Banned in Britain: Michael Savage

[Coito ergo sum]

Latest release from the UK: http://www.michaelsavage.wnd.com/files/ ... letter.pdf
\

But Lord West said: "He's spoken about killing 100 million Muslims and spoken in very violent and unpleasant terms about homosexuals."
Such remarks were "very deeply offensive", he added.
Lord West also said: "The former Home Secretary [Jacqui Smith] made clear that Mr Savage was banned for... unacceptable behaviour and making comments that might lead to civil violence [and] community violence."
The minister did not read out any of the allegedly offensive statements by Mr Savage, but said: "I will provide a list of the things he has said, some of which are fairly objectionable and unpleasant.
"I would be surprised if some of the these statements could be put in a context that makes them anything other than abhorrent."
Labour's Lord Peston raised a laugh when he suggested the ban on Mr Savage was part of the government's "approach of protecting British jobs for British workers, namely that we produce enough nutcases here not to import any from other countries."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8454769.stm

Many Muslims, however, are not banned for suggesting that the punishment for apostasy is death, and to call openly for violent Jihad in the UK. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/21/world ... ondon.html

[devogue]

The former Home Secretary should be in jail.

[pErvinalia]

Latest release from the UK: http://www.michaelsavage.wnd.com/files/ ... letter.pdf
\

But Lord West said: "He's spoken about killing 100 million Muslims and spoken in very violent and unpleasant terms about homosexuals."
Such remarks were "very deeply offensive", he added.
Lord West also said: "The former Home Secretary [Jacqui Smith] made clear that Mr Savage was banned for... unacceptable behaviour and making comments that might lead to civil violence [and] community violence."
The minister did not read out any of the allegedly offensive statements by Mr Savage, but said: "I will provide a list of the things he has said, some of which are fairly objectionable and unpleasant.
"I would be surprised if some of the these statements could be put in a context that makes them anything other than abhorrent."
Labour's Lord Peston raised a laugh when he suggested the ban on Mr Savage was part of the government's "approach of protecting British jobs for British workers, namely that we produce enough nutcases here not to import any from other countries."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8454769.stm

Many Muslims, however, are not banned for suggesting that the punishment for apostasy is death, and to call openly for violent Jihad in the UK. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/21/world ... ondon.html

But, but, the latter's religion. Religion must be respected and protected at all costs.

[Arse]

Yes, and the slightly inconvenient fact that the muslims quoted in that article all have British citizenship. Can't really ban them from the country if they're born and bred there, CES.

[Coito ergo sum]

Yes, and the slightly inconvenient fact that the muslims quoted in that article all have British citizenship. Can't really ban them from the country if they're born and bred there, CES.

Sure about that?

The first one discussed, Dr. Mohammad Al-Massari, is an exiled Saudi, neither born, nor bred, in the UK.

[Azathoth]

Yes, and the slightly inconvenient fact that the muslims quoted in that article all have British citizenship. Can't really ban them from the country if they're born and bred there, CES.

I can think of a solution. A final one

[Arse]

He was granted asylum though, which means he can't be banned from Britain anymore than if he was born and bred. Besides, people like him are a miniscule part of the problem. The main problem with Islamic extremism in the UK is homegrown extremism.

[Coito ergo sum]

He was granted asylum though, which means he can't be banned from Britain anymore than if he was born and bred. Besides, people like him are a miniscule part of the problem. The main problem with Islamic extremism in the UK is homegrown extremism.

You said - citizen and born and bred. Goalposts have now shifted.

[Arse]

Ok then - mostly born and bred, some granted asylum, all UK citizens who cannot be "banned from Britain." Doesn't change the central point, that the problem is homegrown and won't be solved by banning foreigners from the UK.

Incidentally, some muslim extremists have also been banned from Britain, just like Michael Savage was, so their policy is not as one sided as your OP would seem to suggest.

[Coito ergo sum]

Ok then - mostly born and bred, some granted asylum, all UK citizens who cannot be "banned from Britain." Doesn't change the central point, that the problem is homegrown and won't be solved by banning foreigners from the UK.

Incidentally, some muslim extremists have also been banned from Britain, just like Michael Savage was, so their policy is not as one sided as your OP would seem to suggest.

Asylees are not citizens. Asylees have visas.

The policy is one-sided because Michael Savage never said anything extreme enough to warrant some "banning." He was put on the list as a token white boy to make it seem like they were not just banning terrorists and terrorism supporters.

[Arse]

Asylees are not citizens. Asylees have visas.

They still cannot be banned from the country, and they are still not the main problem.

The policy is one-sided because Michael Savage never said anything extreme enough to warrant some "banning." He was put on the list as a token white boy to make it seem like they were not just banning terrorists and terrorism supporters.

Now you're moving the goal posts. At first, Savage was banned but jihadis weren't, now its Savage is banned as the token white boy among all the jihadis who are banned.

[Coito ergo sum]

Asylees are not citizens. Asylees have visas.

They still cannot be banned from the country, and they are still not the main problem.

Sure they can. It's called deportation.

The policy is one-sided because Michael Savage never said anything extreme enough to warrant some "banning." He was put on the list as a token white boy to make it seem like they were not just banning terrorists and terrorism supporters.

Now you're moving the goal posts. At first, Savage was banned but jihadis weren't, now its Savage is banned as the token white boy among all the jihadis who are banned.

Read my post again. I said "Many Muslims, however, are not banned..." And, many aren't. I never said that none of them was.

[Arse]

Sure they can. It's called deportation.

If they've been granted asylum in the UK, its not that simple to deport them. For example, the UK government wanted to deport that Saudi freak ages ago, and they were blocked by the High Court because he was in danger if he was sent back to Saudi Arabia.

Read my post again. I said "Many Muslims, however, are not banned..." And, many aren't. I never said that none of them was.

So what point were you trying to make by contrasting the banning of Michael Savage with "many muslims"? There are many non-muslims not banned from the UK too, so what? It seems to suggest that you think muslims are being allowed into the country willy nilly to practice hate speech and jet off again, while Michael Savage is being unfairly singled out.

What about Fred Phelps, are you annoyed that he's banned from the UK?

[MrJonno]

Unless you can show that someone is likely to commit a crime you can't deny asylum to someone just because they are a religious fanatic if there life is in genuine danger from where they came from.

So if Michael Savage could show his life was in danger in the US he would probably get asylum despite his views

[drl2]

If Michael Savage wants to go to Britain he should put on a funny hat and a dress, carry a bible, and start mumbling in Latin. Not only will they let him in, they'll pay for the trip.