JOHN CHUCKMAN

POSTED RESPONSE TO A COLUMN IN TORONTO’S GLOBE AND MAIL

Although he’s made some mistakes along the way – and who hasn’t? – George remains one of the age’s most heroic characters, and I’m glad his voice will continue to resonate in Parliament.

And what a voice.

When it’s in full force, it withers the ineffectual propagandists and the cringingly dishonest politicians.

http://chuckmanwords.wordpress.com/2009/06/02/a-breath-of-fresh-air-sweeps-into-hell-but-theres-still-no-way-out/

_______________________________________

“A very sad reflection on the electors of Bradford for electing this hypocritical and divisive individual.”

The last thing in the world a thinking person would call Galloway is hypocritical.

He is the absolute enemy of the world’s hypocrites.

Clearly the writer either does not understand the words he uses or is indeed one of the pack.

 

JOHN CHUCKMAN

POSTED RESPONSE TO A COLUMN IN HAMILTON’S SPECTATOR

George Galloway is a genuinely heroic political figure.

His values of justice and decency are beyond question.

His skills in debating or arguing those values are simply formidable.

Galloway very much reminds me of certain 18th century figures who bravely stood their ground, defending worthwhile principles.

Politicians today generally offer nothing of the kind. Being a political weasel or a hypocrite has been developed into a fine art, as we see in our own thirty-percent prime minister, always excusing his failures with blather.

The running wound of Palestine is the greatest international issue of our day, and almost no politicians and no newspapers are willing to take it on.

The lack of justice and fairness there are major contributing factors to so much of the trouble we see in today’s world.

Today Israel is into its fourth year of trying to starve out a million and a half people in Gaza. We have revelations only recently that Israel’s government actually calculated the food ration which would make the people miserable but not die from malnutrition, and it is that calculation which decides what enters Gaza.

We also saw Israel attack an unarmed boatload of humanitarian workers on the high seas, deliberately killing nine of them.

How in God’s name is that any different to the work of Somali pirates? Yet where is the outrage in our press?

Peace really is not that hard, if you genuinely want it, and Israel, while mouthing the words, clearly does not want peace. It wants more land, minus its inhabitants of centuries.

At least Galloway articulates these humanitarian truths. He also walks the walk, having spearheaded convoys of humanitarian assistance.

JOHN CHUCKMAN

 

POSTED RESPONSE TO A COLUMN IN THE TIMES

Oh, my, the U.S. Senate is such an august and dignified institution, the very symbol to the world of scrupulousness and honesty.

It is a fact that U.S. Senators, on average, spend two-thirds of their time chasing campaign donations from rich donors.

It is peopled largely by men past their retirement age who hold on to their seats as though they were personal property – owing in great part to all those campaign funds and the favors done in return.

It has featured a cast of characters who easily could be made into a Tussaud’s tableau, The Hall of Political Horrors.

And their last effort to attack someone – the redoubtable George Galloway – turned into a laughable farce.

Have at it, boys.

JOHN CHUCKMAN

 

POSTED RESPONSE TO A COLUMN BY REX MURPHY IN TORONTO’S GLOBE AND MAIL

Shame on you, Rex Murphy.

This column is a nasty piece of weasel-work, the kind of thing I thought you were above, even though I disagree with many of your views.

You are calling Galloway names, defending what cannot be defended, and, at the same time, suggesting they find a way out of what is a police-state action.

George Galloway is an honorable man. He stands for principles, which more than you can say for Mr. Harper and yourself in this instance.

He has a piercing intelligence. And his way with words leaves even you, Rex, looking the true “sad sack.”

He is a member of the Mother of Parliaments in good standing. There is no legitimate reason on earth to refuse him entry to Canada.

The only reason he is being treated in this police-state fashion is his views on the poor people of Palestine.

Israel’s apologists simply hate him.

How shameful of you to speak disparagingly against him, but not a word about Israel’s murder of 400 children and a thousand other people.

And to this day Israel will not supply the UN maps of where they dropped the dreaded cluster bombs in Southern Lebanon during another savage attack which killed another 1,400 or so, including a brave Canadian officer doing his duty.

JOHN CHUCKMAN

 

POSTED RESPONSE TO A COLUMN BY DANIEL FINKELSTEIN IN THE TIMES

Daniel, these are not well-considered comments.

First, you are totally inconsistent.

You quote Mubarak as though he were a fair and impartial authority in these matters.

President Mubarak is a dictator, one of decades standing, and he has some very large interests in supporting American policies, about $2 billion a year in keeping-the-peace payoffs for a start.

At the same time, you always have been a defender of Israel’s de rigueur
position that Hamas – a truly democratic organization – is a terrible bunch of beasts.

And, as we know from other times, you promote the also de rigueur position about the great blessings of democracy in Israel.

Mubarak is little more than a thug, but he is a peaceful thug towards Israel so I guess that makes his opinion worthy?

As to Haaretz, quoting Israelis on anything having to do with Gaza, or Iran for that matter, is rather like quoting a South African paper in the heyday of apartheid on events in a Bantustan. The view is utterly predictable.

I object strenuously to your calling George Galloway a “blustering fool” if only because it so clearly untrue.

Galloway has a piercing intelligence, and he is, without a doubt, the most remarkable orator in Britain today.

His mission on this delivery of assistance to a people left shattered by three weeks of bombardment is not something to make light of.

How do you know, Daniel, that the stone-throwers were not Israeli agents? My God, we have boundless precedents for such activity and worse.

If the stone throwers were indeed Egyptians, then it is certain they were not acting, as we used to put it during the Cold War, spontaneously.

Spontaneous displays do not happen in Mubarak’s Egypt, as I’m sure you well know.

So, I’m sorry to say, I don’t find even a shred of honest analysis in your words here, but then you are riding your favorite hobby horse again, aren’t you?