The United Kingdom has reaffirmed that freedom of speech is a strictly American concept. How? By reaffirming its baffling ban on American talk show host Michael Savage.
The ban was instituted, of course, because Savage had been convicted of building pipe bombs used to kill British soldiers. What’s that? He didn’t?
Well, it’s well known that Savage is a convicted felon who molested dozens of innocent children. What’s that? He didn’t?
Yeah, well, everyone knows that Savage called for the assassination of Queen Elizabeth. What’s that? He didn’t?
OK, but he had strong opinions that not everyone agreed with. And in today’s politically correct world no crime is worse.
The Daily Mail UK has the depressing details:
The Conservative-led British government announced in July it would only lift the ban initiated by the previous Labour leadership if Savage took back statements he had made on his broadcasts that were deemed a ‘threat to national security’.
And while the U.K has never specified which comments it found so dangerous, an attorney for the British government has stayed true to its threat, reaffirming the ban.
The Right-wing radio presenter, whose hardline views on Islam, rape and autism have caused outrage in the US, was identified in May 2009 by then U.K. Home Secretary Jacqui Smith as one of 16 people barred due to their political views.
The list also included hate preachers, Hamas terrorist leader Yunis Al-Astal, former Ku Klux Klan grand wizard Stephen Donald Black and neo-Nazi Erich Gliebe.
Now Michael Atkins, writing on behalf of the U.K.’s treasury solicitor, has told Savage’s London-based attorney the ban had to stick because Savage had not gone back on his ‘extreme’ comments.
Hell in a hand basket. ‘Nuff said.
See the actual legal letter sent to Savage on Tuesday: PDF
This post was last modified on January 26, 2021
View Comments (30)
Well, I heretofore had managed to not hear or read what Savage was banned for and assumed it was for some specific comment. I've listened to him in the past, not often, because of the time slot, and rather enjoyed his verve and passion.
I see now why he has been disallowed in the UK, and I must agree with the Brits on one point. It's fine and dandy to speak out against islamists and to have "controversial" opinions on autism. I must, however, draw the line at rape. As we all know, rape is an essential plank of the conservative/republican platform. I know this because noted braintrust Cameron Diaz warned that George W. might very possibly legalize it. If Ms. diaz says it, then I gotta beleve it.
When she said that I blinked and then laughed so hard. I wish I could have been there in the audience to laugh in her face. I actually did catch that as it was being aired (coincidence) and couldn't believe no one laughed. I would have laughed because it was the craziest thing I had heard from a stupid celebrity chick at that point in time. Oprah looked at her like she was wondering if she was okay. Of course that statement wasn't challenged either.
Just because some conservatives would ask a woman to think about having the child and putting him or her for adoption even if she unfortunately was raped, it doesn't mean that George Bush (nor any conservative) was going to make rape lawful. What a leap! It made no sense. Respecting life and not blaming the unborn for an unlawful and sinful act is not legalizing the act that lead to the unwanted pregnancy, it is just being humane and merciful on the most innocent human in the equation. I really detest celebrities when they open their mouths and speak their nonsense. Incidentally to this day I have not been to any of her movies after she made that statement.
I think that girl is dumber than a box of hammers. Good actress, but being an actor clearly is a test of mimicry, not intelligence.
For real... apes can mimic too although I have to say I have seen a few apes that would probably outscore what's her name on the SATs.
Hilarious.
Lol, did he call for a revolution in the British isles?
He should retaliates to this outrage: Speake in suppport for the the British Constitution Group, http://www.thebcgroup.org.uk/ calls for the people of the British isles to rebelle against the madness of political correctness. Against their corrupt, illegitimate and kleptocratic police state.
His supporters should have protests, calling for human rights and freedoom of speech outside of the British embassy.
To wax a little Bible-Beltish, I think there is a demon in hell named "Neville Chamberlain" whose primary operation is "placation" and it possesses the soul of British government.
It sounds plausible. Something went wrong with England. Perhaps around the same time politicians thought it was a good idea to include multiculturalism in their country and political arenas. Once it was okay for people to MAKE their surroundings like the surroundings of the country they left it created a cultural rift that we see now in that country. Immigrants should be invited to partake and integrate in the culture, not to change the culture they are in to match the culture of the country they left. I think that is at the core here, that MS is perceived as a racist and anti-multiculturalism and what not and insults the different cultures that habitate England. The reason I say that is because the other groups that are banned are mainly racist groups so I am assuming in this case that is what is going on.
Many things went wrong with GB. Mostly when they started the PC crap and taking in those that just flat out hate them. Just hoping that they would become part of the culture that was so WRONG!!!!.
GB has not been the same since Lady Thatcher left office.
Damn I wish they had come up with cloning in the 80's. That way Thatcher and Regan could have been cloned and put behind a glass with a sign that reads. When in cultural, economic turmoil or times of strife just break the glass and remove. Place in 10 Downing Street or 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Here is the tragedy of England: they came into the 20th Century a giant upon whose empire the sun never set. By the insanity of socialist thought and the "security" of group think, they limped out of the century barely an influence in the world. I'm no fan of monarchies, but I'm less a fan of Marxism dress up as modern liberalism.
I think The Kinks have said it best...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AuGFlP5Duuw&feature=related
The U.K. is a lovely little country with a glorious and oft violent past, but social-ism had nothing to do with its loss of Empire. The British simply recognized facts. They'd gotten the drop on a host of cultures across the planet, and rode it as best they could.
Do you think they gave up Hong Kong in '97 because of the NHS? Project to this day, how many billions would be subject to some 60 million poms? ;)
go ahead and rewrite history, downvoters
I would have to say that changing social values had a lot more to do with the sun setting on the British Empire. That and overextended resources.
Socialism may have made overextended resources a worse problem, but in general, when a nation has a bugbear to motivate the people with, even that isn't such a problem. Take North Korea as an example of that taken to an extreme.
You have a lot harder time maintaining an empire if people at home become sympathetic to their plight, or don't see the value any more. When the people are strangers, living in strange lands, doing strange things, and the only thing you know about them is an occasional line in the paper, it is pretty easy to not care about whether or not they have the government they want, but like your cheap imports. Put them on the six o'clock news, though, and things may change.
It all goes back to what Sherman said -- to win a war, wage war not on their *ability* to fight -- but on their *desire* to fight. The MSM is just more adept about it than he was. Ending some of these things may not be the plus that the MSM thinks it is -- I think that the world became a lot more dangerous & uncivilized when the British Empire started shutting down.
Overextension is the prime thing. The children grew up in school loving all the Pink Bits of the Empire (wrong or right). Despite detractors, if it was feasable to hold onto them, they'd have done so. But nearby enemies (like Germany) made the holdings less relevant, and faraway enemies (like Japan) made them decidedly UnBritish for years on end. Plus, Britain was broke and broken from WW2, and the old colonies were much vexed..
Unlike the French, who stupidly and expensively fought to hold onto theirs (even getting us mired in a sh-tty war), I like to think the Brits saw the writing on the wall.
The Brits had other institutions as well that had a stabilizing influence that the French never had. Read Kipling, and his description of the social networking encouraged by freemasons and how they provided a moderating influence.
In order to join, candidates had to be of good character and profess a faith in a supreme being -- which meant that Christian, Muslim, Jewish, and Hindu were all engaged in social networking before it was even a concept.
It provided upward mobility into British society and made the new members adopt other customs and control their passions. Personally, I think that the waning of the masonic orders post WWII had a lot to do with the Empire's decline. Just like how polygamy yields a surplus of disaffected youth that turn to fanaticism and violence, youth with no "social binding" are vulnerable to being indoctrinated by revolutionary types.
It is a lot harder to be pissed off at the world when you are working to take care of your family, and feel confident that the people you hang with will take care of them if something happens to you. IIRC, in 'Kim', the orphan boy, once it was demonstrated that his father was a member, had his education paid for.
Oddly enough, I am not so fond of the British Empire, given that a certain young Lord of the Admiralty had a role in shipping war materiel in the Lusitania, what with all the "cheese", and the "furs" on board, giving a person the impression that we got manipulated into a war.
He, of course, redeemed himself admirably later...
He was remarkably prescient in foreseeing that Great Britain needed both Airpower and an American Ally in its future.. Perhaps a bit dodgy, yes, tricking the big ole dog into the fight :) I'm generally of a mind that Germany was no little more at fault for that particular war then either France, Russia, or Britain
The other thing this tells me is that no matter how great a friend an ally is, they retain their own interests (if they know what's good for themselves), and we had best do the same.
It's one thing to get drawn into a conflict because it serves our interests, and it's another to get led down the ol' primrose path.
Try this one out. About six months' worth of free reading -- the US Army Green books about WWII
http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/USA-in-WWII/
ibiblio has other stuff, too.
@Ruben no i haven't, it looks completely fascinating actually (via Amazon discussion), and seems a tad familiar. Thx for an awesome tip
The last mighty WW2 tome i read was Toland's Hitler bio, and that was like 14 years ago, and a damn fine read
alien, have you read any of Buchanan's stuff... particularly, "Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War"?
If so, I would like to know your take on it. Thanks.
The downfall of the British empire started in 1776, when a ragtag bunch of independent thinkers kicked their ass and this wild, wonderful country we call America came to be.
The war of 1812? Same thing. Americans proved once again that we would not tolerate a re-colonization of our country. We would not tolerate interference with our shipping industry and trade with the rest of the world
Durning our civil war Britian tried to help the Confederacy because they needed the cotton grown in the south. We all know how that itiotic waste of lives turned out, our country became even stronger in the long run.
Since then, we have saved British butts twice. Think about the first world war, then the war to end all wars, WW11. Without American support the "empire" would have fallen by 1943 and Brits would be speaking German today.
I feel sorry for the good, hard working British citizens. Like so many in our own country, they have become so complacent, thinking the government is the answer, that they are in danger of losing their country. And we will too if people don't wake up and look at what our own politicians are doing.
1812 wasn't about recolonization.. it was about spanking the new country around, pissing on our shores, and defending what remained of their territories in Canada. They even managed to burn our capital, in a war that we declared
British merchant vessels did run the blockade of the Confederacy, but its not as if the British Navy itself tried to crack it open. Lincoln was very firm with them: direct assistance of the South would lead to an unanswerable invasion of Canada.
And you discount the valor of Churchill and the Spitfires in the Battle of Britain. Maybe a few dozen Americans lied about their nationality to fly with British airmen, but it was the Luftwaffe screwing themselves when they began bombing cities instead of airfields on Hitler's order (yay, The Blitz, one mistake among many).
By spring 1941 Hitler is losing interest and knows the British will Never Surrender. Besides, he has a whole Soviet Union to invade (yay, another mistake). NOW Roosevelt signs Lend-Lease, but the Battle of Britain is already won.
Our involvement in the European theater just happened to liberate Western Europe, and we can be damn proud of that. Otherwise, they all might still be speaking Russian by now.
Excellent point Ruben!
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."
Winston Churchill
Sir Winston is getting to 10,000RPM.
Their lame ass excuse is another fine example of why the US needs to stay away from ever attempting to doing anything like what the British do when it comes to social policies.
Dr Savage has passion and stones and that is what really pisses off those with in CAIR and other so called moderate Islamic groups.
Whats next, we all have to wear a brain scanner so the thought police can see what we are thinking?
I listen to Michael and while his presentations are not without passion, there is nothing in them to recommend censure. The Brits are doing this for ACORN, or Soros, or O, or Hillary, or someone high up the marxist-socialist food chain. Michael does not deserve this and we should share this post with all of our FB friends!
Have to state the obvious but they are now trying to placate radical moslem fundies (make sure and scroll down far enough to see the familiar pics and ready the story to see who gets the blame for radical moslems acting up):
http://www.thesniper.us/?tag=england
So basically without actual quotes for him to renounce they just want him to give a blanket statement renouncing everything he has said just in case so he can go to England? I am sure he will survive not going to England.
I may not agree with his moody delivery, but I don't often find much wrong with his analysis.