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?

The Two Tiers of Immigration Law

I once got turned away from entering the United States due to a piddling VISA issue (which got sorted out and I'm now a happy - and lawful - permanent resident thank you very much.)

But because of that experience, I've kept a watchful gaze on the behaviour of other non-resident rogues and the attitude the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services has toward them.

And I have to admit, I've been disgusted. As far the Immigration people go, it seems they're willing to overlook just about anything as long as you're rich enough.

I mean, we've already had the likes of brawlers Naomi Campbell and Russell Crowe given the green light to come and go, despite very public arrests for violent attacks on innocent bystanders. Russell Crowe lobbed a telephone at a desk clerk - and Campbell tossed a more lady-like mobile at a personal assistant.

Crack addict Amy Winehouse - who was recently diagnosed with emphysema from all the drugs she's smoked - was snubbed by the VISA department originally, but then allowed in at a later date - despite being a publicly acknowledged drug addict, having drug possession charges on her record and being charged with perverting the course of justice in the case that landed her husband behind bars.

And singer turned DJ Boy George even managed to keep his green card despite inviting cops around to his apartment while stoned out of his bald little brain - and letting them discover cocaine there.

Fortunately, it seems like even the BCIS has a finite tolerance towards celebrity bullshit. Due to new charges arising from Boy George kidnapping and 'molesting' a male model in his London apartment, the BCIS have denied him a VISA to go on tour in the United States.

But there's hope for Boy George yet - and despair for the rest of us law abiding immigrants. The BCIS is likely to reconsider their decision when the trial comes up.

What REALLY annoyed me about this situation is the statement the US Embassy released when they announced their decision to bar Boy George from visiting America.

"This is not in respect of anything he has done in the past, but because he is facing a trial in November in London."

Two years ago, he was arrested for possessing cocaine! In Manhattan! Which clearly violates the 'John Lennon' law, stating that anything other than a charge of possessing one ounce or less of marijuana constitutes grounds for a lifetime ban.

If you look online, you'll see thousands of hopeful American immigrants have been permanently banned for less - like drink driving, lesser drug possession or getting into fights while in America.

Not that I'm advocating their behaviour. I just want the rules to be the same for everybody. Why do the BCIS hold regular, normal folk accountable for their actions, but give carte blanche to celebrities who do far worse?

Just for once, I'd like to see the likes of Boy George, Amy Winehouse and Naomi Campbell held to task for their actions and forced to serve as an example for the rest of the world.

I'm too Sexy for this plane...

Given the terrifying world we live in, you'd image there are many sensible reasons to be kicked off a flight. Take Dr. Ahmed Farooq, for example, who decided to loudly and obnoxiously start his Islamic evening prayers on a busy airplane full of nervous passengers.

But getting refused permission to fly because your skirt's too short? That's absurd.

Yet it's what happened to 23 year old Kyla Ebbert, who was nearly refused permission to fly on an Southwest Airlines flight because she was 'dressed too provocatively.'

Southwest spokesman Chris Mainz says that airlines reserve the right to refuse service if customers wear clothing that might cause discomfort or offense to other passengers. But a short skirt? Ebbert's clothing was far less offensive than her bright orange fake-bake tan.

Would passengers be offended by Kyla's outfit? Only puriant evangelicals and fundementalist muslims as far as I can tell - and who'd want to be stuck next to either of them for a long-haul flight?

Besides, what with banning peanuts on board - just in case somebody, somewhere has a peanut allergy - it seems all this time spent worrying about other imaginary people and their hypotethetical problems has ended up giving the actual paying customer a pretty shoddy deal.

Who knows what was going through Southwest Airline's mind when they made the poorly-considered decision to accost Kyla Ebbert?

Personally, I'd prefer they spend less time worrying about the length of pretty girl's skirts and more time preventing crashes, hijackings and snakes on the plane.

Holy Freakin' Nuts! Why people with a Peanut Allergy annoy me.

This is going to be a slightly controversial post, because it focuses on a very real medical condition and how much it annoys me.

Peanut Allergy.

I used to be sympathetic to people with a peanut allergy. After all, it's a horrific condition. All it takes is a few molecules of peanut to set it off and an allergic reaction can cause rashes, difficulty breathing and, in some cases, death.

It's a dangerous allergy and it's increasing. That's why you'll find just about all pre-packaged products with labels reading: "Free from Nuts" or "Made in same Factory as Nut Products." This allows people with the allergy to swiftly identify what they can and can't eat.

First thing that really annoys me about people with a Peanut Allergy: Why the hell do they have warnings like "May Contain Nuts" on packets of bloody peanuts? It's just stupid! If somebody with a peanut allergy picks up a packet of dry roasted and scoffs them down, perhaps it's just Darwinism at work!

Anyway. I fortunately don't have a peanut allergy. In fact, I think I have the opposite. I love peanuts. I could eat them all day long. In fact, one of the experiences I enjoy most is sitting on a plane with an enormous gin and tonic and a bag of salted peanuts.

But I heard a horrific rumour the other day that this simple pleasure would soon be denied to me. In fact, visiting Plane Insanity (an interesting blog about an air steward) I had my fears confirmed. Apparently, if there is a passenger with severe peanut allergy on your red-eye to London, they won't be breaking out the peanuts.

Let me just state that clearly. You cannot have any peanuts on your flight. Because of the one person sitting three rows down who's allergic to them.

Bloody hell! I think this is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. I'm literally angry with rage! How can you possibly justify denying a man his nuts?

The fact is, if a passenger with a severe peanut allergy boards a flight, there are negligible, but real risks to his health. Remember, all it takes is a few whiffs of peanut scented air and they're puffing up like an adder. And since all the air on a flight is recycled, the danger is increased.

But while I'm sympathetic to the dangers, I demand my rights. I paid £299 for this round trip to New York off Last Minute and I have no intention of anybody denying me my complementary peanuts. Give them to me now! If the bloke in P57 doesn't like it, I'm more than happy to show him how his parachute works.

That's pretty much the Second Thing That Annoys Me About People With a Peanut Allergy.

But then we get the third reason. The one that really annoys me. The one that makes me go purple around the jowls. People who only THINK they have a peanut allergy.

When I was working in Paris, I dealt with about 300 America students and the precautions we took regarding their health made the NHS look like a village Post Office. We had medical forms signed and notarized and full doctor's health records. I knew half of the kid's prescriptions off the top of my head. I knew which ones were ADD or OCD, even if I didn't quite know what those three letter terms meant.

We took the health of our students incredibly seriously.

And one thing I ran into a lot was parents who told me that their kids had a peanut allergy. So we'd take this seriously, make sure their food in the local restaurants was prepared without nuts and generally do everything within our power to keep them healthy.

And then what happened? I have to take a deep breath before I recount this, because it makes the vein in my forehead pulse.

I'd go up to their room in the Pierre et Vacances and find the little sod scoffing down a bowl of Crunchy Nut Cornflakes!

"Oi!" I would shout, sounding a bit like Michael Caine. "What the bloody hell are you doing? You've got a bloody peanut allergy!"

"Mmmmgh," they'd tell me, their mouth full. "Mgh murumph murumph mmmph."

As much as it would have delighted me to rush them to the SAMU and watch the little sod get an andrenalin shot straight through the breastbone, it actually transpired that they ate a bowl of Crunchy Nut Cornflakes every morning and - in actual fact - the nut allergy their parents warned me about was one of the many fictional medical conditions protective parents invent before packing their kids off to study abroad.

So the Third Reason People With a Peanut Allergy Annoy Me (and this is the controversial one) is that some of them actually don't have an allergy at all.

Mind you, I've known a vegetarian with a wheat allergy who stole one of my hamburgers once, so I guess I shouldn't complain.

There. I've said it. I'm sure I will horrify some readers with this rant, but I had to get it off my chest. And please, please, if you've got a peanut allergy and you're flying to Miami or New York, give me advance warning.