« About that charity you run, Professor Gates | When is a hate crime not a hate crime? »
July 25, 2009

Brit ban on Savage was pure politics

By Thomas Lifson

The political roots of the UK government's decision to bar talk show host Michael Savage have been revealed for the world to see, thanks to a freedom of information lawsuit in Britain that caused Home Office documents on the subject to be made public.

We now know that political considerations -- the need to placate Muslims, a powerful voting bloc -- resulted in a search for someone to "provide a balance of types of exclusion cases."

The UK Daily Mail provides excerpts of some of the damning communications

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.'

A further email confirmed the decision was approved at the highest level of Government, saying: 'HO [Home Office] intend to include Weiner in their quarterly stats... Both the FS [Foreign Secretary] and PM [Prime Minister] are firmly behind listing and naming such people.'

One civil servant, again unnamed, counselled caution, saying: 'I think we could be accused of duplicity in naming him' - without explaining why - and even added that 'the fact that he is homophobic does help'.

The Home Office refused to say whether names on the banned list had been selected to provide political 'balance', adding that any legal proceedings would be 'robustly defended'.

One of the most damning pieces of evidence is this, included in

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.'

Michael Savage tells American Thinker he has the entire file and will reveal more shocking information on his show Monday. He has gone on record telling World Net Daily,

...the Home Office chose him to balance the list of Muslim extremists because he is Jewish.

The evidence I have seem is not conclusive on this point, though I haven't seen all the emails Michael has in his possession. Certainly, if one is appeasing Muslim extremists, whose violent reaction was supposedly feared should Savage set foot in the UK, then a Jew makes the best fall guy, as everyone form Hitler to the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem would agree.

All in all, the Labour government has thoroughly discredited itself with these revelations. Perhaps because Michael Savage's style grates on many American media types, his exclusion from the UK has not gotten the attention it deserves in the American media. When governments start sanctioning peaceable conservatives (or anyone) because Muslims might get upset, it is time to worry. When they pick a target in order to appease radical potentially violent Muslims, it becomes a matter related to national security.

It would be ironic if the Labour government fell over these revelations, which I am informed is a possibility. The US media has studiously ignored the story,even most conservative organs (though not American Thinker), but the British media have not. The Labourites are politically shaky, and have already replaced Jacqui Smith the hapless fool who initiated the project,

I congratulate Savage on standing and fighting this outrage. I look forward to more information on the craven thinking that went into this scandalous move by the British socialists.
If you experience technical problems, please write to helpdesk@americanthinker.com

Recent Articles

Blog Posts

Monthly Archives