Talk show host Michael Savage is finally getting some support from the political world in his battle against the British government. But while the intrepid radio star will no doubt prevail, is his case a portent of things to come?   

After six months on a list of individuals banned from travel to Britain, talk show host Michael Savage finally has an ally in government. Taking up the cudgels for the radio star, Texas congressman John Culberson has written a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton urging her to pressure the U.K. into rescinding the travel ban.

This story began on May 5, when Britain’s Home Office created a real “What’s wrong with this picture?” scenario, announcing that Savage was lumped in with terrorists, murderers and neo-Nazis on the banned list. And it appears that they did this simply to “balance” out Muslims on the list and avoid accusations of bigotry. As to this, the U.K.’s Daily Mail cited British government documents released under a freedom of information law and wrote:

One message, sent by an unidentified Home Office official on November 27 last year, said that 'with [Savage], I can understand that disclosure of the decision would help provide a balance of types of exclusion cases'.

The documents include a draft recommendation, marked 'Restricted', saying: 'We will want to ensure that the names disclosed reflect the broad range of cases and are not all Islamic extremists.'

. . . One civil servant, again unnamed, counselled caution, saying: 'I think we could be accused of duplicity in naming him.'

Shortly afterwards I treated the issue and added, “there is no doubt that Savage was sacrificed to fill a quota. The host addressed this in his usual inimitable style, telling WorldNetDaily.com, ‘The name Dreyfus comes to mind. They have attempted to destroy my reputation to avoid offending those Muslims who want to destroy them! The Warsaw ghetto comes to mind, where some Jews threw other Jews into Gestapo hands to live another day.’”

Yet Savage has long been confident that he will prevail and get his name removed from the list, and Culberson’s strong support brings that goal one step closer. As WorldNetDaily.com wrote on Tuesday:

Culberson told Clinton he plans to work with colleagues in Congress in the coming weeks to help protect Savage's First Amendment rights. He points out in his letter that the British government "has classified a well-known and popular member of the American media alongside criminals, murderers and terrorists, which is defamatory and disturbing."

"Michael Savage is a loyal American, and he is passionate about protecting America, which is why I enjoy listening to him," Culberson writes.

. . . Culberson says Savage "speaks for most Americans when he criticizes people who apologize for our success and who will not protect our borders, our common language, and our American culture."

"If he were at the fringe of society like other people on the U.K. list, he would not have a nationally syndicated radio show, and he would not be the third most popular talk show host in America," the Texas lawmaker argues.

Savage certainly does speak for the so-called silent majority, those people who only now have a voice because of talk radio and the Internet. And he’s definitely passionate about his conservative beliefs, and he himself has said he is “controversial” (it takes two to tango, though; if everyone agrees with you, you won’t be considered controversial). Yet, ostensibly at least, these are not the qualities that inspired the ban. Rather, Britain’s Home Office said the host was “seeking to provoke others to serious criminal acts and fostering hatred which might lead to inter-community violence.” Now, as a regular guest on Savage’s show and a frequent listener, I can say that this is a preposterous calumny. Such a motivation is completely contrary to Savage’s character.  

As for the motivations of the British thought police, some of them are made clear by the revelations about how these statists wanted to use Savage as a human shield to fend off accusations of bigotry. Yet there is an even deeper issue here.

Every society stigmatizes certain kinds of speech, if not through legal sanction, then the social variety. It may be a prohibition against blasphemy in a Muslim nation, one against political dissent in China, or one against criticizing Islam or homosexual behavior in Sweden. Yet, speech prohibitions — at least the social variety — don’t have to be negative and are sometimes necessary. For instance, there was a time when we frowned upon profanity or taking the Lord’s name in vain; there was a time when praising Mao or disgorging the anti-American rhetoric of Jeremiah Wright would bring nothing but scorn and ostracism.

Today is no different — yet it is very different. Despite all the blather about tolerance, the “equality of all ideas” and how “Everyone has a different ‘truth,’” we have our speech codes enforcing today’s “truth.”

The problem is that it has nothing to do with the Truth.

And we’re now experiencing what could be called the Secular-madrassah Effect. In just the way little Muslim boys are inculcated with Islamist dogma in Mideast madrassahs and emerge radicalized, the secular madrassah of academia, popular culture and the media is instilling each succeeding generation with ever more lies, thus radicalizing them. Oh, I don’t mean they become radical vis-à-vis society, as it is the majority that determines where a nation’s “center” will be. I mean that they are radicals in the only real sense: extreme deviation from Truth. This means that our secular madrassah is creating a radical society. And this means that those in touch with Truth are being pushed to the fringes of society.

And the Secular-madrassah Effect is plainly evident today. I know a man who recently told me he wasn’t “free”; he meant that he couldn’t speak Truth for fear of retribution. Rush Limbaugh may not buy into an NFL team; Dr. Laura Schlessinger may not have a TV show; and I, your humble pundit, was recently lynched by the Southern Poverty Law Center on their “Hatewatch” page.

And Michael Savage may not travel to Britain.

Yet Britain will tolerate Jihadists shouting “Death to the West” in the name of cultural sensitivity while using hate-speech laws to stifle criticism of Islam in the name of cultural sensitivity. Ward Churchill can fill young minds with anti-American propaganda in the name of academic freedom while colleges enforce speech codes in the name of academic integrity. And homosexuality is taught in public schools in the name of tolerance while Christmas is banned in the name of tolerance.

As society continues to be pulled “left,” those of us who remain right will progressively be seen as woefully unprogressive. This is why I’ve long written of the fruitlessness of fighting only political battles. Unless we can seize control of the culture and storm the secular madrassah, all of us will be victims — and Britain is not the only place from which we’ll be banned.

Selwyn Duke is a columnist and public speaker whose work has been published widely online and in print, on both the local and national levels. He has been featured on the Rush Limbaugh Show, at WorldNetDaily.com, in American Conservative magazine, is a contributor to AmericanThinker.com and appears regularly as a guest on the award-winning, nationally-syndicated Michael Savage Show. Visit his Website.
 

 

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (6)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Show/Hide comments

rprew said:

	... Perhaps a better tactic would be for Michael Savage to ask NOT to be removed from the "banned" list and for several ten's of millions of Americans to ask the U.K. to ADD their names to the list. If the U.K. prefers jihadists, let them have jihadists to the exclusion of people of a saner nature.
	report abuse vote down vote up

November 20, 2009
Votes: +9

Stophel said:

	... Why would anyone actually want to go to dreary old England anyway??? If you've seen the movie "Great Balls of Fire", you will have seen Dennis Quaid as Jerry Lee Lewis wonderfully articulate, in one succinct sentence, my own feelings about "Great" Britain....
	report abuse vote down vote up

November 20, 2009
Votes: +4

DDW said:

If I've said it once . . . . . . I've said it a thousand times: There is nothing liberal about the "liberal" left. They are filled with lies, thefts and opressions. They are altogether despicable and I have nothing at all for them apart from cold, utter contempt. The very favorite pastimes of the "liberal" left are lying and stealing and opressing. Any time a "liberal" starts hurling accusations look at them very closely because they are most likely trying to create a smokescreen to cover up lies, thefts or opressions of their own. BEWARE THE "LIBERAL" LEFT!!!

report abuse vote down vote up

November 20, 2009
Votes: +5

DDW said:

	I believe I can also add . . . . . . that the "liberal" left are pretty much a pack of cowards.
	report abuse vote down vote up

November 20, 2009
Votes: +5

DDW said:

	Oops, almost forgot . . . . . . another intrinsic quality of the "liberal" left: confusion.
	report abuse vote down vote up

November 20, 2009
Votes: +3

Still Free said:

	Thank you, Mr. Duke Finally, someone has the courage to talk about the UK banning of Michael Savage. And special thanks to Texas congressman John Culberson for taking up Savage's cause. I should have known it would be a brave Texan to take this on. Thankfully, Congressman Culberson is also a true Patriot. Long live Texas!
	report abuse vote down vote up

November 22, 2009
Votes: +2