What the Fuck?

George Galloway vs. Stephen Harper

Now things might get interesting for Stephen Harper...

Canada's Federal Court ruled earlier this week in the case of ex-Scottish MP George Galloway, whom the Harper government banned from entering Canada a year and a half ago, for supposedly supporting a terrorist organization. While the appeal itself (on Galloway's behalf) was thrown out, because Galloway never formally challenged the ban, the ruling also made it abundantly clear that the government was out of line and banned him solely for political reasons (ie. criticizing Israel). Almost immediately, Galloway was announced to be coming to Canada for a speaking engagement this weekend.

Honestly, I'd love to see Harper's cronies try to pull something this time. The whole reason that the "terrorist organization" bullshit didn't work was because all that Galloway did was donate food, medicine and diapers to the Palestinian people (albeit through Hamas). Frankly, even if Hamas were inclined to hold on to those goods, they'd be pretty hard-pressed to find ways to conduct terrorism with them. Then again, this is using logic on Zionist sociopaths who think that trying to bring wheelchairs to Gaza warrants storming a passenger ship in international waters, and shooting civilians armed with sticks (at best).

Besides, if Galloway's actions really did count as supporting terrorism, he would definitely have been arrested by now, and he never has been. That tells me pretty clearly that HarperCons are talking out of their asses.

Furthermore, I find it very rich that the same people demanding that Galloway be silenced -- er, I mean "kept from our country" -- rolled out the red carpet for Ann Coulter, who not only made what can be called direct threats against Canada, but is a genuine Anti-Semite and terrorist sympathizer (look up her remarks on Timothy McVeigh if you think I pulled that one out of my ass). Galloway's critics keep playing the Jew Hater and Terrorist cards, so let's see them get serious.

It's for reasons like this that any claim the right wing has, to be the true heroes of free speech, goes up in smoke pathetically easily.

RIP Dr. Laura -- Wait, she's still alive? DAMMIT!

So right-wing radio nut/fake psychiatrist Dr. Laura Schlessinger is quitting her controversial show, because she wants to be free to express her First Amendment rights, without retaliation from the people she offends, advertisers, or the FCC. Evidently, this is in response to her latest bigoted tirade, where she repeatedly referred to black people as n***ers and -- SHOCK! -- people were outraged over it.

(jeez what took them so long?)

First of all, I'm glad she's finally gone -- it couldn't happen to anyone more deserving. Well, except maybe for Charles McVety, the Westboro Baptist Church, the National Organization for Marriage, and pretty much everyone who's worked for Fox News. Oh, and Stephen Harper, but that's a different matter.

Second, before any neo-cons out there get up my ass about free speech, I suggest you take a look at broadcasting laws in your country. In Canada, in addition to our hate speech laws, we have the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council. America has the oft-maligned Federal Communications Commission. While both policies -- and their enforcers -- have their occasional problems and brain farts, they are nonetheless the law of the land when it comes to what you can have on public airwaves. Frankly, anyone who's ever been near the broadcasting industry knows that there are certain words you are not allowed to say on the air -- Professor George Carlin did some seminal work on this subject in the 1970s. This is especially wise, when some of those words are used by various bigots and supremacists in their rants to call for the deaths of everyone who isn't a straight white Judeo-Christian (and sometimes it's even more narrow than that).

Third, if Schlessinger really wants to find a place that frees her to spread her bile, she's going to have her work cut out for her. I doubt that any other mainstream outlet will want her, because she's a defamation lawsuit/huge FCC fine waiting to happen, she clearly hates about half of the country, and isn't above using foul language and slurs to say so. The FCC even has some involvement in Internet regulation, which limits her options there as well (plus that's assuming the best case scenario for her, that she's able to set up her own web site and video streaming service -- after all, YouTube, BlipTV and most other video sites forbid her kind of dreck too).

So I guess that limits her to private functions with the KKK, Aryan Brotherhood, and Republican Party. Well, at least that would be honest as well as open.

Ezra Levant vs. Free Speech

As anyone following the "Ann Coulter in Canada" farce knows, her primary supporter in the Great White North is a conservative commentator named Ezra Levant. He's mostly known as an exile from the Conservative Party, as well as defending his "right" to reprint the inflammatory cartoons depicting Muhammed the Prophet as a terrorist.

When the provost of the University of Ottawa politely but firmly reminded Ann Coulter, that her usual hate rhetoric is illegal here, Levant was one of those accusing the provost of hate speech himself -- just because Coulter is a conservative -- and has filed a complaint to the Human Rights Commission, despite the fact that the hates its very existence. Sensing hypocrisy yet?

Anyway, a short time ago, an amateur stand-up comic in British Columbia was taken to that province's HRC, for yelling at a lesbian couple that was talking during his act (and if you didn't already guess, it's alleged that he used homophobic slurs). Levant, you guessed it, says that this isn't an issue, and the case has no merit.

So let's recap: it's okay to print sacrilegious and racist cartoons of Muslims (I know he says it's about free speech, but when he prints a cartoon depicting Moses or Jesus in the same light, then I'll buy that claim); it's okay to scream slurs at a lesbian couple in a public place; but God forbid that you remind a hatemonger, that we don't take kindly to her saying things like "we should kill all Muslim leaders and force the people to convert to Christianity", or "Canada's lucky we allow them to exist on our continent".

When this chucklehead comes to the HRC, defending America's answer to Osama bin Laden, I hope they throw him out on his ass.

George Galloway vs. Ottawa

Well quel suprise, the Stephen Harper Thought Police are at it again. There's a Scottish politician, George Galloway, who was supposed to speak in Canada this week about war prevention and the Gaza bombardment. However, he has been banned from entering this country by the federal government, because he gave medical supplies, food, and clothing to the Palestinian people, via Hamas. As I'm sure you know, Hamas is the legitimately elected government of Palestine, but it's also an official terrorist group, according to many countries. Because of this, Mr. Galloway has been branded a terrorist sympathizer, despite the fact that he has no criminal record. The problem with this view, is that it bears no resemblance to reality.

First of all, it's completely out of step with the attitudes that the rest of the world is having about Hamas, these days. So many governments around the world are supporting peace talks with Hamas, including certain elements within Israel, and the U.S. Government -- which has previously been Pro-Israel at all costs. Further, Galloway's views are hardly new -- he was thrown out of the British Labour Party because of his opposition to the Iraq invasion -- but even in the most tyrannical days of George W. Bush's rule he was allowed to spread his views in America. In fact, Mr. Galloway's current speaking tour includes the U.S. Presumably they would have arrested him if they thought his humanitarian acts were really sympathizing with terrorists, yet he is still a free man. Gee, I wonder what that means?

The second issue is one of fairness and honesty, in regards to the Gaza Strip. As I've said before, I freely admit that Hamas isn't exactly a group of angels, but realistically they just aren't that much of a threat to Israel. I've never heard of them firing anything larger than a couple of small rockets, whereas during the Gaza skirmish alone Israel bombed them with pretty much anything they could get their hands on -- including illegal chemical weapons. Some of Israel's front line soldiers have recently revealed a chilling willingness on the military's part to shoot unarmed civilians for no reason, and ransack their homes. There are even prominent members of Israel's government who have said that it would be a good idea to fire a nuclear bomb into Palestine -- the majority of which wants peace, I might add. So if Hamas is considered a terrorist body, then why not the government and military of Israel, which is clearly capable of doing much more damage?

Further, an Ontario union leader recently got heat for proposing a boycott on Israeli scientists and academics speaking in our universities, unless they denounce Israel's actions -- this was called Anti-Semitic by many Pro-Israel groups, and thus was dropped. So why isn't blocking Mr. Galloway considered Anti-Palestine? Also, why does the government ostracize Hamas, yet tolerate the Jewish Defense League, a terrorist group operating in Canada, known to stage bombings and assassinations -- and a group that is quite glad to see Galloway silenced, I might add.

Typically, the Conservative government and its supporters deny that this is an attack on free speech, but as you can see I strongly disagree. I'm also not at all surprised, because this has been typical business for Emperor Harper from the beginning: bully, vilify, and ultimately silence anyone who disagrees with you, no matter what. Not only that, but this is yet another example of the Harper cabinet completely ignoring what the rest of the world is doing, and just continuing with policies that have failed several times over. Mr. Harper: there is a big difference between marching to your own drum, and walking off of a cliff that everyone else has the good sense to avoid. That's it for me.