Bob Calco wrote: > http://bit.ly/aNJj2 > > - - - > Since 2005, the U.K. has been able to ban people who promote hatred, > terrorist violence or serious criminal activity. On May 5, Britain's Home > Office released the names of 16 of the 22 individuals who have been placed > on the list since October of 2008. The report describes Savage as: > "Controversial daily radio host. Considered to be engaging in unacceptable > behavior by seeking to provoke others to serious criminal acts and fostering > hatred which might lead to inter-community violence." > > "This is someone who has fallen into the category of fomenting hatred, of > such extreme views and expressing them in such a way that it is actually > likely to cause inter-community tension or even violence if that person were > allowed into the country," said Home Secretary Jaqui Smith about Savage. > > To place a successful talk host like Michael Savage on the same list as > radical Muslim clerics, convicted criminals, and Russian skinheads is beyond > outrageous. Yet we hear not a peep being said by the U.S. government and > mainstream media in defense of Savage against this outrage. > > Instead of fighting this unjustified attack against an American citizen, the > Obama administration is preparing to mimic the British. Reading the language > of the Home Office's release, we couldn't help by see an uncanny resemblance > to Janet Napolitano's Homeland Security Report that classified conservatives > as extremists. The liberal thought police are on the prowl in London, and > the media and the Obama administration are silent and implicitly supporting > the British. > > Can you imagine the outcry and fervor that this travel ban would cause if it > had included a leftist talk host such as Rachel Maddow? The media would be > up in arms, and the Obama administration would immediately be on the phone > with British diplomats to get an explanation. So why is that not happening > in the case of Michael Savage? > > Evidently in the U.K. it is OK to blacklist a white male conservative, if > you so much as utter a word of opposition to illegal immigration, > homosexuality, or Islamic terrorists. Michael Savage sent a letter to > Secretary of State Clinton asking her to plead his case; we doubt that she > will listen. He is also suing the British government for defamation for > grouping him with all the legitimate criminals and terrorists and "painting > a target on my back." Legal experts estimate he has a decent case. > > In his defense on the air Savage said, ""I have never advocated violence. . > . I've been on the air for fifteen years, three hours a day, five days a > week -- fifteen years. They [Savage's critics] take a few sound bites that > amount to one, two, or three minutes and they try to redefine me by > extracting sound bites out of context. I could do that with anyone in the > public eye." > > The mainstream media and the Obama administration are neglecting their > duties by not defending Mr. Savage. As much as they may be disagree with > Savage's opinions, this type of censorship and blacklisting is threatening > everyone's freedom of expression. As Roger Hedgecock says, "The British > government action barring Michael Savage is a frightening preview of what we > can expect in our own country as the PC police shut down the voices of > dissent." > > If these attempts to intimidate and censor people for their viewpoints are > not combated now, freedom of dissent may become a memory. > > - - - > > Shame on Rush, Hannity and Beck for not making even so much as a peep about > this. Savage is on the "colorful" end of the conservative spectrum, to be > sure, but he has never advocated violence of any kind, and in fact has some > eclective views that are hard to describe as "right wing." This blacklisting > and lumping with terrorists and criminals is outrageous in the extreme. > > I was flabbergasted when the policy was announced, and the connection to > Napolitano's bizarre terror memo is ominous. > LOL When WE want to visit USA we have to apply for a Visa. We get treated as second rate people and are at the whim of a bureaucrat. If he denies you the visa he doesn't even have to explain why. So? When I went to Britain in 2000 I was advised not to apply for a visa because anyway I would be questioned there in the airport before being allowed to the country, if the officers didn't like for any reason something about me I would be denied entrance and flown back.
Do you propose, in the sake of equality, that USA and Britain drop these practices? Or is equality only for US people? _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
