Wednesday, May 6, 2009

Land of Hope and Glory


Michael Savage will sue the British government for banning him from the country for hate speech.
I'm waving a Union Jack, eating Yorkshire pudding, and rooting for the Brits to prevail over this toxic goob. If he loses his lawsuit, I'll toast the Queen.  Gig 'im Redcoats!

Michael Savage, like so many other right wing dickheads, is more bluster than bite.  He probably won't go through with the suit, or it will be quietly dropped on the advice of his lawyers.

7 comments:

Katy said...

Is anyone else disturbed by the fact that Britten is banning people just because they say stupid things? Like you say, Savage is a talking head that is full of hot air, hardly a threat to national securaty.

I for one hope that he sues them and wins.

Leonardo Ricardo said...

Oh I don´t know...allowing a Anglican Bishop from Africa to come into the UK and talk Gods LOVE at ¨New Wine¨ while simultaneously instigating a witch hunt (one that persecutes/kills innocent Anglicans) on his home turf, smells of being an accessory to HATE CRIME!

Is it now considered ¨justified¨ to allow mass murderers to ¨preach¨ distractions while sturring up hatred and crime at the UK and beyond?

However, it seems the best I can hope for at this moment is a wise, and truly moral, Spanish Judge will issue warrants for arrest for dangerous hate-mongers and thieves...warrants for those who initiate murder, massacres such as Yelwa in Africa, while simultaneously attempting to cover themselves and their dangerous REAL behavior with righteous holyspeak abroad.

IT said...

Most countries do not have anything like our protection of free speech, including the UK. WE don't get to tell them how to do it and if they choose not to accept scummy American haters for a visit, they are entitled.

And we don't have much to boast about .After all, in the US, simply wearing a T-shirt can get you arrested, and we throw citizens into prison without trial. And we deny people entry simply for being folksingers .

ueber-g said...

I'm with Counterlight on this one. Incitement to Racial Hatred has been a crime in the U.K. since 1986. Incitement to Religious Hatred became a crime in 2006. There are similar laws in many European countries. As an American he has every right to free speech when in the United States. The United Kingdom has every right to deny him access, as they would anyone that they suspect would provoke a breach of the peace whilst in Britain. (BTW the US was denying entry to gays, for no other reason but their sexuality, up until just a few years ago.)

Brian R said...

Yes Katy
Any non-US citizen knows that entry into the USA is the most frustrating experience. Australians have been sent back home just because the US Customs official thinks they might break a law, (probably had indigestion).
I dread entry into the USA (last time I stood in line for 2 hours at LA after a 14 hour flight), almost puts me off visiting whereas Canada and Europe are a doddle.
Any country has the right to ban the entry of a non-citizen for whatever reason they see fit.

Counterlight said...

I go away for a few hours and I come back to a controversy!

If Michael Savage was being denied entry into the USA for his views, then that would be one kind of issue; a free speech issue in a country where that is officially guaranteed (and we deny admission to foreigners on the basis of controversial opinions all the time, and have done so for decades).

The British are entitled to admit or deny admission to whomever they wish. I think they have good cause to deny that permission here. They have plenty enough of their own haters stirring up trouble. They certainly don't need a foreigner known for his inflammatory views and rhetoric creating extra trouble.

Michael Savage's protests to the contrary just don't wash. His very pseudonym says it all. The reason his audience is so large is precisely because his rhetoric is so hateful and violent. He's popular for the same reason car crashes are popular; gripping bloody spectacle.

JCF said...

As Stanley Fish (convincingly, IMO) argued, "Free Speech" is never really free. Somebody pays the price. HM's Govt decided the price, in Wiener-Savage's case, was Too High.

It's hard to fault that judgment (again, IMO).