'Infandous' Galloway faces Canada ban
Updated on 20 March 2009
Respect MP George Galloway will "use all means" to fight Canada ban but immigration spokesman says "we don't want him to pee on our carpet".
The Canadian immigration office has confirmed that Galloway's entry was deemed inadmissible on national security grounds and he would not be allowed into the country.
Alykhan Velshi, spokesman for the immigraion minister, described the MP for Bethnal Green and Bow as an "infandous street-corner Cromwell".
He later told Channel 4 News that the MP for Bethnal Green and Bow "is on the record bragging about providing financial support to Hamas, and organisation which is a banned terrorist organisation in Canada.
Listen to Sue Turton's interview
"He has expressed sympathy for the Taliban murderers who are trying to kill Canadian and British soldiers in Afghanistan.
"This is not someone who we believe we should be giving special treatment in terms of allowing them access to our country. Mr Galloway has said he wants to come to Canada to raise money for these groups that are out there killing Canadians.
"It is actually quite odious and I think it is entirely appropriate for our security agencies to say that if they have advanced notice that Mr Galloway is going to come to Canada to pee on our carpet, that we should deny him entry to the home.
So what does infandous mean?
According to Dictionary.com something described as infandous is "too odious to be expressed or mentioned."
The language rivals Galloway's own. When Galloway gave evidence before the US senate on Iraq, he denounced pro-war writer Christopher Hitchens as a "drink-sodden former Trotskyist popinjay".
A popinjay, if you need reminding, is "a person given to vain, pretentious displays and empty chatter".
Velshi said the decision was taken in accordance with section 34(1) of the country's immigration act.
The act states: "A permanent resident or a foreign national is inadmissible on security grounds for:
(a) engaging in an act of espionage or an act of subversion against a democratic government, institution or process as they are understood in Canada;
(b) engaging in or instigating the subversion by force of any government;
(c) engaging in terrorism;
(d) being a danger to the security of Canada;
(e) engaging in acts of violence that would or might endanger the lives or safety of persons in Canada; or
(f) being a member of an organisation that there are reasonable grounds to believe engages, has engaged or will engage in acts referred to in paragraph (a), (b) or (c)."
In turn, a Galloway spokesman said: "We will resist it vigorously by all means at our disposal because this is refusing access to an elected politician on the grounds of their views."