This is not really that hard to look up all on your own seeing as it is all over the Internet as well as the mass media.

Here is the first link I found in a search: http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Wor...Blocking_Entry

From the article:
Your denial first of him giving the money and wanting proof and then of the very well documented reason for his banning tells me that you must be in denial.

You ask for evidence above and then proceed to provide evidence. What an odd debating style.

More evidence that you yourself provide against yourself.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...-banned-canada


It is plain as day in the information you have provided.

(c) engaging in terrorism; (He gave funds to them which is the equivalent of actually performing the act under Canadian law. You see, if I give a gun to someone to go out and rob a bank I may as well have gone and robbed the bank myself under Canadian law, as well as under the law of most other western nations.

(d) being a danger to the security of Canada; (If you give funds to a terrorist organization that only exists to annihilate Canadians or one of her allies you are a danger to the security of Canada. Pretty simple stuff really.)

You might want to also look into Canada's Anti-Terrorism Act which states:

From the Anti-terrorism Act of Canada:
I agree, you do not find solutions by hiding your eyes to the reality of why Hamas exists and its end goals. You also do not find solutions by ignoring the fact that they regularly fire missiles at Israeli citizens and Israel reacts once every several years in order to protect its citizens.

You taking a comment from an individual about a particular case and trying to associate it with another is disingenuous.

I understand, I wouldn't be able to back up the words you spoke on this matter either.

From your video the first words out of the non-government representative is "His unyielding support of the Hamas and the Hezbollah."

1. The guy is not a government or court representative.

2. The guy states the very same thing immediately in the video you have provided.

If this is the type of video you enjoy may I suggest that for the purposes of our discussions you find videos without the propaganda shown all over the top of the picture?

You do realize that the propaganda being spewed on the video would be considered a logical fallacy in any debate? You do not attack the messenger, you are supposed to attack the message.

Stephen you appear to be doing a similar thing to me as you did to Joe Castro in making it difficult for me to even know you are speaking to me. Like him I would appreciate it if you would go by the protocol of this forum

You are not telling the truth here.


I have nothing to be in denial about and what I said stands. I see no reason in the Act that covers this banning.

Now your just being facetious

and again

Show me where giving funds to people who are in such desperate need as the people in Gaza is the equivalent in Law to engaging in terrorism.

The money was for the people of Gaza, however you are trying to dress it up.
and by your own act what he did was not an offence.
So I think it is pretty clear from this and everything that you say that Galloway was banned because of the Canadian Governments stand on Israel. You describe everything so simplistically which it is anything but.
You not saying what your talking about is a pain in the arse but I imagine you are talking about my quoting Tony Benn saying “no moral difference between a stealth bomber and a suicide bomber. Both kill innocent people for Political reasons.” and this you are pretending is disingenuous.

It is not. He is not saying ONLY IN IRAQ.

However you can find out his views on the Donation made by Galloway here



and on Israels reason incursion into Gaza here.






His views on going into Gaza are similarly describe by a soldier here

'We cannot kill the desire of the Palestinian people for freedom'





Ad hominem

"consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking

The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject." with yourself into personal attack.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

__________________
"War is easy, If you don't like someone, you kill them.
This (negotiating peace) is more difficult. If you disagree with someone, you have to talk to them and try to find a compromise." Abdul Haq

Castro was complaining that I was not posting in the manner that I am now. There are no protocol's in this regard I have seen many on this forum do it in both of the styles I have used on this thread. I get the feeling that the complaints have more to do with the lack of evidence you have for your side of the debate rather than the the style I opt to use.

I am not? You stated and I quote "I accept that there is some problem in him giving money itself to Hamas and don't know if he has done this. Do you? That is a risky area I know but unfortunately there is not anyone else to give it to. I imagine this is why he brought his latest goods in trucks so he could at least make sure what he bought." on page 8 of this very thread.



I have provided you with all of the evidence as well as a quote from the anti-terrorism act which forbids contributions to a known terrorist group and you opted to ignore the portion where this is forbidden and highlight the following sentence. Really disingenuous.

No, simply pointing out the facts as presented.
You forgot to read the following sentence:

"It is an offence to knowingly participate in or contribute to, directly or indirectly, any activity of a terrorist group."

How do you know how Hamas plans on spending the funds? It isn't like they are not known to purchase missiles to toss into Israel.

By our own act, as is as plan as the nose on your face that it is indeed a very serious offence.

In fact the anti-terrorism act starts off with this in the first sentence. I will produce it once again for your reading pleasure.

"It is an offence to knowingly participate in or contribute to, directly or indirectly, any activity of a terrorist group."

No, I will believe that in reading the anti-terrorism act as well as the Immigration Act. You simply deny what the courts of Canada upheld as well as the Canadian Border Security forces because you like the man.


So, you not being able to follow the conversation is a pain in the arse?

Yes, of course this is what I was talking about. In fact, in my post I quoted your statement on the matter.

Yes, you cannot take a man talking about one matter and pretend that he is discussing another simply because you think it is helping you in your debate.

"Its a war crime that is being committed in Iraq." A direct quote from your video. He does not mention any other country in the video outside of NATO countries and Iraq.

Why exactly do you think that this mans opinion, Tony Benn, counts for any more than any other mans? I really could not care less what he thinks of the situation.

The only fact that we need worry about in this debate is that contributing to a terrorist organization is against the laws of Canada, Galloway broke those laws and is no longer permitted into our country. Tony Benn is not going to change this very basic facts. Galloway was permitted into the country when his actions only consisted of words. On a March day of 2009 he changed all of that via donating money directly to a terrorist organization.




What you miss in all of this logical fallacy argument is that my attacking your logic and or your debating style and or you not being able to back up your views in an honest manner is not me personally attacking you. It is me attacking your ideas. I have not seen an ad hominem attack on this thread from either side. Your insisting that they are there will not make them suddenly appear.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...d-hominem.html

You taking personally my stating that your thought process is incorrect is not what is meant by a personal attack. I do not know you well enough to commit and ad hominem attack upon you.

__________________
There are none so blind as those who will not see. The most deluded people are those who choose to ignore what they already know.
Jonathan Swift

Hobbes clearly proves that every creature
Lives in a state of war by nature.
Jonathan Swift

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak, Courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen.
Sir Winston Churchill

I have never actually met a Canadian, I always assumed they were a myth, like the Sasquatch or Saskatchewan, but if they are real I will happily drink a Molson beer with them. After I get some “Corner Gas.”

Ok, well i see nothing wrong with him saying that, especially in the context that he uses it.

Exactly, I said I did not know if he had done this and asked I think it was Death if he did. This was the truth and the asking was genuine.

You however replied
suggesting that I had said he did not give the money and demanding proof. This was a misrepresentation of the truth.

Stephen, I said when I put in post 130 that I was not interested in flame baiting and ad hominem posts.

I do not know why it is but a very large section of the pro Israeli Lobby on this forum are unable to show respect towards other posters but instead engage in this.

I have made my position clear. I have no interested in glorifying your ego. I am done with you.

__________________
"War is easy, If you don't like someone, you kill them.
This (negotiating peace) is more difficult. If you disagree with someone, you have to talk to them and try to find a compromise." Abdul Haq

Well now that the facts have been shown to you and Galloway was banned because he gave money to a terrorist organization, do you still find this 'troubling' even though it is really none of your business because you aren't Canadian?

Can you have a shred of integrity and admit that now that you know why he was banned from coming here, that you can agree it was not about free speech?

Or will you simply leave the thread and/or ignore the post/poster that has proven you wrong as you have done in the past?

inquiring minds want to know.

You have been given the evidence and you stated that you would rethink things and you have not.

The basics of the topic remain, Galloway was permitted into Canada when he only spoke against Afghanistan, Iraq and Gaza for many years. One month after giving money to a terrorist organization as defined by Canada and outlawed in Canada he is no longer permitted into the country.

You claiming that someone showing you the facts and providing evidence are ad hominem attacks is an odd manner of debate.

I will state this one more time, attacking your thoughts, logic and statements are not personal attacks. They are attacking your ideals, not you.

__________________
There are none so blind as those who will not see. The most deluded people are those who choose to ignore what they already know.
Jonathan Swift

Hobbes clearly proves that every creature
Lives in a state of war by nature.
Jonathan Swift

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak, Courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen.
Sir Winston Churchill

I think it has already been shown that she will not do so. It is a shame that she could not look at the evidence and stay on topic as it was a good debate until then.

__________________
There are none so blind as those who will not see. The most deluded people are those who choose to ignore what they already know.
Jonathan Swift

Hobbes clearly proves that every creature
Lives in a state of war by nature.
Jonathan Swift

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak, Courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen.
Sir Winston Churchill