Intellectual Protectionism 66

I am stunned by Canada’s decision to ban George Galloway from entering the country. I have known George for too many decades to share in the hero-worship he attracts from some; but he is a truly talented speaker and debater. George was right on Iraq when so many Western politicians hid behind the coward’s shield of patriotism. He is right on the disaster of Afghanistan too, the full horror of which is still unfoldng. I see that three more Canadian soldiers were killed there yeasterday, and nine maimed. The kind of debate George brings is urgently needed in Canada.

I was also surprised by the Canadian government spokesman’s description of him as an “Infandous street corner Cromwell”. Cromwell was a truly great man, a towering figure, with a driving concern for the common good. His statue stands guard outside Parliament. A peculiar comparison indeed.

Canadians should be ashamed today. George has fallen foul of the trick by the Israeli lobby of tarring everybody sympathetic to the Palestinians as a terrorist.

There is a spirit of protectionism abroad in these troubled times – of intellectual protectionism. As the frailties of an economic system built upon unrestrained greed and speculation become clear, as it becomes more and more obvious that recent Western invasions of Muslim lands are a drive to corner key areas for access to increasingly scarce hydrocarbons, and as the spectre of climate change looms over everything that was viewed as “Progress”, governments are desperate to control the narrative thier population hears.

The British government banned Geerst Wilders and several Muslim theologians. Canada is banning George Galloway, of all people. When the British banned the Dutch MEP Wilders, the Dutch government commendably supported the right to free speech in Europe and the Dutch Ambassador offered to meet him at Heathrow. The British government should make Canada know of our displeasure at the banning of somone for voicing opinions which are held by a large proportion of the British nation.

Fat chance.

Allowed HTML - you can use: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

66 thoughts on “Intellectual Protectionism

1 2 3
  • Jon

    @researcher – I have already said I would look into 9/11 theories, and I still intend to do so, but you have misread my comments as a refusal to engage. There is nothing in my posts in this thread that is incompatible with government involvement theories – it is just my views on explaining the system-wide corruption of reportage in the media, and a note to the effect that I don’t think *all* journalists are paid stooges.

    I have previously commended you and others here for a non-hectoring style, but the arrogance in your last comment is appalling, and confirms my frustrations with the preachiness of 9/11 theorists in general. So, from you, enough for me too.

    I would strongly recommend any others wanting to evangelise their views on 9/11 et al to do so carefully. Consider it much the same way as you would converting someone to another religion, or to a political party. Haranguing will get you nowhere, and deservedly so.

    Meanwhile thanks to others for putting up with my emotional block and cognitive dissonance – it’s not the best approach to be sure, but the idea that our governments would be complicit in atrocities of these kinds is for most people too much to deal with. Have patience :o)

  • researcher

    Your honesty here is great. If you cling to political views like to a religion, maybe there was some brainwashing involved after all. Admitting your ignorance is great. Of course, you could delay steadily defending your views about something you have not investigated.

1 2 3

Comments are closed.