BHANGEELAAR! Surveying the state of the law that has reached a temporary point of non existence when it comes to George Galloway...

2345 Hrs GMT

London

Monday

27 September 2010

Editor © Muhammad Haque

BHANGEELAAR! Contextually dissecting a Canadian 'court' decision on a George Galloway-linked conundrum! Could the same ‘impossible hypothesis’ repeat itself in the ‘outcome’ of the ‘referendum,’ that had a distinct association of George Galloway in Tower Hamlets back in 2009?

That conundrum has been in place as found by the Judge in Canada.

According to the Canadian media outlet reporting on the written adjudication by Judge Richard Moseley, a ban imposed on George Galloway’s potential attempt to enter Canada in 2009 is beyond the reach of a judicial review!

Why?

The ban was impossible to implement! And it was not, in fact, implemented! the Judge has written.

How so?

Because - and this is AADHIKAR Online interpreting the scenario – George Galloway did not present himself at a border point into Canada. And as he did not, he could not be subjected to that ban or to any ban about entering Canada in that context.

And as the ban was not applied, it was not there at all! For it could only materialise if George Galloway arrived anywhere on the Canadian border!

And he did not.

So that ban was not in existence.

This, we emphasise, is a scenario. One of several scenarios that can be created by extrapolation of the ‘logic’ apparently relied on or invoked by Judge Richard Moseley in his written decision.

We are of course looking at the Canadian judicial pronouncement in the context of the media hype that has been associated with George Galloway’s factually accurate involvement in the organisation of a petition in 2009 about the holding of a referendum in the London borough of Tower Hamlets.

That hype had been taken to a locally-overdone level of frenzy linked with the then perceptible unease and insecurity felt by Jim Fitzpatrick, the person who was swift to read in that petition yet another ploy by Galloway to take over Fitzpatrick’s own ‘seat’ he [Fitzpatrick] held as a Bliaring MP in the name of Tower Hamlets.

Almost like ‘a ban that never was’ because Galloway did not approach the Canadian border thus cancelling the ban altogether, so it is looking in Tower Hamlets that Jim Fitzpatrick’s anxiety and careerist fear that Galloway’s 2009 petition for a referendum would cause his ouster from the cosy parliamentary seat that Fitzpatrick had been occupying in Tower Hamlets have not materialised because Galloway has not followed the course anticipated by Fitzpatrick and others of his ilk experiencing such transparent paranoia….

It may be that Jim Fitzpatrick, who has committed manifest acts of opportunistic about turns so many times in such a short time over [contextually] such a small matter will find that he really is more foolish than his pro-racist, anti-democratic, sub or fully authoritarian flaunters, users, and manipulators have managed to paint him to be.

We assert on the facts that unlike Fitzpatrick, Galloway has not altered his stance on the matter of an elected mayor’. Not in public and not to our knowledge.

As we have exclusively already reported, Galloway HAS changed his position about ‘standing’ as a candidate himself. But even that has not been implemented.

In contrast, Fitzpatrick never said he would stand himself to be mayor. But he did claim – and he was probably the first one in the arena of ‘authorized public life’ whose utterances on that were reported by the ‘local’ ‘authorised’ ‘media’ – that HE WAS OPPOSED TO THE change of the Council to one to be run by an executive or an elected mayor!

It appears that Fitzpatrick was faking.

And some people may even find his behaviour unacceptably hypocritical, as he has now become a ‘fervent supporter’ of the elected mayor system!

What is the crucial element in all this oscillation by Fitzpatrick?

Why it is that Galloway!

Fitzpatrick only comes alive, it seems, when there is a likelihood of George Galloway appearing in the vicinity.

As soon as Galloway is not on site or in sight, Fitzpatrick resumes his ‘ordinary’ posture and he mixes with his fellow fakers!

This is surely not dignified behaviour on the part of an MP who is being over-promoted by the likes of his ‘local’ Lib Dem blogger who himself had a go at beating Fitzpatrick at the last election.

[To be continued]

QUOTING:

Galloway ban can't be reviewed: Judge

By BRIAN LILLEY, QMI Agency

Last Updated: September 27, 2010 3:41pm

OTTAWA — A federal judge has dismissed a challenge from the Toronto Coalition to Stop the War and blasted the Conservative government at the same time.

The coalition had asked the court to rule the federal government acted improperly when it told then-British MP George Galloway he was inadmissible to Canada. Galloway was scheduled to give a series of lectures in Canada in March and April of 2009. The government claimed Galloway was inadmissible due to his support for Hamas, a banned terrorist group in Canada.

“As a result of the respondents’ actions, Mr. Galloway may have been found to be inadmissible to Canada had he actually presented himself for examination to an officer at an airport or a border crossing,” wrote Judge Richard Mosley. “That did not happen.”

Mosley's decision to dismiss the case isn't based on his siding with the government but rather the fact Galloway never tried to enter Canada, meaning the government's decision to block him can't be challenged.

Canada's High Commission in London informed Galloway before be left Britain that he would likely be deemed inadmissible if he tried to enter Canada. Galloway, a former Labour MP booted from his party in 2003, lost his seat in May's British election.

The Conservative government said bureaucrats, not the government, had banned Galloway. The government did suggest, however, that Galloway supports terrorism.

As proof, they pointed to an aid convoy Galloway helped organize that transported humanitarian supplies to Gaza in March, 2009. The government also said Galloway made a $40,000 donation that went to help Hamas.

Even though Mosley dismissed the court challenge, he still criticized the government's reasons for wanting Galloway barred.

“It is clear that the efforts to keep Mr. Galloway out of the country had more to do with antipathy to his political views than with any real concern that he had engaged in terrorism or was a member of a terrorist organization,” Mosley wrote.

“No consideration appears to have been given to the interests of those Canadians who wished to hear Mr. Galloway speak or the values of freedom of expression and association enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.”

Mosley concludes by saying the government's decision can't be reviewed, but if it could be reviewed, the court would find the government erred in blocking Galloway from entering Canada.

Your Comments

• 4 Comments
• View/Leave Comment