Michael Savage barred from Britain
Posted by Wellsy on May 5, 2009
British Home Secretary Jacqui Smith today released a list of 16 people barred from entry into the United Kingdom, a list which included radio talk show host Michael Savage alongside neo-Nazis and terrorists. Smith, saying it was a privilege to enter the UK, said those on the list didn’t conform to her country’s values and rules, and expressly singled out Savage’s “extreme speech” as incitement to violence.
Savage, for his part, has vehemently asserted that he doesn’t preach hate and violence, but “patriotic traditional values,” and says his lawyers are looking into legal action against the Home Secretary. His comments regarding the issue are worth reading, as he believes the banning for his speech says more about the British than it does about him.
I’m not going to turn this into a defense of Michael Savage or an agreement with everything he says or believes. I have indeed listened to his show, and while he is out there on certain issues, it is true that he doesn’t advocate violence towards anyone, just a vigorous defense of his own principles.
What I’m getting at is no matter what you think of Michael Savage or any of his past comments, none of it merits the complete banishment from a nation, and it certainly does not place him on a list with terrorists. The notion that he would incite violence within Britain is ludicrous, as in his long broadcast career, he or his comments, while providing heated water cooler discussion, haven’t started a single riot or one incident of violence.
The integrity of freedom of speech worldwide is severely undermined by this move, just as it was when newspapers around the globe were frightened into not standing with a Danish newspaper that caused Muslim riots after printing depictions of Muhammad. I am heartened by some of the comments on the British side that many there can see this as the idiotic move that it is. Here in America, Savage doesn’t attract many defenders from the left or right, but I’ll stick up for him here, and I hope you can agree that he doesn’t deserve to be barred from the UK simply based on his opinions and speech.
Update: Hot Air has weighed in.
Laurence Newman said
I just found out about this 8 hours ago, and I was shocked, so Heaven knows what Michael Savage thought when he learned of it. This is a sad reflection of how out-of-touch and draconian Jacqui Smith is. She’s unfit for purpose, as are most of her colleagues in the Labour party.
While they ban intelligent, passionate, and non-violent men like Savage, they’re welcoming muslims into the country by the thousands, and even introducing Sharia Law into our legal system. Michael Savage is a sane voice in an insane world.
Brendan said
“Michael Savage is a sane voice in an insane world.”
Sane people don’t suggest that young women who wish to be compassionate and help others only do it because they want the excitement of being raped. Michael Savage is filth, but he does deserve his right to free speech just like any of the rest of us.
Wellsy said
I’m curious when Savage said that and to what he was referring. I’m not disputing he might have said it, I’m just having trouble thinking what he might have been talking about. And as I said, I don’t want to mount a defense of Michael Savage, just a defense of free speech, and highlight how ridiculous it is to ban someone from a country for strong opinions.
Brendan said
The incident I referred to took place on his September 21st, 1999 broadcast on KSFO-FM. He was expressing his contempt for the homeless people of San Francisco, and while doing so, he brought up a Marin County private school whose female students assist the homeless of the city. He said that they do it because they “can go in and get raped by them because they seem to like the excitement of it…”
And then, of course, there was his treatment of 14-year-old kidnapping victim Elizabeth Smart, in which he implied she was some kind of slut or whore with his statement that if he wrote a book about her, he’d call it “Lizzie Does Utah.”
The guy is racist and misogynistic. His whole “free speech” tirade is funny, since he’s intolerant of other people’s beliefs if they conflict with his own, as evidenced by his NPR appearance in which he took on the mantle of victim for his UK banning, then insulted the first caller that was critical of him, threw a fit because it wasn’t just going to be a Michael Savage love fest, and hung up.
Brendan said
To be clear, I think his banning is a ridiculous overreaction to the guy’s opinions and statements, even if I do think he needs a good smack in the mouth sometimes.
Wellsy said
OK, I understand a little better now, as I wasn’t aware of those remarks. Perhaps he’s tempered a bit in the last few years. By no means will I defend everything he says, and of course Michael Savage is no polite commentator, and indeed is a bit egotistical at times, but I’m glad we agree that for a government to give him the same sanction as terrorists is just plain stupid. You’re always welcome around here, so feel free to stop back and comment in the future.