US 'hate list' DJ to sue Britain

[belfastuniguy 18]

US 'hate list' DJ to sue Britain

Michael Savage: "Shocked and angered" at being on UK 'least wanted' list

A US radio talk show host says he will sue the British government for defamation after being placed on a list of people banned from entering the UK.

Conservative political commentator Michael Savage, real name Michael Alan Weiner, is one of 22 people barred for fostering extremism or hate.

He has described the Islamic holy book the Koran as "a book of hate" and questioned cases of autism.

Mr Weiner said he opposed violence and objected to being linked to murderers.

To put me in league with Hamas murderers who kill people on buses is defamation Michael Savage Profile: Michael Savage

He told his radio audience that he was intending to sue British Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, who he described as the "lunatic ... Home Secretary of England".

"To link me up with skinheads who are killing people in Russia, to put me in league with Hamas murderers who kill people on buses is defamation," he said.

In an article posted on his website, he said he did not advocate violence but "traditional values".

He wrote: "What does that say about the government of England? It says more about them than it says about me."

Lawyers say it would be difficult for Mr Weiner to bring an action for defamation given that the list was issued with the authority of the British government.

They note that English law recognises that there are cases when there is a legitimate and public interest in information being made widely available, and that unless the government acted out of improper motives for placing him on the list, any libel claim is unlikely to get very far.

Public list

Mr Weiner has offended many in the US with his views on immigration, Islam and rape.

He also angered the parents of children with autism by saying most cases were "a brat who hasn't been told to cut the act out", the Associated Press reported.

HAVE YOUR SAY

It is a privilege, not a right to gain access to any country if you are not a resident

Steve, Harrogate

Send us your comments

The UK has been able to ban people who promote hatred, terrorist violence or serious criminal activity since 2005, but the list was only made public for the first time this week.

Hamas MP Yunis Al-Astal and Jewish extremist Mike Guzovsky are among the 16 named people by the Home Office as being excluded.

Also excluded are two leaders of a violent Russian skinhead gang, the ex-Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard Stephen 'Don' Black and neo-Nazi Erich Gliebe.

The remaining six have not been named, as doing so would not be in the public interest, the government said.quote>

Be nice if he knew the correct name of the country. England did not ban him, the United Kingdom banned him.

Like to see him try and sue the United Kingdom lolol

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Merlin of Flyote 8]

The European Bill of Human Rights recognises the right of Freedom of Expression. I think he would have a good case if he took Britain the European Court of Human Rights.

Freedom of speech is only an issue when you disagree with the other person. He should be allowed to say what he has to say, then people can make up their own mind. The communist inspired dictatorship that is Labour party is scared that British people might agree with him. They don't care what the people think. They abuse the electorial process, persist in trying to introduce things the people haven't given them permission to introduce, don't have enough morals to resign when they're caught out, and try to shut down any opposing views.

This government is dying and they don't want to admit it.

[fukuda 351]

He's banned from entering the country, his ehm.. views ain't censored as far as I can see..

[belfastuniguy 18]

Originally posted by: Merlin of Flyote

The European Bill of Human Rights recognises the right of Freedom of Expression. I think he would have a good case if he took Britain the European Court of Human Rights.

Freedom of speech is only an issue when you disagree with the other person. He should be allowed to say what he has to say, then people can make up their own mind. The communist inspired dictatorship that is Labour party is scared that British people might agree with him. They don't care what the people think. They abuse the electorial process, persist in trying to introduce things the people haven't given them permission to introduce, don't have enough morals to resign when they're caught out, and try to shut down any opposing views.

This government is dying and they don't want to admit it.quote>

Not exactly sure where you get your understanding of laws from, but a government can ban whoever they want from entering the country. There is not law that prevents such a thing. The UK could ban the American President if they so desired.

You also have to be a European Citizen to bring a case to the European Court.......clue is in the name.

[Merlin of Flyote 8]

Originally posted by: fukuda

He's banned from entering the country, his ehm.. views ain't censored as far as I can see..quote>

No but without him coming to the country his views will not be known. Most people would not have ever heard of him if this list had not been published. Another mistake by an incompetant government. As it happens most of the public would regard most of the people on this list as nutters. But that is not a valid reason for curtailing their freedom of speech in this country.

We once had MP's who would say "I abhor everything you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it". However this current lot of morally bankrupt communist inspired dictators would make Stallin blush.

Belfastuniguy.   There is nothing the the European Bill of Rights which restricts those rights to European people, if you believe that you're on a slippery slope to believing in slavery.

[belfastuniguy 18]

Originally posted by: Merlin of Flyote

Originally posted by: fukuda

He's banned from entering the country, his ehm.. views ain't censored as far as I can see..quote>

Belfastuniguy.   There is nothing the the European Bill of Rights which restricts those rights to European people, if you believe that you're on a slippery slope to believing in slavery.

quote>

I stated that you had to be a EUROPEAN to bring a case to the ACTUAL court. There are also several aspects of that law that are unique to European Citizens, so actually, I would suggest you stop digging. The European Convention on Human Rights is solely applicable within the jurisdiction of the European Union.

Clearly you have no idea what you're talking about.

[fukuda 351]

He can publish books, do radio interviews, even internet campaigns if he wants to be known in the UK. Nobody is curtailing his right to free speech, you don't need to be physically there to make your views publicly known

[Merlin of Flyote 8]

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy

Originally posted by: Merlin of Flyote

quote>

There is a considerable difference between rights being applicable to everyone, and being limited to the boarders of a country or group of countries. Indeed human rights are above and beyond the jurisdiction of any government. Even the morally bankrupt one we are having to suffer at the moment.

[belfastuniguy 18]

Again, you are missing the point.

His human rights HAVE NOT been limited. The right to travel to a foreign country IS NOT a human right.

His freedom of speech has not been limited. He did an interview on the BBC this evening. Clearly you have been shown to have been wholly inaccurate in your above rambling and are now trying to waffle to cover the mistake.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[toxicpiano 125]

Did anyone point out to him there is no English government?

As belfast said, he has no case.

[david1314 44]

Wow...I actually agree with both sides.

Savage will sue the UK in a US court for publishing it's allegations in the US in a defamitory manner and he will win and the UK will pay.  The UK will retract it's statement, do some embarasing back-tracking, and finally claim it stands by it's conflicting descisions.   That's just my prediction.

The problem is he will have the support from the state department who will pressure the UK.  Freedom of Speech is a far more important right to people in the US than it is abroad and any perceived limitation on speech will win the eventual ire of the American public, American courts, and American government (Or would that be United States?... *scratches chin* ).  The UK does not want the international incident they've created (and really should be expecting, WTF were they thinking!?...seriously!)

[Duke87 1,070]

Bannng someone from entering the country because the government doesn't like some things he's been saying.

...yeah, that ain't kosher. What crime has he comitted? None.

[david1314 44]

Originally posted by: Duke87

Bannng someone from entering the country because the government doesn't like some things he's been saying.

quote>

teehee....you'd think they'd of remember'd what happened last time they tried to single out Americans for unpopular speech.  Looks like the UK is about to get a(nother) lesson in soveriegnty.

Quite an embarasing track record though for a nation at the center of enlightenment theory.

[belfastuniguy 18]

The UK has the right to ban anyone they deem a threat to the 'public good' The UK government has the legal right to prevent anyone from entering the country that has previously issued provocative statements.

Hence we recently banned Dutch member of Parliament for his stance on Islam.

Here is the original story. It better explains it.

UK 'least wanted' list published

Two anti-gay preachers who have picketed soldiers' funerals are banned

The names of some of the people barred from entering the UK for fostering extremism or hatred have been published for the first time.

Islamic extremists, white supremacists and a US radio host are among the 16 of 22 excluded in the five months to March to have been named by the Home Office.

Since 2005, the UK has been able to ban people who promote hatred, terrorist violence or serious criminal activity.

Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said coming to the UK should be a privilege.

Ms Smith said "the public interest was against naming" the remaining six, for example on the grounds it could reveal the type of information being held about them.

The Muslim Council of Britain says the government should not act against people - whatever their views - unless they have broken the law.

'Against our values'

However, Ms Smith said granting free speech did not provide a licence to preach hatred and that those banned had "clearly overstepped the mark" with the attitudes they had expressed.

Pastor Fred Phelps had planned a protest in the UK before his ban

"[Naming them] enables people to see the sorts of unacceptable behaviour we are not willing to have in this country.

"Coming to this country is a privilege. We won't allow people into this country who are going to propagate the sort of views... that fundamentally go against our values."

Ms Smith had announced in October the tightening of rules determining who could come to the UK.

A "presumption in favour of exclusion" was introduced that meant it would be up to the individual concerned to prove they would not "stir up tension" after arrival.

On the list of those banned between October and March are Hamas MP Yunis Al-Astal and Jewish extremist Mike Guzovsky.

Also excluded are two leaders of a violent Russian skinhead gang, ex-Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard Stephen 'Don' Black and neo-Nazi Erich Gliebe.

EXCLUSIONS Abdullah Qadri Al Ahdal Yunis Al Astal Samir Al Quntar Stephen Donald Black Wadgy Abd El Hamied Mohamed Ghoneim Erich Gliebe Mike Guzovsky Safwat Hijazi Nasr Javed Abdul Ali Musa Fred Waldron Phelps Snr Shirley Phelps-Roper Artur Ryno Amir Siddique Pavel Skachevsky Michael Alan Weiner UK 'least wanted' list in detail Send us your comments

Fred Waldron Phelps Snr, a 79-year-old American Baptist pastor, and his daughter Shirley Phelps-Roper are barred for their anti-gay comments.

Both have picketed the funerals of Aids victims and celebrated the deaths of US soldiers as "punishment" for US tolerance of homosexuality.

Talk show host Michael Savage - real name Michael Weiner - is also excluded. His views on immigration, Islam, rape and autism have caused great offence in America.

Inayat Bunglawala, of the Muslim Council of Britain, told BBC Radio 5 Live that people should be free to enter the country, regardless of their views.

"If they step over the line and break the law, it's at that moment the law should be enacted, not beforehand.

"If people are keeping their odious views to themselves, that's their business. We should not be in the business of policing people's minds."

He added that internet broadcasts meant that speeches could be screened from abroad into UK meetings anyway.

In recent years, individuals from a range of backgrounds have been prevented from entering the UK.

They have included animal rights activists, rap singers such as Snoop Dogg and even a lifestyle "guru" - Martha Stewart.

She was kept out after being jailed in the US for lying to investigators about a share sale.quote>

[david1314 44]

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy

The UK has the right to ban anyone they deem a threat to the 'public good' The UK government has the legal right to prevent anyone from entering the country that has previously issued provocative statements.quote>

Yes, but they do not have the right to libel someone in another nation by publishing it.  And unlike the dutch who will not stand by their people making offensive speech, America will.

[belfastuniguy 18]

Originally posted by: david1314

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy

The UK has the right to ban anyone they deem a threat to the 'public good' The UK government has the legal right to prevent anyone from entering the country that has previously issued provocative statements.quote>

Yes, but they do not have the right to libel someone in another nation by publishing it.  And unlike the dutch who will not stand by their people making offensive speech, America will.

quote>

No....they didn't

It was published in the UK....not America. International media reported on it, he found out, or was informed by the British Government.

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

I didn't know they kept out animal rights activists as well. Sounds like a fair trade to me.

It's a tempest in a teapot. The authorities have just played into Savage's hands, and it'll help his ratings coming in May 'sweeps' month, which boosts his billing rate for advertising.

 

[sarcasm] You mean there's a monetary aspect to this story? Who knew?[/sarcasm]

How embarrasing for the UK, even though they are within their rights. How conveniently lucrative for Savage. I'm just sure it's been his lifelong dream to visit London, and this is causing him no end of emotional distress.

[Merlin of Flyote 8]

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy

 

The right to travel to a foreign country IS NOT a human right.

His freedom of speech has not been limited. quote>

Firstly the right  to freedom of movement, IS a basic human right. Secondly to say that 'you can say it there but not here' IS a limit to freedom of expression. Actually this ban has done him a favour because more people now know of him and therefore more people a likely to buy his books.

david1314

Actually freedom of expression is just as important among British people as amongst Americans. Yet again this is a case of a communist inspired dictatorship acting against the best interests of the people that it cares nothing about. It promises things and then openly breaks those promises, thinks it knows better than the people what's in their best interest, thinks they cannot decide for themselves, and openly does things for which the people haven't given them permission, by voting on the issue.

It's a dying government who doesn't have the decency to call an election to let the people decide.

[david1314 44]

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy

Originally posted by: david1314

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy

The UK has the right to ban anyone they deem a threat to the 'public good' The UK government has the legal right to prevent anyone from entering the country that has previously issued provocative statements.quote>

Yes, but they do not have the right to libel someone in another nation by publishing it.  And unlike the dutch who will not stand by their people making offensive speech, America will.

quote>

No....they didn't

It was published in the UK....not America. International media reported on it, he found out, or was informed by the British Government.

quote>

The venue of publishing is not important, it's is where the libel is deemed to take place.  No American court could reasonably find that it was not the Home Sec.'s intention to spread the "naming and shaming" to the US.   Quite simply, the HS made it clear it was her intention to libel ("shame" was her word) in another nation.  That's an actionable tort in the US.

The applicable doctrine here would be:

Under the restrictive theory of sovereign immunity, a State or State instrumentality is immune from the jurisdiction of the courts of another State, except with respect to claims arising out of activities of the kind that may be carried on by private persons

[belfastuniguy 18]

Originally posted by: Merlin of Flyote

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy

 

The right to travel to a foreign country IS NOT a human right.

His freedom of speech has not been limited. quote>

Firstly the right  to freedom of movement, IS a basic human right. Secondly to say that 'you can say it there but not here' IS a limit to freedom of expression. Actually this ban has done him a favour because more people now know of him and therefore more people a likely to buy his books.

quote>

Do you even read what you have typed. That entire statement in inherently flawed. You have absolutely NO IDEA what you are talking about. I fail to see you continue with this arguement, it has been proven to be wholly flawed.

[belfastuniguy 18]

Originally posted by: david1314

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy

Originally posted by: david1314

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy

The UK has the right to ban anyone they deem a threat to the 'public good' The UK government has the legal right to prevent anyone from entering the country that has previously issued provocative statements.quote>

Yes, but they do not have the right to libel someone in another nation by publishing it.  And unlike the dutch who will not stand by their people making offensive speech, America will.

quote>

No....they didn't

It was published in the UK....not America. International media reported on it, he found out, or was informed by the British Government.

quote>

The venue of publishing is not important, it's is where the libel is deemed to take place.  No American court could reasonably find that it was not the Home Sec.'s intention to spread the "naming and shaming" to the US.   Quite simply, the HS made it clear it was her intention to libel ("shame" was her word) in another nation.  That's an actionable tort in the US.

The applicable doctrine here would be:

Under the restrictive theory of sovereign immunity, a State or State instrumentality is immune from the jurisdiction of the courts of another State, except with respect to claims arising out of activities of the kind that may be carried on by private persons

quote>

He was placed on a banning list because it is believed if he came to the UK he would breach the laws of the United Kingdom. There is nothing libellous about that.

The United Kingdom has incredibly strict Hate Crime and Incitement to Hate legislation. He has been openly criticised in the United States for his views, sacked by his television company for his views.

I fail to see how he has a case against the United Kingdom and its Government. He was not personally named by the Home Secretary and nothing was said about him, his name was simply published on a list that detailed those persons that have been banned from entering the country.

He has no case and he knows it.

[Merlin of Flyote 8]

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy

Originally posted by: Merlin of Flyote

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy

 

The right to travel to a foreign country IS NOT a human right.

His freedom of speech has not been limited. quote>

Firstly the right  to freedom of movement, IS a basic human right. Secondly to say that 'you can say it there but not here' IS a limit to freedom of expression. Actually this ban has done him a favour because more people now know of him and therefore more people a likely to buy his books.

quote>

Do you even read what you have typed. That entire statement in inherently flawed. You have absolutely NO IDEA what you are talking about. I fail to see you continue with this arguement, it has been proven to be wholly flawed.

quote>

The answer is YES. The 3 points there are all valid points.

[hym 358]

This should only need to be said once: Discuss the issues, not each other.

[david1314 44]

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy

He was placed on a banning list because it is believed if he came to the UK he would breach the laws of the United Kingdom. There is nothing libellous about that.

The United Kingdom has incredibly strict Hate Crime and Incitement to Hate legislation. He has been openly criticised in the United States for his views, sacked by his television company for his views.

I fail to see how he has a case against the United Kingdom and its Government. He was not personally named by the Home Secretary and nothing was said about him, his name was simply published on a list that detailed those persons that have been banned from entering the country.

He has no case and he knows it.quote>

Again: Yes, he was on a banned list (ok), it was published (not ok).  It is the out-of-the-way effort of making it public that makes it libelous.

The UK make have incredibly strict hate crime laws, but no crime is alleged to have been committed.  This is a government actively seeking a  citizen (residing in his home nation no less) to maliciously attack without provocation.  He has not committed a crime in the US and has not committed what would be a crime in the UK.  It is unjustifyable. Most of the list.

While I frankly agree with the bannings and the publishing in general, I find the UK's overt sanction and endorsement of the release of the information to be incredibly improper.  Where is the discression of old when this stuff was 'leaked' to the press?  

There were far more effective ways of getting out the message without such a selective process of branding.  They only released PART of the list.  The whole thing looks like they fully planned to leak the list and the person on top couldn't hold their toungue long enough for the plan to come to fruition.  A very embarasing moment of an arbitrary attempt at "justice".

[belfastuniguy 18]

The UK has Freedom of Information laws, this list was published after such a request.

The 6 names that were not released are related to terrorism and they weren't released to ensure those individuals are not aware our government is monitoring them.

The British Government have every right to publish the list and have every right to ban any individual from entering the country. Entering the United Kingdom is not a universal right and can be restricted or revoked at any point., just as other governments do.

[mightygoose 92]

well to be honest, having never before seen or even heard of the guy, the two minute video at the top of the page was enough to make me want to ban him from our shores.. boycott jaguar and the pint and then see what happens.... please, agreed making the move in public eye has played right into his hands but i will stand by the british government and their decision. I think it is not so much the hate he ferments as an extremist leader its more the hate stirred up against him in the vulnerable minorities in britain if he came over here and started preaching his views. Islam is a tender subject in the UK as it is, no need for any more stirring, the BNP do enough by themselves.

[david1314 44]

Originally posted by: belfastuniguyEntering the United Kingdom is not a universal right and can be restricted or revoked at any point., just as other governments do.quote>

For the love of god! Stop saying that.  No one disputes that....er....I don't dispute that.

Originally posted by: belfastuniguyThe UK has Freedom of Information laws, this list was published after such a request.quote>

So, FOI requests must be released in press conference by the HS?

Originally posted by: belfastuniguyThe 6 names that were not released are related to terrorism and they weren't released to ensure those individuals are not aware our government is monitoring them.quote>

So where were the names of all the others.  They have been singled out publicly as 'least wanted'.  Not as criminally precluded, or formerly denied entry, they have been arbitrarily singled out.  The list should have included THOUSANDS of people who meet and exceed the levels of extremism of some of the people included on the list.  What ensures this is not a personal vendetta against some perceived wrong of someone in the UK foreign ministry?  

At best this is a very embarasing moment in politics for the UK.  At worst, it is a libelous attack on individuals in foreign nations for which the UK should and likely will be liable.

Originally posted by: Merlin of Flyote

david1314

Actually freedom of expression is just as important among British people as amongst Americans.

quote>

I missed this.  No, it's not.  Go tell a police man to "f*** off".  I'll do the same.  We'll see who's back tonight to make a post about it.

Both on an individual level and on a judicial level, free speech is more important in the US.

[belfastuniguy 18]

They have been singled out publicly as 'least wantedquote>

That's not the official term. That is what the media have termed it.

The list should have included THOUSANDS of people who meet and exceed the levels of extremism of some of the people included on the listquote>

If you actually read the articles you will see the published list is for a 5 month period. Older and still existing lists remain

So, FOI requests must be released in press conference by the HS?quote>

If that's their prerogative...

What ensures this is not a personal vendetta against some perceived wrong of someone in the UK foreign ministry? quote>

Becuase no one individual determines who is added to the list. Consultation occurs with the Home Office, UK Police forces and of course the Office of the Prime Minister.

At best this is a very embarasing moment in politics for the UK. At worst, it is a libelous attack on individuals in foreign nations for which the UK should and likely will be liable.quote>

Hardly...fail to see how its embarrassing. We shall see in the coming weeks, but I can pretty much guarantee absolutely no-one will bring a successful case against the United Kingdom, toys. baby and pram come to mind in regard to Mr. Savage