A Savage banning
This news doesn’t surprise me at all, having had a taste of what passes for “freedom of speech” in France—and in Britain as well.
The aptly named (although pseudonymous) Michael Savage has been banned in Britain. British Home Secretary Jacqui Smith (no, not this Jacqui Smith) claims that Savage foments hatred, much like the other banned individuals, who include skinheads, radical Muslim preachers, a former Ku Klux Klan grand wizard, and a Kansas minister who has picketed funerals by carrying anti-gay placards:
Coming to the U.K. is a privilege and I refuse to extend that privilege to individuals who abuse our standards and values to undermine our way of life,” Smith said in a statement. “Therefore, I will not hesitate to name and shame those who foster extremist views as I want them to know that they are not welcome here.”
One can’t escape the notion that this nicely rounded potpourri of offenders to Ms. Smith’s tender sensibilities is designed to provide padding for the jihadi-preaching Islamicists among them, and cover for a Home Office fearful of being branded racist if it doesn’t demonstrate a properly equal-opportunity banning, naming, and shaming.
I’m with Padraig Reidy, news editor of a London periodical fostering freedom of speech, when he asks:
“How are these people selected? There’s no process here, people aren’t accused of a specific crime. It’s deeply worrying”….He added that the list is so “bizarrely eclectic” that “you have to wonder if there was a deliberate move to make it eclectic, as if to say it’s not Islamists being picked out.”
Yes, you do.
Don’t get me wrong—I detest Michael Savage. If I happen to flip to his show while in my car searching for something on the radio to listen to, the very sound of his voice makes my flesh crawl—and it’s not a pleasant sort of crawl. But banning him sets a very dangerous precedent, even though Savage himself sarcastically declared he wasn’t planning a trip there anyway—or rather, what he actually said was, “Darn! And I was just planning a trip to England for their superior dental work and cuisine.”
But if Savage ever were to change his mind and decide to have a bit of that bubble and squeak we all crave from time to time, all that’s necessary is to do something impossible: prove he no longer is guilty of thought crime. According to Ms. Smith, names will be dropped off the banning list if people “can prove they no longer hold extreme views.”
Piece of—steak and kidney pie.
Having tried to get food–especially a steak that was cooked and edible, rather than assassinated and shoe leather –in England, Scotland and Wales at some very fancy hotels on a recent tour, I second the notion that their food stinks.
Surprisingly, another trip, this time to Ireland, turned up much better food.
This isn’t the first time that this has happened in Britain under Jacqui Smith. She banned Geer Van Wilders, a Dutch parliament member, from entering the UK because of his controversial movie on radical Islam that he was going to show to several English MPs.
As much as people don’t want to acknowledge it, 1984 may have arrived 25 years late and Ingsoc is once again on the forefront.
Ozymandias: If you follow the link in the first paragraph under “in Britain as well,” you’ll find it leads to an article on that subject.
Okay – take a swipe at English food if you wish – but being that my Mother is from England I saw the best of the food – always three or four FRESH vegetables with every dinner. I do agree thought that they tend to overcook their meat. However comparing the everyday fare in England is like calling tacos, burrito, and tamales Mexican cuisine.
Always has been a lot of good food in great Britain – especially around the seacoast. that being said – I love steak and kidney pie. If I could find the lamb’s kidney at the local grocery i would make one tonight.
Now as to the rest – the RIGHT of free speech has all but disappeared. The very same thing is going on here with the recent reports from the Dept of Homeland (in)Security.
Now people are judged all-too-often on what they say but not what they do – as Neo said just look at the blatantly overt radical Imams preaching hatred and even insurrection in the England.
I listened to Michael Savage just long enough to determine that: 1) His voice is exceptionally unpleasant, and 2) If he would limit himself to his claimed topics of borders, language and culture, he might offer something to the conversation. As it is, he mostly talks about himself. I have no idea how he gets enough audience to make him worth putting on the air.
A couple years ago I read a conservative blog in which a poster asserted that Savage is a liberal plant to make conservatives look bad. I had to laugh, but I also had to acknowledge that would be a good way to go about it.
dane Says:
“I do agree thought that they tend to overcook their meat.”
When it is meat… I ordered something that looked like a hot dog and it was all grisle in a wrapper deep fried. Awkward….. waiting for the right moment to move it back out to the napkin… ick…
Anyway, the bad food jokes don’t appear for no reason… Next time I’m sticking to fish and chips… every meal.
Oh, bother Says:
“A couple years ago I read a conservative blog in which a poster asserted that Savage is a liberal plant to make conservatives look bad. I had to laugh, but I also had to acknowledge that would be a good way to go about it.”
I don’t know if he is a plant, but I’d entertain the notion that he might not be a conservative (re: he is a lefty play acting like a righty).
I’d add that I suspect a very decent chunk of his listeners are lefties… who want to listen to a crazy right winger to confirm their [bad] opinions of right wingers…
I wonder about how many of the posters here have actually listened to Savage sufficiently. I find him preiodically excessive in his rhetoric, but have agreed with most of his theses, e.g. liberalism is a mental disease.
All of which is utterly beside the point. That he should be barred from landing in the UK is an obscene blow to freedom of speech. Britain has citizen-imams who enjoy what has been denied an American would-be visitor.
It seems like polished politicians should understand that when you name specific people you don’t like and “shame” them, you are also lending them credibility and piquing interest in some segments of the population.
I’ve never listened to Savage, but once advertised I was immediately curious to find out more about what his views were.
It seems like it would be simpler and less totalitarian to just let everyone know the legal parameters of speech and behavior in your country and enforcing those laws after breaches occur rather than drawing up random lists of targeted individuals.
Madame Home Secretary’s banning of Geert Wilders and Michael Savage, putting them in the same odious company as those other chuckleheads, argues well the point that the British political class has lost its moorings to reality.
I’ve seen Wilders’ film. It is accurate and truthful.
I haven’t listened to enough of Mr. Savage to render an informed opinion, but he is clearly not in the same league as terrorists, racists, and misogynists. Remember, Jaqui Smith is the same person who is in favor of Sharia Law in Britain and who demands that the words jihad and Islam never be associated with terrorism. She is an imbecile.
Mr. Savage is an entertainer, and if he is sometimes over the top rhetorically, I find I mostly agree with his views. On top of it all, he’s read the Qur’an. Ms. Smith has not. He knows more about Islam than she could possibly grasp.
In fact, if the standard is defense of Western Civilization against these 7th century savages, Mr. Weiner is the hero and Ms. Smith is an idiotic enabler of the enemy.
Maybe the UK will ban the good Rev. Wright now, too.
Savage is sorta nuts — but he has a right to speak and those that wish to listen to him have a right to hear. This censorship crap is for the birds, screw the notion of hate speech — free speech protects that too.
The source of censorship derives from poplar opinion, the masses, the community — it doesn’t derive from government without popular appeal because it’s forbidden in our constitution, in the case of the US, to censor free speech and expression. This is a threat to freedom and democracy almost as mush as any threat, and should be fought with pure hatred and vitriol — how dare politicians surrender to anti-democratic bullying like this!
Fucking cowards! ..sorry
I can’t stand Michael Weiner, er “Savage,” but banning him from entry is wrong. He presents no true danger, and doing so clearly violates our concept of free speech.
But as you point out, they don’t really have free speech over there as we understand it here in the states. I don’t think most people realize this.
nyomythus is exactly right in his opinion. The motivations behind banning people like Wilders and Weiner are odious and derive from totalitarian instincts. People who are “down” with it, justifying it based on their animus towards Mr. Savage, need to rethink their neural flatulence.
I think Savage is very smart, educated, often hilarious, and often boring and/or self-serving. He does some great put downs.
I listen to him seasonally usually while I’m doing something else, take from him what I want to, and pretty much ignore his defects. It’s not really that difficult to seperate things out, but to each his own.
Regardless, he is not a “bad” man which Britain needs to protect itself from. What a joke.
Let’s see if Obama’s goons now try to take him out.