Orwell's Britain? Britain bans controversial talk show host

British Home Secretary Jacqui Smith has made public Britain's 'shit list' - a catalog of those banned from entering the United Kingdom because they engage in "the sort of behaviour Britain is not prepared to tolerate."

Amongst the sixteen listed names were radical pastor Fred Phelps, Ku Klux Klan 'wizard' Stephen Donald Black and Muslim activist Clarence Reams (now known as 'Abdul Ali Musa.')

As disgusting and unlikeable as most of these characters are, the existence of this list is deeply troubling...

It's understandable to ban somebody for past crimes (like Artur Ryno and Pavel Skachevsky, two Russian skinheads convicted of murder) or their involvement in criminal conspiracies (like American neo-Nazi Erich Gliebe.)

But when it comes to Smith's decision to ban inflammatory American talk-show host Michael Savage (whose real name is, highly appropriately, 'Wiener') it opens up a whole different can of worms.

Now I'm not defending Savage. He's a disgusting, radical, reactionary idiot with a trigger-happy tendency to shoot his mouth off without consulting his brain first.

His ill-considered opinions on autism ("In 99 percent of the cases, it's a brat who hasn't been told to cut that act out") and homosexuality ("They should get AIDS and die, the pigs. How's that?") have made him a polarizing figure even amidst the media circus that is conservative talk radio.

But as despicable, hateful and ignorant as Savage is - he's just a guy. A loud, obnoxious, offensive guy who's done nothing legally wrong (polluting the minds of 8.5 million listeners isn't a crime.)

[And as unlikeable as he is, he wrote The Taster's Guide to Beer: Brews and Breweries of the World, so he can't be all bad. - Editorial Bear]

Banning him from the UK is nothing short of 'thought control' - another example of Britain's unwillingness to tolerate any free speech that violates the sanctity of what's deemed 'politically correct.'

It's similar to the recent expulsion of far-right Dutch MP Geert Wilders - who offended the British government with his documentary linking the Qu'ran to terrorism.

Wilders hadn't done anything technically wrong - the British government were simply unwilling to entertain him because he dared to speak out of term about the UK's 'elephant in the living room' - the tight-knit Islamic communities which bred the suicide bombers of 2005.

Somewhat coincidentally, most of the 16 names on Jacqui Smith's 'shit list' belong to Muslim extremists - preachers who spread messages of hatred in mosques, fostering violence and terrorism within the Muslim community.


It's commonly accepted that the offensive, but largely inconsequential idiot Michael Savage was only added to the list to appease the Muslim community - making them feel like their extremists and militants weren't the only ones targeted for a ban.

But the problem with that 'justification' is that it capitulates to the Muslim community's stranglehold on free speech in Britain. Look at some recent examples:

• In 2005, when Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten published controversial cartoons of Mohammad, the British press were intimidated into not printing the cartoons for fear of 'offending' the Muslim community.
• In 2008, when Sherry Jone's novel 'The Jewel of Medina' was due to be published, Random House were threatened with violence by the Muslim community, who resented the novel's portrayal of Aisha, Mohammad's wife. The book was canceled.
  
• In 2008, when two church workers were handing out leaflets in a largely Muslim area in Birmingham, a Police Community Support Officer threatened them with arrest for committing a 'hate crime' by promoting their community church.

It seems the fundamental philosophy of 'free speech' is only valid if that speech doesn't offend the Muslim community - who are notoriously thin-skinned.

In fact, the fear of 'Islamophobia' - or offending the Muslim community - is so great in Britain that police officers turn a blind eye to very clear 'hate speech' committed by Muslims themselves - arguing that the Police would be accused of 'Islamophobia' if they reacted.

For example, in the 2005 protests against the Jyllands-Posten cartoons, Muslim demonstrators dressed up as suicide bombers and lifted placards urging people to 'Behead Those who Insult Islam!' The police, in attendance at the demonstrations, did nothing.


There's a very clear double-standard in Britain regarding 'free speech.' It's only 'free' if it's deemed acceptable, inoffensive and politically correct (conversely, nobody wants to upset the Muslim community by objecting to anything they say.)

That really isn't 'free speech' at all.

I'm incredulous that we turn a blind eye to people waving placards promoting the decapitation of Danish cartoonists - yet we ban a man from entering this country for daring to say: "I think Al-Qaida terrorists need to be forcibly converted to Christianity ... It's the only thing that can probably turn them into human beings."

I don't like Micheal Savage. I don't agree with the bile he spews. It terrifies me that he's got a weekly audience of 8.5 million, absorbing his ignorant diatribes...

But the fact is, Michael Savage's rants are entirely inconsequential compared to the words of the extremists and hatemongers we tolerate in Britain.

Savage doesn't promote suicide bombing or murder. He's not calling for a 'jihad.' He's just a loudmouthed, arrogant little man who likes the sound of his own voice. In that respect, he's little different to George Galloway (except people actually listen to Savage.)

I hate every word that Michael Savage says - but doesn't he still have a right to say it?

Or, more importantly, don't people in the UK have the right to hear it? How can we ban Savage's angry rants as 'offensive,' yet condone demonstrators waving placards that warn: "Europe, be prepared for the real Holocaust."


The real problem is that Britain has never actually made a commitment to 'free speech.' It's not cemented in our national identity like the First Amendment in the United States. In fact, we British - net-curtain twitchers that we are - simply adore the opportunity to shut people up.

But we're continuing to march down a very dangerous route. Banning extremists and hate-mongers is one thing, but banning angry, impotent self-publicists like Michael Savage is something else entirely. It's a further step towards a muzzled media, in which independent opinion is ruthlessly suppressed.

George Orwell might have got the date wrong, but who says 1984's never going to happen?