Is Galloway a victim of Canada's baffling approach to fighting terror?

independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-galloway-a-victim-of-canadas-baffling-approach-to-fighting-terror-1658986.html"Come out and debate with me like a man," the old bruiser shouted over the video-link to Toronto. "Let's book the biggest hall in Canada and you and I will debate these issues of war and peace and freedom of speech and censorship... If we don't achieve a political settlement (in the Middle East), we're in for war. If there's no justice, there will be no peace for Palestine.

"It was, of course, the old scallywag himself, George Galloway, fuming about the Canadian Immigration Minister James Kenney's refusal to allow him to speak in Canada on the grounds that he – Galloway – was involved in "terrorism". The Scottish-born MP was talking from an important centre of "world terror" – New York City. Asked by spikejones 36 months ago Similar Questions: Galloway victim Canada's baffling approach fighting terror Recent Questions About: Galloway victim Canada's baffling approach fighting terror Local > North America.

Similar Questions: Galloway victim Canada's baffling approach fighting terror Recent Questions About: Galloway victim Canada's baffling approach fighting terror.

1 No. Canada's decision is disappointing, as I prefer to let anyone say anything they want, and I really do believe Galloway was just going there to talk. But Galloway has been begging for it.

He has done and said some wicked things. It's like being opposed to the executions (or "death penalty" if you prefer that odd phrase). I don't think the government should be allowed to execute imprisoned people.

But when that guy who murdered Polly Klaas is finally executed, will I call him a victim? Heck no. I explain as such:Some crimes are crimes against "the general public" and not against specific individuals (eg, drunk driving without actually killing anyone).

Even when someone is killed by a drunk driver, and there is the specific civil harm done to that victim, the general crime of having recklessly killed "someone" is separate. They don't always occur together. Government execution of Polly Klaas' murderer is an abuse-of-power crime by the government (in my opinion--I know many disagree, but humor me for the sake of the point) against the general population.

But the murderer was asking for it and has no claim to victimhood.

No. Canada's decision is disappointing, as I prefer to let anyone say anything they want, and I really do believe Galloway was just going there to talk. But Galloway has been begging for it.

He has done and said some wicked things. It's like being opposed to the executions (or "death penalty" if you prefer that odd phrase). I don't think the government should be allowed to execute imprisoned people.

But when that guy who murdered Polly Klaas is finally executed, will I call him a victim? Heck no. I explain as such:Some crimes are crimes against "the general public" and not against specific individuals (eg, drunk driving without actually killing anyone).

Even when someone is killed by a drunk driver, and there is the specific civil harm done to that victim, the general crime of having recklessly killed "someone" is separate. They don't always occur together. Government execution of Polly Klaas' murderer is an abuse-of-power crime by the government (in my opinion--I know many disagree, but humor me for the sake of the point) against the general population.

But the murderer was asking for it and has no claim to victimhood.

America is baffling. It might just as well be Azerbaijan or Peru.

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.