British Home Secretary Savages Free Speech

From the desk of Luc Van Braekel on Fri, 2009-05-08 06:43

Michael Savage, the number three most popular talk radio host in the US with a weekly reach of 10 million listeners, has been banned from entering the UK. Not that he wanted to visit the UK, but his name is on a list of 16 unwanted people, including radical muslim clerics, neonazi's, white supremacists, murderers and terrorists. Jacqui Smith, the British Home Secretary, explains the decision:

"This is someone who has fallen into the category of fomenting hatred, of such extreme views and expressing them in such a way that it is actually likely to cause inter-community tension or even violence if that person were allowed into the country."

In a first reaction, Savage announced that he will sue Jacqui Smith.

"My opinions are more in keeping with the mainstream I am closer to the heartland of America than this woman. The whole point of the First Amendment was to protect offensive speech, not polite speech. And, I want to remind you liberals, whatever happened to your famous sayings from the sixties, 'I may disagree with you but I will fight to the death your right to say it?"

Here's what he had to say to Sky News:

A spokesperson for Talk Radio Network compared Savage to Winston Churchill and Jacqui Smith to Neville Chamberlain:

"Winston Churchill claimed that in the years leading up to World War II, he was banned from the BBC for a period of up to eight years. He was put into political exile where he was labeled ‘an extremist’ at a time his voice and free speech was needed most. This attempt at marginalizing Savage and Savage’s free speech is no less egregious than what Churchill experienced in the hands of Chamberlain’s government. It simply validates how history does repeat itself when history’s lessons are not learned by leaders of the modern age".

 

Michael Savage is not your mister nice guy. While Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, the numbers one two on talk radio's popularity ranking, have close links ties with the Republican Party, Savage rejects any political affiliation. His motto "borders, language, culture" summarizes his conservative and nationalist viewpoints on immigration and social issues.

Savage has turned provocation, exaggeration and anger into an art form. You don't have to agree with what he says to appreciate and enjoy his program. Here's my story of how I got to know Michael Savage. I was in the US at the time in 2001 when Chinese military held 24 Navy crewmen in custody after a US spy plane was forced to land after a midair collision. On my car radio, I heard Michael Savage plead for nuclear bombardments on Chinese hydroelectric dams, to "put that country back into the stone age for a few decades". I immediately realized that in my country, Belgium, any person uttering such language on the radio would be subject to legal action for "hate speech", and such a person would surely be fired from his radio station. Was Savage's call for nuclear retaliation a call for violence? Not really, since it was merely a call for a democratic debate on whether the state should use its monopoly on legitimate violence in order to defend its interests against the actions of a hostile country. There's no illegal violence in that. Sure, his call was rude, provocative, repulsive but most of all, thought-provoking.  I admired a country where freedom of speech was not only protected by the Constitution, but could be seen and heard at work like in the radio programs of Michael Savage. To me, his program was proof that the First Amendment was not some theoretical clause in some law book, but a fundamental driving force of American society.

A country that tolerates provocative speech (called "hate mongering" in European newspeak) like that of Michael Savage, and where such provocative speech does not provoke violent actions, has in my opinion reached a higher level of political and societal maturity than a country that deems it necessary to prohibit speech considered "likely to cause inter-community tension". Freedom of speech is intended for offensive speech, not for polite speech. Polite speech generally does not need protection. Prohibiting offensive speech does not solve any problem, it only hides problems from the public eye. What happens to people like Michael Savage, in the US or in a European country like the UK, is a litmus test for free speech and for liberty in general. If a country is not willing to tolerate the savage verbal provocations of a man like Michael Savage, it does not deserve to be called a free country.

Brendan is sluffed

Submitted by Brendan Scarborough on Sun, 2009-05-17 14:52.

I have a hard time keeping Jacqui, Hazel, and Harriet straight. OK it's Jacks this time.

Quote Jacqui Smith:"This is someone who has fallen into the category of fomenting hatred, of such extreme views and expressing them in such a way that it is actually likely to cause inter-community tension or even violence if that person were allowed into the country."

This insufferable cow, her party, and it's LibDem, Tory, Green, and UKIP co-conspirators have deliberately flooded the United Kingdom with millions of hostile aliens; and she has the unmitigated gall to reference likely causes of inter-community tension?

Muslims are running around Europe openly declaring their intention to Islamicise (through violent means if necessary) it's Christian - at the very least secular - Nations; these same Muslims howl their admiration for bin-Laden and Zawahiri; they joyfully tell us to expect our 911; they remind us of the Jews of Khalbar and how they will take our wives as war booty; they blow up civilians in the heart of the civilised world; they have set up racially segregated ethnic enclaves (colonies) in our homelands where the natives dare not tread; they riot in our streets when their every demand isn't met; they kill our people: Theo van Gogh and unknown numbers of the less notable; they murder Jews in the heart of Western Europe: Ilan Halimi; they demand and get their own Sharia courts: relegating their women to a mediaeval chattel status. And they tell us in no uncertain terms that they are going to take Europe from us. Inconceivably, Jacqui and her fellow collaborators in Westminster and throughout the capitals of Europe are helping them do it.

And this utterly nefarious, guzzling twat has the audacity to speak of inter-community tension, and bar from the country a loud mouthed conservative talk show host? Are these people pathological hypocrites, properly evil, or just simply insane?

Brendan Scarborough
BritNat

Amen, Brendan

Submitted by KO on Sun, 2009-05-17 15:36.

The liberal believes that the resources of modern civilization are infinite, that its cultural infrastructure is invulnerable, and that there is no cost to eliminating the patriotic, sovereignty-oriented, self-government-oriented citizens from the Western political scene. In Seiyo's terms, Pod Society believes it is invulnerable because the non-Pods protect it. According to Seiyo, that protection should be withdrawn. But is that surrendering too much territory, or only recognizing that the territory is already lost?

Remember Alfred at Athelney.

@ Capo'

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Wed, 2009-05-13 15:50.

Good to hear from you again. Perhaps I should have placed a question mark after 'Noble Savage' just like you did. It wasn't intended as a slur on either the man's character or intellect, it's just that his name is Savage and his intentions appear to me to be noble, so ... that's all. As for Krappert, his/her/its name would occupy all 16 positions on my personal 'unwelcome in the UK' (and all other civilised countries) list. Anyway, by now I'm hoping kappert has kept that promise and has decided to travel to Libya and shack up with some 'bedouin' named Ben from Benghazhi, never to be seen or heard from again.

Noble Savage?

Submitted by Capodistrias on Wed, 2009-05-13 15:23.

@Atlanticist

Oh no! You're a Jacobin. :-) (Back Kappert the Caliban, thou poisonous slave I told you, you will not populate this isle with more Kapperts)

Savage is not bad, I did pick up one of his books. Like most books of the type the shelf-life is about two news cycles.

As for Levin, without question the brightest and I think the funniest to listen to among the Conservative talking heads. His voice is a hoot and it is strangely fitting that the most insightful of the conservative radio voices is the most distinctive and grating to listen to.

I plan to look at his book in the bookstores, but hold off buying until the slew of used ones pop up in the used book stores.

@KO

While I agree with you that the '65 legislation was an atrocious piece of garbage, reflecting Teddy Kennedy's role, it was not the death knell for American exceptionalism and leadership in the Western world that would be Roe v Wade. After that we became no better than the French, i.e. Savages.

@ Capo'

Submitted by KO on Thu, 2009-05-14 11:52.

Roe v. Wade is indeed an abomination. However, as a power grab by the federal judiciary, it is one with a panoply of society-destroying cases on religion, pornography, the rights of criminals, the rights of vagrants, and racial integration. Without Roe, you would still have feminists and liberals advocating abortion as a matter of state law. So we would still be half-damned. But we would not make murder the law of the land.

Mark Levin (2)

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Wed, 2009-05-13 12:58.

@ KO

 

Having failed to gain a place on  Jacqui's 'least wanted list', I wasn't quite sure whether Mr Levin was worth the effort, but  if as you say  he's even savvier than Savage, I think I'll risk smuggling a copy of his latest book into the country, hidden in a crate of various Obama biographies, and to hell with the consequences. Thanks again.

savage (3)

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Wed, 2009-05-13 12:19.

@ KO

 

Thanks, I'll certainly follow up on that recommendation/suggestion. By the way, do you happen to have  read Mark Levin's latest book, 'Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto'? I've heard and read some good things about it but haven't (yet) managed to get my hands on a copy.

 

 

Mark Levin

Submitted by KO on Wed, 2009-05-13 12:34.

Atlanticist: I have not read that, and feel I am familiar enough with his views not to have to. He is an excellent political commentator, very bright, philosophically sound, careful, and well-informed. When I first heard him I thought he was just a Savage imitator, but then realized he was totally distinct, less emotional and with a wider policy focus. He publishes columns from time to time that should be available on the Internet. An excellent liberal-universalist conservative, representing the best of mainstream (or should I say Main Street) American opinion.

PS. Good exchange between Auster and Oz Conservative, Mark Richardson, on why classical liberalism needs traditionalism ("my country, my culture") to keep from drifting ever toward leftist tyranny. Linked on VFR.

Noble Savage

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Tue, 2009-05-12 19:28.

I know next to nothing about Mr Savage (other than what I read in the British media), but what I do know is this. The Nazis spoke about Ein Volk, ein Reich (Empire), ein Furher. The EU seeks to impose ONE Currency, ONE Union (Empire), ONE President, while Mr Savage is a 'Citizen Advocate' for One's Borders, One's Language and One's Culture, and faced with a choice, I know which sound bite resonates best with me.

Noble savage 2

Submitted by KO on Wed, 2009-05-13 11:40.

Atlanticist: Your modesty is appreciated, but you know less than nothing if you rely on British media for info on Michael Savage. Even our friend Mr. Millar and the pompous ass who sits at Dick Whittington's desk only spread misinformation. If you are curious, look for his books or seek out opportunities to hear him over the Internet. You might not get his best material, but you will will quickly see why the appeasing, multi-culti left hates him and wants to silence him. I will add that he is in no way a racist. "Borders, language, culture" has no racial component. In that sense, he is more liberal-universalist than he might be, i.e., more of a neocon, but the left is incapable of those distinctions. He is also thus more mainstream in American terms than more race-conscious conservatives like Lawrence Auster who publishes (and singlehandedly writes) the outstanding blog on politics and culture, View from the Right.

P.S. Based on its role as a vehicle for French and German influence and its continental system, we might refer to the EU as "le Troisième Empire."

To Frank

Submitted by dbostan on Tue, 2009-05-12 05:27.

I live in the USA and I know the situation well...

dbostan is quite right.

Submitted by Capodistrias on Tue, 2009-05-12 15:40.

dbostan is quite right. Clinton's election was the first 'shocking' reversal of our 'victory' in the Cold War and Obama may be the death knell for the great American Experiment. The Talk Radio crowd is for the most part nothing more than the screaching of a dying animal, as much a product of the cult of me and celebrity as the Left and just as impotent and sterile as a source for an American rebirth.

dbostan is at best half right

Submitted by KO on Tue, 2009-05-12 18:54.

Capo: Good to hear from you. Yes, talk radio has a bread and circuses aspect, but it is also a gathering place for a shared culture of conservative patriots. The key is to what extent talk radio communing is translated into political action. Some local hosts are local educators and promoters of political activism, with strong connections to conservative political leaders. That helps keep self-government alive. The national hosts are less effective as activists, but more effective as educators. Thus talk radio is only "the screeching of a dying animal" when it is consumed as a drug, not when it is a link in the network of patriots.

Taking Michael Savage as an example, he is a rude egomaniac, but also a truth-teller, artist, and patriot. He is a man, take him for all in all. "Borders, language, culture" is an outstanding slogan of broad application, consistent with classical politics. His performances can be experienced purely for aesthetic impact--a sort of 2-minute hate, if you want to take it that way--, or as participation in the culture of opposition to liberal America that can be translated into fertilizing conservative America.

I pick the 1965 Immigration Act as the reversal of our victory in the Cold War. It preceded Reagan, I know, but our national legislature voted to be Brazil, and no party or leader has yet reversed that vote.

@ Atlanticist911

Submitted by traveller on Mon, 2009-05-11 13:15.

The problem is that others will take care of that, we will just be "innocent" bystanders. But I promise you I will not stay innocent.

Pyrrhic victory (2)

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Sun, 2009-05-10 23:48.

@ traveller

 

Next to a battle lost, the greatest misery is a battle gained. Those are not my words, they are the words of the Duke of Wellington and he was a man who knew a thing or two about the importance of victory in battle. Hopefully you will be proven right and we will win this 'war', but a victory at what cost?

Thank God for the Bill of Rights

Submitted by Frank Lee on Sun, 2009-05-10 15:59.

@ dbostan

I always welcome hearing from Eastern European nationals who are able to critique both sides of the socialist divide from experience, but I beg to differ with your grim prognosis for the future of the United States regarding free expression.  Not only are our constitutional guarantees of free expression much more explicit and firm than in Europe, but whenever the leftist messiahs attempt to curb free expression here, they face an assertive electorate that will vote them out of office pronto.  Let me be clear:  I'm speaking only about America--not about Europe or Canada, where the electorates seem absurdly docile to me.  Furthermore:  I speak only about government curbs on free expression; the leftists have obviously succeeded in silencing free expression on university campuses and in many of the mainstream media.  But the example of Michael Savage, with his 10 million radio listeners, suggests that the outlook for free expression in the United States--even in the mainstream media--is not that grim.  Once again, the Europeans need to address their problems by themselves, without trying to drag the Americans into their mess every time.  Please stop pretending that the curbs on free speech in America are as socialist in nature as they are in Europe and that we are all in this fight together.  They're not and we're not.

Thank God for the Bill of Rights

Submitted by Frank Lee on Sun, 2009-05-10 15:57.

@ dbostan

I always welcome hearing from Eastern European nationals who are able to critique both sides of the socialist divide from experience, but I beg to differ with your grim prognosis for the future of the United States regarding free expression.  Not only are our constitutional guarantees of free expression much more explicit and firm than in Europe, but whenever the leftist messiahs attempt to curb free expression here, they face an assertive electorate that will vote them out of office pronto.  Let me be clear:  I'm speaking only about America--not about Europe or Canada, where the electorates seem absurdly docile to me.  Furthermore:  I speak only about government curbs on free expression; the leftists have obviously succeeded in silencing free expression on university campuses and in many of the mainstream media.  But the example of Michael Savage, with his 10 million radio listeners, suggests that the outlook for free expression in the United States--even in the mainstream media--is not that grim.  Once again, the Europeans need to address their problems by themselves, without trying to drag the Americans into their mess every time.  Please stop pretending that the curbs on free speech in America are as socialist in nature as they are in Europe and that we are all in this fight together.  They're not and we're not.

Savage on the internet

Submitted by Sonja on Sun, 2009-05-10 02:55.

I love Michael Savage! I listen to his show every afternoon. You can find a listing of his radio broadcasts at www.talkstreamradio.com. He's on between 3pm and 6pm Pacific Time, Monday through Friday. Tune in and judge for yourself.

@ traveller

Submitted by RepublicWarrior on Sat, 2009-05-09 23:05.

You omitted Japan which is forecasting roughly -6% as well. We're going to see some changes around here, that's for sure...

Phyrric victory aka topical # 6

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Sat, 2009-05-09 18:09.

@ marcfrans

 

True, 'emphyrrically' speaking, I have set up a bet/prediction that I cannot lose, but in winning that  bet/prediction I stand to lose far more than I would have gained had I lost. We agree, life is not fair.

@ Atlanticist911 & marcfrans

Submitted by traveller on Sat, 2009-05-09 22:52.

You will both win in the long run, after a lot of pain, in the coming collapse. The people will be fed up and will violently oppose our current "leaders" after the economy and the social security system will both be drawn down the drain.
Germany is forecasting -6%, the worst since WWII, and they are probably the only honest ones.

topical # 5

Submitted by marcfrans on Sat, 2009-05-09 16:26.

@ Atlanticist

Trust me too, I do not have much 'faith' in the current Cameron tories, but I do think that they can hardly do worse than the present lot. In this context of 'the (infamous) list', do you think that the Cameron tories would have a list?  And, if they did, would/could it be as pathetic as Jacqui Smith's list?    I doubt it. 

My point was that Peter Hitchens did not have a real "answer".  In general, among alternatives, one ought to go for the least bad one.   Promises of smaller government are 'something', but humans are bound to be disappointed. 

Atlanticist, you 'old fox' (of Amsterdamskian and Kappertian days), you have set up a bet/prediction that you cannot lose!!  Life is not fair.  

 

topical # 4

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Sat, 2009-05-09 14:26.

@ marcfrans

 

Trust me, Peter Hitchens is right about the "uselessness" of the Cameron Tories. I used to have the same 'faith' in this crowd as you appear to do now but no more. When the Cameron Tories win the next election and they WILL win that election, you'll get the opportunity to see the truth of Hitchens' words for yourself, and you can hold ME to that prediction.

Britain's not alone!

Submitted by RepublicWarrior on Sat, 2009-05-09 12:42.

The trends in Britain are especially fretful when one considers the extent to which PC has poisoned this society: even satanists are being granted chapels on Royal Navy's ships, so that everyone is satisfied, another step toward perfect inequality, soon they are going to prohibit anti-zoophilia speeches the same way they banned homophobia. But I'd like to add Britain's not alone on that boat: as a French, I can tell you the same folly is gradually pervading France. Of course, we don't have a list of our own (yet), but so-called homophobic and racist comments are banned altogether. Infringements upon free speech are more flagrant by the minute. Once they've succeeded in banning all "alien" opinions, they will go further still; we won't be able to prefer pears over coconuts because it would be intrisically racist to consider a more albescent fruit superior to one of a yellower hue. Then, they'll forbid anti-left speeches owing to their "anti-social" character, and the loop will be over. The slow march toward socialism will be complete. So, as someone said, welcome to the socialist club!

My (educated) two cents

Submitted by dbostan on Sat, 2009-05-09 07:05.

Gents,

As a refugee from Eastern Europe I can tell you that the Western Europe, is now part of the EUSSR, with all the censorship and miseries associated with marxism (socialism is a slower march to the "worker's paradise" than pure communism).

Unfortunately, the USA, in a moment of insanity and justified anger after the Bush disaster, decided to "elect" our savior, our comandante, or our secretary general, if you prefer, or get my drift.

In any case, the prognosis for the USA is grim at best, under the circumstances, so, "Welcome to the (socialist) Club!!

topical # 3

Submitted by marcfrans on Fri, 2009-05-08 22:39.

@ Atlanticist

Littlejohn is lucky that he has a British passport.  Otherwise he might find himself on....the list!

P Hitchens does not give an answer either.  Doesn't one have to row with the oars available?   The Tories obviously are suffering from the same negative cultural influences as labour, but don't they promise smaller government?  I know, promises are not always kept, but compared to others who promise bigger government.......the choice should be obvious. 

Labour Party Scum

Submitted by Lancelot Owen on Fri, 2009-05-08 17:20.

This is the same Labour Party scumbag who literally claimed for everything [from her bathplug to her husband's porn films] on her Parliamentary Expenses.

She is the very last person one would expect to find lecturing foreigners about “standards” and “values.”

This appalling woman is an expenses-fiddling, parasitic, socialist control-freak of the sort who are driving Britain into the ground.

Pure, unadulterated, Labour scum.

Very topical subject

Submitted by marcfrans on Fri, 2009-05-08 17:01.

Are there any lefties on the list?  And why not?  Surely, Ms Smith cannot think that 'hate speech' is a monopoly of any political 'side'.  Or does she?  Maybe she should have a conversation with George Bush, instead of indulging in mountains of hate-speech against him?

Besides the muslim nutcases and the Russian 'skinhead', are there any other non-Americans on the list?  Does Ms Smith think that unsympathetic speech does not exist outside the muslim world and America?   Or does she not know the world?

Ms Smith is still young, and apparently cannot yet fathom that she may end up her days wearing a compulsory burqa of some kind.  Perhaps by then she might come to appreciate free speech rights, but by then it will be too late.

And yet, I support any government's right to decide who can visit and who cannot.  It's what gives real meaning to the value and idea of national sovereignty.  But, it is also the duty of the citizenry (and of parliament in particular) to hold that government accountable for its actions.  So, come on Brits, hold Ms Smith's feet to the fire (so to speak) at Westminster.  Question the need for a list, demand clear criteria for 'the list', expose the hypocrisy of the current list, and....remember at election time who it was that judged you incapable of judging for yourself about the quality of other people's speech.  Ms Smith, a so-called 'progressive',  behaving like a kindergarten teacher (shhht...the children are listening) or, worse, like a 'paternalist' from yesteryear.  What a joke!   

Luc Van Braekel (2)

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Fri, 2009-05-08 13:10.

Ditto the words of traveller. It would be bad enough if this savaging of Savage was part of some coherent and consistent policy decision by our political masters, or in this case 'mis-trus(t)', but it isn't. And, how long will it be before Luc Van Braekel himself is added to that shortlist of 'undesirables'? Here's why I ask:

 

Quote: Under the new policy, ANY  non-British citizen, whether in the UK or abroad, can be refused entry into the UK if they have expressed views that... foster hatred which MIGHT (who decides?) lead to inter-community violence in the UK (or Belgium?). This may be either through WRITING ... RUNNING A WEBSITE or using a POSITION OF RESPONSIBILITY ...

 

Far-fetched? Let's wait and see.

Ban us all!

Submitted by KO on Fri, 2009-05-08 16:51.

To Jacqui Smith: As Michael Savage says, his views on sovereignty and culture are very much in the mainstream in the U.S.A. I suggest you ban all Americans from the U.K. on the presumption that they share his views. Perhaps psychological testing could be administered for those seeking to overcome the presumption--that is, to confirm that they really do suffer from the mental disorder, in Mr. Savage's words, that is liberalism.

To readers of TBJ: Michael Savage is an outstanding performance artist, at times visionary and poetic. His political material is good, but his best is his reminiscences. You should see if you can get his show via the Internet. You may be able to listen at http://am1280thepatriot.townhall.com.

Luc Van Braekel

Submitted by traveller on Fri, 2009-05-08 12:27.

Congratulations for a more than welcome defense of free speech.
If we don't resist to this socialist control of thought and speech we will shortly be slaves.