There's no point in trying to understand the inexplicable popularity of Michael Savage, except to speculate that there is some correlation between raging intolerance and having plenty of free time to listen to the radio. Savage is humorless, bombastic and chock-full of bad ideas, another in the robot army of faux conservatives who mistake intolerance for morality and prejudice for principle. If there is anything to distinguish Savage it is that he's just a little bit more bitter and sarcastic than his competition.
Savage is successful. His show has one of the largest audiences in the U.S., lagging far behind Rush Limbaugh, but ahead of most of his other competitors. And despite his vitriol and harsh rhetoric he's hardly the most offensive or most politically extreme voice on the airways. Yet somehow his combination of popularity and offensiveness came together to bring him to the attention of Jacqui Smith of the British Home Office, which has put him on a list of controversial figures who would be banned from travel to the UK because of their activities.
The list of 16 international figures who have been "named and shamed" and barred from Britain by Home Secretary Smith includes mostly known terrorists and others much more closely associated with violent criminal behavior than Savage. He seems to have been selected primarily because of his high profile and to bring attention to the efforts of the Labour government to promote political correctness. While Savage's statements may be controversial, there is no history of violence from his listeners or associated with his program, and he has never promoted violence or antisocial behavior. Apparently the main problem with Savage is that he's conservative, and that political viewpoint is no longer acceptable in Labour-controlled Britian.
Savage is also not the first public figure to be banned from Britain for exercising free speech. In February Geert Wilders, a Dutch film maker and member of parliament, was banned from the country when invited to introduce a presentation of his controversial film on the Q'ran in the House of Lords. Like Savage, Wilders is extremely conservative and part of the Dutch libertarian movement, and like Savage he has never been known to advocate violence or to be associated with followers who engage in violent activity.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Ruvy
Dave,
I see you managed to fail to mention the fact the blonde British bitch pictured in your article also banned Moshe Feiglin from Albion.
Let's see, Dave. Geert Wilders is pro-Israel, Little Mikey Wiener (what you call "Savage") is Jewish, though he doesn't admit to it on air, and Moshe Feiglin is a Jewish politician pursuing a Jewish vision for Israel.
In my book, that adds up to the standard sheeny-bashing Brits love to indulge in and deny later. We call it Jew-hatred, Dave. Do you wonder where that contemptuous tone of mine comes from?
2 - Dave Nalle
Interesting, Ruvy. I hadn't considered that angle. But she did balance it out by banning a bunch of muslims and nazis too, not to mention Fred Phelps.
Dave
3 - jamminsue
I don't know much about this, but have found the "PC" people to be as scary as someone like Savage or Limbaugh. This idea of sensitivity has progressed way, way, too much. For instance, today I tried to write mailman in a Word doc, which suggested changing it to Mail Carrier. The person who delivers our mail is of the male gender so why would that be wrong?! The fear mongers of every stripe are out in force, as usual.
4 - Dr Dreadful
Traditionally this kind of travel ban has only been imposed when there are public safety concerns. The Savage one is a bit mystifying, since I suspect 99.9999% of Britons have never heard of the idiot. Likewise with Moshe Feiglin. I don't see how public safety is being compromised there, unless the Foreign Office knows something about these two that the rest of us don't.
Wilders, though I didn't agree with the ban (and neither apparently did most of the Muslim members of the House of Lords where he'd been invited to show his film), is a bit more of a cut-and-dried case. He may not advocate violence himself but he's exactly the sort of figure the N3s (Neo-Nazi Neanderthals) love to latch onto as a herald. (They wouldn't much care about him being pro-Israel as long as he gave them an excuse to give a good kicking to someone.)
Dave's right about the Conservatives probably winning the next election. Unfortunately, the wrong person is at the helm. David Davies, a thoroughly principled man whom I like more than any British politician in a long time, ran for the leadership twice on a libertarian platform but lost both times. With Cameron as PM, don't expect the laws Dave is concerned about to be rolled back, at least not in a hurry.
5 - Dave Nalle
Dr. D. What the UK needs is for Daniel Hannan to run for parliament (British, not EU) so that he's eligible to be PM. I'm sure there are Tories who are working to make that happen.
Dave
6 - Dr Dreadful
I'm sure there are, but Hannan embodies exactly the sort of politics that made the Tories unelectable in the first place.
I'm rather surprised you're enamoured of him, since he's a Paulite and a conspiracy theorist. He also has his rather effusive praise of Iceland's 'economic miracle' to live down.
7 - STM
I reckon Savage just can't understand how those upstart Poms would want to ban a Yank.
Now he knows ...
Most Yanks are welcome. Those who'll be stirring up trouble, whether they're doing it on purpose or not, won't be.
Cut the hyperbole, Dave. It's not tyranny.
The Home Offuice has a right to ban anyone it wants, just like US immigration.
I can reel off a list as long as your arm of people who have been banned from the US (on arrival, after paying a small fortune for airfares and holiday accommodation) just for having dodgy (read: non-Anglo) sounding surnames.
Don't see you writing about that tyranny, though.
8 - M a rk
Dreadful, you seem to forget Dave's effusive praise of Ireland's economic miracle. Aren't he and Hannan 'birds of a feather'?
9 - roger nowosielski
Mark,
Have you got some response for me? I'd like to get something from you before I submit.
Roger
10 - roger nowosielski
Doc,
About a year ago, there was a "similar" incident in the UK. One of the most popular radio talk-show hosts - if my recollection serves me, very critical of the Mayor of London - was taken of the air. Do you recall the incident?
Perhaps they have a different policy in the UK as regards free speech on the public airways.
11 - m A Rk
Rog, probably better to publish, and we can discuss reification on your thread.
(btw, I'm having a bit of difficulty bracketing your recent aggression toward Cindy's 'arsehole' and maintaining a sympathetic attitude.)
12 - roger nowosielski
Well, that how I see it.
13 - Dave Nalle
Don't see you writing about that tyranny, though.
I considered it, Stan. Didn't want to muddy the waters, however. When I found all the other info on repressive measures from the home office that seemed like a better thread to pursue than the equally stupid US behavior in banning people like Yusef Islam.
Doc, I'm not entirely opposed to Ron Paul, I just see his feet of clay. From what I've read of Hannan's work he's not nearly as far out as Paul's more radical supporters. Apparently he's much more popular here in the US than he is in the UK.
And for the record, I've been known to praise Ireland and have nothing positive to say about Iceland's amazing ability to bankrupt themselves.
Dave
14 - STM
Rog: "About a year ago, there was a "similar" incident in the UK. One of the most popular radio talk-show hosts - if my recollection serves me, very critical of the Mayor of London - was taken of the air"
Highly unlikely, Rog, just for being critical.
Besides which, the Lord Mayor of London has no power whatsoever to make such decisions.
In fact, he virtually has power at all - he/she has more of a ceremonial role that covers the one-square mile of the Corporation of the City of London.
Perhaps you are thinking of Boris Johnson, the elected Mayor of London. He doesn't have the power either to take anyone off air.
Besides, Britain, btw, has a - very - free press. People in high positions - including the Queen, the PM, just about every politician and bureaucrat and functionary who does something stupid or criminal, even other members of the Royal, are constantly criticised in the British media.
I know, I've worked there. They usually use both barrels too, not one.
If this certain radio talk host has defamed/slandered/libelled someone, however, that's different matter.
The British have other rights ... one of them is the right not to have your reputation, career, good name or life ruined by claptrap, rumour, innudendo and unfounded nonsense repeated by idiots - unless, of course, it's done legally in a court of law or Parliament.
The US has the same (or a very similar) law of course, except that to get around it you only have to say you believed it was true at the time you said (or wrote) it, and you're a big chance of getting off.
Not always though.
In the US, truth is an absolute defence to defamation (as it is in Australia and some other other commonwealth countries).
In the UK it is a defence, along with fair comment, and privelege (said in Parliament or a court of law or reported in the public interest, for instance in the case of a politician suspected of corruption).
Defaming people, however, especially where legal action is concerned and it's considered there are no mitigating factors, can often result in media personalities losing their jobs or being taken off air.
Maybe your answer lies there, not in different ideas of what constitutes free speech in the public interest.
15 - STM
The British also have a list that's a bit like the FBI's mist-wanted list.
Except it's called the least-wanted list.
They are the ones the Home Office doesn't want in the country.
I believe at least one US radio talk show host has been on the list ... and in the great tradition of American free speech, has indicated (or has actually done so) he will sue the British government, with delicious irony, for ... you guessed it: defamation.
16 - Clavos
The British also have a list that's a bit like the FBI's mist-wanted list.
When is the FBI going to quit picking on foggy people?
17 - STM
Typ :) Make that "FBI's MOST-wanted List".
The mist-wanted list is probably still sitting in a locker somewhere, and the only person who had the key was J.Edgar H.
18 - STM
BTW, Dave, I think the whole story is bollocks.
The US has been flying people around the world, torturing them, holding them captive without resort to habeas corpus, using kangaroo courts instead of the criminal justice process, not adhering to the Geneva convention, banning people on the doorstep because they sound like they have an un-American name, wiretapping people, instutiting laws that allow the authorities to hold terror suspects without trial, and generally embarking on a new era of McCarthyist "un-American" bashing ... and the Poms are resorting to tyranny because they ban a "shock" jock.
Please, Dave, spare us the bollocks.
Simply, the home office doesn't want this bloke there because he's considered by them as undesireable. Considering they decide who's allowed in the country, it's their call, don't you reckon.
You'll be on the list next :)
And it's not a path Obama's likely to take you down. Nice work for tacking it on the end, though, of what was an otherwise quite informative piece - even if I don't agree with your reasoning (nor Ruvy's paranoid delusions).
Beides, it's a bit like the pot calling the kettle black. You've been - in the US - one of the most oppressive "free" societies on the planet for at least the last two presidentianl terms, and for many others on occasion before that.
Oppression can take different forms, too, can't it?
Lucky a few people here - well, most, actually - can see past your bollocks, Dave, when it comes to this kind of claptrap.
19 - roger nowosielski
Yes, STM. It was Boris Johnson.
20 - roger nowosielski
I can't think, however, of the name of the radio talk-show host, very popular one, BTW, whose show was canceled.
21 - Dave Nalle
The US has been flying people around the world, torturing them, holding them captive without resort to habeas corpus, using kangaroo courts instead of the criminal justice process, not adhering to the Geneva convention, banning people on the doorstep because they sound like they have an un-American name, wiretapping people, instutiting laws that allow the authorities to hold terror suspects without trial, and generally embarking on a new era of McCarthyist "un-American" bashing ... and the Poms are resorting to tyranny because they ban a "shock" jock.
Sheesh, Stan. Hard day? You usually manage to read past the first two stories of an article before commenting on it. If you had read on, you'd have seen that the focus of the article is not the banning of Savage, but the overall draconian and anti-liberty policies of the Labour government in Britain, of which the Savage ban is just one of many symptoms.
As for all the evils you ascribe to the US, some are true and as you damned well should know, some are false, but none are relevant. The misdeeds of one country do not excuse the misdeeds of another.
Simply, the home office doesn't want this bloke there because he's considered by them as undesireable. Considering they decide who's allowed in the country, it's their call, don't you reckon.
Actually, I'm about 101% sure that they put him on the list because they knew it would stir up controversy, raise the profile of this program and win them votes with intolerant and sanctimonious voters.
You'll be on the list next :)
I've been on lists before.
The point is that I don't see why we have to tolerate this kind of behavior from our governments, either in the US or in Britain or in Europe or anywhere else.
Dave
22 - Dr Dreadful
Roger,
The radio host in question was James Whale, a wannabe American-style shock jock. He was fired for telling his listeners to vote for Boris Johnson as Mayor of London. In doing so he violated the Broadcasting Code, which prohibits broadcasters from endorsing political candidates.
23 - Dr Dreadful
Yes, it's a daft rule, especially since the national newspapers are, with one arguable exception, blatantly partial. Then again, newspapers aren't using the public airwaves to broadcast their opinions.
24 - roger nowosielski
Thanks, Doc.
25 - Baritone
Dave continues to see evil fellow travelers behind every tree and believes that the bad liberals are wearing sheep's clothing, lying in wait to devour all the good, unsuspecting America loving conservatives.
It's good that Stan called Dave out on this "bollocks" article. The US has banned many people for no substantial reason.
Dave's stearing all this baloney toward Obama's administration is more wishful thinking on "The Nall's" part.
Gosh and golly forbid that what the current administration is doing with the economy might actually work. What then?
Meanwhile, Dave keeps sending up these supposed "red flags" (pun intended,) which are really nothing more than red herrings, about how all of our rights are going down the tube. Believe me, comrades, when I say, nothing could be further from the truth.
B