Categories: Capital Read, Inside the Queensway

GallowayWatch: Okay, it's not just us. This whole CIC/CBSA thing really is confusing.

by kadyomalley on Monday, March 23, 2009 10:16am - 81 Comments

According to Barbara Jackman, who is heading up the Galloway border ban legal team, the decision to bar him from entering the country does seem to have been preemptive.

In an emailed response to a query from ITQ, she notes that Galloway “did not need to apply for a visa to visit Canada”, although she suggests that he could have informed the Canadian High Commission of his upcoming visit “as a matter of courtesy”.

Even if that turns out to be the case, however, it doesn’t really explain the apparent involvement of the Canada Border Services Agency:

What is unusual about the ‘refusal’ is that [name deleted], the Immigration Program Manager at the High Commission in London did not just say “we” consider you inadmissible but said that the preliminary assessment of the Canadian Border Services Agency was that he is inadmissible. I have never seen an overseas refusal rely on the Canadian Border Services. It is the Canada Immigration who make decisions on applications for admission to Canada, not that it appears there even was an application for admission.

I don’t know about the rest of you, but I’m really looking forward to reading the full injunction request, which his lawyers will presumably release within the next day or so. At the very least, that should least answer the question of which department, agency or minister is ultimately responsible for the initial finding of inadmissibility.

Tags: canada border services agency, citizenship and immigration, george galloway, sometimes it's enough just to have your confusion confirmed, worm cans are us

More by kadyomalley

Andrew Potter

Kady, why are you so obsessed with this story? Why can’t you accept the obvious facts of the matter? Galloway supports terrrorists, and is therefore a security risk. He was deemed inadmissible by public servants, and the politicians have opted, in their wisdom, not to interfere. Why does it matter who made the decision, as long as Canadians are kept safe?

Seriously my dear, let this go.

http://www.macleans.ca Kady O’Malley

I promise that unless something spectacular breaks, that’s almost certainly my last post on the subject.

Michael

Well I for one would like to see this story fleshed out some more. This smacks of a pre-emptive censoring on nothing more than the say-so of a government official. “A matter of security” is becoming too much of a convenient catch-all used to justify decisions that are entirely motivated by other concerns. Are there no criteria or standards by which the CBSA is required to demonstrate that there is indeed a bona fide security issue here? Or do they just the words security issue, and the matter is no longer able to be scrutinized. I think it’s horribly naive to accept that.
If ITQ is not going to follow this, can you recommend a site that will?

http://www.macleans.ca Kady O’Malley

You’ll notice that I very deliberately didn’t include a definition of “spectacular” as applied to future developments that may indeed be covered here.

PolJunkie

Nonsense Kady. We, the readers, want more info on this. It is the government who stupidly gave Galloway a platform by refusing him entry.

Even Homeland Security didn’t find him to be a risk so why should we?

TJ Cook

“Seriously my dear, let this go.”

Doesn’t seem like the sort of advice a journalist should be giving. Heck, a journalist might even want to go beyond govt’ press releases and do some investigation. Even when the facts are “obvious”.

Also Andrew – “Why does it matter who made the decision, as long as Canadians are kept safe? “… what danger, pray tell, does Mr Galloway pose to Canadians?

Andrew Potter

Sorry everyone — should have turned on the sarcasm font. For the record, I think this is a dynamite story and have been cheering Kady on with every post.

TJ Cook

Ah, apologies. Something about Jason Kenney disables my sense of humour :)
SAB

Andrew please be more sarcastic in the future. Or less.
LeslieE

I was hoping that was the case when I read it.

novagardener

I’m with you on this TJ. For AP to state :Why does it matter who made the decision, as long as Canadians are kept safe? Safe from what – free speech.

an online reader

Will harper pay Galloway to stay out of Court following the pattern he used in the Arar torture case ? Our mushroom government by PCO /PMO does not show well in sunlight .
Geiseric the Lame

If the CBSA overstepped its authority, interfering is PRECISELY what our government of the day should be doing.
Canuckistanian

why so angry, and patronizing my dear?

Canuckistanian

should have read a couple more comments…;-D

TJ Cook

Kady – have you seen specific denials of prior involvement by the politicians involved?

Considering their portrayal of this as a purely bureaucratic decision, I think it would be useful to ask them the straightforward question: was the government involved in the decision-making process?

Just Visiting

They will lie, and all documents will eventually be withheld due to national security issues. They think they’re untouchable, and probably are, except for the unfortunate matter of a court appearance.

I favour media covering every aspect of this story, spectacular or not.

john g

So all it took to motivate the “free speech protecting” media is a kooky, terrorist supporting left wing foreign nutbar politician.

Yet right wing domestic “nutbar” Ezra Levant has been fighting for free speech for the better part of the last 2 years, and until recently has been pretty much ignored by the media, save for a few columnists and editorials. The news reporting media cares nothing for HIS free speech rights.

Why am I not surprised.

Terry

Most people are assured that if Greert Wilders had been prevented from entering the country, there wouldn’t have been any protests about free speech coming from the left either.

Of course, there aren’t too many protests from the right about Galloway being kept out of the country.

So really, neither side truly believes in the outrage they claim they are feeling. They just hate the person belonging to the other tribe.

john g

Of course, there aren’t too many protests from the right about Galloway being kept out of the country.

Because it’s not a freedom of speech issue, and the attempts to make it look like one to justify letting the guy in are pathetically self serving.

There is a difference between allowing him his freedom of speech, and inviting him into the country to do so. If I want to make a speech about, say, my opposition to the federal budget, and I want to make that speech in, for example, Kady’s living room…is she violating my freedom of speech rights if she doesn’t let me in? Of course not. Neither is Canada violating Galloway’s freedom of speech by denying him entry. He’s free to say whatever he wants. He doesn’t require an invitation from Canada to do so.

I should also point out that the speaking engagement at a Toronto church is allegedly (as per Ezra’s blog) to raise funds for Hamas, which is illegal in Canada. The fact that he wants to make a speech doesn’t give him the right to cross our borders to commit a crime.

http://prairiewrangler.wordpress.com/ Olaf

John,

It’s not a freedom of speech issue, per se, in so far as such an argument is limited to our particular legal rights and freedoms as Canadians. But at the same time, it very much is a freedom of speech issue in the larger sense. The same arguments apply: the “sunlight is the best disinfectant” argument for free speech is not exclusively applicable to Canadian citizens – if his views be so foul, better to have them out in the open to be ridiculed and condemned. Further, the argument that banning him has actually managed to further proliferate his odious views appears to be in effect, as well. Finally, were he to raise money for a terrorist organization in Canada, which is as you say illegal, we could arrest and charge him – I tend to think that’s the better option than making him a martyr.

Mulletaur

Hear, hear.
john g

So if someone intends to come to Canada to knowingly commit a criminal activity, instead of preventing them from getting in we should let them in and arrest them later.

Sure. I’ll buy it. Makes loads of sense. Much better that way than, you know, actually preventing the crime from happening in the first place.

http://runesmith.blogspot.com greenjenny

Don’t believe everything Ezra tells you. Galloway’s only ‘crime’ has been to collect food, blankets and medical supplies for the PEOPLE of Gaza and send them in a convoy of over 100 trucks from England to Gaza. His speaking engagements in Toronto were to raise funds for a second convoy. That is what Levant and others have been calling ‘raising funds for Hamas’.

Saying that sending much needed supplies to the people of Gaza is ‘supporting terrorists’ is like saying that helping the people of Afghanistan is ‘supporting’ the Taliban, or sending aid to the people of Sri Lanka is ‘supporting’ the Tamil Tigers. It’s nonsense, and it’s lazy to just take the word of someone like Ezra Levant on something like that without bothering to check into it.

Mike T.

I think people are more concerned about an arbitrary or even improper decision process regarding who may enter the country. And since hate speech isn’t involved, there’s not much of a comparison.
Andrew Potter

Are you surprised to find that Ezra wants Galloway kept out?

Canuckistanian

can we ban ezra? just saying…

John D

Yes, poor poor Ezra.

TikTok

Mr. Potter’s comment – Seriously my dear, let it go. Hey Kady how do you like being patted on the head and told to go toddle along?

Let’s face it Mr. Galloway poses no danger to Canadians whatsoever, except a contrary opinion, which I want to hear, or should I just be contented with being spoon-fed the Con slant?

Andrew Potter

Kady loves being patted on the head.

Paul Wells

Infandous Potter!
SAB

Who doesn’t?
http://www.macleans.ca Kady O’Malley

It makes biting the hand that pats one so much easier! Especially for the height-challenged. Not that I would ever do that to Colleague Potter, whose other news outlet has been doing a fabulous job of covering this story.

Scott M.

Hmm…

Perhaps he was required to get a permit for conducting business while he was over here?

I don’t get it.

http://www.macleans.ca Kady O’Malley

There is no requirement for a British citizen to obtain a visa before visiting Canada for business or pleasure.

Scott M.

Indeed, you don’t need a visa, but you can need a work permit. I know when I worked for Customs I had to punt a few people over to Immigration when they were crossing, even Americans.

From http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/work/apply-who-nopermit.asp#speaker:

Public speakers

Guest speakers, commercial speakers or seminar leaders can speak or deliver training in Canada without a work permit as long as the event is no longer than five days.

Perhaps he was to stay longer than 5 days?

http://www.macleans.ca Kady O’Malley

Actually, at the time that the announcement was made, I believe he was only scheduled for one event. That has since expanded somewhat — apparently, he’s now booked from March 30 to April 2, although that’s still under the five day limit. In any case, a work permit would be issued by CIC, not CBSA, and would require an application to have been filed before a determination of admissibility would be made. At least, as far as I can tell.

Scott M.

Indeed. I guess that’s what I was getting at – perhaps he applied and got the word then? CIC/CBSA would be handcuffed by privacy restrictions and no one could verify if he did apply or did not.

If it goes to an injunction, we should be able to see all of the interactions.

BTW: How come this isn’t called “GallowayGate”?

Mulletaur

The five days refer to the duration of the speaking ‘event’ i.e. the engagement. If he was intending to come here and speak at several different shorter events over a period of months, it wouldn’t be an issue.

Judging by the information in this Channel 4 piece (the link was on Galloway’s Web site), this whole thing came about as a result of an “open letter of protest” from the Canadian chapter of the Jewish Defence League :

http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1184614595?bctid=17070707001

Alykhan Velshi is Immigration Minister Jason Kenney’s flak and clearly they are taking the lead. My understanding of the division of responsibilities is that CIC would write the inadmissibility report and CBSA would be responsible as the front line agency at the border for keeping him out.

I’ve never heard of a third party motivating Immigration to declare somebody inadmissible in a pre-emptive way like this. The question of admissibility doesn’t even arise unless there is an application to enter Canada, until then, it is purely hypothetical. Which raises the question, does this pre-emptive letter have any legal value ? In order to challenge the decision, it seems to me that he still needs to make an application to be admitted to Canada, at which point, if he is refused, he can ask for judicial review.

This stinks of political interference by the Harper government. I am very pro-Israel but I think the JDL has shot itself in the foot here. This is after all a British MP we are talking about. He may be infandous but he’s not a hatemonger and he is the elected representative of his constituents. Better to let him in and have a chance to argue with him than to try to shut him down like this – all the JDL accomplished was to give him and his views extra publicity. By sending him a pre-emptive letter to tell him he is inadmissible on security grounds, the government just made us look silly and over the top.

http://cdndailydigest.blogspot.com/ Joe Hueeglin

Meir Weinstein, National Director Jewish Defence League of Canada’s, and Galloway square off in the debate recorded on the Video “Canada ban: Galloway faces his accusers a Jewish Defence League (JDL) “Terrorist” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAm7rfHKSyY .

Weinstein’s focus is that Galloway is a “proxy agent of Hamas and Hezbollah”. When Galloway suggests he will speak to the planned meetings in Canada from he United States “by other means” Weinstein states “we will see to it that the Canadian government will be monitoring every individual and organization that will have anything to do with it”.

‘Twould seem Meir figures having the Government act on his letter once it will do so again – or isw this misreading his words?
LeslieE

Mr. Weinstein’s comment, “we will see to it that the Canadian government will be monitoring every individual and organization that will have anything to do with it”.

That’s arrogant.

Paul Wells

It’s almost like the two countries have some kind of history together or something.

Martin

This Galloway , is he not the same guy who tried everything in his power to keep Le Pen out of Britain because he opposed the his ultra right wing views. Where was his outrage when Dutch MP ent Geert Wilders was denied entry to Britain because of his Muslim views? I might be a little more sympathetic if he applied his own standards to others.

sophiageffros

Actually, in the article written by Galloway that Wells linked to, Galloway condemned the denil of entry by Britain to Geert Wilders.
Mulletaur

Jean Marie Le Pen has been convicted twice in criminal court, once in France and once in Germany, for saying that the Holocaust was a “detail of history” – negationism. Jean Marie Le Pen is a hatemonger. It was right for Galloway to try to exclude him from the United Kingdom, as it would be right for the government to ban him from entering Canada.

Warwick

So it isn’t hatemongering which is the trouble for you but the type of hatemongering with which you object?

I don’t want the fascists coming here. Galloway included.

Mulletaur

Galloway is neither a fascist nor a hatemonger.

Warwick

Le Pen’s supporters almost certainly claim the same.
Canuckistanian

“Le Pen’s supporters almost certainly claim the same.”

are you suggesting there is no objective truth? postmodern moral relativist commie!
Mulletaur

Le Pen’s supporters can claim anything they want. The truth about him is plain for all to see. Funny that the same people who want to ban Galloway for his supposed support of Hamas also would welcome a Holocaust denier like Le Pen with open arms.

sophiageffros

This is confusing and absurd. In related news, Britain recently forbade Fred Phelps, of God Hates Fags fame, from entering the country.
I wonder how many defenders of Phelps would apply the same towards Galloway, and vice-versa

Canuckistanian

ibid, see above ;-)

http://cdndailydigest.blogspot.com/ Joe Hueglin

There may be some not taking a partisan position go to these two videos of Galloway The first is before the US Senate. Count the number of times you agree or disagree with what he said to them.
.

VIDEOS
George Galloway talking about the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the whole Middle East situation, and religions; the interview was done on November 20th 2006 with George Stroumboulopoulos on CBC Television

MP George Galloway Telling the truth of Bush-Blair hype.
Warwick

Yawn. Why is there any controversy at all in this case?

As a non-citizen, Galloway has no right to come into our country and can be denied entry for any reason we make up or no reason at all.

Supporting groups which have been specifically named and banned for supporting terrorism is a very definite reason. So, why SHOULD he be allowed in?

In fact, the only controversy should have been if he was allowed in, not if he wasn’t.

Mulletaur

That doesn’t stop you people from PMO posting here though, does it ?

Terry

Well, I doubt Phelps has any defenders outside of his family, but we do know he was allowed into Canada. There was objections though at the time about the fact that he was allowed in.

But really, the question is whether the bureaucracy and political establishment have any right to keep scummy people out of the country. Who determines who is a scummy person? I’m sorry but a lot of things that Galloway says could be classified as hate speech if the right person decides that it is hate speech.

In cases like this it is often going to be arbitrary, often going to be politically motivated, or often a case of what the database tells the bureaucrat at any given time. Sometimes, like this case, it is going to be all three. Nobody seems to be arguing that people without a criminal record should be automatically allowed to enter the country on either the right or the left, so I don’t see any way out of this except to bow to the discretion of our bureaucratic and political masters.

Unless you are a journalist and can sell newspapers and cause public embarrassment by critiquing the choices of those bureaucrats and politicians. In that case, have at it!

Warwick

Actually Terry, Phelps was turned back at the boarder the last time he tried to come here.

About time, too. We don’t have much choice in dealing with our own riff-raff. We certainly don’t need to be dealing with the rest of the world’s as well.

Terry

Well, perhaps the border is just getting tighter for controversial media sluts in general.

Ron

it seems pretty clear to me that this is just another routine case of the PMO issuing an edict, in this case “stop Galloway”. Hapless CBSA gets the job of carrying out the edict, Jason Kenny gets to say hey it’s just civil servants doing their job. seems pretty obvious given the confusion about who did the banning.

NK

And where perchance did you deduce this from?

I have not seen any statements or any evidence leading me to believe that the PMO had anything to do with this. Or is this just another example of Harper Derangement Syndrome? Blame Harper and the Conservatives for anything and everything….it is raining today? It MUST be Harper’s fault. He is conspiring to keep us permanently wet.

If you cannot recognise the simple fact that the public service (in this case CBSA) does what it chooses when it chooses without any care as to whom is in gov’t at the time you are either willfully blind or utterly partisan or a combination of both. Most if not all of what the bureaucracy is led by nothing more than their own desires not any one party whether it be Liberal, Conservative, NDP, or Bloc.

Ron

perhaps I deduced this from the very well known fact that Harper approves everything that goes on in this government. No one says anything without his approval.

NK

AKA You deduced it from peconcieved notions with absolutely zero reasoning. TY.

If you actually believe that the PMO’s office controlls every single decision made by every single bureaucrat I pity you.

http://www.jackmitchell.ca Jack Mitchell

If you think the CBSA is going to bar a major international figure like Galloway without letting Kenney know beforehand, you are badly misinformed.

http://www.wernerpatels.com Werner Patels

Let’s be clear about a few things:

1) No one has any automatic right to enter a country. Therefore, any legal attempts on Galloway’s part to quash the government’s decision will be futile. Anyone can be denied to entry to any country, because it’s a privilege not a right.

2) It’s not a matter of free speech at all. Apparently, as was reported, Galloway was to raise funds for Hamas during his appearance in Toronto, and this is the security issue that got him barred from entering Canada.

http://prairiewrangler.wordpress.com/ Olaf

Hey, that comment looks familiar! Wait… a… second… nope, nevermind. Can’t place it.
Dot

I think you’d make it into Bolivia, no problemo.
http://coyne kc

Yeah George was going to pass the hat around! Heaven help us if a serious issue were to come along to test these amateurs.

Mikee

The CBSA was doing it’s job! This is a very tiresome story about nothing!!

Mulletaur

Apparently you believe that democracy is tiresome.

Santamaria

1 The smearing campaign coordinated against Galloway is rather amusing. This man, that has been in the British Parliament for over 25- some years, is being accused by an identified source (!) of sponsoring a terrorist organization ( Hamas) !
Huh? I mean if such a funding EVER took place, it is obvious he would not be a UK MP.

2 . Indeed preventing his entrance into Canada sends a strong message to all : ” Canada is no longer a free country . Canada now practices censorship actively “. We mourn our soldiers that die in the MIddle east ,for uncertain reasons, while our leaders deny access to an anti-war speaker.
We are not only ignored, we are mocked.

I am disappointed in our government :(

- All that while we gladly host war criminals on our soil , as George Bush…

sf

If George Bush were ever a war criminal, it is obvious he would not be a US president for 8 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler Steph C

Many war criminals (convicted and non-) have been elected and re-elected. A certain German chancellor (let’s call him Herr AH) served for more than a decade. Only death stopped his reign.

John.K

I’m pretty sure AH was never re-elected. Once elected, he put an end to that election nonsense, didn’t he?

Craig

I don’t think he should have been denied entry. But some of you are under the impression that poor old Georgie is some pacifist peacenik, or a “noble” opponent of western imperialism. Instead, he’s long been a supporter of Saddam Hussein, the Syrian Baath party, and the the theocrats of Hamas and Hezbollah.
Why anyone on the left would actually want to hear what this cretin has to say is beyond me.

http://runesmith.blogspot.com greenjenny

Links? Quotes in context? Video?

No, seriously – I’d be interested.

madeyoulook

Maybe it’s out there but I haven’t seen it: Maybe CSIS was actually on top of things, and placed a phone call to CBSA.
Acctrans

Ayers, Galloway………whatever! Get a life.
Disgusted Canadian Patriot

Terrorists hate our freedoms. Anytime the government arbitrarily infringes those rights and freedoms without a fair and open hearing, it is a clear and very real victory for the terrorists.
That means anyone who agrees with what is being done to that Candian citizen trapped in Sudan, or with CSIS using info from torture, for example, is also a supporter of terrorists and should be denied entry into Canada.
Joe Hueglin

“Anytime the government arbitrarily infringes those rights and freedoms without a fair and open hearing, it is a clear and very real victory for the terrorists.”

Agreed. Someone who entered a coma 9/10 and woke up to-day of sound mind would be most disturbed by the infringements in the name of protecting us from terrorists.

Obama defends US role in Afghanistan http://www.aopnews.com/today.html being an example of justification based on the threat from them.
http://GallowayWatch Acctrans

Ah…ah……love the game of Squash, it is amazing what you can learn at a game of Squash. I play frequently with a long time business acquaintance in Ottawa. Brian, James…..John works for the largest law firm in Canada($`s that is)-one of the largest in N.A., and behind his desk hangs a lovelt framed picture of a Cow , with a lawyer at every tit……….ya, you get it milking the cow for all its worth!
How insensitive of me……., we are talking about Gallopie…no…gallimaufry…yes, now I have it Galloway, a small hardy horse formely bred at Galloway, Scotland, or was it one of a breed of black and white cattle, originally comming from Galloway, Scotland.
Rats….! I broke a string in my racquet…..ah, John changed the ball from a red dot to a yellow dot…there slower you know!
Good old George Popadolpous…no, he was a former president/primeminister well, you know who I mean the one hour George who cast a life line to the horse…er….cow, whatever.
So looking forward to Brian and Karlheinz and thos manilla envelopes of american dollars and or, was it swiss franc, you know for building the LAV plant in good old Nova Scotia.
Katy, being a journalist today is a little like a head start…you know all those lawyers at the bottom of the ocean….yeah that one.
On second thought, I heard someone say Peter, they found this name on a briefcase left on the table at the NATO Summit, Strassbourgh.
http://cdndailydigest.blogspot.com/ Joe Hueeglin

Ah yes Pete,,

Too bad, eh what?

Just the man to represent us all
in making agreements.