Recovering as we still are from Thursday’s mass murders in central London, a few questions start to arise. For starters, it seems to me that if, as we are, at war, then the members of Parliament need to be on the same page as far as the defence of this realm is concerned. It does not mean, of course, that MPs should not criticise the conduct of the government’s military operations or anything else, but it does mean that MPs should not actively support groups determined to do us harm.
Which brings us to George Galloway. His support for the Iraqi “resistance” (ie, the mixture of Baathist dead-enders and assorted jihadists) is a matter of shameful public record. While not – yet – conclusively proven – there remain serious allegations relating to his financial connections to Saddam Hussein and the Oil For Food Programme. And within hours of the bombings in London, this thug sought to deflect blame from the killings from the monsters who carried them out to the UK government for its overthrow of the Taliban and Hussein.
I am an ardent believer in free speech and I would be the first to defend Galloway’s right to say what he wants, no matter how thick or unpleasant. That is a non-negotiable issue for me. It is pretty clear, however, that in the current heightened threat to our national security, that Galloway should be removed from Parliament immediately.
No I don’t think that is the way to deal with him. It would set a very bad precedent, similar to arrest without charge or trial, and would tend to make him right in the eyes of his supporters and those who think he just might have a point.
Are we seriously saying that a man who openly supports enemies of this country should be able to stand in Parliament no matter what? Suppose the allegations of corruption stick. He presumably would have to be banned on legal grounds.
Are there any rules which, given the present evidence, could be used to eject Galloway from Parliament?
If not, any ban on Galloway would be arbitrary and would be extremely likely to backfire. Galloway thrives on his image as the plucky outsider, the underdog who “the establishment” can’t stand. Banning him from Parliament would just confirm his status, moving him back to the top of the media agenda and giving him a permanent cause to campaign on – his reinstatement to the post he was elected to.
If the charges are proven then yes he should be removed on legal grounds.
I understand your outrage at the man but I think it is similar to being outraged at the NF. If we take away his platform we would tend to validate his message. Leave him in the open and shine a light on what he says and he will be far less dangerous. I think it is nothing more than a free speech issue.
Making a martyr out of Mr Galloway would be unfortunate, but remember he has to issue these statements to justify the faith the mindless ones have in him. Of course at every new twist he will have to bury himself deeper in the mire to justify his shabby position but he’s a politician and can always allege he was saluting someone else.
He may not have had barrels of oil from Saddam The Murderer but he appears to admire people like this, so perhaps he sees a future for himself just in case the mullahs really do take over.
I think we’re better off having him in Parliament where we can keep an eye on him. I wouldn’t like to see his importance elevated by special measures. He’s not worth it.
He should be remove by the voters at the next election, just like any other MP.
The last thing you want – I think – is to turn have-been political scum into free speech martyrs.
Sylvain, of course I agree with you. But his constituency is an overwhelmingly Islamic one. They will be quite chuffed with his comments. One in the eye for the host country!
Johnathan,
I am unable to agree with you on this. The only time when there may be a case for removing a standing Member of Parliament in wartime is if he constitutes a direct threat to that war effort.
We are not currently at war. Moreover, this would set a very dangerous precedent whereby the executive is given the power to remove an MP due to the “national interest”. Those who say that it is Parliament’s gift are talking nonsense, since the whips ensure executive dominance.
In the 1790s Fox and the Whigs supported the French revolutionary regime but there was never a suggestion that they should be ejected from Parliament. I am surprised that such a suggestion has been made since it undermines our constitutional liberties. Bad cases, like George Galloway, should not be used to set bad precedents
1. There are 2 problems – the enemy from outside and the enemy within. Islamo-fascists are the outside enemy.
Galloway is a traitor and should be arrested, tried and shot.
2. This satire exemplies the foolish attitude prevalent among the left and the British elite ruling class.
“London-istan Introduces Multi-Color Beneton Trains To Prevent Future Bombings”
The link is here http://satire.myblogsite.com/blog
Let me just respond to a couple of points. I agree that banning someone for his/her views is an outrage and that was not the point of my article. What I find unbelievable is that a man like Galloway, who has gone on the public record in praising Saddam, supporting the insurgents, and having a black cloud of very serious allegations hanging over his head, is allowed the privileges of an MP.
At the very least his salary should be removed. After all, he seems to enjoy the good life so won’t miss the money.
I agree that George Galloway should not receive a salary or pension for being an MP. But that applies to every Member of Parliament.
Jonathan, You are usually the one pleading for calm and reason and I am usually demanding they “Hang ’em high!”, but just because he has a black cloud of serious allegations clustered around him does not mean he’s guilty. We can’t punish people for having allegations surrounding them! The voters put him in office (I wonder what the postal ballot percentage was in Bethnal Green & Bow) and unless he’s found guilty of a crime, there’s nothing we can do about it. Other MPs can ostracise him – and believe me, some won’t – and that’s about it.
I don’t mind MPs having a salary, but I don’t know why the taxpayer would want to fund them for a pension for life. They should make their own arrangements.
While we’re at it, I think 35 ought to be the lowest age limit for MPs, and people from the public sector should be ineligible. That would include characters like Tony and Cherie Blair who, while not actually employed in the public sector, nevertheless made their living taking publicly funded cases. Then went directly into government. It does not make sense.
Sadly, there are no traitors any more–only multiculturally aware people sensitive to the point of view of those who would destroy us.
A very astute comment, Keith.
I have to add my name to the list of those troubled by the idea of somehow disbarring George Galloway – loathsome, megalomanic, treacherous bully that he is.
Two arguably even worse creatures (worse in the light of repeated and convincing allegations made about their direct involvement with the IRA), McGuinness and Adams, have milked the system for all it is worth and no one has had the courage to deal with them.
Galloway, in comparison, is just a wanabe. A cheerleader. A groupie. Those two cold-eyed hoods are the real thing.
The best course of action is for the security services to find whatever evidence there is of Galloway’s misdeeds and for the government either to prosecute him, or to leak that evidence to a reliable newspaper.
Either way, he will, one day, come to a very sticky end. Of that I have absolutely no doubt.
Didn’t we have a Civil War about the crown seeking to remove Members of Parliament that opposed its policies? (Followed by an unpopular military dictatorship that did the same thing in the aptly named Pride’s Purge.) The point of parliament is to constrain the crown through representation of the people, not the other way around.
Mr Galloway undoubtedly courts controversy to maintain a bizarre coalition of politically naive radical Muslims and the Trots for whom they are yet another exploited class revolutionisable by transitional demand. But he is an elected representative with a right to sit in that chamber and say whatever he likes there within the customs of parliament.
It is nowhere more important to have free speech than in parliament. It is because of closely-whipped parties that it is in decline, and with it all our freedoms. Most MPs scarcely consider, let alone debate. Galloway says what he says well, and makes a case that others have to listen to and argue with. He is an ornament of the House.
Would you rather another New Labour zombie? Or is it you think all politicians really ought to be cheerleaders for your own policies?
If everyone suddenly started agreeing with me, about everything. I wouldn’t take it as an improvement in the world. I’d think I must have swapped bodies with Kim Jong Il.
guy herbert writes:
“It is nowhere more important to have free speech than in parliament. It is because of closely-whipped parties that it is in decline, and with it all our freedoms.”
While I believe Mr. Herbert has let his considerable powers of rhetoric get the better of him when he describes George Galloway as an ‘ornament’ to the house, (I might agree, but only in the sense of an ornament being some sort of knob), I can only concur about the decline in freedom being, at least in part, due to the development of such tightly-controlled political parties in the UK.
Not for the first time, I find myself wondering whether political parties should even be allowed in parliament.
“Not for the first time, I find myself wondering whether political parties should even be allowed in parliament.”
Now, there’s an interesting thought.
And not at all impossible to make it work. The only problem is it’d need a political party to make the necessary changes…ain’t going to happen.
(1) We’re not ‘at war’.
(2) For Verity: Galloway’s seat is less than half Muslim, even nominally.
(3) No wonder libboes aren’t worth a skinned fart in real politics, with daft outbursts like this.
“We are not at war”, writes Luniversal.
Try telling that to the folks blowing up the Tube.
Johnathan Pearce writes:
“”We are not at war”, writes Luniversal.
Try telling that to the folks blowing up the Tube.”
Too true. But he’s a statist stooge – he believes war only exists when one bunch of politicans writes a formal letter to some other bunch.
It’s one of (so many) reasons why statists are finding the 21st century very hard to understand.
I would not say that Luniversal is a statist stooge – I quite agree with him on some issues – but making statements that “we are not at war” is the sort of nonsense all too common among people who don’t or cannot accept the world we live in as it really is. Alas far too many so-called libertarians, like the dreadful Justin Raimondo, want to claim that the whole matter is a pure law and order issue, nothing more.
The way to deal with individuals like George (Adolf) Galloway is to laugh at him every time he appears or opens his mouth. Turn him into a figure of fun.
I guarantee that anyone who takes himself as seriously he does can withstand almost anything except being treated as a lauging stock.
JEM – Galloway isn’t a figure of fun and does nothing laughable. He is very clever and he argues his points well. He’s a scoundrel, yes, but he is a formidable scoundrel. He wiped the floor with those pompous senators in the US.
He has a right to be in Parliament because he was legitimately elected (depending on the percentage of postal ballots involved and depending on how many of the Muslims who voted were actually qualified to vote), but he seems to be there legitimately and we can’t remove people just because we loathe them. Otherwise Tony B Liar and his cabinet of ignorant, harmful incompetents would have been gone seven years ago.
We just have to live with it. And don’t forget, his opponent was the equally repellent Oona King.
Well, I thought Oona King was at least prettier….
I don’t propose kicking Galloway out of Parliament, at least not unless he is actually proved to have committed a crime, be it to do with oil or voting or whatever.
A large part of the reason for his ‘success’ with the US Senate committee was exactly that they took him at face value, as if he was a serious and normal individual. In their defence they probably had no idea what they were taking on when the invited him to speak, but the way to deal with pretentious, pompus, humourless, self-important fantasists like Galloway (or Hitler, whose public speaking techniques Galloway clearly emulates) is just to laugh at them.
It’s the one thing they have no defense against; it destroys them.
JEM – You are living in a fantasy land. In your youth, some school teacher must have told you just to laugh at bullies and that would completely undo them. It ain’t necessarily so. Depends on the bully.
Whatever reasons you ascribe to it, George Galloway wiped the floor on international TV with a bunch of silly, pompous, self-regarding and deeply ignorant senators. How stupid of them to take him “at face value” when a little homework would have informed them of the strength of their opponent and they could have prepared themselves better.
In addition, JEM, with respect, you seem to be equally ignorant. It is impossible to laugh witty people into submission, especially if they are wittier than you are. George Galloway has a very quick mind, and he is formidably articulate. Unlike waffling American senators sitting on committees, Galloway cuts to the chase. No waffling. Just zingers.
To be fair to the Muslims who voted him in and who have been accused of “naturally” voting for a man over a woman and being “prejudiced” against blacks and Jews, one of their spokespeople in Bethnal Green & Bow answered these charges by saying, “But we voted her in last time, when she was equally black, equally Jewish and we were equally aware that she is a woman.”
We are just going to have to live with the fact that George Galloway was legitimately voted in to Parliament and until and unless he is proven to have acted criminally or traitorously, he will be staying.
It is impossible to laugh witty people into submission, especially if they are wittier than you are.
Speak for yourself. It’s perfectly possible to laugh witty people into ‘submission’, as you put it, but then you do have to be wittier yourself… Oh of course. I can see why you can’t manage it.
In any case, Galloway, whatever he is, is not witty. Yes, he is a skilful speaker, but his principle weapon is the lie. He never lets facts get in the way of his thesis, and he never displays the least iota of humour. That’s why he is so susceptible to that particular weapon.
Come to think of it, I don’t detect any humour emanating from your either. Which is probably why you don’t comprehend the power of this tactic.
And by the way, why repeat what I had just said: “I don’t propose kicking Galloway out of Parliament, at least not unless he is actually proved to have committed a crime, be it to do with oil or voting or whatever.” …in a different order but pretty much identical in meaning : “We are just going to have to live with the fact that George Galloway was legitimately voted in to Parliament and until and unless he is proven to have acted criminally or traitorously, he will be staying.” …as if it was an original thought of your own? Don’t you have any, which is why you ‘borrow’ from others?
JEM – Well, your post certainly shrieked of wounded pride and you are very easily stung into abusive bullying. Why did you not try to conquer with your wit?
Or, maybe that was it?
Verity, cool it.
Johnathan Pearce writes “Alas far too many so-called libertarians, like the dreadful Justin Raimondo, want to claim that the whole matter is a pure law and order issue, nothing more.”
Well, just imagine that the billions spent on invading and occupying Iraq had been devoted to setting up a worldwide search-and-destroy, Interpol type operation against non-state terrorism, with the option to do an Afghanistan on any country that refused to co-operate. In the immediate aftermath of 9/11 the international goodwill was there. Arguably we would be sleeping easier in our beds today, and America would be the police chief of a worldwide blue-helmet force instead of a generally detested and mistrusted bully.
Tying down so many military resources in one country has made it easier for al-Qaeda operatives to go to ground. Instead of No Hiding Place, they now have lots–even in Iraq irself! That is why the language of “War on Terror” is so counter-productively vacuous, and why Bush II has served his country so ill. He squandered the moral advantage it had on September 11, 2001 by falling prey to the siren songsters his Republican predecessor, Eisenhower, warned us about 40 years earlier.
…with the option to do an Afghanistan on any country that refused to co-operate.
Uh, that’s a pretty good description of Saddam’s Iraq. And what followed was doing an ‘Afghanistan’ if you want to call it that.
So your ‘alternatve’ plan is in fact pretty much what actually happned (including world-wide search-and-destroy and all the rest.)
Any other original suggestions?
Luniversal, with the greatest of respect, that sounds awfully like neocon foreign policy to me, albeit with blue helmets. I mean, what happens if a country like, say Iraq, refuses to let the “search and destroy” folk from doing any searching? What then?
Which takes us back to the whole argument between libertarians who, reluctantly in my case, believed that Saddam and the Taliban had to go, and those who imagine we can somehow finesse our treatment of rogue states without getting our hair mussed.
It cannot be done. I wish we could find a far less costly way of “searching and destroy” policy to deal with terror. Of course, there are many ideas for tracking down these thugs and you are most welcome to make them, sir. In fact I think it is high time that critics of the war came up with some constructive suggestions on what should be done. So far all I read is a lot of smart-alec carping.
BTW, as an aside, it is pretty clear that Justin Raimondo is insane.
George Galloway’s access to the British public is a sign of strength of the British people.
A weak people – like those surviving in the typical thugocracy of the Middle East – would never hear from people in their home dictatorship who are the least bit critical of their rulers.
The strength of Americans is shown by the presence of Michael Moore, the CNN network, and others.
Did I read that right? Was it suggested that the way to deal with Hitler was to laugh at him? That’s the funniest thing I’ve heard in a long time!
… the way to deal with Hitler was to laugh at him? That’s the funniest thing I’ve heard in a long time!
Especially before he got into power, he could have been laughed out of serious political life. The comic potential of his dress, hairstyle and pomposity was vast. Chaplin demonstrated that very clearly in his ‘Great Dictator’ movie, which unfortunately came along long after he’d gained power–too late.
All in all, laughing Hitler off the stage seems like a better idea than a world war costing 50 million lives. At least it would have been worth trying.
But if you feel different, that says a lot too.
JEM writes:
“All in all, laughing Hitler off the stage seems like a better idea than a world war costing 50 million lives. At least it would have been worth trying.”
Yeah man and, like, if we all join hands and form a circle round the Pentagon, chanting Out Demons Out! we can, like man, levitate the building and freak those dudes right out.
So, GCooper, you’d rather have a war killing 50 million people than take the chance that you might be proved wrong? Now that is an interesting position to adopt.
Anyway, what I’m suggesting in no way whatever resembles ‘join[ing] hands and form[ing] a circle round the Pentagon’ etc. If you think it does, you’re living in Cloud-Cuckoo-Land; if you do not think it does, then you have demonstrated that you have absolutely no serious counter argument to my suggestion. Either way, you’re just flat wrong.
In future, I suggest you engage brain before opening mouth (or posting a message, around here).
G Cooper, I was about to post a riposte to JEM’s mad injunction, despite Jonathan, as is his habit, primly slapping me down but letting the perp get away with it, but your post says it all.
Hitler would’ve collapsed had he been faced with ridicule. Everyone going “Ha ha ha!”
“Hey! I feel like such a fool!”
Also, if we’d of had the time and the will, we cuddah freaked that Saddam dude 40 years later, my man! I mean, like, we could’a, y’know, laughed out loud! As in righteously mocked that dude! Sent the Coalition of the Willing home!
There is no secret to controlling insane, ambitious and powerful men. They will shrink away in red-faced embarrassment from your cruel laughter! Dude!
JEM writes:
“In future, I suggest you engage brain before opening mouth (or posting a message, around here).”
In view of Johnathan Pearce’s comments about Verity’s posting style, are we going to see anything similar in response to this?
As for the post itself, I’ll simply add that I was putting JEM’s proposal to the test. Taking the mickey out of a preposetrous suggestion to see what effect it produced.
I think we know now.
JEM, who is now issuing Samizdata editorial guidelines about “posting messages around here”, has been emboldened by Jonathan’s increasingly snappish reprimands to me on this libertarian site and has inched forward. He is now proposing that G Cooper, rather than be proven wrong about anything, would sacrifice 50m lives!
I mean, that’s a lot! G Cooper, not just have you been transported, courtesy JEM, to “Cloud Cuckoo Land”, but you have mysteriously provided proof from this national cloud that you have no serious counter argument to the “fact” that you are responsible for the deaths of 50 million of our fellow human beings. I don’t know how you can bear to look in the mirror!
“Galloway’s seat is less than half Muslim, even nominally.”
Who owns the rest of his ass?
twistedmerkin – LOL!
Verity, I was snappish because you were, m’dear. Let’s not lash out over trifles.
Let us consider why I was snappish, Jonathan. Did you read the insulting and abusive post from JEM to which I was responding?
Fair does!
G Cooper wrote:
LOL!! I’m reminded of this scene from The Simpsons:
Crowd: Hey, hey, Mr. Burns! Enough already with the germs!
Burns: [in a window above] Ho, their flower power is no match for my glower power! [glowers]
[the crowd disperses]
Wiggum: [below, guarding the doors] Well that’s some nice glowering, Mr. B.
George Galloway reminds me of Enoch Powell. Misunderstood and vilified at the time. Decades later the logic of what he said becomes inescapable.
2020: “Gorgeous George was right.” Hope it doesn’t take that long.
Since Bush declared “Mission accomplished”, the US has committed horrendous atrocities, crimes against humanity and war crimes in Iraq: Use of Napalm, cluster bombs, depleted uranium munitions for starters. Then there’s routine use or condoning of torture against civilians; men, women and children. Typical US “shoot first and ask questions afterwards”, has resulted in massive death, injury and infrastructure damage. Brutal, licentious soldiery. And although British soldiers are infinitely better trained and disciplined, as the US’s junior partner, Britain is equally culpable. Face it, by joining the US on the Iraq misadventure, Britain became one of the bad guys. Anybody left with a conscience?
From my perspective George Galloway is the only patriot in the House of Commons. All the rest are either in denial or traitors in varying degrees, from Tony Blair down. Taking your country to war on lies and deception: That’s treachery in my book. Blair aligned Britain with America and joined the invasion and occupation of Iraq against the will of the British people and by deceiving Parliament.
When you live internationally, you think internationally. “My country right or wrong” just doesn’t wash any more. Love it or leave it? More like hate it and leave it.
George Galloway! how did you come up with this one?
“They ( the immigrant tsunami”) have come here to live,
they are as British as you or I ”
This would be great if tried in China:
” OK Folks ! I have come to China to live so therefore
it logically follows I am as Chinese as you ”
Now , how do you illustrate over a billion Chinese
All laughing at the same time?
Seriously George, you insult and patronise the immigrants by this sort of nonsense and it causes real tension here as some of the less intelligent immigrants believe it
Sam Cooper-Smith