Galloway is back

[Ziggurat]

No. He was fairly elected to his Parliamentary seat, so you can defend the principles on which he was elected (we call this thing "democracy") without having to defend every single person who gets elected and all their views.

I'm not questioning the electoral system. I'm not demanding that Galloway be stripped of office, or the election results ignored. But the fact that he was elected doesn't mean he should be immune to criticism, or even that his election was a good thing. It means nothing of the sort. In fact, if opposition is even potentially good (which you've stated and I agree with), then my criticism of Galloway logically cannot be ignored on the basis of his election. Such a position would be self-contradictory.

 

[angrysoba]

I'm not questioning the electoral system. I'm not demanding that Galloway be stripped of office, or the election results ignored. But the fact that he was elected doesn't mean he should be immune to criticism, or even that his election was a good thing. It means nothing of the sort. In fact, if opposition is even potentially good (which you've stated and I agree with), then my criticism of Galloway logically cannot be ignored on the basis of his election. Such a position would be self-contradictory.

I agree.

I've just remembered a video of George Galloway vs. Jeremy Paxman from the time when Galloway last got elected to Parliament as the Respect candidate for Bethnall Green and Bow. I think he turned out to be a pretty terrible MP and I expect Bradford West will find his office empty most of the time as he jets off to exotic dictatorships to visit.

You're right that he supports dictatorships opposed to the west, for example, Assad's Syria and Ahmadinejad's Iran while opposing dictatorships friendly to the west, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain etc... although if you're worried about immunity from criticism I think your fears are misplaced. He'll get plenty of it such as on this BBC video:

 

[angrysoba]

Also, there's "criticism" and "making an arse of yourself".

Boulden does the latter here where he asks Galloway about drinking alcohol, Is Galloway a drinker? - (who cares?), is he stoking racial and religious conflict? (Galloway points out that Labour put up a Muslim candidate), what about Galloway's religion? (Is George a crypto-Muslim like that Obama?) What about gambling? Are you sure you never drank alcohol? Why not? Are you really a Christian? Remember Big Brother and that milk thing! Indefatigability!

 

[Toontown]

And saying so appears to excuse you listening to, let alone hearing, analysing or competently commentating on the words that trip from his wide flapping mouth.

How dare he speak

How much halitosis-perfumed hot air do you expect me to endure? The bastard has been yammering endlessly for longer than I care to recall, and every odiferous word has been slavishly reported.

Are you channeling Galloway? He really doesn't need another parrot, but keep it up. You're doing a good job of demonstrating exactly how democracies can fail.

...why should George desire to govern?

Duhh...because he ran for office? Or has governing become passe in the UK?

(creak groan crack)

He appears to desire to oppose government.

So his supporters elected an anarchist?

(creak groan crack shudder)

Opposition is an essential part of democratic government, is it not?

Loyal opposition, yes. Not sabotage.

Do you enjoy being raked from stem to stern?

 

[Giz]

Democracies can fail badly. Democracies can collapse.

And people like Galloway are the harbingers. The man has no talent for governing competently, or even any detectable desire to do so. He is a demagogue. A wide, flapping mouth. Nothing more.

To whit, democracies fall when people - suffering from juvenile disillusionment with the mainstream - fly to the fringes.

Democracy is a good thing but that doesn't mean that the result of a democratic election will necessarily be good (think Gaza/Hamas, or 1930's Germany).

 

[WildCat]

Why is he even allowed to hold office? He should be in jail for financing a designated terrorist organization.

Apparently that's just fine and dandy in the UK. Just so long as he doesn't troll on the internet.

 

[angrysoba]

To whit, democracies fall when people - suffering from juvenile disillusionment with the mainstream - fly to the fringes.

Is this really a serious attempt at political theory?

A lot of the time democracies fall when there's a military coup.

Democracy is a good thing but that doesn't mean that the result of a democratic election will necessarily be good (think Gaza/Hamas, or 1930's Germany).

I think there's way too much hyperventilation over this by-election victory of Galloway's. This doesn't herald the coming of Der Respekt Reich I can assure you. I will publicly eat my hat if Respect get more than three or four seats. What I think is more likely is that instead of "juvenile people flying to the fringes" as your mature and not at all fanciful image suggests, the the main parties may stop moving towards each other.

I know that you have already blamed the immigrants for voting for Galloway, but you have done this on the strength of nothing but a hunch, as far as I can see. It seems also likely that people have voted for Galloway because they see him against cuts in public services, against the privatization of the NHS, against tuition fees and a lot of other bread-and-butter issues.

 

[Toontown]

I think there's way too much hyperventilation over this by-election victory of Galloway's.

Galloway is just the poster boy. Tip of the iceberg.

 

[angrysoba]

Galloway is just the poster boy. Tip of the iceberg.

He's pretty much the whole iceberg.

 

[Giz]

I know that you have already blamed the immigrants for voting for Galloway, but you have done this on the strength of nothing but a hunch, as far as I can see. It seems also likely that people have voted for Galloway because they see him against cuts in public services, against the privatization of the NHS, against tuition fees and a lot of other bread-and-butter issues.

Every report I have seen has reported Galloway's campaign as blatantly sectarian. I fear that when you see his popularity as being a protest "against cuts in public services, against the privatization of the NHS, against tuition fees and a lot of other bread-and-butter issues" that you may be projecting your wishes onto an unworthy recipient.

 

[angrysoba]

Every report I have seen has reported Galloway's campaign as blatantly sectarian. I fear that when you see his popularity as being a protest "against cuts in public services, against the privatization of the NHS, against tuition fees and a lot of other bread-and-butter issues" that you may be projecting your wishes onto an unworthy recipient.

I agree with you here on two points:

1) Yes, it could be projection
2) Yes, Galloway probably was trying to mobilize the "Muslim vote"

I know he likes to begin lots of his speeches with a "salaam ahlaikum" and the campaign literature was written in English and in foreign.

But winning on an appeal to Muslims (and in particular to Muslim extremists) and winning on bread-and-butter issues isn't mutually exclusive. Galloway won with 56% of the vote, which requires an explanation beyond simply being a Muslim extremist.

 

[JihadJane]

His support for Assad and the Soviet Union. His words have been posted in this thread.

I can't see these words, unfortunately.

Originally Posted by Toontown
Democracies can fail badly. Democracies can collapse.

UK democracy has already collapsed. It is now suffering under an unelected government of upper-class incompetents pursuing chaotic policies that no one voted for.

 

[jiggeryqua]

No, it really isn't axiomatically good. Opposition to the end of slavery, for example, was incredibly destructive to the United States.

I said opposition is axiomatically good (indeed essential) for democracy.

You reply that some opposition has been bad for the US. I apologise if this comes as a rude awakening to you, but the two are not synonymous. The US is a democracy, not the concept of democracy (and not even a particularly good example of democracy). What was incredibly destructive for the US was good for democracy.

Well, you got part of this statement correct.

Standards have slipped, I said, and here they plummet. Oh look, you can highlight part of what I said (while ignoring the meaning) and make a poor joke at my expense. Is this because I pointed out how wrong you were in your understanding of Galloway's new job role? You didn't quote or respond to that part of my post at all.

 

[zooterkin]

I can't see these words, unfortunately.

Here, let me help you.

If Galloway was ever "supportive" of Asad, as of last August he has certainly changed his tune.

George Galloway on Syria:

There's no 'if' about it, not should "supportive" be in quotes.

In July 2005, Galloway spoke at Al-Assad National Library, saying, "Syria is lucky to have Bashar Al-Assad as her president."

In a remarkable speech, this time at Damascus University, Galloway said: "You know, it never ceases to surprise me that Arab governments can allow a foreigner to come to their country and sit at their tables with their leaders to insult and attack another Arab country. This is the behaviour of slave governments, and the Bahraini regime should have asked Condoleezza [Rice] to leave when she insulted Syria in their presence, in their capital. In fact, maybe it's the rulers who should leave." Galloway was referring to a meeting in Bahrain where Rice fired off provocative statements against Syria in the presence of Syrian Foreign Minister Farouk Al-Shara.

Galloway added, in front of Syrian officials who were all smiles, that "All dignified people in the world, whether Arabs or Muslims or others with dignity, are very proud of the speech made by President Bashar Al-Assad a few days ago here in Damascus," referring to Assad's speech of 10 November where he spoke of steadfastness; rhetoric popular in Syria since the 1960s. Assad, Galloway said, "is the last Arab ruler, and Syria is the last Arab country. It is the fortress of remaining dignity of the Arabs."

 

[JihadJane]

Here, let me help you.

I read those ones. Where are his expressions of support for dictators in this quote?

 

[angrysoba]

UK democracy has already collapsed. It is now suffering under an unelected government of upper-class incompetents pursuing chaotic policies that no one voted for.

The UK government is not "unelected"?

It is a government of largely upper-class incompetents but unfortunately that is what elections can throw up. Just as it has now thrown up Galloway.

 

[zooterkin]

I read those ones. Where are his expressions of support for dictators in this quote?

Well, if you meant to say that you do not consider Assad a dictator, then you should have said so, rather than stating that you could not see the words from Galloway supporting him. Which is it?

 

[angrysoba]

Galloway really is a panderer:



ETA: I had thought that some of the comments about Galloway drinking, or pandering to Muslims or being a Muslim were out of order but, Jesus Christ! Some of the stuff Galloway is saying in this video is unbelievable. He's saying that his Labour opponent is less of a Pakistani than him and that he's less of a Muslim than him and that his opponent is never out of the pub and will spend 40 years drinking in the House of Commons bar if he gets elected. What a wanker!

ETAII: Oh, and his phone number, according to this speech, is 078940585465, by the way.

 

[JihadJane]

In those words I see a Palestinian-supporting politician using diplomatic froth to butter up someone he needs to work with while favorably comparing the Assad regime to regional "slave governments", not a difficult thing to do! This doesn't translate into "supporting dictators".

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Galloway really is a panderer:

I had read elsewhere that Galloway had taken advantage of a feeling among the younger muslim voters that clan politics plays too much of a role in the selection of the Labour candidate, and they broke ranks with the elders in the community. The video seems to confirm that.