May 6, 2009

"Well, I don't know who this pork eater is, but I have a question for her."

"I hear she is the Home Secretary of the former England. When has this witch heard my show, since it's not syndicated in England? When has this witch listened to my program in England? And which show or shows is this witch referring to?"

45 comments:

rhhardin said...

She sounds Canadian.

Pogo said...

One good line from Savage:
The Magna Carta is now the Mini Carta.

garage mahal said...

Reading the comments at the link was pretty eye opening. The most hateful asshole in America who has a microphone everyday to say whatever he wants is getting muzzled by "the left" [here]...because they hate him in Britain?

Rose said...

Geert Wilders was the canary in the mine. Free speech is dead in Britain if this is allowed to stand.

Those who butcher their women and blow up the subways are protected. And a man who points out that this is wrong is barred from entry for being "too controversial." Sharia law is instituted so 'honor killings' (murder) can be forgiven, and a man who says this is wrong is barred from entry to a free nation. And the world stands silent.

LIke Savage or not - I happen to like him - this is wrong. Every single American should condemn this. OUR PRESIDENT should condemn this as madness. But he won't.

And we will all pay the price.

rhhardin said...

Parva Carta.

It's irregular.

Latin words cheap.

traditionalguy said...

Savage should convert to Islam and then the Great British pretense of freedom would turn and have his persecuter arrested for "Hating" Savage Ali Mohammed, the most Honored Imam.

Salamandyr said...

I think England would be better served worrying about the radical mullahs who preach for the destruction of England while living on the dole than some schmuck on the radio.

That being said, I don't really care for Jerry Brown supporter Michael Savage, and so find it hard to have sympathy.

Joseph Hovsep said...

The First Amendment prevents the U.S. government from punishing you for saying offensive things. It does not insulate you from other consequences.

Theo Boehm said...

Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said, "Coming to this country is a privilege."

Surely she exaggerates.

dbp said...

Savage is just a beard so that they can ban actual Islamic terrorists without looking like they are singling out Muslims.

Seems to me like an expedient, but short-sighted move by the UK.

Maguro said...

The real targets of this list are the Muslim preachers. All the rest, including Savage, are just there to make the British government seem "even-handed" and politically correct.

Joseph Hovsep said...

"pork eater"? what's up with that?

Salamandyr said...

Savage is just a beard so that they can ban actual Islamic terrorists without looking like they are singling out Muslims.

Seems to me like an expedient, but short-sighted move by the UK.
Interesting. I did notice they had banned some Muslim preachers but the news makes them almost an afterthought. This really isn't a rights thing. Countries are well within their rights to deny entry to anyone they want; a right I wish the US would use somewhat more aggressively.

AllenS said...

My great great grandfather left England shortly after 1851. Thanks, Eli!

1jpb said...

It is interesting that Savage likes to attack the professional conservatives.

Sure, he is himself an attention whore and windbag who supplies the very much in demand empathy (the poor-is-us-conservatives empathy, which, as everybody knows, is the only just empathy) for the endlessly persecuted audience (as these helpless conservictims see themselves), but it's still nice to see Mike call out the other professional conservatives.

And, a few weeks ago he had Jerry Brown on his radio show. It was odd to hear that those two had a fair amount of chemistry. Maybe the political spectrum is an arch rather than a straight line, so the far left and the far right actually start to coincide. [Not that Jerry Brown is as extreme as Savage/Wiener, but he's had his moments.]

goesh said...

Witch - we don't hear that word very often these days

m00se said...

Savage is a twit, but even twits should have the freedom to come and go, particularly given the UK's crop of home grown twits.

This is somewhat akin to one shithouse rat complaining of the other's smell...

Revenant said...

Savage is apparently a moron; I haven't heard his show, so I can't say for certain. But I find it odd that he made the list, given some of the other names on it -- e.g., mass murderers.

But I don't think there is anything wrong with denying people entry to your country if their beliefs are extremely offensive to the citizenry.

Jeremy said...

Savage was on Talk of the Nation yesterday. They took a caller who got like two words in before Savage called him a "pajama wearing lunatic in an mental institution" and threatened to hang up. Host Neal Conan told him to go ahead and he did. He was spectacularly awful. but from the little I've heard him before, that's kind of his MO, no? Reminded me a bit of the famous Terry Gross/Gene Simmons interview.

I don't support the ban, but if the UK wanted to make an Official List of Total Jackasses, I'd support Savage being on that list.

-The Other Jeremy

bearbee said...

Never heard of Savage but if he is being barred shouldn't the Obamas be barred for their bad taste in gift-giving?

Fred4Pres said...

Hey, the Terry Gross/Gene Simmons interview was awesome radio.

As for Michael Savage, I am not a fan but I have listened to his show. Michael Savage is a nut job, although I admit I like hearing him talk about growing up in the Bronx. Savage, whose real name is Michael Wiener used to be friends with Ginsberg and Ferlingetti, before he started this whole "Savage" thing. But to ban him from the UK? Rush is mad he did not get banned. What publicity.

Palladian said...

"But I don't think there is anything wrong with denying people entry to your country if their beliefs are extremely offensive to the citizenry."

Are the beliefs offensive to the citizenry or the government? How does the citizenry of England feel about all the nice Islamic extremists who were freely allowed entry to the country? Did they get to have a say in that?

This has nothing to do with the content of the speech or the character of those denied entry to England. Savage is either a brilliant performance artist or a repugnant moron (I think both, actually) and no one that I have ever heard has any sympathy for Fred Phelps, but the issue is the principle at stake: defending liberty. My speech in defense of liberty doesn't end at our national borders.

BJM said...

Revenent, I partially agree, the UK has a right to deny entry to whomever they choose.

However if such a ban is made ad hoc at the discretion of a bureaucrat or political appointee and not publicly defined policy, then I strongly disagree.

However, once the ban went viral the point was moot. Ideas cannot be stopped at a nation's borders, and banning only increases Savage's allure.

Labour cravenly acceded to Muslim pressure in banning Geert Wilders and are backed into a censorship corner of their own making, it will eventually bite them at the polls.

Pogo said...

"But I don't think there is anything wrong with denying people entry to your country if their beliefs are extremely offensive to the citizenry".

Mebbe not, but why Savage, among all one could choose, given that he wasn't even planning on going there in the first place?

And why does a supposedly free nation deny entry to those espousing ideas, by talking and the written word? Sounds much more like the former USSR than a democracy.

England, land of lost liberty.

daredevil-66 said...

Amusing how the "Dissent is Patriotic" crowd has nothing to say when its speech they disapprove of. I'm also disappointed the British people are so weak minded they need to be protected from Savage's idiocy. Poor, poor, shrinking violets.

Darcy said...

Pogo and Palladian - brilliant, as always.

Christy said...

Probably a quibble, but I do disagree that the 1st Amendment was designed to protect offensive speech. It was designed to protect dissenting speech. It has grown to protect offensive speech and I myself disagree with that construction, but so it goes.

Check out the Sceptred Isle's
The Public Order Act 1986. I honestly cannot tell if that is the latest version, (I became mired when trying to verify) but it must come close.

Among other bits

5. Harassment, alarm or distress.
- (1) A person is guilty of an offence if he-
(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.

Emphasis added.

Free speech in England died when they banned any depiction of Piglet in one's work space in government offices.

Which makes me wonder. Will rules for government contracts and the like now be enforced on GM? Or were they before? Sorry to show my ignorance of such, but I'm truly curious?

Dave TN said...

Was Reverend Wright on the list?

bearbee said...

The List

Robert Cook said...

daredevil-66 said: "Amusing how the "Dissent is Patriotic" crowd has nothing to say when its speech they disapprove of".

Today's Greenwald has this:
"The faux defense of Western liberties from the anti-Muslim, Mark Steyn Right".

In his "Update II" to the story, Greenwald lists some who are objecting to Britain's barring of the execrable Michael "He's-such-a-Weiner" Savage from their shores.

Salamandyr said...

To express views which:

* foment, justify or glorify terrorist violence in furtherance of particular beliefs
* seek to provoke others to terrorist acts
* foment other serious criminal activity or seek to provoke others to serious criminal acts or
* foster hatred which might lead to inter-community violence in the UK.
I think the Home Secretary is on pretty firm footing for most of these. The last one though is problematic to liberty loving types. "Fostering hatred" might be anything the panjandrums decide it is, from calling for the castration of homosexuals to someone who has expressed a mild discomfort at the sight of gay porn. It seems like this one is in there to give them cover when they decide to deny visas to people like Geert Wilders.

Methadras said...

I've heard Wieners show. I have no problem with his show at all. Sometimes he goes of the deep end, but it's usually a sentiment that caters to his east coast roots and others tend to feed into his frustration factor. However, for a once great country like Jolly Ole England to put someone on a non-entry list like Michael Savage because of their being offended at his remarks only makes one thing what on one wonder what on the nine planes of hell are they thinking when their radical muslim imams and pakistani ghetto rats are allowed to spew the vilest of oratory hatreds towards anyone not like them within the country.

Is that how it goes in England? If you are already an offensive individual or group of individuals that is already in the country we can tolerate you, but if you want to get in we don't? What has happened to this once great country? The lunatics are running the asylum.

bearbee said...

Seems only middle-eastern types and 'Murricans 'foster hatred.'

Rest of the world is pure-of-heart, pulsating beams of love and farting rainbows.

former law student said...

Weiner isn't even conservative. He just started playing one on radio when he saw how much money Limbaugh shoveled in every year.

Look at left-wing talk radio -- there's no money in it. Air America couldn't pay their electric bills. Only right-wing talk makes money.

No hottubbing Marinite who hung around Berkeley long enough to get a PhD (back when Berkeley was Berserkeley) is a conservative.

Paul said...

"No hottubbing Marinite who hung around Berkeley long enough to get a PhD (back when Berkeley was Berserkeley) is a conservative."

That's bullshit. A whole bunch of them started on the road to conservatism in September of 2001. Also Berkeley is more berserk now than ever. Trust me. Although I try to avoid it I still have to go there from time to time. If you need proof go to Zomietime's website and look at some of the recent protest pictures.

However I will admit that Savage's Marxist roots do show from time to time. He has a totalitarian streak that is the antithesis of the principals of modern American conservatism and is much more in step with the left. He is nowhere near as smart or knowledgeable as Rush or Mark Levin, but he is an amusing raconteur and highly enjoyable when he tells stories of his youth. When he tries to talk politics though he's usually pretty cringeworthy.

Revenant said...

"But I don't think there is anything wrong with denying people entry to your country if their beliefs are extremely offensive to the citizenry."

Are the beliefs offensive to the citizenry or the government?

From what little I know of Savage, I'd guess the answer is "both".

Did they get to have a say in that?

They get to vote. Nobody's forcing them to elect jackasses; they do it voluntarily.

Revenant said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Revenant said...

And why does a supposedly free nation deny entry to those espousing ideas, by talking and the written word?

They aren't denying entry to his ideas or writing, at least so far as I know. So this has nothing whatsoever to do with his free speech rights.

As for the complaint about denying him entry, last I checked you weren't an open borders advocate. What's the defense for denying a person entry based on his nationality -- which is usually not his fault -- but not on the basis of his character?

Penny said...

"What's the defense for denying a person entry based on his nationality".

What country denies entry based on nationality?

Revenant said...

What country denies entry based on nationality?

We do, for one.

Sofa King said...

What's the defense for denying a person entry based on his nationality -- which is usually not his fault -- but not on the basis of his character?

The defense is that immigration policy is not ordinarily predicated on individual worthiness. Therefore, a policy which sets certain limits for immigration from different regions may be justified on some notion of fairness or equal opportunity. For the reasons a policy that discriminates based on expression is a bad idea, may I suggest On Liberty by one J.S. Mill?

Stephen said...

"But I don't think there is anything wrong with denying people entry to your country if their beliefs are extremely offensive to the citizenry."Are you or are you not offended by the adherents of an old man famous for porking a nine year old girl?

TMink said...

Garage wrote: "The most hateful asshole in America who has a microphone everyday to say whatever he wants is getting muzzled by "the left" [here]...because they hate him in Britain?"

Bill Maher is getting muzzled by the left?

Who knew?

Trey

TMink said...

daredevil wrote: "Amusing how the "Dissent is Patriotic" crowd has nothing to say when its speech they disapprove of."

Yep, it sure makes them look like fascist assholes don't it?

Trey

Revenant said...

For the reasons a policy that discriminates based on expression is a bad idea, may I suggest On Liberty by one J.S. Mill?

Could you explain why you think "On Liberty" applies here? Mill was a utilitarian, and a good utilitarian argument can be made for not allowing foreigners who are hostile to liberty to join your democracy.

When you blindly accept people into your democracy without requiring that they accept its principles, you end up in the situation the Dutch are stuck in today.