Two years ago, the government was chastised by a federal court judge after it tried to bar a pro-Palestinian British MP from entering Canada.
Now it wants to change the law to ensure this never happens again.
In his 2010 ruling, Justice Richard Mosley wrote that Ottawa provided no legal reason for keeping George Galloway out of Canada.
He concluded that Immigration Minister Jason Kenney’s decision to bar Galloway from giving a speech here had “more to do with antipathy to his (Galloway’s) political views” than anything substantive.
Now Kenney has come up with an amendment to the immigration act that would give Ottawa carte blanche to exclude any foreigner whose views the Conservative government doesn’t like.
The proposed amendment is phrased in a way that would let the government keep out any foreigner if it is “of the opinion” that doing so is “justified by public policy considerations.”
It’s hard to get any broader than that.
Talking to reporters this week, Kenney talked of the new gag order in the context of American Islamophobic preacher Terry Jones.
Jones had been scheduled to speak in Toronto last week but, at the last minute, was barred by border authorities for reasons having to do with his criminal record in the U.S.
Kenney’s point, if I understand him correctly, is that if border officials hadn’t been able to find a criminal technicality they would have had no legal reason to bar Jones.
Hence, he says, the need for new, extraordinary ministerial authority.
There are two points of contention here.
The first is whether Canadians want their government to keep out foreigners just because it finds their speech offensive. If so, the second question is how best to accomplish this aim.
Jones is a convenient target because he’s a yahoo whose well-publicized Koran-burnings led to anti-Western riots in the Muslim world.
I’m inclined to lean in the direction of free speech in most cases, following federal court Justice Mosley’s dictum that to exclude foreign speakers circumscribes the constitutional right of Canadians to hear different views.
But for those who are less libertarian in their views, existing law already allows the government to bar from Canada those whose words might cause angry Afghan mobs to attack Canadian troops — notably Section 34 of the immigration act, which gives Ottawa broad authority to keep out foreigners deemed a danger to national security.
Or, if that isn’t sufficient, the government could tweak the law to let it bar foreigners whose actions outside the country would, if committed in Canada, constitute hate speech.
That would have kept out Jones.
But I reckon the real reason for this amendment is not Jones at all but Galloway, an engaging — if sometimes infuriating — rapscallion who quit the British Labour Party to found his own and who has long been an ardent supporter of Palestinian rights.
Kenney first tried to bar Galloway for organizing a relief convoy to Gaza, claiming that this constituted support to terrorism. As Mosley noted in his 2010 ruling, that claim wasn’t remotely credible.
A few days after the judgment was handed down, Galloway entered Canada and, as Conservatives gnashed their teeth, went on a triumphant 11-city speaking tour.
Riots did not break out.
The proposed amendment — think of it as the Galloway amendment — would ensure that this never happens again.
Kenney says he wants to consult widely before going ahead. But if he were serious, he would abandon this overly broad approach completely and seek much more circumscribed power instead.
That he is not doing so says volumes.
Original Article
Source: the star
Author: Thomas Walkom
No comments:
Post a Comment