MPs call on Canada to bar British rap duo Bob Vylan over ‘death, death to the IDF' chant at Glastonbury
Article content
On Monday, the U.S. State Department said that it had 'revoked the U.S. visas' of the band members who performed at the festival in southwest England on Saturday, ahead of several American tour dates in October and November. 'Foreigners who glorify violence and hatred are not welcome visitors to our country,' Christopher Landau, the deputy secretary of state wrote on X.
Article content
Article content
The announcement prompted Housefather, a former special advisor on antisemitism and Jewish community relations under then prime minister Justin Trudeau, to demand the federal government follow suit. Bob Vylan is set to perform in Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Toronto and Montreal in December.
Article content
Article content
'This is a good decision by the United States,' Housefather wrote on Monday afternoon. 'The incitement by Bob Vylan and his band at Glastonbury have no place in North America. I have been in touch with the minister of Public Safety and believe that Mr. Vylan's actions should render him inadmissible to Canada.'
Article content
On Saturday, frontman Bobby Vylan shouted 'Free, free Palestine' while on stage, before leading the crowd to chant 'Death, death to the IDF (Israel Defense Forces).'
Article content
On social media on Sunday, Vylan, whose real name is Pascal Robinson-Foster, appeared to stand by his comments. In an Instagram post captioned 'I said what I said,' he wrote that he has received 'messages of both support and hatred' over his performance.
Article content
Article content
'Teaching our children to speak up for the change they want and need is the only way that we make this world a better place,' he wrote.
Article content
Article content
In an email to National Post Monday afternoon, Housefather said that 'Vylan's conduct in Glastonbury should render him inadmissible for entry and I sent the information on what occurred to the minister (of public safety) and his team.'
Article content
'The U.K.'s Labour government has decried this person's performance as 'hate speech,' and the United States will not allow them entry to do the same,' Conservative NP Michelle Rempel Garner, the MP for Calgary Nose Hill, wrote shortly after Housefather's initial post, tagging the minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship in her message. 'I call upon Canada's government to do the same and deny any requests from this group to enter Canada.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Toronto Star
33 minutes ago
- Toronto Star
Hamas says it's open to a Gaza truce but stops short of accepting a Trump-backed proposal
CAIRO (AP) — Hamas suggested Wednesday that it was open to a ceasefire agreement with Israel, but stopped short of accepting a U.S.-backed proposal announced by President Donald Trump hours earlier, insisting on its longstanding position that any deal bring an end to the war in Gaza. Trump said Tuesday that Israel had agreed on terms for a 60-day ceasefire in Gaza and urged Hamas to accept the deal before conditions worsen. The U.S. leader has been increasing pressure on the Israeli government and Hamas to broker a ceasefire, and hostage agreement and bring about an end to the war.
National Post
an hour ago
- National Post
Lisa Sygutek: Canadians have the power to fight back against Big Tech
Recently, I was a panellist at the Canadian Association of Journalists conference in Calgary. The session was titled, 'Local Journalism in the Age of Cutbacks.' A great headline, sure, but that's not why I was there. I was there to talk about our $8-billion class-action lawsuit against digital advertising giants Google and Facebook. Article content Alongside Sotos LLP, I launched a national class-action lawsuit in 2022. I'm the representative plaintiff in a case filed in the Federal Court of Canada on behalf of all Canadian newspaper publishers, big and small, independent and chain owned. We allege that Google and Facebook have engaged in anti-competitive practices in digital advertising and siphoned billions in ad revenue from Canadian journalism. Article content Article content If we really want to talk about cutbacks, then let's talk about what's causing them. The bleed of advertising dollars away from Canadian newsrooms and straight into the pockets of two unregulated tech giants is the reason we are all hurting. We can't stop the drain without getting to the root of the problem. That's what this lawsuit is about. Article content Article content Our case is one of the first of its kind in the world. Countries like Australia, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands have also picked up the cause, some with their own legal action, others with groundbreaking legislation forcing Big Tech to pay for journalism. Article content On that panel in Calgary, I listened to a lot of 'woe is me.' Stories of shrinking newsrooms. Struggles to retain talent. Frustrations over government ad policy. It was the same old tune. The media in this country has become far too comfortable living with a victim mentality. Well, I am nobody's victim. I'm a fighter. And it's time our industry remembered how to fight, too. What I didn't hear on that stage was resolve. What I didn't hear was fire. We've become so used to decline that we've forgotten how to push back and stand tall. Article content Article content We forgot that newspapers aren't just businesses. We're institutions. We are the watchdogs. The check and balance. The public record. And somewhere along the way, we let Silicon Valley billionaires convince us we didn't matter anymore. Article content Article content Well, I haven't forgotten. And I haven't given up.
National Observer
2 hours ago
- National Observer
Bill C-5 is not just bad policy, it's a constitutional mess
Prime Minister Carney's attempt to make good on his election promise to build one Canadian economy and get things built — Bill C-5 — has been written and rushed through Parliament at breakneck speed. And it shows. Aimed at streamlining interprovincial trade and fast-tracking major projects, Bill C-5 has been heavily criticized by Indigenous peoples, environmental groups and legal experts who warn it erodes foundational democratic principles and allows the government to circumvent environmental laws and run roughshod over Indigenous rights. Of particular concern is Part 2, the Building Canada Act. If passed, it would apply to projects that the federal cabinet designates as being in the 'national interest.' Designating the projects acts as their approval — in other words, projects will get the green light before they are reviewed. This approach flies in the face of over half a century of experience showing that governments make better decisions when they understand the consequences of those decisions ahead of time. The bill also consolidates regulatory power in the hands of one 'super minister' (likely to be Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Dominic LeBlanc, who tabled the Bill along with Minister of Transport and Internal Trade Chrystia Freeland). While that minister must consult ministers responsible for various project aspects and effects, he or she can ignore their advice. The super minister will also not need to comply with environmental legal standards and can, instead, authorize harms that would be otherwise unacceptable under Canadian law, because the Bill 'deems' all authorization requirements to have been met. Effectively, Bill C-5 creates two classes of projects: regular projects which have to go through legal checks and balances, and 'national interest' projects to which the rules won't apply. Canada's legal system — indeed, our democracy — is premised on the principle that everyone is equal under the law. Bill C-5 undermines that principle, along with others. For example, our democratic system relies on three independent but interrelated branches of government — the legislative, executive and judiciary. While the executive branch (cabinet) may propose laws, Parliament is ultimately responsible for passing them, and the judiciary ensures the lawfulness of those laws and their implementation. Separating the powers among the three branches ensures that power is not unduly concentrated in any one body. Bill C-5 throws that principle under the bus. It gives the federal cabinet regulatory power to exempt projects from environmental laws (known as so-called 'Henry VIII' clauses). In Bill C-5, they effectively allow cabinet to amend laws by making regulations about when and to whom those laws apply. Under Prime Minister Mark Carney's plan to speed up development in the country's "national interest", projects will get the green light before they are reviewed, writes Anna Johnston As Supreme Court Justice Côté warned in the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act reference case, Henry VIII clauses grant cabinet 'breathtaking' powers that may run afoul of the principle of parliamentary sovereignty. Notably, the Henry VIII provisions in Bill C-5 go far beyond what the clauses in the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act do — under the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, cabinet can only make regulations amending that Act, whereas under Bill C-5, cabinet can make regulations amending any federal environmental law. More concerningly, Bill C-5 effectively gives Henry VIII powers to the super minister. Whereas the cabinet would have to pass regulations saying that a law or laws don't apply to a project, the minister can simply ignore legal standards. Once cabinet orders a project of 'national interest' under the Act, it no longer needs to obtain the customary authorizations and permits. Instead, the super minister will issue a document with conditions that stands in for authorizations and permits. As noted above, the bill 'deems' that the document meets all requirements, under any enactment, that relate to the authorizations it replaces. This 'deeming' acts as legal doublespeak. For example, if a project affects an endangered species, normally the minister would have to be satisfied that it would not jeopardize the species' survival and recovery before agreeing to it. Bill C-5 will 'deem' that the project will not jeopardize the species, no matter its actual effects. These issues are concerning, not just from an environmental perspective, but also on constitutional and democracy grounds. Department of Justice guidance warns against the kind of 'deeming' provisions contained in Bill C-5, and the law invites lawsuits and protests. Indigenous rights-holders faced with the potential extinction of a species central to the exercise of their rights are unlikely to be satisfied by the explanation that Bill C-5 'deems' the species not to be harmed. Nor may the public be satisfied with having a handful of politicians declaring what is in the national interest solely on the basis of the self-interested claims of proponents. Yes, we need big, transformative investments in projects that benefit Canadians, projects like renewable energy, high-speed rail and an east-west electricity grid. We have proven tools for making efficient decisions about those projects in ways that are also rigorous, participatory and fair. Tools like independent review panels, which for decades have thoroughly assessed projects in under two years and led to better buy-in to decisions. Or regional assessments, like those for offshore wind in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador, which will allow much more streamlined project reviews without compromising Indigenous engagement, public participation or science. Parliament passed Bill C-5 last Thursday. It sets a dangerous precedent for Canada, but the government can take measures to ensure that national interest projects are truly in the public interest, are carefully reviewed and have the consent of Indigenous peoples. As the recent report An Ounce of Prevention: How Strong Environmental Laws Contribute to a Prosperous and Resilient Canada shows, those outcomes are not a pipe dream. The environmental assessment of the Voisey's Bay nickel mine, conducted by a panel jointly appointed by Canada, Newfoundland and Labrador, the Labrador Inuit Association and the Innu Nation, took roughly two years and identified ways to ensure long-lasting benefits for communities. The mine still operates to this day. The Ekati Diamond Mine in the Northwest Territories underwent a two-year-long assessment that identified a number of community concerns, as well as ways to address them. Like Voisey's Bay, the mine is still in operation. As these examples show, efficient, effective and fair decisions about major projects are possible. A stitch in time saves nine.
