Will the politically correct excesses of leftist government in Britain lead to a conservative backlash? Will America follow the same pattern?
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.…
Article comments
26 - Ruvy
Stan,
Don't you find it somewhat ironic that your role here seems more often than not to defend the perfidious Poms you'd rather laugh at?
The interesting thing about the letters from the British Home Secretary are that they are sent to people who have no plans to go to the UK. While the US has banned many people for no good reason at all, the ban usually (but not always) occurs because the bannee wants in. Moshe Feiglin is a book seller in Israel with no desire to visit the UK. But he was banned from her soil.
Stan, if I got such a letter, I call a press conference to announce it, and frame the damned thing. It's be an honor to be banned from the UK, considering what it has done to us in the past, and considering how Jews are treated there these days.
27 - STM
I just find it bizarre that the UK government is accused by Dave of tyranny for banning a couple of people it obviously thinks are troublemakers, but there's no mention anywhere of a government that now stands accused of real tyranny - some of which at a pinch might be seen to be justified considering the people it's had to deal with - in regard to its recent conduct all around the world.
I think I would have let Dave's premise go and put it down to Americans getting their priorities wrong once again, except for the bit thrown in at the end about how Obama is going to take you down this route because that's what the Poms have done.
Also, I don't see anything wrong with banning certain types of hate speech, or banning people who are going to stir up trouble that might result in others breaking the law as a result of it (indeed, the US Supreme Court has done just that in a de facto way in the past in a number of its rulings, particularly in regard to what might and might not constitute the limits of free speech as likely intended by the framers of the US Constitution).
Rightly or wrongly, that is also the thinking of the British Home Office. They've also included a number of fundamentalist muslims on their list of the 16-least wanted.
Christians don't escape, either ... If I understand correctly, Fred Phelps gets a guernsey too.
Which kind of knocks Ruvy's ridiculous argument about the British being jew-haters on the head as well.
If they were, we'd likely be down here too ... and we're not.
In regard to "hate-speech" ... people have other rights that might mitigate this right in some cases - and that is the case in the US too. And Ruvy, of all people on here, should understand that.
One of those is the right not to be the victim of people who break the law as a result of that hate speech. You know, we're trying to stop a repeat of the kind of madness that erupted in Nazi Germany as a result of the free-speech right to vilify an entire community.
The poms have taken thoat protection one step further: the right NOT to become a victim of prejudice and hysteria and NOT to be vilified, harassed, bullied or worse in your own country on the basis of sex, age, religion, lifestyle, etc.
IMO this is also a basic, fundamental human right.
B/tone's right. Dave's red flags are herrings and they're are rotting, and are now a bit on the nostril.
It's also plainly obvious to me that in the US, where contrary to popular belief the right to free speech is not absolute, it's OK in the public arena to have an opinion, provided it's not different to the one your critic opposes.
That is the bizarre thing about the US in regard to this. Prior to commenting on the internet on a range of issues and encountering many people from the US, I'd never experienced so many people spewing so much bile and spurious opinion.
And Dave, I DID read the whole of your story before I commented.
I know exactly why they do it, too: they've deported and silenced a number of fundamentalist, extremist muslims, some of whom believe in the veracity of jihad, and barred others from entering.
The London public transport bombings are a classic example of why theyb do this.
However, given Britain's large muslim population, they must be seen to be fair on this so they've made their decisions to apply that thinking across the board.
Make sense? It does to me.
Your tying this in with Obama doesn't.
28 - STM
Ruvy: "Don't you find it somewhat ironic that your role here seems more often than not to defend the perfidious Poms you'd rather laugh at?"
I also stick up for Americans when they are copping unwarranted sprays from people who are making judgments based on personal but not very well thought out prejudice, rather than on experience and reality.
On the Poms: I admire them from afar (from 13,000 miles afar), often begrudgingly I'll admit. I lived there too as a boy for a few years remember, so I have some fond memories. Half my family is from the north of England, the other half from Ireland.
I also have dual citizenship, which means I can visit the EU and stay anytime I want (unless I get on that Home Secretary's list).
Doesn't mean I want to take up the mantle, but I do find this kind of stuff annoying.
Really, they can ban who they want. I'd ban most of the people on that list of 16 too. At the very least, I'd hate to be sitting next some of them at a dinner party.
I believe there about four others on it too whose names haven't been released because the British government doesn't want anyone to know what kind of intelligence it has on their activities.
Remember Ruvy, the Poms are past masters at the spying game and intelligence gathering and if they don't want someone on their soil, they'll have a perfectly good reason for it.
In some of these cases, their fear is incitement (directly or indirectly) to "inter-community" violence.
Mr Savage may not fall into that category, or anywhere near it, but if they decide he can't enter after some thought about the issue, they'll have a reason that they consider is legit.
Savage has redress through the courts if he's worried about it.
That might be the answer. Then we can all find out what the British government is up to.
29 - Clavos
Gosh and golly forbid that what the current administration is doing with the economy might actually work.
Dream on.
Are you living with Alice -- through the looking glass?
Have you not been paying attention to the stumbling around (and fruitless wasting of enormous quantities of our money) that the administration's meddling in the auto business has accomplished?
Sheesh.
They can't pour piss out of a boot with the instructions printed on the heel!
The auto companies are (were) just a tad more complicated than community outreach programs, but hey -- he "won."
And the country lost.
30 - roger nowosielski
I happen to agree. It seems nothing was accomplished except for the impression that "we've done all we could."
31 - Dave Nalle
It's good that Stan called Dave out on this "bollocks" article. The US has banned many people for no substantial reason.
I agree. And that supports my argument that the same thing is happening here, we just aren't as conscious of it.
Dave's stearing all this baloney toward Obama's administration is more wishful thinking on "The Nall's" part.
You really do live in a world of wishful delusion. Go out and READ some of the things Eric Holder has said. If you're not concerned you're not paying attention.
Gosh and golly forbid that what the current administration is doing with the economy might actually work. What then?
If the current economic programs work then I guess we should welcome an oppressive and monolithic state and be happy with it, right?
Dave
32 - Franco
27 - STM
"I know exactly why they do it, too: they've deported and silenced a number of fundamentalist, extremist muslims, some of whom believe in the veracity of jihad, and barred others from entering.
The London public transport bombings are a classic example of why theyb do this.
However, given Britain's large muslim population, they must be seen to be fair on this so they've made their decisions to apply that thinking across the board.
Make sense? It does to me."
No STM, it not only dose not make sense, it's everything Dave said is was, and more.
Do to some extremist Muslims in Britain whom believe in and practice the veracity of jihad, who rightfully must be banned (and I agree), how is it (1) not tyranny then when non-Muslims who are non-jihadists (being selected across the board) when they are put in the same terrorist classification as extremist Muslim Jihadist and them also banned for it. And (2) how is it justifiable for any reason, least of all so Britain will be seen as fair on this to Britain's large muslim population, when in fact it only shows how unfair Britain is willing to be against freedom, all for the sake of appeasement to Muslims.
The only thing this tells British Muslims is Britain is so intimidated by them that British offices are willing to go to the extreme of depriving freedom to law abiding people who are non-Muslim and who are non-jihadist all to keep Muslims happy because some of their brethren are insane.
That’s about as tyrannical and fucked up as it gets STM, and the fact that you can not recognize it is disturbing to say the least.
33 - Franco
Prove it mate! Or except the fact and take it on the chin that liberals like you can't get into the ring of ideas and debate and win.
34 - STM
You can only judge whether someone's a "liberal" if they're American and holding certain political views within the American experience.
The label doesn't apply elsewhere. I'm so far from being a liberal it's not funny ... but as usual, you're so fixated on it you're too thick to work it out.
Like I say Franco, you're full of the brown stuff.
35 - Franco
If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck I choose to call it a duck. However STM, you are free to call it what ever you choose and to even claime there are no ducks down under.
Now if you what to continue to insist your not a duck, then prove it by dropping your unwillingness to get in the ring and prove I’m full of it, by defending your crack pot comments I highlighted and refuted in post #32.
Otherwise, like I say STM, take it all on the chin mate!
36 - STM
Franco, I can't be bothered wasting my time, to tell you the truth.
It's you who is the crackpot old boy.
I get the feeling that you'd be dangerous if you had half a brain.
37 - STM
Seriously, Franco, I'm not here to "refute" every half-arsed, spurious and ill-thought-out comment posted in reply to comments I might happen to make.
I have a view, and you're welcome to yours. I don't agree with it, but it's yours and you own it, not me.
It's not up to me to prove or refute anything.
In the meantime, try to take on board that the American experience of politics isn't everyone's.
True, I might be what you'd consider "left" if you were to judge it from the (very skewed) right-wing American perspective of politics, but I'm no bleeding-heart liberal.
38 - Ruvy
Stan,
I haven't answered you here because frankly, Technorati has been fucking up something awful lately. Eric Olsen had a great site, but he had to live by his wits. Now he has a job and his corporate bosses have told him to redo his site. So he and Phil Wynn have been working their asses off to reinvent the elegant wheel they had. Maybe this comment, sent in the dead of Ohio's night, will get through.
I've found most Aussies to be fellows who will give you a "fair go" as you like to say. If I weren't a Jew, I'd have considered very seriously moving to Australia and chucking the US of A. But the mohel took his tip - or rather mine - and here I am in the Samarian mountains cause it's cheaper by far than trying to get by in J-lem.
But Pommies have a bad rep here. They made a basic promise in international law - that is what the Mandate was - and they broke that promise. And in doing so, they held Hitler's coat for him while he murdered off millions of my co-religionists. There is no telling how many Jews would have come here alive if the Mandatory power had made the Hagana legal and told them to handle the Arabs for them so that Jews could immigrate and develop the country.
But the experience of lots of Jews was that the average Brit didn't particularly care for Jews. And now that the Moslems are shitting all over them on the home island, the Brits are afraid of the ones who are truly vicious and violent - the Moslems - just like they were in the Mandate. And they are bigoted against the Jews who are civilized - but who dare to believe they are the equal of the non-Jewish Brits.
Hey Stan, don't take my word for it. I know nothing on my own about what really goes on in Britain except what Brits in Israel tell me. Go read what Melanie Phillips has to say. She knows whereof she speaks.
39 - STM
Ruve, we've been over this before ...
Let's agree to disagree. Or at least, I'll agree to disagree with you, and you can keep giving me a bollocking.
I think the British did more good for the world than bad, and there were far wider issues at stake in the policies regardinmg The Mandate.
Not least of which was, what if an Arab uprising, a stab in the back, had led to the defeat of Britain whilst she was battling Hitler's legions in North Africa.
If they'd been defeated, and the Germans had got the oil, that likely would have been the end of ALL jewry outside the New World. It would also have given them a leg up through Persia into the caucasus.
It's always good to look at these things from every angle. For that reason, while they went back on their word, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to see why.
IMO, Jews should be thanking them for not caving in to Nazi tyranny (and a lot who don't look at this in so one-eyed a fashion actually do, even if they feel terrible anger about the Holocaust).
Whatever the case - it's become a circular argument ... which is also the reason I refuse to engage Franco here, because he doesn't want a debate, he wants to tell me what's right.
And I still say: lay the blame squarely at the feet of Nazi Germany, where it belongs, because without Hitler, we probably wouldn't even be discuissing any of this right now.
40 - Jordan Richardson
Franco, whereabouts is this ring of ideas of which you speak? I heard once it was in South Dakota, but I haven't been able to verify that.
41 - Ruvy
Alright Stan,
We'll agree to disagree. When I cite this stuff in future, it will not be aimed at you so much as a recitation of history.
I promise you though, that I'll never call you a liberal. I know better. I may say you are liberal with beer, or liberal with money, or liberal with banter - but I'll never call you a liberal. I suspect that a nastier insult might not be found.
42 - roger nowosielski
I think you should all lay off poor Franco. He's already foaming at the mouth as we speak, unable to form simple English sentences, becoming incoherent.
You don't want a casualty on your hands, do you now?
43 - roger nowosielski
You've got it wrong, Jordan. It's in a dungeon for trolls.
Franco is quite at home there, a real homeboy and an old-time favorite.
I wouldn't recommend stepping into that ring.
44 - Dr Dreadful
Roger,
Franco suffers from dyslexia. You should cut him some slack on that point if nowhere else.
45 - Dr Dreadful
Franco et al,
The reason Stan's so, um, amused at being called a liberal is that the Liberal Party in Australia are actually the conservatives.
Just imagine if the Democrats here decided they needed a name change and settled on The Conservative Party, and you'll get some idea of the illogicality of it.
46 - roger nowosielski
No wonder Stan almost hit the roof.
Give yourself a solid uppercut, Franco, straight to the chin.
47 - STM
Either way, I'm still not what Americans would call a "liberal". Despite having views that are normal in this country but would have me branded a real leftie in the US, I don't like namby-pamby liberalism as expreienced in America.
The good thing about OZ is that it understands that the left has a right wing and can be very conservative.
You can believe in universal health care, workers rights and still believe in free-market capitalism and tearing terrorists a new arsehole.
48 - Franco
"Franco, whereabouts is this ring of ideas of which you speak? I heard once it was in South Dakota, but I haven't been able to verify that."
This arena is wherever the ideas of liberty and justice take a stand against the ideas of tyranny (in whatever from it is being disguised as in today’s world politics), which is what this opinion piece right here on BC is about, and was specifically what my comment in post #32 was about, which no one has yet been willing to address, including you Jordon. But then again, and quite frankly, you already know all of this.
So your making derisive comments about such matters in the manner you have only shows your avoidance of this arena too, for your own reasons. While I can support your liberty to be able to walk away from it as you have Jordon, even though I do not respect you for doing so, be careful trying to claim you don’t know where it is, because that makes you entirely something else again.
49 - Daniel Turissini
Torturing people and not adhering to the Geneva convention? What's your definition of torture? 30 seconds of waterboarding and sleep deprivation?
Have you read the Geneva convention? People love to say we're breaking it, but read Article 4 of it and tell me if the Geneva convention applies to any of these idiots. Will you bother going through the trouble? I bet you won't, but if you don't, stop spreading misinformation.
50 - Dr Dreadful
Were we talking about torture?
Yes, Daniel, I read Article 4. How about, though, Article 3?
Whoops...
51 - STM
Still going on the old British tyrants theme eh?
I've forgotten what set Dave off now but I must say, the fact that a newspaper was able to expose the misuse of politicians' expenses by applying for the specific details in six cases through Britain'as Freedom of Information Act (in fact just the fact they've got one of those is a clue as to the nonsense of Dave's argument) is a great pointer to the fact that Britain is still one of the world's most progressive liberal democracies - and contrary to American belief, the first.
If info obtained through lawas made possible by an Act of Parliament, having been pursued by a newspaper, can then be used by that newspaper to drum up enough public outrage to shame MPs on both sides of the house (and possibly bring down a government), then I'd say there's no finer example of Britain NOT heading towards tyranny ... no going anywhere near it.
I'd say Americans need to look at their nation's own actions of late if they need a reality check on that score ... who the real tyrants have been.