Posted on 05/25/2011 3:28:40 PM PDT by dynachrome
We have been following the ban imposed on conservative radio host Michael Savage by England — barring him from entry into the country. England now appears to have reaffirmed the decision and accuses Savage of promising to retract some of his statements and failing to do so. While I strongly disagree with many of Savage’s statements, I view the ban as part of a disturbing trend limiting free speech in the West and particularly in England.
In the communication below, Treasury Solicitor Michael Atkins tells counsel for Savage that he previously assured the government that Savage would repudiate some of his comments on his website. It also says that Savage promised to appeal the earlier decision and failed to do so.
Savage was informed last July that the Cameron administration would continue the prior ban on his entry into the country unless he repudiated statements made on his broadcasts that were considered a threat to public security. The very notion of ideas being a threat to public safety is the hallmark of censorship and governmental abuse. While then–British Home Secretary Jacqui Smith insisted that it is “important that people understand the sorts of values and sorts of standards that we have here,” he omitted free speech.
The most recent letter is equally disturbing. It puts the burden on Savage to show that his ideas are not a threat to public security — a ridiculous burden when the only way to do so appears to be the repudiation of his beliefs and ideas. England has moved rapidly against free speech guarantees with comparably little protest. There does not even to be much of a national debate despite the fundamental shift on individual rights. We need to support those civil libertarians in England who are fighting this lonely battle — often on behalf of unpopular individuals like Savage.
They can censor based on what they consider ‘hate speech’. It used to be that people could express themselves freely.
Of course, I also remember when the United States had free speech as well.
On air yesterday, Savage stated he had met with a member of Britain’s parliament in Florida a while back. The British official reportedly told Savage that most members of parliament are terrified of being killed by Muslims, thus the constant appeasement.
A lesson in where multiculturalism leads. If the entirety of the government is afraid of a significant segment of their population, without military intervention/expulsion, it seems they are finished.
Savage is great. He tells the truth.
Thank you, Dynachrome!
Not to “blog pimp,” but my radio blog for tomorrow morning is about this very important subject. It will be up in the morning at http://www.dakotavoice.com/ and on the radio station page at http://www.newsradio1049fm.com/pages/gina.html
Love the good Doctor! He is always welcomed in my house.
New York Times ...”Stalinist Broadsheet”...Michael Savage
“Liberalissm...A Mental Disorder”...Michael Savage.
I wish the current UK government would cite the exact comments, (and shades of the Magna Carta the words that government uses in Savage’s case is comments, not deeds, that the others in the infamous baned group committed.) Savage is suppose to redact.
Instead of circling the wagons on previous governments sanctions .
He says, no one stepped forward to come to his support, when he was banned from England. He wants to go there to get his teeth fixed. He has fought this battle to no avail. Seems like he could get a ‘specific and exceptional’ admission for this reason. Of course, he feels it is without merit, and unjust to be banned for no reason. Who else have you heard of that is banned from England? They have a large population of Muslims.
Our world in in the balance, due to the one world mind set of the high and the powerful. We, the peons, sit and watch. We are doing nothing. Passive and ineffective. We are a nation divided, progressive liberals, conservatives, young, old, criminals, law abiding citizens, weak, strong, the welfare mentality and the producers of this world, legal, illegal, one world supporters, and those wanting freedom, liberty and national sovereignty, the individuals that desire to be free to choose and those that like being told what to do, and when and how! God help us we are divided over religion, persecuted, and now are being controlled by regulations and taxes ... close to where we are being totally controlled TYRANNY! and it is advancing at a rapid encroachment rate.
The Bible prophesies the one world, one money, one religion, stage of THE WORLDS being, EVIL REIGNING AND NO FAITH ... right before the DAY OF God's wrath COMES.
WE HAVE BEEN UNBELIEVABILLY BLESSED IN AMERICA. We have lived in the most prosperous time, in the most prosperous nation, mostly in peace within our borders, and with the most liberty, and good health, and opportunity. We are seeing it destroyed right before our eyes, and the youths do not know history, and have/are being taught social studies/justice crap and they believe it!!!!!!
How dumb and stupid are we to sit and argue about non essentials while our world is falling apart? TOTALITARIANISM IS COMING!!! Nothing new here, Nero played while Rome burned!
The main reason no-one in Britain is kicking up a stink about this is because no-one has a clue who this chap is.
Begs the question then why is he on the governments’ ban list if no one over there knows him?
No matter, if it is threatened. He has written 26 books, traveled the world has 2 or 3 degrees, and lives with his little dog ‘teddy’. Has a boat to use in San Francisco bay and lives a simple live of his own choosing. He hates the politics of San Francisco but loves the climate, etc.
Free to choose as he pleases.
That’s what we wondered, too!
The principle remains though. What criteria are the government basing this decision on? Is it because he dares say things they are too scared to?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.