Just to make Freddie and E.D. feel a little bit better about the degree of pro-Israel group think about which they have written prolifically, the US isn’t the only place where controversial views that fall out of line with Israeli messaging will get you shut out. Now, I can certainly understand how many find Galloway to be controversial, perhaps even despicable by some lights, but a threat to national security who needs to be kept from addressing perfectly intelligent Canadian audiences about his views? How very Socratic indeed.
Seems we Canucks are equally capable of causing the head to shake.
Let’s be clear, dissent and terrorism are not the same thing; that any global “war on terror” would suggest that they are demonstrates only the fundamental vapidity and malfeasance of its conceptual framework.
(Sorry for the faulty link, now fixed)
Russell Saunders 
Nob Akimoto 
GordonHide 
Rose Woodhouse
{ 9 comments }
Who are you referring to when you say that "controversial views that fall out of line with Israeli messaging will get you shut out?" Who has been "shut out" of what? Or is this the kind of "blacklist" that gets one a bigger audience than otherwise (ED Kain dixit)?
Roque,
"British MP George Galloway" – who gave money to Hamas – has been shut out of "Canada". See Hitchens. Scott seems to have linked to the wrong Globe & Mail article. This post would make sense if it linked here, rather than to an article about layoffs at the CBC.
Thanks, Joseph. Scott had me utterly confused. ;)
Thanks Joseph, cut and paste error I've been too busy to pick up on. Link is now fixed.
E.D., next time email me ya tool!
I thought I was just being daft – you know – missing some larger, deeper point; some wit or irony that simply confounded me…
…I'm not the one making that argument! I wouldn't deny that Galloway is an anti-Semite, or at the very least an attention-hungry provocateur who doesn't mind pandering to anti-Semitism if it pisses off the right people. But I was just attempting to clarify this post, since having read the Slate article I knew what Scott meant to refer to.
Sorry if I misunderstood you. I had asked for examples of people being "shut out" owing to their "controversial" views, which don't fall in line with "Israel messaging," like Scott says. You then mentioned Galloway. I was showing that Galloway is not simply "critical" of the government of Israel—he's materially supporting an overtly antisemitic terror organization. Even so, he hasn't been "shut out" of anything. Quite the contrary—he's a leader to many people in GB.
I wonder if Scott can answer my question at all…
Joseph F. Malefatto:
There are some problems with your response:
1. Hamas is classified as a terrorist organization by the US and the EU. Therefore giving them money is not equivalent to "falling out of line with Israeli messaging." It's equivalent to Antisemitism, given Hamas's genocidal charter against Israel and Jews worldwide. If he supports Hamas, then he supports the extermination of Israel and Jews, which is what Hamas was founded to achieve.
2. Even so, Galloway may be "shut out" of Canada but he certainly isn't shut out of anywhere else. He appeared before the US Congress some time ago, for example, and has a following in Britain. He is an MP, after all. Aside from Canada's recent actions, how has Galloway been "shut out" of anything?
3. If Galloway is the only example you can come up with, then what does that say about the idea that "controversial views that fall out of line with Israeli messaging will get you shut out?" For this to be true, there must be a lot more examples and much clearer ones to boot. Galloway goes way beyond "controversial views" into Nazi-like antisemitism with his support for Hamas—not to mention his previous material support for Saddam Hussein.
Here's a video of Galloway's speech as he gives money to Hamas. How is it possible that you can think of this as a "controversial view" and not material support for the murder of Jews? Harry's Place
Comments on this entry are closed.