Michael Savage Banned From The UK

[manico1]

I don't think you should be banned from a country for expressing a point of view (however disagreeable). I'm even prepared to say that sanctioning such people is counter productive as it just martyrs their cause and wins support from people who would normally find them offensive. However I find it difficult to give a toss one way or the other about Mr Savage. Why should I stand up for the rights of people like him who want to take away the rights of others based upon their sexuality, religion, skin colour or even political views? It's absolute hypocrisy that all these far right types have suddenly started tub-thumping about freedom and equality for all when everyone knows they would enforce the exact opposite if they ever had any real power.

[echoes]

I don't think you should be banned from a country for expressing a point of view (however disagreeable). I'm even prepared to say that sanctioning such people is counter productive as it just martyrs their cause and wins support from people who would normally find them offensive. However I find it difficult to give a toss one way or the other about Mr Savage. Why should I stand up for the rights of people like him who want to take away the rights of others based upon their sexuality, religion, skin colour or even political views? It's absolute hypocrisy that all these far right types have suddenly started tub-thumping about freedom and equality for all when everyone knows they would enforce the exact opposite if they ever had any real power.

well, when one person's rights are suppressed/violated then everybody's will be. it always starts the ball rolling downhill. so i get your point, but i think both points you make are the same.

[echoes]

Can you explain that to me please?

Nazi Germany

you think it popped up overnight?

[babs71]

You give me a link and a question; respectfully, that is not explaining anything.

Maybe, if Hitler's speeches and public appearances had been suppressed, the National Socialist party would not have gained so much power. I happen to believe that those who control the media influence a large proportion of the population; the "tell-me-what-to-think-because-i-don't-want-to-have-to-think-for-myself" mob. Sadly, that appears to be the majority of most populations.

Since you offered me a link, i'll offer you one in return

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

This study suggests people readily shed their social responsibilities when an authority figure offers to assume the responsibility for them. A possible explanation for the spread of nazism and the rise of communist dictatorships in the last century. Given that, the imlication is that allowing people to express themselves freely and absolutely can give rise to great evil.

i think the 'freedom of expression" argument is an illusion, a naive notion that people like Savage abuse; he and his kind laugh at the people who hold up the First Amendment argument on his behalf, even whilst sincerely disagreeing with his views. Such people are gold to him; they do his work for him.

So, again; could you please EXPLAIN to me how my rights are violated by the suppression of Savage's views / right to enter the UK?

[echoes]

You give me a link and a question; respectfully, that is not explaining anything.

what is there not to understand? i meant "you don't think nazism in germany just sprang into being one day"...

Maybe, if Hitler's speeches and public appearances had been suppressed, the National Socialist party would not have gained so much power. I happen to believe that those who control the media influence a large proportion of the population; the "tell-me-what-to-think-because-i-don't-want-to-have-to-think-for-myself" mob. Sadly, that appears to be the majority of most populations.

i agree completely about the media aspect but hitler had a lot of funding & support from outside of germany & europe, so i don't have as optimistic a picture of national socialism gaining popularity in germany at that time...

i think the 'freedom of expression" argument is an illusion, a naive notion that people like Savage abuse; he and his kind laugh at the people who hold up the First Amendment argument on his behalf, even whilst sincerely disagreeing with his views. Such people are gold to him; they do his work for him.

So, again; could you please EXPLAIN to me how my rights are violated by the suppression of Savage's views / right to enter the UK?

well, i'm not sure if it is a "right" to enter another country, since it isn't his native country. its more about the motivation/reasoning for "banning" someone. (there are something like 16 others whose names they refuse to reveal.)
any way, i think this is relevant: https://secure.cryptohippie.com/pubs/EPS-2008.pdf

in the tradition of the U.S. at least, our rights are god given (or self evident.) our constitution did not give us our rights, nor does government or military. our constitution simply enumerated pre-existing rights and our militias & military has, at times, defended those rights. respectfully, i think not understanding that tradition and that there is either freedom for all or none is missing half the story. (the U.S. side of the story that is.)
but of course he isn't a UK citizen so it is a different issue regarding him going to the U.K. so perhaps this has more to say about european/UK sentiments toward freedom contrasted with american ideas of freedom than it does necessarily about him, at least when looking at the big picture & the precedent set.
it also interesting to note something that virtually no one has reported on: this is being enforced under EU law...

[babs71]

Your assertion, as i understand it initially anyway, is that "violating" this person's right to enter the UK because of his expression of views somehow violates my rights.

When i ask for clarification, you then post a link to the development of Nazism in Germany; the implication is clear. That those who would ban such a person are the thin end of a wedge that ends up with fascism.

To ask "What is there to explain"? suggests you either misunderstand me or misunderstand the topic.

I don't think Nazi Germany arose in one day - what on earth has that to do with Michael Savage's banning and the supposed 'violation' of MY rights as a result?

I have laid out the situation that confuses me; i cannot see how the supposed violation of this person's rights has any deleterious effect on me; to bring in the rise of national socialism without explaining it's relevance, and then to imply that it should be obvious why you do so is poor argument. The reasons Hitler came to power (over and above the one factor i have mentioned), seems to me to be irrelevant to your argument, unless you are willing to explain the role of powerful investors in violating my rights or somehow influencing Michael Savage's situation.

So again, my apologies for being dense; how does banning this person violate my rights?

[echoes]

Your assertion, as i understand it initially anyway, is that "violating" this person's right to enter the UK because of his expression of views somehow violates my rights.

i think you missed my point entirely, but that may be my fault for not being clear enough. i don't think i ever said explicitly that him being banned from the U.K. was a violation of your rights. if i did, it was a mistake. i was speaking in a general broad sense, or in other words, philosophically. my other point was, as the song goes: "one thing leads to another." here are a few examples in my country:
from my understanding driver's licenses initially were only for immigrants (foreigners), then the excuse was, well, truck drivers and drivers of that nature need them, then it was if a private citizen drives a larger vehicle like a truck. (it may not have been in that exact order.) then it was everyone.
or how about the income tax? first it started out small and now has ballooned to a fucking monster.

[echoes]

well i'm glad you recognize that. if anything, speaking to everyone, lets keep this kind of discussion civil.