UK bans Michael Savage

[bascule]

Dr. Michael Weiner (pronounced "whiner") a.k.a. Michael Savage, is a PhD nutritional enthomedicine radio commentator, who, well, apparently decided being a well-educated person isn't a good thing and decided to fashion himself after a redneck.

 

Anyway, the UK has deemed him a persona non grata. What do you think? Personally I'd like to talk to him about his motivations, specifically whether he ever had gay sex with Allen Ginsberg.

[ajb]

The list can be found on the BBC news website here.

 

I am undecided about the whole thing. But for sure there are undesirables we want to keep out of our green and pleasant land.

 

Is it because of Savage's views of Islam that he is undesirable? If so I am glad. The reason being we do need a debate about religion and in particular the more extreme forms of Christianity and Islam in a modern society. Things like this bring the debate out into the open.

 

Most people on the list are connected to or at least openly support Islamic terrorism. Could Savage and Guzovsky (a Jewish terrorist) be an attempt to make the list seem less anti-Islamic?

[Severian]

I think the entire approach is wrong. If their behaviour is undesirable, it should be criminalised, and if they do it they should be arrested and deported.

[ParanoiA]

I'm not familiar with UK law structure, but I don't see what illegal thing Savage is guilty of doing. I would think someone must be engaging in illegal activity, or at least illegal by UK standards, in order to overtly reject an individual, by name.

 

I don't think we can do this in America. We would have to reject some "category" of person, and then include some kind of criteria that puts someone like Savage in that category. We can't just pick on a single individual, or a list of folks our government doesn't like, unless of course they're guilty of some sort of crime or would be crime in our country. At least I think that's true. That's just intuition really, so I could be wrong.

 

Whatever the case, Savage is probably the worst I've ever heard. Commited right wing conservatives should be ashamed of him, but they aren't. He's the epitome of anti-intellectual conservatism, from what little I've heard of him. The UK is not missing anything, trust me.

 

However, the method is still disturbing.

[Mokele]

I don't think we can do this in America. We would have to reject some "category" of person, and then include some kind of criteria that puts someone like Savage in that category. We can't just pick on a single individual, or a list of folks our government doesn't like, unless of course they're guilty of some sort of crime or would be crime in our country. At least I think that's true. That's just intuition really, so I could be wrong.

 

Yes and no. There is a general set of rules, but this in turn generates a specific list of individuals who are denied entry due to breaking those rules.

 

US immigration & customs is an odd place, and frequently operates on "guilty until proven innocent" for anyone with a foreign passport.

 

And some of the rules are *weird*. My wife recently went through the interview to become a permanent resident, and two of the questions were "Have you ever been involved in espionage against the US?" (answer: "yes, I'm the worst spy ever because I tell anyone who asks") and, a bit more disturbingly, "Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist party?". I'm serious about the last one, it was actually legitimately asked, meaning that we also discriminate about who we let in on the basis of ideology.

[ajb]

]... "Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist party?".

 

Goes back to the great communist witch hunts of the 50's.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I think the entire approach is wrong. If their behaviour is undesirable, it should be criminalised, and if they do it they should be arrested and deported.

 

I agree with this to a large extent.

 

However, if it is thought to be very likely that such a person would commit a crime here should they be refused entry?

[Mokele]

Exactly, but for it to still be on the books almost 60 years later? Either there's enough support for it to make removal politically unfeasible (which is pretty bad), or they're just *really* lazy about updating rules (which makes me wonder if they still have immigration quotas for the Holy Roman Empire).

[ParanoiA]

And some of the rules are *weird*. My wife recently went through the interview to become a permanent resident, and two of the questions were "Have you ever been involved in espionage against the US?" (answer: "yes, I'm the worst spy ever because I tell anyone who asks") and, a bit more disturbingly, "Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist party?". I'm serious about the last one, it was actually legitimately asked, meaning that we also discriminate about who we let in on the basis of ideology.

 

All I can say is, wow. Especially on the last one.

[Sisyphus]

Apparently their algorithm needs tweaking.

[Royston]

I'm not familiar with UK law structure, but I don't see what illegal thing Savage is guilty of doing.

 

I'm assuming in this case, it comes under the Racial and Religious Hatred Act. However, surely he has to incite hatred within the UK, and then face deportation...as mentioned earlier. I'm not entirely sure how the act works in this instance (presuming I'm correct.) I honestly don't know enough about Savage, to know what prompted the decision (or have time to research it.)

[Severian]

I don't think we can do this in America.

 

Oh yes you can. I even know well respected scientists who have been refused entry and given no explanation of why.

[CharonY]

"Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist party?".

 

They may have modernized things a bit. On my entry form I had to answer the question whether I am member or a supporter of terrorist groups (that and whether I got chemical or microbiological training). I wonder how many terrorists they caught that way.

 

A naturalized colleague here who was originally from Russia told me that the form he had to fill out stated something like: Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist party/ Have you any mental illnesses?

 

With only one checkbox.

[bascule]

I guess I never really opined on what I actually thought of this.

 

Yeah really, I'm kind of confused. Michael Savage is a weird and interesting guy, and no matter how much he offends me, I would never ask to ban him from my country (a metaphor which kind of fails considering he's from my country).

 

But anyway, yeah, I really don't get this.

[Klaynos]

To address a point above as to what law he could have broken/would be likely to break if he was allowed in.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incitement_to_ethnic_or_racial_hatred

 

Or similar ones...

[DrP]

Where is the line drawn between 'Racial Hatred' and 'National Security' then Klaynos? If in 1944 we were talking about restricting access of Germans into the UK - would that have been Racial hatred? Or would it have just been sensible security measures?

 

I have a big thing about closing the country's borders during times of war (e.g. - a few years back we go to war in Afganastan and then let in thousands of people from that country - then we get terrorist attacks and wonder why). National security - NOT racism.

[Royston]

Where is the line drawn between 'Racial Hatred' and 'National Security' then Klaynos?

 

Errr, I also mentioned this law earlier, and neither I nor Klaynos stated if we agreed or disagreed with it. Paranoia wanted clarification of how the UK could legally impose this decision, and on retrospect, it seems pretty obvious that it's tied with the Incitement to Racial Hatred Act. I mentioned the revised act of 2006, when somebody mentioned Savage's views on Islam. We're just confused as to how this can be imposed, if somebody might incite hatred on entering a country, rather than has incited hatred in that country.

 

I have a big thing about closing the country's borders during times of war (e.g. - a few years back we go to war in Afganastan and then let in thousands of people from that country - then we get terrorist attacks and wonder why). National security - NOT racism.

 

Which terrorist attacks are you referring to? If somebody wants to orchestrate an attack, a flood of people into the country isn't going to make the slightest bit of difference...case in point, the London bombings of 2005 were carried out by British Nationals. This also has little, if nothing to do with the discussion.

[GutZ]

I struggle with this. Savage in my eyes abuses freedom of speech. I think there should be some fine or something when a person is spouting a hateful message that has no relevance except to hurt other people. The issue then I have is that anything can be labeled a hateful message with no relevance. Saying creationism is bs could fall under that catogory. With the amount of idiotic and corrupted people in power....it's not that much of a long shot.

 

So because people are morons like savage...we are forced to listen to them...

[Klaynos]

Where is the line drawn between 'Racial Hatred' and 'National Security' then Klaynos? If in 1944 we were talking about restricting access of Germans into the UK - would that have been Racial hatred? Or would it have just been sensible security measures?

 

I have a big thing about closing the country's borders during times of war (e.g. - a few years back we go to war in Afganastan and then let in thousands of people from that country - then we get terrorist attacks and wonder why). National security - NOT racism.

 

I'd like to make it clear I'm not supporting nor renouncing this, I am not familiar enough with it, nor have the time to be to draw a good conclusion, just those are the laws I heard suggested as to why he was on this list.

[Mr Skeptic]

I thought that permission to enter a country was quite arbitrary, and they could refuse you entry because they don't like your nose or any other arbitrary reason.

 

Also, I think that the US has a watchlist or blacklist that functions in a similar way, and I think you just need the right person to call you suspicious and you're on it.

[ParanoiA]

So because people are morons like savage...we are forced to listen to them...

 

But we're not though. I don't listen to him at all. The few times I did was out of curiousity and I wasn't forced in the least.

 

Again, it all falls back on us. We buy that crap. Of course they're going to sell it.

 

It falls on the free society in this relatively free market to do the filtering. And we've decided we like the sensationalism. Look at the major majority of our media - it's all sensationalized.

 

That's the inherent problem with the business of information. News, political commentators, and etc. If you're in the business of selling information then it's in your interest for that information to be as valuable as possible - drama. How else do you sell information to someone when they have no need of it? You dramatize it. And when you can create value by "spinning" the information, you will. The only thing that stops outright overt lying is the inevitable discovery and thus total loss of value.

 

They do to information what McDonald's does to cheeseburgers.

 

Why does McDonald's sell greasy, sloppy cheese drenched burgers with a mere superficial application of veggies? Because that's what we buy. That's what we want. They didn't make us eat those burgers because that's all that's available in our market - our market is making the burgers that we voted for with our wallets. The healthy burger guys went broke because we wouldn't do business with them.

 

Same with Savage. Instead of refusing entry, the fix is to stop paying him. A daunting task to be sure, when you consider the market he is servicing. But it's not impossible if one is to redirect their efforts to the market and away from the service provider. The only way to truly stop it is to get people to stop buying the crap. And no, I don't mean by coersion.

[Royston]

I thought that permission to enter a country was quite arbitrary, and they could refuse you entry because they don't like your nose or any other arbitrary reason.

 

OK, but in this case, Savage is included in this so-called 'least-wanted' list. So there's an attempt at a rationale behind his ban. As per ajb's link (BBC)...

 

Sixteen people banned from entering the UK since October last year for fostering extremism or hatred have been named by the Home Office for the first time.

So the list isn't arbitrary. However, you're probably right, and the UK do refuse entry for more peculiar reasons. Strange you brought up noses, I have a massive spot on the end of mine at the moment, I wonder if I'll be escorted to a little room, if I attempt to go through customs.

[The Bear's Key]

A religion and/or business should be able to incite people however they wish, yet shouldn't be able to bribe government officials (with $$ or tempting promises) into helping nudge the variables and outcome in their favor.

 

Nor should politicians be able to coordinate with them to stay "on message" and going by plan.

 

i.e. the things special interests might do for ill-gotten success or advantage: crafting rumors, echoing glossed political slogans and recited complaints (downloaded on the memo-net), twisting facts.

 

It falls on the free society in this relatively free market to do the filtering. And we've decided we like the sensationalism.

No, if people can't quite distinguish between sensationalized and real, they haven't decided anything.

 

What's news supposed to be like? They might have little clue -- otherwise why do they get angry from believing exaggerations (about the "liberal" media, for instance) if those are "obvious".

 

That's the inherent problem with the business of information. News, political commentators, and etc. If you're in the business of selling information then it's in your interest for that information to be as valuable as possible - drama.

Sure, but valuable to whom...the customer or the seller?

 

How else do you sell information to someone when they have no need of it?

Reality contradicts that. Wikipedia is among the most visited places on the internet. The public tends to crave knowledge and information. They may crave other nonsense, but with news, the draw of sensationalism hinges on trust in what's being presented and lack of perception when being misled.

 

Lots of people feel they need to know more.

 

Why does McDonald's sell greasy, sloppy cheese drenched burgers with a mere superficial application of veggies? Because that's what we buy.

Actually, you're presenting it backwards. It's what McD's successfully marketed.

 

That's what we want. They didn't make us eat those burgers because that's all that's available in our market - our market is making the burgers that we voted for with our wallets.

Again, how could we vote for something that didn't exist until it was marketed to us?

 

The healthy burger guys went broke because we wouldn't do business with them.

One of the body's main survival tools is energy. Which ingredients act the quickest and/or pack the most energy? Fat and sugar. So of course, perhaps our body's evolved to find those most desirable. A survival mechanism drawn towards the purer energies.

 

But other nutrients play a role too. Energy is good for short-term (immediate) survival, yet other nutrients are good for long-term survival. So veggies might not get highest priority in taste (some might beg to differ). The result: important nutrients might be unable to successfully compete against primal urges for quick or abundant energy.

 

Notice too, how foods with the more complex nutrition spoil quicker. That's another factor of why the important nutrients are unable to compete head-on with faster energy: shelf-life costs.

[Pangloss]

They actually call it the "least-wanted" list? Cute.

[ParanoiA]

No, if people can't quite distinguish between sensationalized and real, they haven't decided anything.

 

If that's true, then how can one say it's sensationalized? It's noticing the difference that makes it apparent, yet continually rewarding the effort. How many times have you been tricked into reading a story by the headline, only to find they had to stretch and dramatize to formulate that headline? Yet we keep reading. We keep clicking on more stories. We do it to the point that now it's accepted to essentially lie to us with the headline. They haven't been punished for it one bit.

 

Reality contradicts that. Wikipedia is among the most visited places on the internet. The public tends to crave knowledge and information. They may crave other nonsense' date=' but with news, the draw of sensationalism hinges on trust in what's being presented and lack of perception when being misled.

 

Lots of people feel they need to know more. [/quote']

 

Nah. I would consider wikipedia needful information, though certainly not in the strict sense. It's already valuable by its content.

 

I'm talking about gossip and current events, not academia. Academia gains no value from sensationalism or spin since that undermines its purpose - it will actually lose value.

 

Most sheeple even recognize the sensationalism of media. This is not earth shattering news. And even the most disenfranchised americans are still aware of it.

 

They buy it anyway, for the same reason we don't question the standard of pundits and analysts telling me what the president just said and what he means immediately following a speech by the president. We accept that politicians will lie and spin and attempt to be as many things to as many people. We hear a speech and then we argue over what part is BS and what part isn't. Seriously? The highest office in the land - one of over 300 million people - and lying and spin is acceptable? We do this without even thinking about it.

 

Again, how could we vote for something that didn't exist until it was marketed to us?

 

huh? How do they exist if you're not buying it? My wife buys bottled water at the auction - water that didn't get bought in retail because soda won out. Both were available. They chose soda. Everything marketed to you is an attempt to figure out what you want and then give it to you. Sure, part of the game is get you to think you should want this, or everyone else is doing it - playing your desires, your wants, your expectations - and then you buy it and confirm it.

 

I'm just pointing out that we are not free from blame. Your wallet, or lack of access to it, can put every single contemptible market out of business. But you won't. Or I should say, we won't. We love fat and sugar and drama and they sell the hell out of it, to us. This is not some unfair advantage or yet another play by the evil wicked rich empire to trick and oppress the poor little noble peasants of the land.

 

One of the body's main survival tools is energy. Which ingredients act the quickest and/or pack the most energy? Fat and sugar. So of course' date=' perhaps our body's evolved to find those most desirable. A survival mechanism drawn towards the purer energies.

 

But other nutrients play a role too. Energy is good for short-term (immediate) survival, yet other nutrients are good for long-term survival. So veggies might not get highest priority in taste (some might beg to differ). The result: important nutrients might be unable to successfully compete against primal urges for quick or abundant energy.

 

Notice too, how foods with the more complex nutrition spoil quicker. That's another factor of why the important nutrients are unable to compete head-on with faster energy: shelf-life costs.[/quote']

 

You're not seriously making the case that McDonald's sells the burgers the way they do because of shelf life, are you?

 

They sell them because we want to buy them. If the public wanted a 100% beef patty that's 95% lean, with whole wheat buns and fresh vegetables they will buy them. If it's too expensive, then they've made a decision: healthy food is too expensive, I choose McDonald's.

 

McDonald's doesn't give a crap what you want to buy. They only care that they can profit from it.

 

That's market economics and it's a two way street. No one wants to point out our own blame - and Savage nation is just as much, if not moreso, the fault of those who buy him. They're eating up the validation of their prejudices. People love having their beliefs validated.

Edited May 7, 2009 by ParanoiA
spelling errors

[DrP]

[Errr, I also mentioned this law earlier, and neither I nor Klaynos stated if we agreed or disagreed with it.

 

I'd like to make it clear I'm not supporting nor renouncing this, I am not familiar enough with it, nor have the time to be to draw a good conclusion, just those are the laws I heard suggested as to why he was on this list.

 

I wasn't suggesting you did or didn't agree with it. I was stating that I think the lines get blurred when differentiating between racism (Inciting racial hatred etc..) and talks regarding national security. The right wing parties talk about closing borders and the left wingers shout racism. The correct procedure would probably be somewhere in the middle.

 

As for the relavance - I was thinking back to the Dutch bloke who wasn't allowed into the UK for suggesting a ban on people entering Holland who were from Islamic countries. Personally I think he goes too far and is a bit of a racist bigot. I do believe that he should have his say though - and that there is some truth in what he said. The protesters that called for his beheading proved him right. The UK then ban him from the country - I assume it is because our way too left wing goverment are scared that people might actually agree with him and they don't want his views heard. This goverment are out for sure next election.