Michael Savage Banned from UK
Holy crap. This is getting way to weird.
Michael Savage is the host of ‘The Savage Nation’, a conservative (and, might I add, an awesome) radio talk show. And now, because of his opinions, he has been banned from traveling into the United Kingdom by their officials.
Can you seriously prevent someone from entering a country based on what they believe? Shoot, ban me while you are at it. I’ll gladly stand on the UK-no-entry list with Mr. Savage. In fact, let me take this opportunity to let you read the article yourself.
From WorldNet Daily:
Talk radio host Michael Savage is considering legal action against Britain’s top homeland security official after she released today a list grouping him with terrorists and neo-Nazi murderers banned from entry because the government believes their views might provoke violence.
In a telephone interview with WND, Savage said he is still waiting to hear back from attorneys, but he noted Britain has very strict anti-defamation laws.
Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said she decided to publicize the list of 16 people banned since October to show the type of behavior Britain will not tolerate, according to U.K. news reports.
Savage’s immediate reaction upon hearing the news was typically wry.
“Darn! And I was just planning a trip to England for their superior dental work and cuisine,” he recalled thinking.
“Then it sank in,” he told WND, “and I said, ‘She said this is the kind of behavior we won’t tolerate? She’s linking me with mass murderers who are in prison for killing Jewish children on buses? For my speech? The country where the Magna Carta was created?’”
Smith explained to Britain’s GMTV that she believed it was “important that people understand the sorts of values and sorts of standards that we have here, the fact that it’s a privilege to come and the sort of things that mean you won’t be welcome in this country.”
“Coming to this country is a privilege,” she said. “If you can’t live by the rules that we live by, the standards and the values that we live by, we should exclude you from this country and, what’s more, now we will make public those people that we have excluded.”
Savage said he wants top First Amendment attorneys to represent him “in a major international case.”
“I want to sue the British home secretary for defamation,” he said, “for linking me up with murderers because of my opinions, my writings, my speaking – none of which have advocated any violence, ever.”
Savage said the last time he was in Britain was about 20 years ago, and he had no immediate plans to return.
In an interview with the BBC, Smith said Savage, the No. 3-rated radio host in the U.S., is “someone who has fallen into the category of fomenting hatred, of such extreme views and expressing them in such a way that it is actually likely to cause inter-community tension or even violence if that person were allowed into the country.”
Savage said his message for Smith and the people of the U.K. is, “Shame on you. Shame that you’ve fallen to such a low level.”
“It’s interesting to me that here I am a talk show host, who does not advocate violence, who advocates patriotic traditional values – borders, language, culture – who is now on a list banned in England,” Savage said. “What does that say about the government of England? It says more about them than it says about me.”
The U.K. list also includes Hamas leader Yunis Al-Astal, former Ku Klux Klan grand wizard Stephen Donald Black, neo-Nazi Erich Gliebe and radical American pastor Fred Phelps, known for his virulent anti-gay protests at funerals. Phelps’ daughter Shirley Phelps-Roper also is on the list.
Smith said the British government believes the people on the list have views or attitudes that could provoke violence.
“If people have so clearly overstepped the mark in terms of the way not just that they are talking but the sort of attitudes that they are expressing to the extent that we think that this is likely to cause or have the potential to cause violence or inter-community tension in this country, then actually I think the right thing is not to let them into the country in the first place. Not to open the stable door then try to close it later,” she said.
“It’s a privilege to come to this country. There are certain behaviors that mean you forfeit that privilege.”
The others on the list are Jewish nationalist Mike Guzovsky; imprisoned Russian skinhead leaders Artur Ryno and Pavel Skachevsky; and Islamic leaders Wadgy Abd El Hamied Mohamed Ghoneim, Abdullah Qadri Al Ahdal, Safwat Hijazi , Amir Siddique, Abdul Ali Musa, Samir Al Quntar and Nasr Javed.
Said Savage, “How can a nation put me on a list and leave hate preachers in England who say that we’re going to kill all of you? We’re going to convert all of you to Islam. How is it possible that those hate preachers can’t be deported from Britain, but I can be banned from Britain? People who advocate actual murder cannot be deported from Britain.
“How is it that liberalism has gotten so distorted and cowardly?”
Note: Concerned individuals may contact Britain’s Home Office Secretary Jacqui Smith by e-mail, call 011 44 20 7035 4848 or fax 011 44 20 7035 4745.
You want to know my opinion on being banned from the UK? Here it is.
This is total bull, and anyone with half a brain knows that it is. How long before this crap happens in the US? Oh…wait…federal no-fly list. Does anyone else think this is a scary preview of things to come?
If you enjoyed this post, please subscribe to our RSS feed or help keep this site running!
Tags: banned, michael savage, uk, united kingdom, worldnetdaily
- About admin
6 Responses to “Michael Savage Banned from UK”
Sponsors
Awards
May 15th, 2009 at 1:33 am
Can’t say I blame them. The guy is an idiot. I wouldn’t want his crap in my country either. Here’s a nice little view of him calling for the death of 100 MILLION muslims and calling a woman something along the lines of a dirty whore. Conservative christians around the world should flock to this guy. What a joke.
SAVAGE: There are too many RDDBs [red-diaper doper babies, Savage's term for people supposedly raised by Marxist parents] in high places and in the media and in the courts for us to stand up to this fanatical enemy. And so unless the RDDB is reined in somehow or taken out of power, we’re going to die as a nation. I swear to God that’s what people are saying to me. And these are intelligent people, wealthy people. They are very depressed by the weakness that America is showing to these psychotics in the Muslim world. They say, “Oh, there’s a billion of them.” I said, “So, kill 100 million of them, then there’ll be 900 million of them.” I mean, would you rather die — would you rather us die than them? I mean, what is it going to take for you people to wake up? Would you rather we disappear or we die? Or would you rather they disappear and they die? Because you’re going to have to make that choice sooner rather than later.
[...]
SAVAGE: Now, we got the Durham dirt-bag case. The Durham dirt-bag case disgusts me to my core. Here, you have a drunken slut stripping whore accusing men of raping her when there is absolutely no evidence of such a rape other than what comes out of that filthy mouth of hers.
May 17th, 2009 at 3:59 pm
Hooray for free speech.
May 21st, 2009 at 4:03 am
Yeah free speech is awesome. I wish we had it here. But unfortunately we have people like Sarah Palin wanting to ban books…..
May 22nd, 2009 at 7:22 pm
…and all of those ‘fairness doctrine’ folks as well, right?
May 24th, 2009 at 12:33 am
“Fairness doctrine” folks weren’t running for the second highest office in the land. Huge difference.
Plus as someone who tends to support some democratic ideas, I have never even heard of this so called fairness doctrine more than just some talking heads complaining because they want to force radios to give equal time. It’s a stupid idea that won’t work. I haven’t done my research on it but I’d be surprised if top democrats, ie in the Obama administration really pushed for such a thing.
Either way banning books is a great deal worse than trying to get equal airtime on radio waves.
May 24th, 2009 at 12:06 pm
I agree, it is a stupid idea. But it had been in place in the past, and there are currently bills being pushed through to cater to minority radio station ownership. Demographically, minorities tend to vote more liberal (this isn’t always true, but according to statistics it seems to be the pattern), and therefore would be more likely to air Alan Colmes rather than someone like Boortz, Hannity, etc.
Obama did come out and say that he was against “the fairness doctrine”, but he is still supporting legislation that, in a very roundabout way, have similar effects. Things that sound good on the surface, but have interesting ’side effects’.
I agree that banning books is a silly idea. If people don’t want to read something that offends them, they should simply not read it. If they don’t want to hear a radio host that disagrees with their ideals, they should simply turn the dial.
I can understand the desire to ban books based on a persons personal morality, however I also understand that one shouldn’t try to force their morality on to other people. Teaching people is one thing, forcing them is another. That’s where legislation can get tricky, especially on issues like abortion, service that restricts religious exercise for participants, etc.
In all of these things, regardless of which government official passes what bill, earthly legality is secondary to God’s law, and we should put that before everything.
Right and wrong are choices. Each person should decide for themselves. If, and this is a stretch although it has been done before in the past, the government were to ban preachers from teaching against ‘controversial’ issues such as homosexuality, Christians are obligated to do so anyway, since we are to follow God first and man second.
Also, it’s really less about ‘equal time’ than ’strategic silencing’. Yes, there would be ‘equal time’ for some. However, in order to achieve that, one would have to take time away from successful, income-generating hosts and have that time given to someone who has been less successful.
I really don’t care for the term ‘punishing achievement’, but it really does seem like it could be taken that way. The results really can be seen either way, depending on your point of view, but the effect is really the same. One gives time to another by force.
Good thoughts. :D