England Reaffirms Ban on Radio Host Michael Savage

We have been following the ban imposed on conservative radio host Michael Savage by England — barring him from entry into the country. England now appears to have reaffirmed the decision and accuses Savage of promising to retract some of his statements and failing to do so. While I strongly disagree with many of Savage’s statements, I view the ban as part of a disturbing trend limiting free speech in the West and particularly in England.

In the communication below, Treasury Solicitor Michael Atkins tells counsel for Savage that he previously assured the government that Savage would repudiate some of his comments on his website. It also says that Savage promised to appeal the earlier decision and failed to do so.

Savage was informed last July that the Cameron administration would continue the prior ban on his entry into the country unless he repudiated statements made on his broadcasts that were considered a threat to public security. The very notion of ideas being a threat to public safety is the hallmark of censorship and governmental abuse. While then–British Home Secretary Jacqui Smith insisted that it is “important that people understand the sorts of values and sorts of standards that we have here,” he omitted free speech.

The most recent letter is equally disturbing. It puts the burden on Savage to show that his ideas are not a threat to public security — a ridiculous burden when the only way to do so appears to be the repudiation of his beliefs and ideas. England has moved rapidly against free speech guarantees with comparably little protest. There does not even to be much of a national debate despite the fundamental shift on individual rights. We need to support those civil libertarians in England who are fighting this lonely battle — often on behalf of unpopular individuals like Savage.

Here is the letter: Savage letter

Jonathan Turley

124 thoughts on “England Reaffirms Ban on Radio Host Michael Savage”

  1. snake,

    I have been banned from newspapers before…I think that they were doing damage control for elected officials…It was after all an election year and I sharpened a few axes with details…slaughtered a few chickens and exposed the pox that they represent….Then all of a sudden…my posts were removed and I could no longer post..as my account details had been deactivated…if you knew my screen name you could see the blawg….but it was hidden…The info would not pull up even on a general search….

    So I would say, you are probably in good company….all the way around..You are welcome to stay so long as general rules of civility are maintained…we can all be snakes and serpents at the same time…So a hearty welcome…

  2. I have been banned from the online dailymail in the UK. I know for a fact that that the UK is not a free speech county. Its a joke to think anything else.

  3. I defend Michael Savage . I find his ban from Britain blatantly illegal.The comments I have read here could be cause for some of you to be banned in Britain. How would you like that? You come to a public forum, disagree, fight and name call each other. Are you now criminals who are a serious threat to society? Of course not. You are trying to goad each other into a frenzy. That is not a crime or illegal. Go ahead and keep it up. Who gives a rats ass! Let’s keep in mind that none of you have made a truthful argument why Michael Savage should be BANNED from entering Britain. I believe the ban happened because the Muslims have Britain by the balls, and they are trying very hard to do the same in Belgium, the US ,France and God knows where else. It is appalling.

  4. Wow there are a lot of anti semites on here.

    Mocking Savage because of his family name ? Really ?

    He’s a talk show host giving opinions on the military. He’s opposed to war, but he’s also opposed to the door to door style war Bush fought – either get out, or do it right is his belief.

    The draft dodging thing makes me laugh. The guy was off getting a higher education. I suppose “he only got more smart to avoid the draft” is next up.

    I will admit the “draft dodger” people make me laugh – liberals are supposed to oppose war, where Republicans are supposed to detest Democrats. Yet, the liberals were the ones strongly opposed to Vietnam, and Republicans cry about people not wanting to go to Vietnam to die for a pointless Democrat war. I suppose, a lot of those Republicans are Dixiecrats.

    For all you Bush hating liberals out there, remember one thing – your pal Obama wants conscription. His pal Rahm Emmanuel wants mandatory military service like Israel. And, your buddy Charlie Rangel put forth H.R.5741

    So, if you can pull yourself away from the Republican chickenhawk mindset, just remember – the Democrats are the actual war mongers (they love them some conscription) what with Vietnam, Libya, Afghanistan etc. Now they want mandatory military service.

    LOL, remember a few years ago during Iraq how liberals were screaming in fear that Bush and Cheney were going to bring back the draft. Well, all you ignorant liberals just need to look down your own aisles to see who the REAL chickenhawks are.

    Morons. Stupid, delusional unproductive morons.

  5. “which includes both defending Savage’s rights and ridiculing him for being an ignorant ass all at the same time.” (Buddha)

    clear and succinct

  6. Markdpez and An American: how original. Really original thoughts and ideas. One of the reasons I am an ardent supporter of the First Amendment is that sunshine is the best disinfectant, and by allowing haters to spew their bile, it lets the rational people of the world see wheat they look like when the pointy white hood comes off. Good work. Others can see what genuine hate and racism looks like.

  7. An Americaaaaaannnnn,

    Please note that I didn’t make the statements you claim I did. I made no comments about Islam. I posted a Mother Jones article and a link to it. I suggest you learn to read better.

    So sorry I disgust you. It really breaks my heart!

    😉

    *****

    Markdpez,

    Even though it may not be original–the truth hurts. Sorry you’re clueless. I suggest you learn to live with the condition.

    🙂

  8. Elaine M

    Falling back to the liberal bread and butter

    Accuse someone of being a racist, sexist and homophobe.

    How original!! Whew!

    Clueless…

  9. Elaine… Ellllaaaaaine Elaine, you ditsy woman. As you posted

    :: The company’s YouTube complaint specifically targeted a Brave New Films video called “Michael Savage Hates Muslims.” In the video a nice photo of Savage posing by the Golden Gate Bridge is overlaid with soundbites of the shock jock railing against Islam, Muslims and the Koran. “I can see what it says in their book of hate … make no mistake about it, the Koran is not a document of freedom. The Koran is a document of slavery and chattel!” screams Savage. Kind of hard to disagree::

    You make some seriously… retarded… backwards, regressive, damaging to your own mind… what have you (but retarded works best) statements.

    Guess what, the word Islam means submission. The religion is one of control, not freedom. Every bit of the United States Constitution, with all its protections of individual rights (like the rights of women, you ridiculous creature you) AIMS AT THE HEART OF ISLAM. You would promote your own servitude to a man, would you like to not be able to drive? Would you like to make sure rosa parks always sits in the back of the bus as she’s a woman and hell, there’s no way a nation like suadi arabia would ever allow for any type of ‘civil rights movement’. Their version of civil rights consists of “How bout a nice warm glass of STFU or die”. Would you like to be beaten whenever your husband decides? Would you like to have 3 other wives sitting beside you? Would you like to see everyone who disagrees with the religion of your husband’s (not your religion as you are a second class citizen now and your opinion means jack sh*t compared to your husbands opinion) killed, enslaved or forced to convert?

    Or would you like to enjoy the various luxuries that The Western Cannon and its triumphs has to offer – i.e. WESTER CIVILIZATION? Would you like to ensure the rights of the INDIVIDUAL ARE ALWAYS HELD SACRED? Or would you like to continue arguing on behalf of those who hold what an individual like Mike Savage says is Hate Speech.

    You don’t even know what the word HATE means let alone defining it for use in a proper context. You and your kind disgust me.

  10. There are some on this site saying they ‘dont understand how savage can be banned while the English government allows muslims to preach hate, to promote the destruction of all that would stop the tide of Islam’.

    Do you all REALLY not understand? Think about it for just a moment, logically and you may find that it actually makes quite a bit of sense why muslims are allowed to preach hate while those who preach sense (savage) are not allowed into the nation.

    It’s all there to see, there are no coincidences or accidents people, those words are illusory.

    Unfortunately, as another poster stated… it may take the detonation of a WMD in a populated place in the states to wake us up over here… you’d think two damned airplanes flying into buildings would do that, but no… there are still some retarded folk in this nation who would have us commit suicide before fighting for the values of this great nation. As far as England is concerned? Ya, they’re SOL, they’ve given up already and there isn’t much which can save them, maybe unless the soccer hooligans decide to take over and whoop ass. That’d be fun to see 😀

  11. Puzzling,

    You do not have the right to force me to listen to your speech. I am not silencing you by refusing to listen. Savage, for instance, has no constitutional right to broadcast his hate on the radio. When a radio shock jock is fired, his freedom of speech is not an issue. He is free to stand on a soapbox in the park and talk to his heart’s delight. Within reasonable limits, one has the right to limit one’s hearing another person’s speech. See the recent Supreme Court case involving Reverend Phelps, the preacher who chants “God hates Fags” at the funerals of soldiers. Interestingly, Phelps is also on the banned-list with Savage. Funny that Savage never mentions Phelps’ freedom of speech…

  12. as a sovereign country england has the right to admit or not admit anyone it pleases. if you don’t like it, invade them, hang their sovereign, topple their government, and admit whomever you wish.

    deja vu

  13. Hate speech lol if you think savage spews hate then your already doomed. Ingnorance and the stick your head in the sand approach is what got the U.K. into the mess its in now! Smile and wave to the more than 10,000 closed circit cameras watching your every move, while muslims put your women in burkas and chant “we will chopp your head off” in the streets outside parliament.

  14. Jeffrey,

    You cannot bestow rights that you do not have yourself.

    You have no right to silence me, nor do you and your neighbor together have that right.

  15. Having perused many of JT’s blog entries about the curtailment of free speech rights in recent years, his concern is understandable. I take it that he has no issue with private parties banning the likes of Savage in their homes, clubs and society. That Savage should be publicly ostracized is one thing, that his speech should be criminalized is quite another. Given JT’s acknowledgment of Savage’s vile rhetoric, I trust that he wishes to hold him accountable. In a perfect world, upon Savage’s entry into England, there would be a mob of concerned citizens demonstrating outside of passport control chanting “Go home. We don’t want you here!” Were the populace to make Savage’s stay in Britain so unwelcome that he would not wish to remain or return, that would not violate Savage’s free speech rights. It is only because the government has banned him that JT objects. May a pro-active government do anything to stop hateful rhetoric short of imprisonment or monetary fines? Would it be permissible to publish a list of persons that the government deems undesirable and put it to the British people to decide whether to grant them the privilege of entry? Logistics aside, do not the majority have the right to shun undesirable persons? Savage, after all, is free to bullhorn his hatred to passengers on passing ships just outside Britain’s territorial waters…

  16. England is in the midst of loseing its national identity the majority of its politicians are afraid for thier lives because of muslim terror and this is just another nail in thier. Coffin the uk is a lost cause oh well they didn’t have much to offer anyways

Comments are closed.