The Radio Equalizer: Brian Maloney

05 May 2009

Talk Host Michael Savage Barred From UK Entry


Troubled Labour Bars Outsiders With Dissenting Views

Ahead of a crushing defeat at the next general election, Britain's dying Labour Party government has pandered to its politically-correct base by publishing a list of "undesirables" banned from entry into the UK.

Making headlines here in America this morning is the fact that syndicated talk host Michael Savage has made the list, along with Muslim, Jewish and Christian individuals considered by Labour to hold extreme views.

According to the most recent surveys, Labour and highly unpopular Prime Minister Gordon Brown are expected to be swept from power by Conservatives at the next general election, with projections of a substantial Tory majority, perhaps as high as 132 seats.

Regardless of how one might feel about Savage and his often atypical views (that's not the issue here, so let's take the emotions out of it), there's no known evidence that he's made any attempt to visit Britain or spread his political philosophy there in any way. Many of the others on the list are Islamic extremists clearly bent on promoting terrorism in that country.

Have a few Jews and others (including the kooky Phelps family) been thrown in as some sort of PC balancing act?

Update: Savage has reacted to the move here.

Especially curious is the fact that Home Office Secretary Jacqui Smith hasn't provided any specific information on the move to ban Savage. But the Telegraph suggests it may be related to his questioning of Obama's belief system:

After years of criticism, the tougher exclusions policy is an attempt to take "stronger action against those we suspect of stirring up tensions", the Home Office said. More than five "promoters of hate" are being excluded a month.

However while the strict measures ban extremists from entering Britain, questions are being asked about the continued "threat from within".

Jacqui Smith has faced repeated calls to ban the Hizb ut-Tahrir group, and the successor organisation of al-Muhajiroun, both of which Tony Blair promised to proscribe in 2005.

They insist they are non-violent, however the organisations, which have thrived on university campuses, are accused of providing a gateway to more extremist groups - a claim they deny.

Two months ago The Daily Telegraph disclosed that the Home Office had also failed to shut down a single terrorist website, despite a similar pledge by the former Prime Minister four years ago.

The individuals concerned include animal rights extremists, right to life extremists, homophobe extremists, far right extremists, as well as advocates of hatred and violence in support of their religious beliefs.

Those banned on grounds of their "unacceptable behaviour" include preachers Abdullah Qadri Al Ahdal, Wadgy Mohamed Ghoneim and Yunis Al Astal. All of them are considered to "foment, justify or glorify terrorist violence".

Also excluded is Michael Savage, a right-wing American talk radio host with eight million listeners a week, who describes his own style as "explosive" and liberalism as a "mental disorder"..

He once asked whether President Barack "Madrasah" Obama was a "so-called friendly Muslim'' or one more "radical".

The Home Office said that Mr Savage was "considered to be engaging in unacceptable behaviour by seeking to provoke others to serious criminal acts and fostering hatred which might lead to inter-community violence".

Miss Smith, Home Secretary, said: "Coming to the UK is a privilege and I refuse to extend that privilege to individuals who abuse our standards and values to undermine our way of life. Therefore, I will not hesitate to name and shame those who foster extremist views as I want them to know that they are not welcome here.

For the left, this stunt is sure to backfire as it propels Savage into the headlines and sparks a fresh round of curiosity about his show. His ratings could easily double and book sales could be jump-started, particularly as curious Britons wonder what the fuss is all about.

This could be considered a Frankie Goes To Hollywood effect, as their 1984 single "Relax" rocketed to number one after it was banned by the BBC.

Remember that your Radio Equalizer is not necessarily a defender of his viewpoints or behavior and that this site has been criticized by Savage himself during the program. But this move is silly, akin to Janet Napolitano's "right wing" report that similarly proved embarrassing for her office.

In fact that story is back in the news today as it has been revealed that Homeland Security issued and quickly retracted an "extremism dictionary".

Britain certainly has
a sovereign right to deny entry to anyone it deems undesirable. But this move should seen for what it really is: a public relations disaster for a dying government.

FOR New England regional talk radio updates, see our other site.

Amazon orders originating with clicks here benefit The Radio Equalizer's ongoing operations.

Your PayPal contributions keep this site humming along. Thanks!


  • While Savage can be over the top
    at times. He can be funny and
    I would rather listen to the
    Savage Nation instead of Levin,
    Hannity or Rush.
    This can be the best thing for
    Micheal. His ratings will go up.
    Just imagine a nation doe's not
    want him.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 05 May, 2009 12:59  

  • I've listened to Savage a few times but found him unrelentingly depressing. I also can't get over how much he sounds like Jackie Mason.


    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 05 May, 2009 13:16  

  • I don't agree with Savage being banned.

    However, Savage is no friend of free speech. Despite Savage painting himself as a champion of free speech, he is anything but. He took the organisation CAIR to court to prevent them from using snippets of his show on their website. He lost. However, had Savage prevailed, free speech would have lessened for us all. See:


    By Anonymous Tony Kondaks, at 05 May, 2009 20:45  

  • Don’t care for his show he’s to mad at the world. You know like a liberal.

    By Blogger pf1, at 06 May, 2009 01:33  

  • Pf1

    Savage BEST represents the average teabagger consevative, angry, crazy, foaming at the mouth, boardering o insane

    that's what maeshis show so good, Savage andBeck are the greatest ever, they really do present how conservatives think. Paranoid, far fetched,misanthropic and regressive

    Savage and Beck are indeed te fnest conservative talk how, they defne the 21st century 20%er

    By Anonymous consrejectedworldwide, at 06 May, 2009 09:20  

  • The issue here is the Constitution and specifically the first amendment. It protects offensive speech, not politically correct speech. When have you ever wanted to shut up someone who says only PC things? Well, maybe abad analogy ...

    We all need to fight this, regardless what you think of Savage.

    Same with the censorship doctrine. If they can shut up Rush, they can shut you up as well.

    By Blogger 10ksnooker, at 06 May, 2009 13:59  

  • Snooker

    Why would you care about England's position on free speech? Nothing to fight, England can do whatever they want with freaks like Savage, not our business

    By Anonymous worldwiderejectionofreaganites, at 06 May, 2009 15:27  

  • 10k, you seemingly miss the point...

    this has nothing whatsoever to do with the US constitution.

    The UK doesn't have to adhere to our laws & constitution.

    Not saying I agree with them banning people, but on the other hand if they're going to do so, I can't blame 'em for adding Michael Weiner to the list...

    which begs the question - did they ban _him_, or "Michael Savage"? (not his real name)

    By Anonymous TJ, at 06 May, 2009 21:30  

  • Hehehehehheehehheee...

    Ahhh... the Brits done stirred up
    "The Savage PeePee"

    By Anonymous Anonymous One, at 06 May, 2009 23:51  

  • Savage is an angry man. In many cases he is right to be angry. But what we have here is the usual liberal attack on free speech. If everyone would just talk nice, all problems would be solved. Remember the trial of Mark Steyn in Canada, no 1st Amendment up there. Few other countries have our explicit protections of political free speech; and this just reminds us how precious they are.

    By Anonymous Rob, at 07 May, 2009 00:19  

  • Mop what was it about the tea party protest that you didn’t like. Was it the expansion of government or the tax payers’ money being thrown away on liberal pet projects? I no you claim not to be a liberal but after that much money has been spent your socialist dream will never come about. There is no money left any more. So again I ask why did you and do you disparage the tea party protest.

    As for Glen and Savage being the conservative party you’re a socialist what would you know you have your own problems your not even a 1%.

    By Blogger pf1, at 07 May, 2009 00:48  

  • You say his views are often atypical which I don't get. I've been a regular listener for many years and find his views normal and typical. Those are mainly these 3: borders, language, and culture. These are common sense and most people are afraid to speak about them. I'm curious what views you disagree with. I understand he bashes other talk hosts which I don't like, but 99% of the rest of his work is a tremendous service to us. To others who choose ridicule, good job with your Alinsky Rule #5 and #12. When you can't defend your own position, ridicule your opponent, then freeze him, isolate him and polarize him. At least we have one American who fights back unlike the pansies we have in congress.

    By Blogger susan mullen, at 07 May, 2009 04:04  

  • "The issue here is the Constitution and specifically the first amendment."

    Umm, no. If you knew anything at all, you'd know England is NOT part of the United States of America.

    You might also know that the UK has some of the most ridiculous speech restrictions found in all of Europe.

    By Blogger TC, at 07 May, 2009 07:33  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Page Rank Checker

Powered by Blogger