Angry in the Great White North

Radical British MP George Galloway is furious because there is a country on this planet that has decided not to open its doors to him so he can deliver his praise of terrorists:

Galloway has been deemed "inadmissible" to Canada under section 34(1) of the country's immigration act. Alykhan Velshi, a spokesman for the immigration minister, said the act was designed to protect Canadians from people who fund, support or engage in terrorism.

"We're going to uphold the law, [and] not give special treatment to this infandous street-corner Cromwell who actually brags about giving 'financial support' to Hamas, a terrorist organisation banned in Canada," said Velshi.

George Galloway vows to fight this:

Galloway, 58, told the Citizen Friday that he intends to challenge the department's decision in Federal Court.

"We'll be in court soon to try and overturn this," Galloway said. "Canada remains a free country with an independent judiciary. They will have to review whether he has acted reasonably in these circumstance."

He said he was shocked that Canada would deny an elected politician from another democracy the right to express that view.

Where do I begin?

What better defines nationhood than control of its borders?  George Galloway has no right to get into Canada on any particular occasion.  Canadian authorities can allow him to enter one time and deny it another.  They have the power to be capricious. 

And another thing.  George Galloway is not being denied the right to express his views.  He can enjoy that right as much as the law in his native Britain allows...in Britain.  Canada is under no obligation to provide Galloway the space to exercise his rights as a Briton in Canada.

Jonathan Kay has it right:

I believe that our country should be open to anyone - even people with such loathsome views as Galloway - whose speech is not (to borrow a phrase) "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."

I don't necessarily agree that Galloway should be let in, but nowhere does Kay say that Canada is under any compulsion, legal or moral or otherwise, to let Galloway in.  Jonathan Kay thinks Canada's interests are better served by letting him in than keeping him out.  Jason Kenney disagrees.  Fair enough.  But in or out, Galloway submits himself to the decision of the government of Canada in this matter, and whatever the decision is, it will be made entirely to serve Canada's interests.

Galloway's rights don't enter into it.  Not even for a moment.