Andrew Oakley (![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} aoakley) wrote,@ 2009-05-06 08:20:00 |
|
Mike Savage misses the point. Dog bites man.
US shock jock Michael Savage says he'll sue Her Majesty's Government for defamation after being publicly listed as an undesirable, banned for entering the UK.
Savage is an outspoken right-wing political commentator of the type we simply don't have in the UK. Our broadcasting laws demand balanced viewpoints from each individual radio station; in the US, they solve this problem by simply letting as many people on as many radio stations say pretty much whatever they like, and hope it balances out across the board. Regardless of whether you agree with him, or agree with the system that allows him to broadcast his monologues and smack-down phone conversations with detractors, I readily admit that he makes for fascinating listening. I happened upon his show whilst driving around California, was hooked immediately and the dial was locked for the whole week. He is a giant of broadcasting. The nearest thing we have in the UK are James Whale and Charlie Wolf, but they don't really come close.
Savage is also well-known for getting very vocal without exposing the full depth of the facts. This is where his legal threats are doomed to failure.
Firstly, the Home Office can say "national security" and pretty much be done with it. They don't need to justify their actions, since Savage is a foreign national not on British soil, ergo he has no rights in the UK. There's a handy catch-22 for governments who wish to avoid problems, be they American shock-jocks or potential immigrants, and that's to just keep suspected troublemakers off their territory. The moment they set foot on land, they get rights. Until then... Somebody Else's Problem. This is the same in the US, Australia, the UK and pretty much everywhere.
Secondly, and most importantly, Savage crucially misunderstands why he has been banned. Savage makes a great fuss about the fact he never advocates violence, but the British government isn't worried about Savage or his fans starting violence. What the British government is worried about is existing British citizens becoming violent should Savage make one of his trademark forthright speeches in the UK. The British government is worried about how a group of British Citizens who happen to be Muslim might react to him, or how a group of British Citizens who happen to be homosexual might react to him. There's a clear public order threat here - not from Savage himself, but from the whirlwind of reaction that Savage deliberately aims to leave in his wake.
The British government is simply opting to avoid a public order situation. Whether Savage is the cause or the victim isn't the British government's problem. By banning him from entering the country, the government avoids the public order problem either way. It'd probably be more polite if they'd have said "We're banning you from entering because we can't guarantee your safety nor the safety of people around you", but the effect would still be the same.
US shock jock Michael Savage says he'll sue Her Majesty's Government for defamation after being publicly listed as an undesirable, banned for entering the UK.
Savage is an outspoken right-wing political commentator of the type we simply don't have in the UK. Our broadcasting laws demand balanced viewpoints from each individual radio station; in the US, they solve this problem by simply letting as many people on as many radio stations say pretty much whatever they like, and hope it balances out across the board. Regardless of whether you agree with him, or agree with the system that allows him to broadcast his monologues and smack-down phone conversations with detractors, I readily admit that he makes for fascinating listening. I happened upon his show whilst driving around California, was hooked immediately and the dial was locked for the whole week. He is a giant of broadcasting. The nearest thing we have in the UK are James Whale and Charlie Wolf, but they don't really come close.
Savage is also well-known for getting very vocal without exposing the full depth of the facts. This is where his legal threats are doomed to failure.
Firstly, the Home Office can say "national security" and pretty much be done with it. They don't need to justify their actions, since Savage is a foreign national not on British soil, ergo he has no rights in the UK. There's a handy catch-22 for governments who wish to avoid problems, be they American shock-jocks or potential immigrants, and that's to just keep suspected troublemakers off their territory. The moment they set foot on land, they get rights. Until then... Somebody Else's Problem. This is the same in the US, Australia, the UK and pretty much everywhere.
Secondly, and most importantly, Savage crucially misunderstands why he has been banned. Savage makes a great fuss about the fact he never advocates violence, but the British government isn't worried about Savage or his fans starting violence. What the British government is worried about is existing British citizens becoming violent should Savage make one of his trademark forthright speeches in the UK. The British government is worried about how a group of British Citizens who happen to be Muslim might react to him, or how a group of British Citizens who happen to be homosexual might react to him. There's a clear public order threat here - not from Savage himself, but from the whirlwind of reaction that Savage deliberately aims to leave in his wake.
The British government is simply opting to avoid a public order situation. Whether Savage is the cause or the victim isn't the British government's problem. By banning him from entering the country, the government avoids the public order problem either way. It'd probably be more polite if they'd have said "We're banning you from entering because we can't guarantee your safety nor the safety of people around you", but the effect would still be the same.
