Michael Savage banned!

Post Reply New Topic

Michael Savage is just the kind of guy that would fuel up anti semitism. he insulted catholics, autistics, Mexicans and Muslims, I would never insult those groups (I would never insult Autistics because i am autistic myself)
I would never insult Mexicans because some of them are descendents of Spanish Jews forcibly converted to Catholicism during the Inquisition
I would never Insult Catholics or Muslims and other religious groups because, this could Fuel Anti Semitism, besides i admire Muslim culture and i collect Islamic art from countries like Pakistan, Turkey, Iran Morocco and Tunisia. i also collect hispanic art (Particularly from areas where there are lots of descendents of Spanish Jews forcibly converted to Catholicism during the Inquisition).

Michael Savage is the last person i would want to be, because his Beliefs are not compatable with mine.

But the issue here is not his right to spout his silliness. The issue is the core of the silliness itself. The travel ban is not going to keep Michael Savage from expressing his silliness blantantly and at top volume to anyone who will listen and it probably won't even make him think twice about it, however, it does bring to light what the silliness that he does want to proclaim is.

I know that for the most part humans are sheeple and will just follow the guy that yells orders the loudest, but for the few intelligent ones in the crowd that do actually listen to the orders to determine what they are, it could prove to be enlightening and make them think twice about their own personal views.

Right now, the faction that speaks the loudest on autism issues are the people who are trying to eradicate autism so that there are no issues. These are not people who have had to learn to live with the inconveniences of autistic tics and symptoms. These are people who know severely, non-verbal autistic people and make assumptions about their quality of life in comparison to a neurotypical quality of life. These are people who assume that my way of living is sometimes less because I think differently about things than they do purely because of my brain wiring.

As people on the spectrum, we need to make some decision about how others perceive us and the decisions that are made for us based on these perceptions. If we do not all get together (no, we don't have to hold hands about it) and use our voices to make our own decisions, then we deserve to be cured or whatever evil thing they decide because we were quiet. I choose not to be quiet and let others make decisions that affect me but are not the choices I would make. I choose to work toward positive interactions and changes that benefit us all.

I don't really think this is a freedom of speech issue.

Visiting other countries is a privilege.

Michael Savage doesn't have a god-given right to come to my country and spout his rubbish and i'm glad he's been banned from coming here.

Bingo.
I think this may actually be a good lesson for someone like Savage, he strikes me as the type of guy who thinks his money and his social status can grant him anything he wants without fuss. Maybe this will be a swift wake-up call that other human beings exist, too.

Freedom of travel is normally a right in liberal democracies. And by banning people from their country, Britain is essentially outlawing controversial viewpoints, which is utter rubbish and absolutely antithetical to democratic ideals.

Except for one thing Orwell. Britain is not a liberal democracy, it's a constitutional monarchy.

They are probably afraid we wouldn't let him back in the country. I personally think the vast majority of conservatives are asshats and consider pro-lifers especially the scum of the Earth.
Michael Savage is a big smelly crap cake with diarrhea icing.

Wait, are Michael Savage and Dan Savage related?

If you don't know, Dan Savage is a columnist who writes about sex.
Google his name and you'll find his website.

Anyway, I bet Michael Weiner likes to have his wiener savaged.

He is the biggest anti-autism douchebag since the founding of Autism Speaks.
As for being banned from the UK, I'm glad.
No one needs to hear his hatred of people with neurological differences.
Somone should contact the FCC and have his show pulled permanently
from where you reside.

Also, someone should grab Mr. Wiener off of the streets,
place him in a room full of LFAs, HFAs & Aspies, lock him in there
for a week and see how autistic he becomes!

what about kicking his ass

He needs to get slapped by a pimp.

British laws draw a difference between "free speech" and "hate speech". A lot of what comes out of Savage's mouth is definitely defined as hate speech under UK law, as it perpetuates hatred and glorifies terrorism. I consider this a great idea on the part of the UK government, as it is acknowledging what role hate speech can play in leading up to actions of violence, hate crime and terrorism. Like one of my favourite bloggers said,
"Language is important because it frames discourse and if we want equality to be more than a word we pay lip service to, such language must be strongly disavowed."

Statement from the UK Home Secretary:
"Coming to this country is a privilege," she said. "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 and, what's more, now we will make public those people that we have excluded."

I am aware of this, but I think it is a foolish and baseless distinction to draw.

Liverbird, the UK may be a constitutional monarchy by law, but the monarchy serves pretty much just ceremonial functions by now. For all intents and purposes, Britain is a parliamentary democratic republic.

Hmm... Jacqui Smith. That stupid b***h should be strung-up from the nearest lamppost. We don't need some leftist zealot who claims for porn videos on her governmental expenses dictating what "standards" and "values" we live by.

For everyone who is interested, This is what Michael Savage's (Really Michael Weiner) true appearence

This means in the normal case to leave your country when ever you want (with some exceptions like during criminal proceedings), but not to enter an other country. The list of persons on so called US Watch List is by far longer than those on the UK-List.

It is unusual to publish a list, but whatever the reasons for this gimmick all countries exclude people for political reasons, not least the US. The US merely quietly denies entry rather than publishing a list of banned people. By your reasoning there is no country in the world that you would visit (except maybe the Vatican, which has no border controls with Italy - ironically Europe's last absolute monarchy). Whatever the motives for publishing this list, it's at least less hypocritical than other countries that are less open about it (such as, I insist, the US). There are better moral grounds for boycotting say, Saudi Arabia (where you can be chucked in prison for respectfully, peacefully petitioning for a constitutional rather than absolute monarchy).

And no, freedom of travel is NOT a right in liberal democracies, unless you believe there is not a single liberal democracy on the planet (US immigration officials can deny entry at will even if you have a valid visa). All countries in the world, democratic or otherwise, impose visas and such requirements on at least some nationalities, and deny entry at will. Maybe you should talk to some Chinese about what they have to go through to even set foot on US soil (even if it's just to walk from one plane to another at the airport).