England Bans Talk Show Host Michael Savage

England flagTalk show host Michael Savage (aka Michael Weiner) has been banned from entry into England in the latest example of England’s rapid abandonment of free speech principles.

As a longtime critic of Savage, it takes a considerable act to get me to feel any sympathy or concern for the man. However, England appears to be struggling to make the movie V look like a documentary with ever-increasing police powers, restrictions on the media, and denial of free speech. Previously, England banned a Dutch politician because of his criticism of Islam, here and has arrested people for insulting religion. England is part of an international trend in England to punish people who criticize religions.

What is interesting is that Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said that the government was publishing the names of banned individuals as a warning to others. That is an astonishing aim: use bans to encourage others to modify their views: “Coming to this country is a privilege. 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. We are publishing the names of 16 of those that we have excluded since October. We are telling people who they are and why it is we don’t want them in this country.”

For the full story, click here.

33 thoughts on “England Bans Talk Show Host Michael Savage

  1. It’s increasingly disturbing to watch the slow move in Britain towards more and more conservative, restrictive laws. It just seems to me that tribalism, the “us” vs.”them” mind set is at the bottom of everything. The crazy ride to the right that the GOP has taken here is an obvious example. I subscribe to no religion.
    I believe that religion is like war, completely unnecessary, with all sides believing that only they are right. It’s shocking to think that with that philosophy, I might be “banned” from visiting England.

    “All we are is a result of what we have thought, it is founded on our thoughts, it is made up of our thoughts…” The Dhammapada

  2. Reading this I thought of the woman who was killed by her brothers for appearing on T.V. When I first read that post, after feeling so badly about this woman’s murder, the thing that struck me was her murder was a stong message to other women to shut up and do as they’re told. These were private members of a society, backing up the position of men’s ownership of women through their actions.

    In this case, the State, or maybe we should just call it the Sturch, is the one sending a message. One cannot underestimate the power of the State and this message–dissent will not be tolerated. In the meantime, the State seems incapable of sending a strong message that torture will not be tolerated. That’s an interesting dicotomy. England is further down the pathway on being an open police state than we are but we’re getting there. We did divert a critic of our CIA policies in Latin American from even flying over our air space. The UK and the US–who will get to the bottom first?

  3. Well because Jerry Springer is a British Citizen at least by birth can we ban his show?

  4. I would much prefer that he be permitted to enter Great Britain and thereafter be prohibited from returning. The English have it backward.

  5. On a more serious note, it has become common practice in many countries, including our own, to deem those critical of government policies as undesirables, and deny them visitation privileges on that basis. It is bad policy, but since anyone’s views are now capable of instantaneous worldwide transmission, we can expect the practice to expand.

  6. Mike Appleton,

    I know a number of people who have Satellites for TV, they will use a family or friends address in Canada and receive worldwide transmission of international television stations. Where in the good ole USA we block that ability.

    What is interesting and people on border states can pick up the “Foreign” countries broadcast on local TV but it is not offered outside that area. I know this was the situation with Detroit and Windsor. So I take back that as a blanket statement.

  7. This is only payback for the treatment we gave Lord Monkton last week. Lord Monkton was invited to speak last week at a congressional hearing, upon his arrival he was met at the airport only to be told he was BANNED from speaking. Oh the humanity of it all. He then did a radio interview with, Michael Savage.

  8. As much as I love to bash other countries and their stupid free speech prohibitions, it makes me just as angry that I can’t see Amy Winehouse sing in the US because the damn government won’t give her a visa (because apparently people who do drugs aren’t welcome in the US!)

  9. Well Matthew N,

    It did not stop us from having Bush put in office, did it? Notice I did not say elected.

  10. Is this shocking? Sure. Is Savage a AM Radio creep? I think so. I’ve tried to listen to him as well as others like Boss Limbaugh and O’Really, and Glenn Beck and this other radio guy who hates women as counsels men to use women is the most awful ways and avoid emotional connection at all cost because women are only in the relationship business for the money.

    But that said England isn’t doing anything that has not already been done here. In the 70’s our government tried to keep John Lennon out of the country because of his anti-VietNam war views.

    Of course they are doing it in a much more open and well, icky way. It’s not a sign of the times as much as a reaction to them on the part of the British government and maybe other European countries whose cultural and racial imbalances have forced leaders to become apologists to racist ideas. In trying to ban racism they themselves have become racists.

    What I find particularly frustrating is the non-stop tidal wave of alarming and disturbing stuff that merits our attention every day. I can barely keep up and it isn’t like I don’t try. I usually know what I think about just about anything that crosses my radar its just that lately the radar screen is just so overwhelmingly full.

  11. GWLawMom:

    “Is this shocking? Sure. Is Savage a AM Radio creep? I think so. I’ve tried to listen to him as well as others like Boss Limbaugh and O’Really, and Glenn Beck and this other radio guy who hates women as counsels men to use women is the most awful ways and avoid emotional connection at all cost because women are only in the relationship business for the money.”

    ***********************

    Hard to fault the Brits, I keep the sewage out of my house too. I don’t owe it anything either. Its rights stop at my doorway.

  12. Berliner, the glass houses analogy is only meaningful when one is not looking at one’s own soul. If you’d read all of the posts, you will note that most of us allude to the idiocy of exclusionary policies in this country as well. We are generally equal opportunity critics.

  13. Mespo

    What you and I may choose to ban from our doors is a matter of individual rights. What a nation chooses to ban from its shores is a matter of public discourse being discouraged or shut off altogether.
    In Yemen, the major newspapers were shut down today because of an anti-establishment uprising. The media was closed down to protect the status quo.

    While I find some, lots in fact, AM talk radio distasteful and think that its ability to influence the semi-literate and reactionaries I would not think of shutting down or regulating it at all. I like to think that I have the sensibilities required to judge for myself what has value and substance. I don’t need the government’s interference in the freedom of any part of the press or media to decide for me what is in good taste or not and act to protect me from it.

  14. GWLAWMOM:

    “What you and I may choose to ban from our doors is a matter of individual rights. What a nation chooses to ban from its shores is a matter of public discourse being discouraged or shut off altogether.”

    **********

    There is no right for an alien to enter any country, and every nation has the right to restrict immigration or visitation for any reason its citizens acting through the agency of its leaders determines is warranted. Imposing our values on other people is what got Bush et crooks in trouble in the first place. You have every right to criticize but you might pay heed to Petrarch who famously said, “Vos vestros servate, meos mihi linquite mores.” (You cling to your own ways and leave mine to me).

  15. Obviously I am no lawyer, but I am perplexed by my own feelings in this. Yes we have, and champion, the right to free speech. But does Free Speech have no boundaries? Everyone loves to say “Well, of course, you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater.. that’s a crime..”

    Ok, then what is it that these hayseeds on AM Talk are doing? 95% of what they and the talking heads on Tv say is meant to scare and cause you to react to the shock of what they are saying, even though what they are saying has no basis in reality.

    Am I mistaken in thinking that not only do you have a right to free speech, but shouldn’t you have the responsibility to it as well? If they say “queers want to rape your children they should be dealt with” — isn’t that different than saying “homosexuality is immoral, and should be opposed at every turn..” (These are these Savage has/would say) But one is clearly yelling FIRE! , and is no longer pushing an opinion but pressing it more as a fact. Maybe a bad example. But these guys need to be held to account, even though some will say this is a slippery slope. So what. Certain people in this country have worked diligently on this very thing, to blur the line between fact and opinion, between free speech and incitement.

    Do we just keep letting it be eroded until no one can tell fact from fiction, and ALL of our arguments or political discussions are based on made up or imaginary pretense?

  16. I think the guy has some good points sometimes, but I stopped listening to him because I realised that he is an alarmist who thrives on sensationalism rather than fact, and that he is full of hate. You seemed to me a lot more enthusiastic regarding your defense of David Duke.

  17. Mike Appleton,

    yes of course you’re equal opportunity critics. But such hyperbolic criticism is rather ironic if you think of the rather strict and arbitrary American entry regulations, isn’t it?

    And I think the implied motivation (i.e. oppressing criticism of Islam) is, at least in this case, a wrong conclusion:
    after all the majority of the persons on the Home Office’s no entry list are Islamic fundamentalists.

  18. I have to agree with Mike A. that I wish the Brits had allowed him entry and then decided to keep him there for a long, long time. This guy is more than just a nutjob, he is the posterboy for the radical right. He actually makes Cheney seem reasonable. I can’t believe I just said Cheney seems reasonable!

  19. rafflaw,

    It is all a matter of perspective. It is like trying to figure out whose the sanest in the mental institution for the criminally insane.

  20. O.K. here’s a bowl full of irony. From the man who wanted immigrants deported “without due process”,–Mr. Savage is now using the due process afforded him under the law to sue the UK for keeping him out.

    Now in this corner, the challenger for hypocrisy, the British Home Office, Jacqui Smith, saying that Britin is a “civilized country” which does not want people coming here who espouse extremist, dangerous views. So I guess half the past and present govt. won’t be invited to speak because they ordered/justified and fail to investigate claims of torture? Or is that just what civilized nations do these days?

    It was a great report on the BBC. A real expose of hypocrisy and a nice juxtaposition going directly to the heart of why speech must be protected from govt. interference. The govt. is proving it has no basis for making a judgement about who should have to right to speak. When you let in dick and george, you’ve ended any claim to evaluate speech based on morality or anything else.

  21. There’s no excuse for keeping him out. Distasteful or not, his views are merely opinion and I agree with JT that this trend to criminalize/restrict free speech in Europe is alarming.

    But what bothered me the most was what mespo wrote:

    “There is no right for an alien to enter any country, and every nation has the right to restrict immigration or visitation for any reason its citizens acting through the agency of its leaders determines is warranted. Imposing our values on other people is what got Bush et crooks in trouble in the first place.”

    You serious? Freedom of speech is a venerated ideal and the linchpin of non-autocratic societies. How the hell does this compare with Bush’s “you’re either with me or against me” approach? We have the right, nay the obligation, to decry such wanton disregard for opposing viewpoints. Should human rights be left to caprice as well?

  22. The US will be a Moslem country in less than 20 years. They are giving up all their freedoms. Soon all in the UK will be forced to obey and convert. Soon all women will wear the Hi jab at least out of respect.

  23. YOU IDIOTS DO NOT LISTEN TO MICHAEL SAVAGE, YOU ARE MAKING COMMENTS THAT ARE HALF COCKED, WHAT ARE YOU SMOKING??? THE MAN IS EXTREMELY INTELLIGENT, ENTERTAINING AND THERE IS NO MENTION OF VIOLENCE AT ALL IN HIS COMMENTS, AND BEING MISCONSTRUED AND MALIGNED BY JACQIE SMITH THE TOTALLY UNINFORMED INCOMPETENT THAT SHE IS, DESTROYING THIS MAN’S CREDENTIALS IS A HORRIBLE TRAVESTY OF JUSTICE, HE ADMIRES AND PLAYS CHURCHILL ALL THE TIME ON HIS SHOWS, LOVES ENGLAND, ACTUALLY LOVES ENGLAND MORE THAN THE LEFT WING ENGLISH THEMSELVES! HE CRITICIZES OBAMA OR ANY POLITICIAN, AND ANY NEWS ITEM OF THAT DAY, WHAT IS WRONG WITH THAT?? AT LEAST HE DID NOT THROW OUT THE BUST OF CHURCHILL IN THE WHITE HOUSE LIKE OBAMA DID, THROW OUT GORDON BROWN, THROW OUT NETANYAHU, DID NOT BOW TO THE QUEEN BUT ALMOST DROPPED TO THE FLOOR WITH THE KING OF SAUDI ARABIA,- WHICH ONE SHOULD BE BANNED FROM ENGLAND???

Comments are closed.