Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Britain's Ban
I'll try again.
http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2009/05/british-ban-lists-us-radio-host-michael-savage.html
Is this really a healthy approach for a democracy to take? Banning people simply because you don't like their views? And to put a radio talk show host on the same list as terrorist sympathizers and supporters?
I think Britain has seriously lost its way. This is the country that brought us the Magna Carta, and now you have bureaucrats banning people from coming to the country not because of having committed criminal acts, but because they're views are different.
http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2009/05/british-ban-lists-us-radio-host-michael-savage.html
Is this really a healthy approach for a democracy to take? Banning people simply because you don't like their views? And to put a radio talk show host on the same list as terrorist sympathizers and supporters?
I think Britain has seriously lost its way. This is the country that brought us the Magna Carta, and now you have bureaucrats banning people from coming to the country not because of having committed criminal acts, but because they're views are different.
0
Comments
They form part of the Human Rights Act. Something to which the USA has decided to not be a signatory.
Hence, whilst it may appear heavy-handed to you, you will find that the decision to prevent his entry has been taken with that in mind.
The Act is designed to prevent the singling-out of specific groups for attack or criticism.
As we all are well aware, these groups are not to blame.
Certain individuals, occasionally within the groups, are to blame.
by implementing this Law, Great Britain is able to protect those who do not deserve such generalised criticism, and also protect the right of those following a religion, to practice with no fear of reprisal, attack or prejudice.
I am sorry you feel this is unjustified.
Thousands of British Moslems, who hold the Qu'ran as a holy scripture, feel his comments are also not justified.
But this sounds just like a really nice way of stifling free speech. You can say what you want about him, but Savage has never incited violence or crimes of any sorts against Muslims.
It's one thing to criticize Savage and lampoon him, but it's another thing entirely to BAN him from a country. Where does free speech fit into all of this?
Would you be in favor of banning the president of Iran from a country like Britain or America? The man who runs a country that executes homosexuals and oppresses women?
But understand this:
The mores by which Iranians live are neither approved nor condoned by anyone else. However, they form a part of the Laws and Customs there. We may condemn them and declare them inhumane, but America and England are no strangers to controversy either, regarding for example (as you bring it up) homosexuality....
The difference is that whilst the president of Iran preaches on matters we find distasteful, they cannot be challenged or overturned over night.
This "jock" on the other hand, is a Westerner making controversial opinions on someone else's Religion, public. In the UK, this is classified as incitement.
I'm sorry, but it's Law, and the Home Secretary has decided he's contravened it.
I assure you she didn't simply have a hormonal stompy day, and throw a hissy fit. His comments were carefully weighed and found to be a contravention.
It's not a way of stifling free speech. It's permitting people to use the priviledge of free Speech responsibly.
He should thank his lucky stars really.
Would he like to try to enter Iran spouting such rhetoric?
Of course not.
I suspect he'd come off decidedly worse.
Well then I feel sorry for the U.K. But why haven't they banned Christopher Hitchens? Richard Dawkins? Sam Harris? All of these well-known writers have spoken quite disparagingly about other religions, including Islam. How about Ayann Hirsi Ali? She's a former Muslim who has little good to say about Islam. Should she be banned from Britain as well?
Then what exactly is your definition of free speech? My way of looking at it is that you have the freedom to be offended...and to offend.
We don't seem to see eye to eye 80-90% of the time, but I completely agree with you here. Personally, I hate Michael Savage; but banning him from entering a country simply because he says some dumb shit on a radio show is a bit heavy-handed in my opinion.
Jason
If they state things which contravene the Anti-terrorism Act and the Law of Human Rights then they have to be dealt with accordingly.
Look, it's not a perfect Law, and don't for one instant think it hasn't come under considerable fire here, too. Many Britons disagree with some of the legislation, and frankly, it does seem bizarre. No Law is perfect when it's man-made, and covers the areas of free Speech. Somebody, somewhere is going to come unstuck, because just that section right there is a minefield in itself, to negotiate....
Unfortunately what my definition is, doesn't count for anything. It's not my definition in question, here....
I guess the usual burble is that "the privilege of free Speech does not give anyone "Freedom from Responsibility"; Or as some other wise soul put it (I forget whom) The freedom of Speech ends when the fist hits the nose.
If you are going to have the freedom to offend, then you have to accept the consequences of someone exercising their freedom to be offended - and to do something about it.
Your 'dumb shit' is somebody else's total affront and unacceptable diatribe....
This is in essence, the point where in the effort to bend over backwards sufficiently to ensure fair play and the liberty to exist peaceably, the head is going to get jammed into a pretty dark place.
But things are as they are.
And only an Act of parliament will change it.
There are measures to bring the Police under stricter controls with regard to 'Stop and Search' laws, combined with the Anti-terrorism Act. It's a fact that London, as a Capital city, has had more incidents of such stops, far, far in excess of other major cities in the UK, for example. were talking six-figure thousands in London, as opposed to mere double figures elsewhere...And that minority groups have been targetted to extremes.
It's wrong.
It's dangerous and completely counter-effective.
This has now been acknowledged and will be rectified. But even though changes will be implemented, given the manner in which we create Laws, it's actually not going to happen over night.....lt could take months, even years to change the law.
The latter is doubtful, given the severity of the situation. But under normal circumstances, things go slow in the UK.....
Then I can only conclude that the Law of Human Rights is utterly absurd if this is what we get as a result.
Actually the man who originally coined that phrase was a profoundly evil man named Oliver Wendell Holmes who saw nothing wrong with the Sedition Acts in America during World War I. He was hardly the champion of free speech.
But again, Mr. Savage has not done anything criminal! It's one thing to keep someone out of your country who is a thief or a murderer or something heinous like that, but because he is "offensive?" By whose standards? Muslims? Why should their opinion be preferred? And as long as Mr. Savage is not inciting anything criminal, this whole business looks absurd.
So let me understand; if I publish an article saying that there are Muslims who use the Koran to justify murder, and I offend a Muslim by saying this, am I responsible if he burns down the newspaper building that published what I said? That's almost exactly what happened with the infamous Cartoon Wars in Denmark.
You still haven't answered the question thought about banning Christopher Hitchens and the others? Give me a reason why they shouldn't be banned as well for the comments about religion.
Mr Savage is being kept out of the country because his views are inflammatory and contravene some regulations regarding incitement. That's it. And as it's against the law, that's all there is to it.
"Do something about it" in the legal frame, KoB.... :rolleyes:
You are responsible for saying that muslims use the Koran to justify murder. The Muslims are responsible for burning down the newspaper building.
The two might be linked, but they're not interchangeable. Relax, you won't get sent down for defamation and secondary arson.
I already said that if anything anyone says contravenes the Human Rights Act (and remember they're covered by it, in part, too! hence the complexity!!) or the Anti-Terrorism Act, something would be done.
No doubt they may have sailed close to the wind.
I frankly know little about them, and so am not prepared to make comments which might clearly be mistaken.
I can't answer every single indiviual case for you KoB, I don't know.
I'm just explaining events as I know them.
Ok?
The Bush Dynasty actually being involved in business dealings with Bin Laden?
I dunno, I'm just guessing....
KoB: you single out this person Savage but how about the rest of the list? After all, he isn't the only US citizen whose visitor status has been refused in this list - what about the others?
There is no doubt that the whole question of freedom of speech is a contentious one. Did we not debate, here, whether the Pope should be 'impeached' for exercising that right? And, on this very board, we have censured people and banned some simply for expressing themselves in ways we did not like.
Beware, ganders - you will be served with the same sauce as the geese.
Good point, Simon.
Personally, I'm against censuring or banning people simply for expressing themselves.
Terrorist sympathizers, neo-Nazis, that Phelps fellow who runs the Westborough Baptist church, and a Hamas murderer amongst others.
Now I can understand why murderers and people who speak openly in favor of terrorism are declined entry into a country, but as much as I dislike the Baptist pastor and don't care for Michael Savage either, I don't think either of them should be banned from a country.
What happened to concepts of liberty?
A forum like this one is one thing. It's run by individuals who set all the rules and own the place. I acknowledge that. But a representative republic is another thing entirely.
And who decides, according to you, who will be allowed in or kept out? If it is the job of the elected representatives, how can you complain about this?
Or could it be because this Savage person is a US citizen and benefits from some sort of immunity?
The first point is that the UK is not a 'representative republic' but, beyond that, are you saying that the elected representatives may not make rules?
Ain't it wonderful to have the right to question the choices of another government? Should we questiond those choices? I don't know and don't really care. It's their right to protect their country in a manner they see fit, we would do nothing less to protect our own.
I've listened to Savage before and wouldn't be the slightest bit surprised to find him supporting the violent actions he doesn't "try" to incite. His anger always stops legally short of action. Funny how that works.
Every country has the right to protect it's people from dangers percieved and real.
But it grips my sh*t when they choose to be insulting and offensive about it.
Gotta draw the line somewhere, huh?
It's a question of principles, Respect and civility.
Call me 'old school' if you want to, that still counts for something important in my book.
It's funny that he doesn't actually do anything illegal and he's banned anyway, isn't he? That's simply absurd. The problem with your argument is that he hasn't incited violence against anyone. Sure, he has inflammatory stuff on his show, but he simply has not called for the death of anyone or incited anything illegal.
Since Muslim sensibilities seem to trump everything, why not simply go the whole nine yards and ban any criticism of Islam altogether? Better be safe than sorry.
Hey, what are you complaining about? At least you don't have Rush Limbaugh!
Palzang
It's not too late to ban him for some imaginary crime too.
Palzang
Of course they have the right to ban anyone they want. But this kind of nonsense is something I expect from a tinpot dictatorship or one of the Middle-Eastern theocracies. Outlawing anyone they don't like or someone who speaks out against them. But I don't expect it from a "free," Western democracy.
America [halfheartedly] attempts to curb illegal immigration, but gladly allows for tens of thousands of legal ones to enter each year. And it certainly is never so specific as to ban individuals because they cause "communal discord" or something insidious sounding like that.
I mean let's be honest, the only reason Michael Savage was banned was to cow-toe to Muslim sensibilities. Since there were indeed Muslims on the ban list, they wanted to make it look fair by putting a right-winger on there too. So they chose Savage. Where has the West's sense of liberty gone?
Ok, so which is it? Let's be specific. Is it that? Or his non-existent calls to violence against Muslims? Or the "communal discord" he shows? And even if it is because of his autism remarks (which it isn't), is that really sufficient grounds to ban someone from a country?
Keith Olberman, whom I consider a buffoon, once said that Fox News was just as bad if not worse than Al-Qaeda. The fact that the latter group saws fingers off for smoking, drills holes in people until they die, cut children's faces off with piano wire, and use mentally retarded women as human bombs seems irrelevant to him. Now, I think his remarks are shockingly stupid and insulting to the people whose lives are ruined by Al-Qaeda, but I would never for a second consider banning him from a country.
I mean what ever happened to "give me liberty or give me death?"
It was buried with Magna Carta by the Patriot Act.
I think it is not a good idea at all, and believe that the American perspective on speech is vastly superior to the Brits. In the US, the criteria for when speech slips into something illegal (and thus no longer constitutionally protected) has nothing to do with whether it is deemed offensive to some group, religious or otherwise. It is impossible to make distinctions based on who is offended and who is not. This is outright censorship of the worst kind, and it damages the ability of people to speak their minds without fear of government reprisal.
The classic American litmus test for unprotected speech is Oliver Wendell Holmes example of "shouting 'fire!' in a crowded theater." A more modern example is when some pro-life group called for the assassination of doctors who perform abortions. When the content of speech is illegal, then that speech cannot be protected. However, when the speech is merely said to "offend" this group or that group, it creates a ridiculous and preposterous standard that cannot meet empirical tests of consistency in application.
Another American standard is whether speech it is libelous or slanderous against an individual person. If Mr. Savage suggests that people start committing assault on a specific Muslim (or even to commit assault Muslims in general!), that speech is clearly illegal because its contents are criminal. If however, Savage is merely forthing at the mouth about how horrible Islam is, or that he thinks it is a false religion, and that he joyfully doodles pictures of Muhammad every day, etc. he is expressing an opinion. It is an opinion that certainly will offend some people and entertain others, but that is how free speech works. We cannot expect to like everything we hear, and as Buddhist, we are responsible for whether we take offense to words. There is nothing Savage could say about the Buddha that would offend me, unless I choose to be offended. However, if he spoke of a plan to attack me or rob me, that is another matter.
One more American standard of limiting speech is based on the idea of preventing forced contact. I should not be forced to encounter speech that I personally do not wish to hear, nor go through great, unreasonable pains in order to avoid contact. As an example, it is logical and reasonable for adult content to be identified as such, so parents and other consumers can make informed decisions about accessing its content. People have the right to choose what speech they listen to. They can change the channel if they do not like it, and they should have reasonable control of what information addresses them without their consent. To my understanding, no Muslim in Britain would be forced to listen to Michael Savage, nor would it be unduly taxing to avoid his broadcast signal. To my knowledge, his show still plays on two major wattage stations here in Dallas, yet I have not personally listened to one second of his show in several years.
Thus, I concede that Britain was within their legal right, but so what. The truth is their legal philosophy regarding speech is found seriously wanting.
Years ago, I used to work in the printing business, and there were many times when I was producing truly vile and despicable print materials (example would be "Aryan Nation" propaganda). These were absolutely offensive to me in every way imaginable. But I was actually happy to produce these materials for them, because as much as I disdained their message, it proved to me that I live in a truly fantastic society, where speech is not monitored and censored for content, whether it be censorship by me, or by Frederica, or by some Orwellian Minister of Speech Crimes in the U.K.
You cannot prohibit speech based on offensiveness and still call it free speech.
Freedom of speech does not imply freedom of movement.
Nobody is trying to stop Mr Savage or anyone else spouting bigoted, ignorance, inaccurate and hateful garbage. He can go on doing that as long as he likes. It is simply that HMG does not want him doing it here.
What's the problem?
Because the UK government, by banning people from the country because of their legal opinions, hurts the cause of free speech. And they've been quite clear in saying that they are basically doing so because he is offensive to certain people.
Thank you Simon, I do understand the difference here, but according to the US understanding, by doing what the Brits are doing, they are clearly punishing speech. This legal action also serves as a proactive measure for the government to control international speech, ultimately claiming that "if you say things that 'offend' some subset of people, your physical presence is banned." This is punishing speech, plain and simple.
There were some people on the right wing here in the US who felt we should not allow Mahmoud Ahmadinejad into the country to speak, because he is a holocaust denier, he says mean things about our country, he says mean things about Israel, etc. Heck even some on the far left wanted him banned because of his views on homosexuality. These people all had the same flawed understanding of free speech that the British government has opted to codify. Fortunately, we allowed Ahmadinejad into our country to speak his mind. The State Department could have blocked his diplomatic access to our country on any number of grounds aside from speech, but to do so would be a hypocrisy if speech were the real, driving force behind the action, which in this case, it would have been.
If we truly believe that these liberties we afford citizens are inalienable by nature; if we believe constitutional rights to belong to all of humanity (not just US citizens), then we should never pursue a legal action that violates these rights. Thus, the US has been making a huge mistake in holding prisoners for years in Guantanamo, Cuba without due process. We either believe that constitutional rights are to be followed, or not. The Supreme court eventually concurred with this position and forced the Bush Administration to either make a formal case against detainees, or free them. The legal and congressional battles continue...
Britain certainly has the legal authority to do whatever it wants as a sovereign nation, but from the standpoint of human suffrage, we should never punish acts of speech, unless the content of said speech was criminal in nature (going on the air with instructions on how to make a roadside bomb, is an example).
People mention the "consequences" of speech, and in my experience, people like Michael Savage will continue to marginalize himself in the marketplace of ideas, and he will face consequences in a more meaningful way (instead of receiving free negative advertising courtesy of the Royal Thought Police). The crazier he gets, the smaller his audience will continue to be. I also have no problem with authorities specifically monitoring his speech looking for criminal content, such as organizing a riot, or making threats of violence, etc. But in Britain, it seems that "offensive speech" DOES equate with content that is criminal anyway and is thus it is punishable, and that is where I disagree wholeheartedly with this unnecessary action. I disagree with this action because it is dangerous to the cause of liberty in the most fundamental way.
It is precisely for this reason that I strongly object to what appears to me to be cultural imperialism - the imposition of one's own, local culture on those with valid, if different, cultural norms. This is, I recognise, a legacy of the post-Enlightenment revolutionary ideals which continue to animate much of the US rhetoric about foreign relations.
On a personal note, I think it entirely counter-productive to ban travel to our country by anyone because of what they have said or written. I am even very suspicious of the criminalisation of "Holocaust denial" which tends to a hagiographic recension of the Shoa which took so many of my own family and their friends. At the same time, I think it ill behoves us to oppose the actions of a democratically constituted authority to decide who they want in their country. The US has, I understand, refused entry to a number of British citizens, among them Yusuf Islam (Cat Stevens), simply because of their faith and ethnic origin. Is this any different?
I think we are mostly on the same page here. It troubles me to watch the actions of my own country reveal this hypocrisy, and the decades of the cold war empowered a certain "end justifies the means" mentality that went into high gear during the Bush years with respect to wiretapping activities, holding prisoners for years without formal charges, committing acts of torture, etc. In a sense, all covert activities by the government rob the citizens of true democratic oversight.
Cat Stevens (Yusuf Islam), was indeed denied access to the US "on national security grounds" and this is precisely the same problem. The irony? The deportation led to official protests from the foreign office of Great Britain!
Covert actions by people in power serve the same functions that "faith claims" do in a debate....they are not objective nor transparent, and they typically shut down the dialog. Thus, the Government can always respond to inquiries of evidence that you and I may make by claiming that the intelligence they have on Mr. Islam is "classified." In truth, the claim that he posed any criminal threat to the US was almost certainly a sham, and he was--a couple years later--allowed to travel to the US, once the whole witch hunt mindset had simmered, with cooler heads finally prevailing. Mr. Stevens is a man who openly and publicly agreed with the notion that your fellow British citizen Salmon Rushdie be assassinated for writing a book. Perhaps if the US Government had used THAT as a reason for sending him packing back across the Atlantic, I would have been a bit more sympathetic!
I agree that Yusuf Islam was pretty stupid to agree with fatwa against Rushdie. His book was not for burning, despite being IMHO unreadable. My late father said that he knew that killings were inevitable in Germany when he watched them burning books.
I want to apologise to you for having gone somewhat over the top in this discussion. It arises from a reaction that you will, I think, recognise: I can criticise my country but I'm damned if anyone else can! It's irrational and sets friend against friend.
I hope that you have it in your heart to forgive me.