Michael Savage’s Ban from Britain is a Reflection of the West’s Islamic Policy

The Woodward Report ^ | August 3, 2010

[honestabe010]

...Savage was picked as the offering of appeasement to Muslims because he is a thorn in the White House’s side, but also because the administration knew that few, if any major media outlets would cover the story, much less defend him.

However, demonizing Savage is not the primary motivation behind the ban. At the heart of this act are both the belief that appeasing the Muslims will ease tensions between communities and also the idea that it is morally justifiable to act in the perceived benefit of the entire society even when it is at the expense of the individual.

Although Britain is a signatory of the international Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which guarantees that “everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression", the British government has ignored the law and banned Savage from entering the country because of his exercise of free speech.

The position that the British government (maybe more accurately referred to as the British State) takes on the issue of Michael Savage is that if permitted to be heard or visit the country it would likely, or at least possibly, result in intercommunity violence.

It is the new wave of thinking, that in order to gain peace between the Arab and Western world, concessions should be made towards the Arabs, to show that we are fair. This can be seen in the banning of Michael Savage from England. Obviously Savage was banned to balance the list so that the Muslim Community would not be upset and feel that they were being picked on. In addition it is quite possible that the British have become so frightful of the Islamic radicals (while simultaneously unable to control them) that they actually have become afraid of how certain groups will act to criticism of their cherished beliefs.

[runninglips]

HO-HUM, human beings have not changed one bit since the 1930’s. First you pick off the easy targets, the others willingly ignore the action, soon there will be more incursions into the land of censorship with the outcry never reaching audible levels until they are behind fences and unable to be heard at all.

[ILS21R]

In addition it is quite possible that the British have become so frightful of the Islamic radicals (while simultaneously unable to control them) that they actually have become afraid of how certain groups will act to criticism of their cherished beliefs.

I think this pretty much says it all. But you know what? This country is going along the same path.

[utherdoul]

I used to think the SAS could handle anything ... I suppose they still could if the government would let them. Winston Churchill must be spinning in his grave. I’m fairly certain if he were still alive today he’d have pretty much everyone in parliment hung.

[ILS21R]

I agree.

[I am Richard Brandon]

"the British have become so frightful frightened of the Islamic radicals"

Before writing, the author should engage brain. This mangled grammar shows ignorance.

[honestabe010]

I love dumb asses like you who read things and look for typos and then if there is one somehow try to discredit the message. I read articles by syndicated columnists and on sites such as the Wa Post, NY Times, WSJ etc and see typos all the time. No one comes on the air and says Charles Krauthammer can not be believe because he used “to” where he should have used “too”. In addition, while I would agree “frightened” fits better I actually am not sure that you are in anyway correct in your assertion that the use of the word “frightful” is incorrect. It is not incorrect to say that someone or something can become frigthful.

[honestabe010]

I retract the last part of the prior message because although someone or something can become frightful that would be the adjective describing them, it would need a verb as in frightened as you asserted to fit into the sentence in question. Nevertheless, your comment is quite frivolous.

[I am Richard Brandon]

Touchy, touchy, touchy!

[zzeeman]

The last part of the article: The frightening thing is that the White House and the British Government actually believe that a doctrine of appeasement will work. They believe that if our societies more readily embrace Islam and squash criticism of the religion that we all can live in harmony and that terrorism and violence will, as a result, be greatly reduced. Both governments are more than ready to sacrifice free speech and the rights of the individual so the majority of society can be “better off”.

Lee Harris refers to this as the suicidal fanaticism of Reason. His The Suicide of Reason - Radical Islam's Threat to the Enlightenment is very good reading for anyone interested in this topic. A governing philosophy based on reason, tolerance, and consensus cannot defend itself against a strategy of ruthless violence without being radically transformed--or destroyed.