Most discussions of l'affaire Galloway have failed to see its beneficial properties. Allow me to scrape off the medicinal residue from this absurd fiasco. Let us take this case--wherein a middle-aged British Parliamentarian who has visited Canada and America many times without incident has been barred and declared a national security threat--and distil a healing tincture from its sopping dregs.
Of course, there is much to deplore here. For instance, it seems Jason Kenney's Immigration Ministry had its paws all over this case, inappropriately: members of Kenney's staff were apparently aware that the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) was preparing a pre-emptive refusal to Galloway's entry request. Kenney claims that he had nothing to do with the decision (rightly, as the CBSA reports to the Ministry of Public Safety, not to Immigration), yet his staff were au courant with the latest developments and knew of the refusal even before Galloway did.
Deplorable also is the decision's rationale: apparently, delivering food and medicine to people living in a nightmarish no-man's land is a "terrorist" act if the people in need have elected a politically incorrect leadership.
We must not be seduced by mere appearances, though. If we strain to peer through the superficial turpitude, we'll find something we've never before seen from the Harperoid horde: the twitching of a fledgling political conscience. What seems to be wretched hypocrisy is nothing less than a sublimated but profound and devastating self-critique. In rebuking Galloway, the CPC condemns itself.
For if a man be infamous for risking his life in the personal delivery of food and medicine to people living under the grip of Hamas, how much more infamous would be those who, from the safety of their Parliament Hill offices, impersonally deliver missiles, bombs and artillery shells onto civilians on behalf of the squalid satraps of a corrupt, Islamist, narco-state?
If it be odious for one insignificant man to deliver food and medicine into the hands of a democratically elected "terrorist" government, how much more odious would it be for the most influential oligarchs of the world's most powerful nation to deliver millions of dollars worth of weapons into the hands of a tyrannical terrorist regime?
If it be odious for a "terrorist sympathiser" to enter Canada, how much more odious would it be for a terrorist sympathiser to administer Canada's immigration laws and presume to personify patriotic vigilance?
The CPC's moral faculties, long in embryo, have grown, have developed, and now begin to stir. They feel their own vileness but can yet experience it only as something outside of themselves--in a Galloway, for instance. Their ethical sense, still primitive, expresses itself in a kind of voodoo; through this occult magic, the CPC torments itself through attacks on others: it sticks pins in dolls fashioned after its own likeness.
Now, will the party ever evolve beyond this stage of infantile, pre-historic enchantment? Will it ever gain the power of authentic self-questioning? Will it ever establish itself on a set of dignified, ethically consistent standards of governance?
The answer is another question: Will Stephen Harper ever resign?