T Nation

Savage Sues UK


#1

http://www.boston.com/ae/tv/articles/2009/05/06/banned_us_shock_jock_says_will_sue_britain/

Banned U.S. "shock jock" says will sue Britain

An outspoken American radio presenter barred from entering Britain said on Wednesday he would sue the British government for defamation after his name was published on an official list of "promoters of hate".

Michael Savage, a so-called "shock jock" radio host who has a right-wing talk show called The Savage Nation, described British Home Secretary (interior minister) Jacqui Smith as a "lunatic" and said he had set his lawyers to work on the case.

Smith published the list -- which includes Islamist extremists, American anti-gay preachers and Russian gang members -- on Tuesday, accusing those named of "stirring up hatred" and "fostering extremism or hatred".

"For this lunatic Jacqui Smith ... to link me up with skinheads who are killing people in Russia, to put me in league with mass murderers who kill Jews on buses, is defamation," Savage said on his show, excerpts of which were aired on BBC radio on Wednesday.

"As a result of this, I am going to sue her."

Savage, who says he has between 8 and 10 million listeners across the United States, urged them to support him by cancelling any travel plans to Britain and by boycotting British-made goods.

"I don't know what they make there any more, but whatever they make, I suggest you don't buy it," he said.

"If they want to play hardball, we'll play hardball".

Savage was fired by cable news channel MSNBC in 2003 after he referred to a caller on his show as a "sodomite" and said: "You should only get AIDS and die, you pig!".

Smith defended her decision, saying Savage -- whose real name is Michael Alan Weiner -- was a man of extreme views who expressed them "in such a way that it is actually likely to cause inter-community tension or even violence".

"Coming to this country is a privilege," she told Good Morning Television. "If you can't live by the rules that we live by, the standards and the values that we live by, we should exclude you from this country."

Artur Ryno and Pavel Skachevsky, former leaders of a violent Russian skinhead gang which beat and murdered immigrants, are also named on the list, along with the anti-gay U. S. Christian preacher Reverend Fred Phelps and his daughter Shirley Phelps-Roper. (editing by Tim Castle)


#2

I seriously doubt Fred Phelps even has a passport.


#3

I think it’s kind of funny that his real name is Michael Weiner. Figures.


#4

He’s a Jew. Which makes it categorically impossible for him to be a “promoter of hate.”


#5

Ha, first time I’ve ever liked Jacqui Smith.


#6

[quote]Jab1 wrote:
Ha, first time I’ve ever liked Jacqui Smith.

[/quote]

I liked her much better when she was doing Charlie’s Angels.

Celebrities just shouldn’t go into politics.

:stuck_out_tongue:


#7

Is there anyone MS is not sueing?


#8

Here is another take on the issue.

http://bnp.org.uk/2009/05/under-labour’s-anti-democratic-rules-even-the-pope-would-be-prevented-from-entering-britain/

Under Labour?s Anti-Democratic Rules, Even the Pope Would be Prevented from Entering Britain

Under the Labour regime?s increasingly totalitarian rule, even the Pope would be barred from entering Britain, one of this nation?s leading religious commentators has said.

Reacting to the news of the twenty two ?barred individuals? who were apparently refused entrance to the United Kingdom over the last five months, the blogger, who uses the pseudonym ?Archbishop Cranmer? wrote that he was ?not sure why only sixteen were named out of the twenty two who were excluded between October 2008 and March 2009.

?It is reported that ?the public interest was against naming? the remaining six. Perhaps it is a little recompense to the democratically-elected Dutch MP Geert Wilders whose democratic credentials have been thoroughly and unjustly trashed by being refused entry to the UK along with those who have indeed incited violence and murder,? wrote Cranmer.

Cranmer?s blog, which can be found here, is linked from the Daily Telegraph?s website and was ranked number one of the ?Top 10 Religious Blogs in the UK? and number three in the ?Top 500 Political Blogs? in 2007,? in Iain Dale?s Guide to Political Blogging in the UK.

?The Government has released the names of some of the people who have been barred from entering the UK over the past five months for such offenses as fostering extremism or fomenting hatred. They include a number of ?Islamic extremists?, a few ?white supremacists?, a ?homophobic church? and a ?US radio host?,? Cranmer wrote.

?But Cranmer is more than a little irritated that the Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said that ?coming to the UK should be a privilege?. It is rather a pity that it has ceased to be so. EU ?nationals? are at liberty to come to the UK to abuse social provision with impunity. Coming to the UK is no longer a privilege; it is a manifest right for millions of people who owe absolutely nothing to Britain and are obliged to respect nothing of her history, culture or traditions.

?Some people on this list have broken no law. Of course, freedom of speech has limits: incitement being a very obvious one. But when Ms Smith talks of the law-abiding among these people who have ?clearly overstepped the mark?, it becomes clear that the interpretation and application of statute law is no longer the boundary by which guilt is determined. There is a ?mark? which may be ?overstepped? before one has actually broken the law.

?The Home Secretary explains that she will not allow people into the UK ?who are going to propagate the sort of views? that fundamentally go against our values?. The ban, she insists, ?enables people to see the sorts of unacceptable behaviour we are not willing to have in this country?.

?But the problem is that it does nothing of the sort. It is impossible to discern any coherent set of ?values? from the Labour?s banned list, other than those with which the Home Secretary herself happens to disagree. People are now excluded not because of what they have done but because of what they may do. It is now an offence to be ?likely to stir up tension?.

?There is no doubt that some on this list are among the most odious and repugnant of humanity, yet being odious and repugnant is not a crime. Those from the Westboro Baptist Church may exist beyond the fringe of social acceptability, but there are those who might assert that homosexuals do the same. This is not (before Cranmer is besieged by abusive emails) a plea for their admission - for theirs is not a cause of love but a controversy of self-righteousness. But the Government line does not run straight.

?Individuals are usually barred from entering the UK because his or her presence ?is not conducive to the public good?. The Government supports freedom of expression, ?but believes it needs to be exercised responsibly?. They will therefore ?continue to oppose extremism in all its forms?.

?But to oppose extremism in all its forms must prevent the Pope from entering the UK. What are ?our values? when even Tony Blair refers to the orthodox Christian beliefs as ?extremist??

?Pope Benedict is certain to be welcomed to the UK on the occasion of the beatification of Cardinal Newman. Yet he was judged to have tarnished his office with a distinct whiff of anti-Semitism when he reinstated a prayer calling for the conversion of Jews; this was reinforced when he lifted the excommunication on the Holocaust-denying priest Richard Williamson; and then there was the ?Islamophobia? of his Regensburg address in 2006, when he quoted a Byzantine emperor who described Islam as ?evil and inhuman?; And he has said that homosexuality is a ?strong tendency ordered to an intrinsic moral evil, and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder?; he refers to heterosexual marriage as ?correct living?, and repudiates ?a legal form of a kind of homosexual marriage?; he asserts that abortion is a grave sin; he stokes ?xenophobia? when he states that European multiculturalism is ?fleeing from what is one?s own?; and he opposes gender equality in the workplace.

?How can such a man whose preaching and beliefs are so antithetical to ?our values? be permitted to set foot in New Labour?s New Britain?

?One might hope that Parliament would one day admit a few philosopher-rulers, for the politicians have entered the realm of defending liberalism by illiberal means. The moment the Home Secretary espoused the line that the UK?s liberal democracy should be defended by banning all the hate-filled, nasty, illiberal foreigners, she actually found herself in the uncomfortable position of agreeing with Geert Wilders, though doubtless quite unable to see it.?


#9

He did an interview on N.P.R., to say he was a wiener would be too polite, he was a DICK


#10

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
I seriously doubt Fred Phelps even has a passport.[/quote]

He and his daughter were planning to enter the UK recently in order to stir shit up - and were told to stay away.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/7898972.stm

Makkun


#11

Britain has the right to let in who they want, and who they don’t want.

On a side note does anyone know the context of the ‘get aids and die’ ‘sodomite’ comment?


#12

I forget the immediate context, but the general context – in my personal opinion of what happened – is that he wanted to get himself fired from MSNBC so that he could get indignant about it.

Why do I say that?

First, because he goes into fake indignation all the time. E.g., asking his engineer (or pretending to; he may well run the clips himself) to play a given clip, and then after no more than 5 or 6 seconds screaming “STOP, STOP, STOP, TURN IT OFF! GET THAT BUM OFF MY PROGRAM!!!”

Second, because he’s been a radio professional for 15 years. I really don’t think he blurts things he doesn’t intend to say and which aren’t for a purpose that he intends.

Lastly, because he and MSNBC are a completely implausible marriage. He’d have known that going in; MSNBC may not have. One really can’t conceive of him sticking with that. But creating a show of having been wronged by MSNBC: it’s easy to see him loving that idea.

Personal opinion. I think he set them up.


#13

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
I forget the immediate context, but the general context – in my personal opinion of what happened – is that he wanted to get himself fired from MSNBC so that he could get indignant about it.

Why do I say that?

First, because he goes into fake indignation all the time. E.g., asking his engineer (or pretending to; he may well run the clips himself) to play a given clip, and then after no more than 5 or 6 seconds screaming “STOP, STOP, STOP, TURN IT OFF! GET THAT BUM OFF MY PROGRAM!!!”

Second, because he’s been a radio professional for 15 years. I really don’t think he blurts things he doesn’t intend to say and which aren’t for a purpose that he intends.

Lastly, because he and MSNBC are a completely implausible marriage. He’d have known that going in; MSNBC may not have. One really can’t conceive of him sticking with that. But creating a show of having been wronged by MSNBC: it’s easy to see him loving that idea.

Personal opinion. I think he set them up.[/quote]

nail on the head. i don’t how anyone can listen to this guy anymore. he is always the victim of some atrocity. he really would make a better liberal. he should stick with MSNBC and ditch the conservative act.


#14

[quote]eigieinhamr wrote:
Britain has the right to let in who they want, and who they don’t want.

On a side note does anyone know the context of the ‘get aids and die’ ‘sodomite’ comment?[/quote]

http://nothingtoxic.com/media/1166948788/Why_Michael_Savage_was_Canned_from_MSNBC

I happen to like the guy. I’ve listened too him for a few years. I will admit he really isnt for the faint of heart, he comes very hard and straight and if you get offended easily you shouldn’t listen too him. One of the really cool things he’s done is raise money for LtCol. Chessani who was wrongly accused of murder while serving in Iraq.


#15

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
He did an interview on N.P.R., to say he was a wiener would be too polite, he was a DICK[/quote]


Here’s the interview, I really don’t see a problem with it.