see the connection to the mother parliament as good and not to be dismissed as a mere sop or gesture from our collective past.

Conservative Swede said...

Baron B,

And it is not the American order that is ending: the entire Western order is ending.

Sure. But it's not an end, just a change of skin. But yes, it's a major change. We can truly speak in terms of a shift to mark #3 of European civilization; Greek/Roman and Western/Christian being number one and two. Western civilization will end, but not European civilization, which will from the ashes appear in its third incarnation.

America as a polity and institution is, by the way, just an outgrowth of European, or better said Western, civilization. There's no antagonism between Europe and America in this; Obama shows this well. The antagonism is temporal.


When I wrote I had the Swedish word chimär in mind. I was not aware of the etymology of the word and its English connotations. I meant to say "mental imagery" and not so much about monsters. But your comment was very funny.

Joanne said...

brianakira - the Saxons are the Issac's sons/Sons of Issac, which is where the name Saxons originated. There are twelve tribes of Israel - Joseph being one. Jacob/Israel took Joseph's sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, as his own and blessed them, as the biblical quote I gave.

Canada is a colony of Great Britain, as is Australia, etc. I am simply stating that Canada does have biblical importance as a colony of Great Britain, Ephraim, the younger of the two sons of Joseph, and America has biblical importance as the Great People, Manasseh, the elder of the two sons of Joseph; both were recipients of Israel - the man's blessings.

Canada is not damned to hell as a whole because we are each judged according to our works; although, we will not escape God's wrath.

Baron Bodissey said...

Joanne --

I'm sorry to say that you are using an incorrect folk etymology for the word "Saxon", which comes from the old English "seaxa", a knife or short sword, and is related to our word "saw".

The etymology for the word is well-attested both by written records and linguistic analysis.

The Saxons were named for their customary weapons in much the same way as the Franks were for theirs, a "frank" being a spear. "Frank" also came to mean "free" because the man who could carry a spear was a free man.

The Angles were, however, named for Angeln, a district in Germany, probably called that because it was at a bend (angle) in the Saale river.

Joanne said...

Baron - interesting, but I beg to differ.

Issac was a Hebrew; there are no vowels in Hebrew. The proper name Issac is pronounced Sak or Saac; therefore Isaac's sons would be called Saksons or Saxons. It was customary to creat a surname by adding the word 'son' to a given name which is quite evident in Scandinavian countries, for example: Jacobson, Abrahamson, Israelson, Johnson, Isaacson, etc.


Romans 9:7

"...but, in the words of Scripture, 'Through the line of Isaac your descendants shall be traced.'

Hebrews 11:17-18

"By faith Abraham, when the test came, offered up Isaac: he had received the promises, and yet he was on the point of offering his only son, of whom he had been told, 'Through the line of Isaac your descendants shall be traced.'

I am a WASP - a White Anglo-Saxon Protestant.

This is but one sign of who the 12Tribes of Israel are today.

Baron Bodissey said...

Joanne --

I hate to tell you this, but you are simply mistaken.

I’m a Christian like you, but this is not a Christian issue. And it has nothing to do with scripture.

The evolution of the word “Saxon” is recorded in texts – and, mind you, these texts were written by monks in English abbeys – all the way back to the 7th century, and even earlier in some continental Latin sources.

Don’t believe me; look it up in your local library in the “linguistics” section.

Look for the Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology, for example. I have a copy right next to me, and just checked – my memory was correct, and what I wrote above is right.

All those books will tell you roughly the same thing that I did. And most of them were written by Christians.

To assert something that is so blatantly false just because it ties in with a scriptural reference can only do damage to the efforts of Christians everywhere.

A scrupulous adherence to the truth is important. Check these things out before you post them.

I’m a mere amateur at etymology and linguistics, but there are many people who spend their entire careers looking at the origins of English words, and they all disagree with you. Every single one.

Dymphna said...


Your take on the history of the Church is, to put it as kindly as possible, eccentric.

It is definitely a minority position and will remain so because it does not align with any of the Christian historians, ecclesiologists, or theologians I have ever studied. And believe me, I read more of them for more years than I care to recount.

If you want a cogent, accurate history of Christians, start with Paul Johnson:

History of Chrisitianity.

If you want your sources even earlier, try the Venerable Bede, from the 7th century. He is considered the English church's first historian. I guarantee you he has none of your ideas in his work.

See here for a beginning, and then look for the modern English version:

Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum.

The differences between Roman (i.e., very early "English" Christianity) and Celtic notions of theology, ecclesiology, etc., centered mainly in their variations from what was happening on the Continent.

I won't get into the details. I just want to make the point that your version of things is so far off the main stream of historical ecclesiology that it is not germane here.

Please do not post these things on GoV comments. I am sure there is a forum for your ideas, but it is not this one. Our focus could not be more different.

If you put up any further "truths" to make your point, I will delete them all because you are so off topic that it has become intolerable.

This is not the choir, Joanne, and even if it were, we are not singing from the same hymnbook.

Stay on topic or desist.

PS You would do well to read "Piers Plowman". The times were similar and so were people's concerns. I'm too tired to link it, just google his name.