Banned in Britain!

[jmervyn]

Banned in Britain!

SF radio host Michael Savage, banned from Britian: "Will they ban my listeners too?

Savage (constantly referred to for leftist laffs by his real name Weiner) is going to laugh all the way to the bank on this one, just as Geert Wilders has. What the hell is wrong with Britain? They endorse and support the foulest sort of hate speech by Islamists and then prevent anyone with opposite views from even entering the country?

 

[SaroDarksbane]

Re: Banned in Britain!

Best comment I saw:

Hey Brits: I think the guy's a stone waste of homosapiens too, but my fingers and the dial on my radio manage to keep his lunatic ravings out of my head without the assistance of any government, thank you very much anyway...

:thumbup:

Worst comment I saw:

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom of consequences. You reap what you sow.

 

[Tanooki]

Re: Banned in Britain!

I thought this guy was a riot.

Well done. Apparently weiner-boy doesn't know that the US Constitution applies only to the US, nor does he seem to realize that the Supreme Court has placed certain limits on one's right to free speech. But the part of the story that really shows how mentally damaged weiner-boy is is when he states "darn...there goes my visit to the restaurants of England for their great cuisine." Pardon my French, but English food is the worst. Boiled meat? Spotted dick pudding? Really, who ever heard of a resturaunt that served "English cuisine"? Only in weiner-boy's fantasy world, I guess.

 

[jmervyn]

Re: Banned in Britain!

I thought this guy was a riot.

Wow. And he uses the handle intended to resemble, "Ptolemy"?!

 

[AeroJonesy]

Re: Banned in Britain!

This is just the beginning in censorship of those that dare disagree with the left. I'm not talking underground secret silencings you might expect from the right, I'm talking full-scale, completely public. "Hate" is apparently the new "terror."

 

[Tanooki]

Re: Banned in Britain!

The funny thing is the so-called educated left can't see the difference between denying a visa to someone and publishing a list of people they don't want in their country. And to put a talk-show host on the list with murderers and criminals.

 

[Nazdakka]

Re: Banned in Britain!

Some more detail: Here's the list on the Home Office website (and here's the BBC's version, with slightly more detail). I haven't looked into all of these cases, but there appears to be far more Islamist names on there than others. However I'm not familiar with the output of any of the people in question, so I can't make a comparison.

@Aerojonesy: I don't think you can really link this to the current political climate in the US. Britian has had a theoretically centre-left government since 1997, and both PMs have come from similar political positions.

Also, I'm curious:

From the people who disagree with this, who has trouble with the principle of refusing someone a visa because you consider them to be guilty of hate speech, and who thinks that this practice is acceptable in principle, but is not in this case?

 

[jmervyn]

Re: Banned in Britain!

Also, I'm curious:

From the people who disagree with this, who has trouble with the principle of refusing someone a visa because you consider them to be guilty of hate speech, and who thinks that this practice is acceptable in principle, but is not in this case?

For my part, I don't believe it is valid to deny a visa based on unpleasant <opinion>; I wouldn't want to have granted Ian Paisley a visa any more than I wanted one granted to Gerry Adams, but the latter was a terrorist while the former was just a vile putz. But it's the inconsistency which is astounding.

Wilders and Savage can assuredly be considered purveyors of "hate speech" if one accepts the validity of such terminologies. However, the Islamists on the list are people who not only make direct threats to support their "hate speech", but even carry these threats out. There's no fine line between saying that the Qu'ran is a vile book of evil on one hand, and that Jews are actively trying to dominate the world through the Z.O.G. and must be stopped by force on the other.

 

[AeroJonesy]

Re: Banned in Britain!

@Aerojonesy: I don't think you can really link this to the current political climate in the US. Britian has had a theoretically centre-left government since 1997, and both PMs have come from similar political positions.

Britain is a few years ahead, but I think the point still stands.

From the people who disagree with this, who has trouble with the principle of refusing someone a visa because you consider them to be guilty of hate speech, and who thinks that this practice is acceptable in principle, but is not in this case?

I don't think we should deny visas to people with unpleasant opinions, provided they remain just opinions. What's really bad about this one, though is that there is no showing of any reasoning. It just comes out that Savage is banned from England because of his views. And it's not like they did a very exhaustive review - less than 2 dozen people were picked, and the rest were all guilty of much much much worse than having an opinion.

 

[PFSS]

Re: Banned in Britain!

Were all you guys equally upset when MiA and Cat Stevens / Yusuf Islam were banned from entering the US?

 

[Dondrei]

Re: Banned in Britain!

Britain isn't ahead, it's different, this sort of thing happens in most of the rest of the world. And has been happening for decades, if not centuries. You have freedom of speech (ish) and we don't.

 

[jmervyn]

Re: Banned in Britain!

Were all you guys equally upset when MiA and Cat Stevens / Yusuf Islam were banned from entering the US?

Not so much, since Cat raised funds for terrorists (Hamas). I'd readily grant that the <physical> tie to terror was weak sauce, and that granting Gerry Adams yet refusing Cat Stevens is hypocritical. Plus Hamas is violently anti-American, whereas the IRA was violently anti-U.K. but have moderated quite a bit.

Interestingly, Wiki claimed that Cat was later admitted to the U.S.

 

[Tanooki]

Re: Banned in Britain!

The difference, of course, was that the US didn't just announce one day that Cat Stevens was banned, and also announce a lot of Muslim terrorists. That would have been seen (and rightly so) as claiming that Stevens was a fellow terrorist.

This is what Britain is doing to Mike. He didn't apply for a visa to visit, and get rejected. His name was added to a list that was randomly published, mostly names of terrorists and members of the mafia. It was highly inflammatory.

 

[PFSS]

Re: Banned in Britain!

Not so much, since Cat raised funds for terrorists (Hamas). I'd readily grant that the <physical> tie to terror was weak sauce, and that granting Gerry Adams yet refusing Cat Stevens is hypocritical. Plus Hamas is violently anti-American, whereas the IRA was violently anti-U.K. but have moderated quite a bit.

Have you got a source for the Hamas link? I've had a quick look and can't find anything, all the info I can find at the moment suggests that he was barred due to his Islamic name appearing on a no-fly list.

Also - although the IRA have moderated I note that they were permitted to fund raise while they were still in full swing launching regular attacks on the UK - AFAIK Hamas has not spent decades regularly carrying out terrorist attacks in America.

Any thoughts on MiA being banned?

These are not the only two - a lot of people have been banned/blocked from entering the US, some for asshat reasons like a British Iman traveling with a British priest (IIRC) to attend a conference on improving inter-faith relations. And - to be fair - the British have refused entry to a fair few people too.

The difference, of course, was that the US didn't just announce one day that Cat Stevens was banned, and also announce a lot of Muslim terrorists.

That would have been seen (and rightly so) as claiming that Stevens was a fellow terrorist.

I do agree that it is weird to announce it like that, particularly since he did not have any apparent plans to visit the UK any time soon. I think it was a stupid thing to do if you're worried about more people listening to this guy as hardly anyone in the UK would have heard of him until recently and now thanks to free publicity from the UK Government he's probably picking up extra fans. TBH I kinda hope that this stupidity ends up putting the nail in the coffin for Jacqui Smith who obviously read 1984 as a guide to good governance.

I agree that he should be allowed in and agree that the list is weird, I'm just surprised at the hand-wringing over this given the US has blocked it's fair share of people with dubious levels of justification.

 

[AeroJonesy]

Re: Banned in Britain!

If he had had plans to go, and they blocked him, that's a different story. But to just come out with it, and the group they put him in makes no sense.

I agree about Jacqui Smith, though - she's scary. Does anyone like her?

 

[Tanooki]

Re: Banned in Britain!

I am 100% OK with the UK blocking Michael Savage, btw. They are a sovereign nation.

I just wanted to get that off my chest - deny visa to anyone and everyone you choose for whatever reason you want. But please at least wait until they've applied for a visa.

 

[jmervyn]

Re: Banned in Britain!

Have you got a source for the Hamas link? I've had a quick look and can't find anything, all the info I can find at the moment suggests that he was barred due to his Islamic name appearing on a no-fly list.

Here and here. They're editorials, but both refer to his being banned from Israel for having conducted fundraisers and personally donating 4000 Pounds to Hamas.

AFAIK Hamas has not spent decades regularly carrying out terrorist attacks in America.

True only thanks to your judicious use of the words, "regularly" and "in". Hamas has been devoted to killing Americans for decades.

Any thoughts on MiA being banned?

You should have provided a link - I hadn't the faintest who you were on about. If she isn't just vaguely supportive of the Tamil Tigers, but instead is actually urging or condoning violence (a rapper? supporting violence?! Heaven forfend!) then I find it reasonable.

These are not the only two - a lot of people have been banned/blocked from entering the US, some for asshat reasons like a British Iman traveling with a British priest (IIRC) to attend a conference on improving inter-faith relations.

Sure, and some who shouldn't be allowed in are permitted - the Saudis even bring their multi-wives and sex slaves into the U.S. and are assisted in keeping them from flight. Gogo freedom! :thumbup:

I agree that he should be allowed in and agree that the list is weird, I'm just surprised at the hand-wringing over this given the US has blocked it's fair share of people with dubious levels of justification.

I watched O'Reilly's discussion with the Times' American Desk editor - she suggested that the list was really anti-Islamist, and that rather than make it obvious she basically told underlings to go add some angry white guys.

I didn't know that O'Reilly and Savage despise each other. Neato.