Note to our friends in the United Kingdom: Whom do you think savagely bombed commuters across London on July 7, 2005 -- an American radio talk show host?
That's the impression you get when the U.K. Home Secretary Jacqui Smith bans U.S. radio host Michael Savage from entering the country because he talks tough about Islamic terrorists and other issues.
Many of us on this side of the pond have feared for some time that Western Europe is losing its perspective, ceding freedom to political correctness. Now we're sure of it.
It isn't the Atlantic Ocean that separates us so much as the First Amendment. And thank God for that.
Savage's over-the-top rhetoric certainly isn't our cup of tea -- but we don't suppose that either we or any government should decide that for anyone else.
Nor is Savage advocating terrorism or violence, which some of the other 15 on Smith's banned list have done.
"To link me up with skinheads who are killing people in Russia, to put me in league with Hamas murderers who kill people on buses, is defamation," Savage says.
He may be right. But at the very least, as a matter of conscience and humanity, he should be free to speak.
Smith -- and anyone who blamed the United States for the 9-11 attacks -- is being world-class naïve by claiming that tough talk incites Islamic terror. These savages need no encouragement. They are hell-bent on taking over the world and either converting all infidels to Islam or killing them.
Blaming a U.S. radio host for inciting hatred among those who already hate is akin to ticketing a crime victim for his or her screams.
And about inciting hatred: There simply are some things we should hate, including terror perpetrated on innocent men, women and children.
How ironic is it that the U.K., of all places -- which allowed itself to become a hotbed of Islamic terror-stoking -- is now concerned about a backlash against Islamic terror?
England has given much to the world. We owe our own rule of law to Mother England. And the former empire's lofty ideals, still today, are a major reason the world is as civilized as it is.
But on many things we diverged paths in 1776 -- the main one being an individual's right to speak his mind without fear of repercussion from a tyrannical government.
On that point, we improved immensely on the English model.
Comments
Well, I hope we improved upon the English model, because did they not hold India down while crying about fighting for freedom during WWII years ago? Besides, if anything England might be trying to protect Michael Savage the best way they know how. If he went over there and got hurt many U.S. Citizens would claim the U.K. did not do enough to protect him and let him get hurt.
IF you ever listened to Savages' show you would understand why he is banned...That guy speaks to the cynical and dark side of mankind...Warren Savage and Snoop Dogg should make a song together about being banned; they can name it "Banned in the U.K."...
Michael Savage is a fringe extremist talk show host that appeals to very few listeners, as is reflected by the size of his audience. He never advocates rioting or vigilantism. Mostly, he's just loud while pointing out the tolerances for the terrorists. I can see how this would offend the English left wing. I wouldn't be surprised to see Canada ban him also. They're real big on thought police.
Banning speech......never a good idea. Why not just turn it off?
Didn't England deport some Muslim religious figures for preaching hate and supporting terrorist? That shows more balls than the USA has. Granted these aren't the same type as Savage, but a country has the right to decide who comes in, something we haven't mastered yet.
England has made a mistake with this. They should not attack those who attack the ones who attack them. The enemy of my enemy is my freind.
"amen sister"
justus4 is not his real name. He is another example of a paid idiot, who panders to the kooks and uses coded language that insult minorities. His ban will not be lifted and others deserve to be banned, because how these radio licenses are process is a flawed system. He is a loser that reflects terribly on this country and it's ability to influence excellence throughout the world. This guy is a sideshow for haters and should have restricted travel.
LOL PT, but how true.
Good one PT! justus4 ... you need to move to England because there isn't a d*mn thing about the U-S you're happy with!
The world get's tired of hate speech. The right-wing is out of touch.
Hey shivas, would you consider, "hoping someone's kidney's fail" HATE SPEECH? If so, the left wing must be out of touch also.
It is not a right to go to another country but a privilege.
You may already be a weiner.
Even hate speech is protected here in America (lucky for both the left and right huh?). The AC is 100% correct with this article. England is wrong here and we should force the issue with them and MAKE them repeal this ruling. Perhaps if we banned ALL travel of UK citizens to the U.S. and also cancelled all existing visas for U.K. and Common Wealth citizens it would get the point of our 1st Ammendment across to the thought police in the U.K.
champagne, good one. But, you know the answer, I'm sure.
How can we force another country, and make them do what we want them to do? That is why so many countries hate us already, we are always forcing, our beliefs down their throats.Why was america founded in the first place?America need to stay out of others buisness. There is a lot of work ,still to be done here. Clean our own house, before we start trying to clean someone elses!Our constution is just that,OUR;S, and we have no right to force it on any other country!!!!
In the past few years England has punished people for freedom of speech now if this were any other country I might not take it so seriously but the UK is one of Americas strongest allies.So for them to deprive one of freedom of speech tells me they are not a democracy anymore and need to relabel themselves.
Europeans are spineless appeasers! The appeasement to Hitler, caused the deaths of millions. Europeans keep appeasing to the Islamic extremist, but don't come crawling to us when your continent is at war again. The three leaders Obama, Pelosi, and Reid, want the very same, shut down the conservative radio outlet. This is the only media outlet the progressives don't control. The progressives hate the first and second admendments of the US Constitution.
What is going on. Don't they get it? why aren't these British people complying with American law? Don't they realize we only have their best interest at heart? I would bet the rest of the world is in shock at the British for their actions.
This editorial would make more sense if the AC editor had also condemned the U.S. government for banning the entry of foreign nationals on vague "security" grounds. These include Tariq Ramadan, whom Notre Dame hired to teach (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64700-2004Dec14.html) and Marixo Lasso (http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/09/25/lasso). The AC editor might also have criticized Israel's ban on Norman Finkelstein's entry (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/05/27/finkelstein/index.html). The Patriot Act allows the executive branch to exercise "an ideological exclusion" and the previous administration excercised that new power. See http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/28667prs20070223.html. I believe that states do have some right to regulate who enters, but the AC editorial (perhaps tomorrow's) should be consistent and criticize denial of visas to people whose opinions it does not like.
Now, our president has stated all terrorists are protected by American law, and they appreciate it. Why can't Oboma declare England is under American law, too? I'm sure they'd appreciate it.
It is just a matter of time until the Islamic extremist take over India and Pakistan.The nuclear war heads are going to fly. The Islamic extremist want a world war, and one day they will succeed.What then liberal and progressive appeasers? We count every brave man that comes home in a coffin, and honor their cause for a free world. The Islamic Extremist hide behind innocent people, and don't count the bodies. They force people to through intimidation to join their cause. The Islamic extremist use the innocent Muslims, for the unlucky peaceful Muslims, it is either kill or be killed.
We control OUR borders for sure. If they ban someone from travel and it is a FREE SPEECH issue we have an obligation to enforce our OWN laws at OUR border. AFADEL, we have an obligation to keep the radicals out of the U.S. that support armed conflict AGAINST us. Especially radical Islamist, they attacked us remember? As far as I know Savage never advocated violent overthrow of the U.K. government and imposition of U.S. law on all its citizens nor has he supported sawing off the heads of Gordon Brown like the radical islamists do.
Brad Owens, I think all soverign countries have the right to reject hate speech in whatever manner they see fit. I think Iran would love to hear his hate for everything America, so maybe the right-wing can rally to this cause.
As usual, the AC is a week or two behind the rest of the country with their editorials. Could it be that the issues they want to write about are getting harder to find? Your ideas are STILL drying up, AC. Right-wing kookery just disagrees with most. You're gonna squawk yourself right out of business.
editorial staff, who are you? why don't you use a name? i wouldn't either, i guess, with what you print. and your first sentence is total douchebag. whom is not a pronoun for a subject. boo.
The Augusta Chronicle ©2012. All Rights Reserved.
