Savage banned from UK for.........

[lovett]

Sure, but does Savage do drugs, plan to carry arms to the UK, or care much about welfare to foreigners? No, he doesn't. This specific justification - "likely to cause harm" - is a bunk one. There are people with opinions worse than him who don't cause violence by simply espousing those opinions. None of the examples gave are actual incitements of violence. Just merely part of the moronic hyperbole that is talk show radio.

That's not the point I was trying to make. Doing drugs, carrying (unlicensed) arms or defrauding welfare is as illegal in the US as it is in the UK. You'd arrest your own citizens for that. But you wouldn't arrest one of your citizens for walking from Texas to Oklahoma. Or from moving out of San Francisco and going to live in Florida. Moreover you positively encourage your own citizens to vote.

Yet a Mexican is liable to be arrested if he walks into the good 'ole USA. If he plans to move to Florida he damn well better go through some lengthy and intrusive immigration procedure. Or he'll be arrested. Then deported. And voting? That's ridiculous! Basically, it's quite clear that States treat foreigners differently from their own citizens. Otherwise they wouldn't be states!

You can viable criticise the actual UK law about incitement, but you can't criticise the UK's treatment of Mr.Savage without pretty much denying State Sovereignty.

 

[caketastydelish]

This is why we declared independence from England. So we can say whatever the hell we want, even if its racist.

 

[holy king]

Not in Britain.

he doesnt have a right to go to britain. such thing does not exist. how hard is this to get?

 

[Flying Pig]

This is why we declared independence from England. So we can say whatever the hell we want, even if its racist.

Unless it incites hatred, or makes people commit crimes.

 

[Cutlass]

What nations can you enter with a US passport but not an actual visa? I thought visas were mainly for people going to countries your country did not have a close relationship with or were planing on an extended stay like students.

 

[caketastydelish]

Unless it incites hatred, or makes people commit crimes.

We should ban him from entering our country too! Oh wait...

 

[aronnax]

What nations can you enter with a US passport but not an actual visa? I thought visas were mainly for people going to countries your country did not have a close relationship with or were planing on an extended stay like students.

Spoiler :

 

[Formaldehyde]

he doesnt have a right to go to britain. such thing does not exist. how hard is this to get?

And how many times do I have to say that you are arguing semantics, and that this trivial distinction is competely irrelevant to this discussion? "how hard is this to get?"

The US is notable for it's exercising of it's visa controls on political lines. As a nation you have no access to the moral high ground.

Did I state otherwise? And in case you didn't notice, this is my opinion and not the opinion of the entire government. And in case you didn't notice, I have the same views regarding the currently absurd US practices on exactly the same grounds. And yes, it is worse here because we are actually supposed to have free speech, unlike your country where it is a token gesture.

Incorrect. He is being denied access for his inciting biggotry and potentially violence.

Once again, how exactly did he "incite bigotry" in the UK?

He has done, as Mirc and Hanibal have quoted. He didnt plan to in the UK because he never even tried to come here. This was the publishing of the list remember? Have you been paying the slightest attention to any of the thread? Even the OP? Or have you just got right on with the hackery?

I have absolutely no idea what point you are trying to make here other than engage in an ad hominem. Can you try to rephrase this so I can understand your point?

Because they believe he is liable to incite hate and violence. Thats an aberdly weak answer anyway.

You think your government will have to follow the every move of a bigoted idiot from the US if he happens to gain access to your country because he might "incite hatred and violence", and you think my argument is weak? Do you have any idea how many other bigoted idiots just like him you let into your country on a regular basis?

Meh, at least my country doesnt pass laws about how to cross the road, most kids learn that about four or five

Once again, I have no idea what your point might possibly be other than to engage in yet another absurd ad hominem.

Here's the bottom line as I see it. It is patently absurd to try to deny anybody entry to any foreign country based on their opinions and what they might or might not say. If they happen to violate your laws while in your country, feel free to prosecute them for it. But engaging in pre-crime such as this should be illegal in any civilized country.

If this trend keeps up, we will all soon have to take political correctitude tests before being allowed entry to any country, including the US.

Are you a holocaust denier?

Do you have any Muslim-oriented cartoons in your possession? Have you ever seen one? Did you think it was funny?

Do you think the right side won the US Civil War?

Do you think the right side is now in control of the South African government?

Do you have any black friends? What are their names and phone numbers?

Are you now, or have you ever been, a card carrying member of the ACLU?

 

[GinandTonic]

Did I state otherwise? And in case you didn't notice, this is my opinion and not the opinion of the entire government.

You have a great habit of trying to erect absurd straw men like this

Yes you did. You stated that people in the US have freedom of speech. You further stated that refusal to grant a visa on the basis of speech represents a restriction of free speech. Since the US does refuse visa's on such grounds your two positions are mutually exclusive.

Not a strawman at all. If you want to discredit an arguement as a strawman you need to demonstrate why it is rather than just say the word.

You are arguing semantics again.

Not semantics but the whole point, the one everyone keeps telling you. None of the people on the list is being denied their right to freedom of speech, they are being denied the privilidge of entry to the country.

Once again, how exactly did he "incite bigotry" in the UK?

Who said anything about in the UK? Not me. Not the Forign Office. No-one has acused him of doing anything in the UK. Once again, have you actually read the BBC article? You dont seem to grasp the basics of the situation.

I have absolutely no idea what point you are trying to make here other than engage in an ad hominem. Can you try to rephrase this please?

So to recap the conversation.

Had he made his speechs in the UK he would be skirting the edge of incitement-law.

That's just it. Not only has he apparently never done so, he didn't even plan to do so. At least with Wilders, they knew that was the reason for his trip.

He has done, as Mirc and Hanibal have quoted. He didnt plan to in the UK because he never even tried to come here. This was the publishing of the list remember? Have you been paying the slightest attention to any of the thread? Even the OP? Or have you just got right on with the hackery?

I have absolutely no idea what point you are trying to make here other than engage in an ad hominem. Can you try to rephrase this please?

His quotes, as posted, skirt the edge of UK law re incitement to hate/ violence etc. Saying "no they dont" is pointless since they do. Clearly he has not done so in the UK. Clearly he had no plan to even come to the UK. Thats the whole point of a no-fly list. It is published before people try to fly. To complain that people on a no-fly list hadnt planned to fly is at best a complete irrelivance and at worst gives the impression you are not aware of the basic mechanics of the situation under discussion.

Once again, I have no idea what your point might possibly be other than to engage in yet another absurd ad hominem.

So once again lest recap the conversation

He is not being denied a right, he is having a privilidge withdrawn.

And you are a subject of the Queen.

Meh, at least my country doesnt pass laws about how to cross the road, most kids learn that about four or five

Once again, I have no idea what your point might possibly be other than to engage in yet another absurd ad hominem.

You ducked my point by making what I assumed was a playful tease of the UK's supposed lack of freedoms. I responded by making a playful tease about the US not giving it's citizens the freedom to cross the street. Jaywalking and all that. You didnt seem to take it as well as I did.

Here's the bottom line as I see it. It is patently absurd to try to deny anybody entry to any foreign country based on their opinions and what they might or might not say. If they happen to violate your laws while in your country, feel free to prosecute them for it. But engaging in pre-crime such as this should be illegal in any civilized country.

Not at all. There are any number of repellant people who should not be granted access.

If this trend keeps up, we will all soon have to take political correctitude tests before being allowed entry to any country, including the US.

Are you a holocaust denier?

Do you have any Muslim-oriented cartoons in your possession? Have you ever seen one? Did you think it was funny?

Do you think the right side won the US Civil War?

Do you think the right side is now in control of the South African government?

Do you have any black friends? What are their names and phone numbers?

Are you now, or have you ever been, a card carrying member of the ACLU?

Again you dont seem to understand the policy at all.

 

[Flying Pig]

Here's the bottom line as I see it. It is patently absurd to try to deny anybody entry to any foreign country based on their opinions and what they might or might not say. If they happen to violate your laws while in your country, feel free to prosecute them for it. But engaging in pre-crime such as this should be illegal in any civilized country.

If this trend keeps up, we will all soon have to take political correctitude tests before being allowed entry to any country, including the US.

Are you a holocaust denier?

Do you have any Muslim-oriented cartoons in your possession? Have you ever seen one? Did you think it was funny?

Do you think the right side won the US Civil War?

Do you think the right side is now in control of the South African government?

Do you have any black friends? What are their names and phone numbers?

Are you now, or have you ever been, a card carrying member of the ACLU?

True, unless he is certain, or at least so likely as to be considered certain, to commit a crime (inciting hatred) while in the country, and cannot be trusted to behave, in which case I think he should be kept out, much like Osama Bin Laden.

 

[Death_Machine]

I know that asking you to think about something beyond a superficial level might be asking too much, but I'll give it a try anyway.

I could never get away with making a statement like that in here.

I wish Savage, Hannity, O'Reilly, Limbaugh and Coulter would go to Russia instead. Stay in Siberia, where the lot of you belong.

There's that tolerance for differences that the left is famous for!!

Absolute free speech is outdated, just like the whole the liberal tradition. It's time to go beyond thinking about individual freedoms only.

Excellent. Pave the road to slavery with those who disagree with you. Sooner or later you'll be part of the pavement.

Heh, once again Patroklos proves that he knows everything -- he even knows what the British government is thinking Truly, Patroklos, your powers grow stronger by the second. I wish I knew half as much as you think you do.

I wish you knew half as much as you think he really does.

Absolutely. In the realm of something so unquantifiable as 'speech LIKELY to lead to violence', there absolutely has to be some room for common sense.

Maybe vague law is poor law?

Thanks for reminding me. Savage is actually against freedom of speech. He constantly wants Americans to be locked up for sedition for saying things he believes are antiAmerican.

I think you need to look up the meaning of sedition, or even better yet, find the quote from Savage (in context) and then still try to say he is against free speech.

It's not a debate when one party flatly refuses to admit when they are wrong, even when factual proof is presented to them.

If I didn't know the context of this I would assume you took a good long look in the mirror before posting that.

I decided a while back I wasn't getting into prolonged, ridiculous arguments with people who are obviosuly wrong but wont admit it anymore, so I'm bowing out here. Patroklos, commence tellling me how I've been 'bootstomped', etc...

He doesn't have too, I'll be glad to tell you how he "bootstomped" you.

That's a hypothetical, as obvious from the context, not a genuine call for people to kill 100 million people. As I said, hatred is not inciting violence. If he is not saying something akin to "Everyone listening to this show: Let us go to the streets and kill 100 million muslims!" then it is still free speech.

It is a strange day indeed when I find myself agreeing with Bill & Form in the same thread.

Again, this isn't about free speech, this is about the denial of a visa application -- unless you believe that the approval of one's visa application is a fundamental human right.

How about the approval/denial of a visa based on free speech, or the lack thereof.

If it were US law, the ACLU would have come to his defense. LoL

No doubt. I remember when they had a black lawyer defending a member of the KKK.

I suppose it's good the guy found out he wasn't allowed in the county now, rather than at Heathrow.

I don't believe he had any plans to go to the UK, but somebody in show business would have to be ******** not to turn this into a publicity stunt.

By the way, I mentioned this partly in the middle of this thread. Michael Savage is against freedom of speech. He constantly talks about how he wants people arrested for sedition. So him complaining about how he's treated based on what he says is screamingly hypocritical.

Really, can you provide even one example of seditious behavior from him? Go ahead & try to find an example out of context, that will be your best bet.

He was not denied entry because his views were outspoken. He was denied entry because he sought to provoke others to serious criminal acts and inter-community violence.

Ok, so you're taking his "kill 100,00" quote out of context when talking about war & saying that is what will incite people? Is that is or do you actually have something real?

Evidence of Mike Savage provoking others to serious criminal acts and inter-community violence were posted in this thread already.

See above response.

 

[CaptainF]

There's that tolerance for differences that the left is famous for!!

I'm not a leftist. Got that one wrong.

Second, I find it very funny that you invest so much energy in defending someone who makes their living spreading hatred and spewing lies. Regardless of politics...that's just bad.

Sure, Savage can get on his mic and sell his bullcrap to all the morons who will listen to him (and there are plenty), but don't expect me to sniff his coattails. People like me that have that make use of their logical faculty can see through his act.

People that earn their bread by broadcasting propaganda are all vile and disgusting. That's why I don't listen to the lot of them, from Air America to Rush Fatso himself.

Sorry I provided this original opinion...I'll go back to letting your pundit overlords decide what you think.

 

[Death_Machine]

I'm not a leftist. Got that one wrong.

Second, I find it very funny that you invest so much energy in defending someone who makes their living spreading hatred and spewing lies. Regardless of politics...that's just bad.

Sure, Savage can get on his mic and sell his bullcrap to all the morons who will listen to him (and there are plenty), but don't expect me to sniff his coattails. People like me that have that make use of their logical faculty can see through his act.

People that earn their bread by broadcasting propaganda are all vile and disgusting. That's why I don't listen to the lot of them, from Air America to Rush Fatso himself.

Sorry I provided this original opinion...I'll go back to letting your pundit overlords decide what you think.

Oh, I was off the mark with the leftist comment? I guess it was how you lumped everybody affiliated with right wing radio together & suggested shipping them to Siberia......................... with no mention of those who do the same for the left.

I find Savage amusing and I listen to him once or twice a month. I like how he'll fire off both barrels at the Republocrats. Anybody who has listened to him for more than an inflammatory soundbite knows he's plenty critical of both sides of the aisle.

For the record, I have no "pundit overlords".

 

[Flying Pig]

We're off the point here. Hate-speak is illegal in the UK, so he was banned, as is legal for anyone anyway.

 

[CaptainF]

Oh, I was off the mark with the leftist comment? I guess it was how you lumped everybody affiliated with right wing radio together & suggested shipping them to Siberia......................... with no mention of those who do the same for the left.

Well this thread is focusing on Michael Savage (and his ilk), not leftists.

I find Savage amusing and I listen to him once or twice a month. I like how he'll fire off both barrels at the Republocrats. Anybody who has listened to him for more than an inflammatory soundbite knows he's plenty critical of both sides of the aisle.

Not...really.

He's still a right-winger through and through. He'll criticize Republicans for not being right-wing enough, not much else.

For the record, I have no "pundit overlords".

Good. Hopefully it stays that way.

 

[Mise]

I wish you knew half as much as you think he really does.

I wish you knew how to string a sentence together

 

[aelf]

Excellent. Pave the road to slavery with those who disagree with you. Sooner or later you'll be part of the pavement.

Oh, dear.

 

[Cutlass]

Spoiler :

Then why does this guy need a visa in the first place?

 

[Phlegmak]

I think you need to look up the meaning of sedition, or even better yet, find the quote from Savage (in context) and then still try to say he is against free speech.

I've listened to him enough times to know he wants to lock people up for what they say. I used to listen to him on the radio years ago, so I have no links. I'm not putting any work into looking for quotes or audio. I put in a few seconds of time and found this. If you don't want to believe I heard him say he wants people locked up for what they say (which he translates to "sedition") then I don't care.
http://www.infowars.com/print/misc/savage_neocon.htm
http://mediamatters.org/research/200409220001

Really, can you provide even one example of seditious behavior from him? Go ahead & try to find an example out of context, that will be your best bet.

I accused Savage of sedition???? I said he's against freedom of speech, which he is.

 

[Merkinball]

Incorrect. He is being denied access for his inciting biggotry and potentially violence. - Gin and Tonic

So when will all those judges and legislatures that allowed civil sharia law to be instituted in Britain (even in matters of domestic abuse) be kicked out of the UK...

Anyhow, the UK is sovereign. It can let in who it wants when it wants to. If it's going to deny the right for people from western democracies to come because of political opinion, then it shouldn't consider itself a western liberal democracy.

Savage was put on a list alongside actual murderers. One of the people on that list smashed a four year old girls head in with the buttstock of a rifle in front of her mother. Yeah, there's moral equivalency here.