George Galloway faces suspension from Parliament.

[Mr.Moto]

Few subjects have been as heartily debated as the guilt or innocence of MP George Galloway.

In a new development, the Standards and Privileges Committee of the House of Commons is recommending a suspension, because the evidence is overwhelming that Galloway’s charity was funded with Oil for Food money from Saddam Hussein, and that Galloway actively conspired to conceal the source of the funds.

This largely mirrors conclusions arrived at by a Senate investigation some time ago.

[BrainGlutton]

I haven’t even heard Galloway’s name mentioned since his 2005 debate with Christopher Hitchens.

[Stanislaus]

From the report:

@Parliamentary Standards Commissioner

The conclusion that Mr Galloway knew what was happening is one to which I find myself driven not only by the weight and consistency of the evidence taken as a whole but by my understanding of Mr Galloway’s character. To have been ignorant of what was going on would have required a remarkable degree either of complacency or of naivete. Mr Galloway can in no way be accused of possessing either of these faults.I sum up my conclusions on the basis of the evidence available to me as follows:

a) There is clear evidence that the Telegraph documents are authentic and, taking the evidence as a whole, credible.

b) The Mariam Appeal was primarily a political campaign. It was, effectively, directed by Mr Galloway and Mr Fawaz Zureikat was the second highest donor to it.

c) A substantial part of the donations made to the Appeal by Mr Zureikat came from moneys derived, via the Oil for Food Programme, from the former Iraqi regime.

d) Mr Galloway was not directly and personally in the pay of that regime but his political activities conducted through the Mariam Appeal were, in part, funded by the regime via Mr Zureikat.

e) Mr Galloway at best turned a blind eye to what was happening. On balance, it is likely, however, **that he knew, and was complicit in**, what was going on.

(My bolding.) What’s interesting is that Galloway has always been able to skate on these allegations (and indeed has won libel actions against some of those making them) because there wasn’t enough evidence linking him directly to the money. Even now, the Commisison shies away from any claim that he made a personal gain - except insofar as the activities of the Mariam Appeal furthered his political goals.

The amusing aspect to this is that 18 days suspension won’t actually hurt Galloway at all - he’s one of the least active MPs and is only ever seen at the House of Commons if he’s got a camera crew in tow. Brilliantly, he contrived to miss a vote on a terror bill he was opposed to - which then scraped through on one vote.

[Paul_in_Qatar]

Would suspending him deny the people of his area representation? I would be opposed to suspension on those grounds.

[tagos]

@amrussell

From the report:
(My bolding.) What’s interesting is that Galloway has always been able to skate on these allegations (and indeed has won libel actions against some of those making them) because there wasn’t enough evidence linking him directly to the money. Even now, the Commisison shies away from any claim that he made a personal gain - except insofar as the activities of the Mariam Appeal furthered his political goals.

The amusing aspect to this is that 18 days suspension won’t actually hurt Galloway at all - he’s one of the least active MPs and is only ever seen at the House of Commons if he’s got a camera crew in tow. Brilliantly, he contrived to miss a vote on a terror bill he was opposed to - which then scraped through on one vote.

The Mariam Appeal was not a charity. It was explicitly a political campaign against the sanctions. Nothing inappropriate about it furthering his political goals. And there still exists no evidence he gained personally. And if the Telegraph docs are real I’ll eat my hat.

And doing Galloway for ‘bringing the house into disrepute’ while letting the bastards that ‘lied parliament and a country into war’ off scot-free is pretty laughable. It’s just a political lynching of an unpopular with the powers that be MP.

I still hate Galloway though so I’m glad he’s getting screwed.

[BrainGlutton]

@Paul in Saudi

Would suspending him deny the people of his area representation? I would be opposed to suspension on those grounds.

[shrug] The U.S. House and Senate never seem to consider that, when they decide whether to expel a member.

[Mr.Moto]

Sure they do. Most states provide for special elections to handle such matters.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Paul in Saudi

Would suspending him deny the people of his area representation? I would be opposed to suspension on those grounds.

I would not. Someone who uses political clout for personal gain is anathema (and I mean that old-school) to a just society. I do not have the right to vote for a person so corrupt, even if I like them, for the simple reason that I have no right to give a corrupt person any power over anyone else.

I’m pretty unfamiliar with the case, but my inclination in such matters is always to treat the perpetrator harshly. At a minimum, he should be suspended. The folks who voted him into power should be given an opportunity at the earliest convenience to rectify their mistake.

Daniel

[BrainGlutton]

@Mr. Moto

Sure they do. Most states provide for special elections to handle such matters.

But whether the state in question does or not is not a factor the other Congresscritters consider. Fine with them if the seat remains vacant until the next regular election!

[PaulParkhead]

@Paul in Saudi

Would suspending him deny the people of his area representation? I would be opposed to suspension on those grounds.

Yes, it would. Of course, if he were suspended, he could do the decent thing and resign, allowing a by-election.

[Lenin_s_Tomb]

@Paul in Saudi

Would suspending him deny the people of his area representation? I would be opposed to suspension on those grounds.

Galloway is famous for never actually showing up to Parliament anyway, so it would be something of a wash.

[BrainGlutton]

@Lenin's Tomb

Galloway is famous for never actually showing up to Parliament anyway, so it would be something of a wash.

Why did he run for the seat?

[Stanislaus]

@BrainGlutton

Why did he run for the seat?

Politics is show business for ugly people.

Being an MP has always been the basis of his status. Even if he doesn’t turn up, he’s still an MP, he’s still got his own party organisation running his professional life, he still has that little bit of kudos that “former Labour MP” doesn’t quite offer.

Setting up his anti-war party Respect got him involved with some pretty radical Muslim organisations. People who were canvassed by his supporters have reported them saying things like “You must vote against Oona King [incumbent Labour MP] because she’s a Jew.” Here, just for a laugh, is a clip of Galloway announcing that Labour voters will burn in hell

[GomiBoy]

@PaulParkhead

Yes, it would. Of course, if he were suspended, he could do the decent thing and resign, allowing a by-election.

The suspension, I read, is for something like 18 days. If he was removed from Parliament, there would be a by election; for 18 days off, I don’t think they’re gonna need one. And I don’t really know where his consituency is, anyways - East London somewhere IIRC. He’s a one-man-band.

[garius]

And I don’t really know where his consituency is, anyways - East London somewhere IIRC

Bethnal Green innit?

[GomiBoy]

@garius

Bethnal Green innit?

Yeah, mate, yeah. Up the apples and pears 'round the back. He’s got the bees and honey from Saddam, sure, innit?

Sorry, couldn’t resist

[PaulParkhead]

@GomiBoy

The suspension, I read, is for something like 18 days. If he was removed from Parliament, there would be a by election; for 18 days off, I don’t think they’re gonna need one. And I don’t really know where his consituency is, anyways - East London somewhere IIRC. He’s a one-man-band.

I suppose I was more expressing an opinion on the issue of resignation. My position is that an MP who is suspended for misconduct should resign and cause a byelection. He could stand again, and the voters could decide.

[Wallenstein]

@PaulParkhead

I suppose I was more expressing an opinion on the issue of resignation. My position is that an MP who is suspended for misconduct should resign and cause a byelection. He could stand again, and the voters could decide.

Except that suspensions can be used as a party-political weapon, so if they could force a re-election they could be misused more than they already are.

Galloway would still be able to work for his constituents during the 18 days.

[Capt.Ridley_s_Shooting_Party]

Here, just for a laugh, is a clip of Galloway announcing that Labour voters will burn in hell

Hardly far out. He believes the war in Iraq was immoral and illegal - those who voted the perpetrators in, given what they knew, are therefore also immoral, no?

[PaulParkhead]

@e-logic

Except that suspensions can be used as a party-political weapon, so if they could force a re-election they could be misused more than they already are.

Galloway would still be able to work for his constituents during the 18 days.

Point taken. I don’t believe any unelected quango should be able to force Galloway to resign. Actually, I’m not even sure why said quango has the power to suspend him. I do believe, however, that he should resign and ask his constituents to decide.