Let Galloway Rant
What British MP George Galloway and al-Qaeda fighter Omar Khadr share in common is that Canada doesn’t want either of them in this country, yet both want to get here -- one to make speeches, the other to live in freedom.
Both cases are in court at the same time – Khadr at a pre-trial motion in Guantanamo Bay to have evidence of murder dismissed, Galloway’s supporters before a federal court to undo an immigration decision to refuse him entry to Canada last year for a speaking tour.
There is no logical reason why Galloway should be banned in Canada. His politics are offensive to some – rather as Ann Coulter’s are – but he’s not a threat. Canada thinks Galloway supports Hamas, which we regard as a terrorist organization. He says $40,000 he donated was not to Hamas, but to the Gaza ministry of health to pay doctors and nurses.
Regardless, Galloway travels freely in the U.S., and is not a conventional criminal so there’s no need to ban him from Canada, even though his interviews and speeches tend to incite some, and provoke hostile reaction in others.
His presence worries authorities for fear of demonstrations that might get out of hand. Is that sufficient reason to ban him? Hardly. A free society should be able to tolerate dissent.
Until violence erupts, Galloway should be tolerated as an irritating hazard of democracy.
Khadr’s case is different. He is Canadian-born from an admitted “al-Qaeda family.” His father took him to Afghanistan and enlisted him in the cause of Osama bin Laden. When the U.S. invaded Afghanistan, Khadr was 15 years old and fighting against the U.S. invaders. He is accused of hurling a grenade that killed one soldier and seriously wounded another. He was shot several times.
To charge him with murder is not only ridiculous, but wrong. He was defending, not attacking. It was a battle against invaders. In a war, killing an enemy is not murder. The very charge is misguided.
Also misguided is the concept that at 15 he was a “child soldier” incapable of knowing what he was doing. Canada had countless “child soldiers” (a UN definition) in WWI, WWII and Korea – men who enlisted underage and went to war.
Tommy Ricketts enlisted in the Royal Newfoundland Regiment at age 15 in WWI – and won the Victoria Cross. Andrew Fitzgibbons, age 15, won the VC during the Indian Mutiny. Jack Cornwell, age 16 was awarded the VC posthumously at the Battle of Jutland. “Child soldiers” indeed.
While it’s hard to understand the rationale for charging someone like Khadr with murder when he was fighting back against invading enemy soldiers, there’s also no reason why Canada should want him here.
By U.S. terms Khadr may be an “illegal enemy combatant.” It begs the question what the Americans would consider a “legal” enemy combatant. After all, the U.S. invaded Afghanistan, not the other way around.
It seems appropriate for the U.S. to keep Khadr and others like him out of circulation until the “war on terror” is deemed to be won, or at least over. It’s what happened to prisoners on both sides in WWI, WWII and Korea, so why not now?
Eventually, Omar Khadr will return to Canada – and George Galloway will likely be allowed to rant in Canada to the satisfaction of his admirers.