Here's the thing: if you look past all the rhetoric, it seems to have been a straightforward bureaucratic decision: the law says that anyone who provides "material support" to a recognized terrorist organization is to be denied entry; Galloway has apparently contributed money to Hamas; Hamas is recognized in the legal sense, rightly or wrongly, as a terrorist organization; ergo, Galloway is denied entry. If other people are subjected to the same policy, then this does not seem a matter of "censorship". If, on the other hand, he has been singled out and subjected to rules that are not being applied to others, then a case could be made that it IS censorship.