Update on last week's free speech-themed post that, among other things, mentioned Canada's denying controversial British MP George Galloway permission to enter the country. Seems no less an authority than Christopher Hitchens, whose initial essay on the topic I linked to in that post, has recalibrated his position based on this blog post.
Hitchens reconsiders presumably because Galloway was rebuked not for the views he holds, but for the money he's given to Hamas. Ergo, he wasn't denied entry to Canada on either a free speech or national security basis, but for supporting terrorism.
But the question that's still left open for me is this: if Hamas is the democratically elected government in Gaza, and one wants to offer humanitarian aid to Gaza, how does one avoid interacting with Hamas? Doesn't even the Red Cross have to go through them to do their work in the region? By no means do I support terrorism - I hope that's obvious - and by no means do I endorse Hamas, a terrorist organization regardless of how much political "legitimacy" they may have. But does sending money to Hamas automatically constitute support of terrorism?
I guess one would have to be pretty naive to think it doesn't. It's just that there's still that nagging question...
No comments:
Post a Comment