Silencing Savage Speech
By Deborah Weiss January 29, 2010Region: Europe
Topic: Emerging Threats
Michael Savage, a top rated conservative talk show host, has been banned from Britain. In context, his ban is merely one manifestation of the incremental restrictions of freedom of speech on Islam.
This past May, Michael Savage awoke one morning to google the news. He was astonished to see in black and white that he had been banned from the UK for his “extremist views.” Thinking it was nothing more than a prank, he linked to the website of the British Home Office. There, he discovered a “name and shame” list of those banned from entering the country. On the list were terrorists, murderers and Michael Savage.
Michael Savage never committed a crime, didn’t seek to enter the UK, nor did his show air there. The British government never warned him of the pending ban, nor notified him after the fact. No legal or judicial procedures were followed. Instead, government authorities made the decision to ban Savage behind closed doors, side-stepping laws and trampling on his civil liberties.
Through the Freedom of Information Act, Savage uncovered e-mails by British authorities who made the decision. Most of the list consisted of Islamic extremists. The e-mails demonstrated that government officials feared that radicals would falsely accuse them of targeting the Muslim community through their “unacceptable behaviors” policy. Accordingly, authorities looked for a non-Muslim to place on the list in order to achieve “balance in exclusion cases”, or diversity in banning. Ignoring the fact that the Home Office’s prime researcher found no evidence that Michael Savage advocated violence, then-Home Secretary Jacqui Smith used a collection of out-of context sound-bites to serve as the basis for his ban. She concluded that the talk show host tried to “provoke others to serious criminal acts and foster hatred which might lead to intercommunity violence.”
Savage wrote to the British Home Office, the US State Department, and the British Prime Minister requesting that his name be removed from the list. Failing to achieve results, he filed a defamation law suit against the British Home Office and Jacqui Smith in her personal capacity subsequent to her resignation. After the Secretary’s slurs made him a target for Islamists, Savage hired body guards and proceeded to argue his case in the British media.
Prior to the ban, a campaign titled “Hate Hurts America” was started, dedicated solely to destroying Michael Savage’s talk show and restricting his right to speak freely on radical Islam. His so-called “hateful speech” was nothing more than criticism -- not of all Muslims -- but of the radicals, who kill innocent people around the globe, maintain a supremacist ideology and seek to undermine western freedoms.
In a twisted display of logic, the proponents of this campaign insist that eliminating “hate speech” is necessary to uphold the first amendment. Somehow, their smears against the talk show host are not deemed hateful, but Savage’s dislike for terrorists is.
It is true that the organizations supporting this campaign retain a legal right to boycott products from companies that sponsor Savage’s talk show. Never-the-less, it is interesting to note that the anti-Savage coalition chooses tactics to preclude his message from being expressed, rather than countering his ideas with their ideas. The coalition is attempting to prevent audiences from hearing what Savage has to say.
It is probably no coincidence that the Hate Hurts America campaign was initially launched by the Council on Islamic Relations (CAIR). CAIR was an un-indicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation (HLF) trial, the largest terrorism trial held in the U.S., where several defendants were found guilty and sent to jail. Though CAIR presents itself as a civil rights organization, many counterterrorism experts believe that it has ties to Hamas as well as to the Muslim Brotherhood. Indeed, at one time CAIR’s website provided a link for donations to the HLF.
Other websites dedicated to bringing down Savage include numerous Islamist organizations and the politically correct groups that ally with them, such as Media Matters for America (funded heavily by Soros-related organizations).
Limitations on freedom of speech do not occur overnight. The advance is gradual. Political correctness leads to self-censorship, “guidelines”, and eventually civil penalties and perhaps criminalization. Even the ban of one man for airing his views sends a message to others who might do the same.
In Europe, Islamic blasphemy laws are being broadly construed in countries that have non-Muslim majorities. In Britain, where defamation laws are designed to protect one’s reputation rather than to protect free speech, there has been a dramatic rise of defamation lawsuits made by Muslims against western authors and publishers. In Canada, the Human Rights Commissions, in contradiction to their country’s constitution, regularly issue civil penalties for speech “likely” to cause hatred, even if no hatred results. The commissions often rule in favor of Islamic groups who are “offended” by dialogue on Islam. And in the Netherlands, Member of Parliament Geert Wilders will be placed on criminal trial January 20, 2010 for producing a short documentary on Islamic extremism. If convicted, he faces the possibility of jail.
In the US, the warning signs are less obvious. Though America doesn’t exert police power to stifle speech, she may pass legislation, issue executive orders, or issue government reports that create a climate of intimidation. For example, the State Department, the National Counterterrorism Center, and the Department of Homeland Security have all issued memos to their employees discouraging the use of words ranging from Islamic terrorism to jihad. Politically correct double standards are applied to college campus speakers. Ahmadinejad is ok, but David Horowitz and Nonie Darwish are hate-mongers who should be precluded from making campus appearances. SLAPP suits (strategic lawsuits against public participation) designed to stifle criticism of Islamist organizations are on the rise. In Congress, there is a push to outlaw “hate speech”. And in the UN, the United States in conjunction with Egypt recently introduced a resolution that though non-binding, aspires to restrict criticism of Islam around the globe.
Under the guise of “sensitive speech” or “responsible speech” radical Muslims and the leftists who join them, seek the authority to limit the words and ideas of those with whom they disagree. Instead of winning the war of ideas in a fair fight, those in power seek to shut down the debate.
America’s first amendment was not written to protect socially acceptable or politically correct speech. It was written in part to protect controversial, offensive, and cantankerous political speech. The words Michael Savage spoke were legal in America. And though the UK has no first amendment, it claims to maintain freedom of speech and has signed treaties that advocate it.
However, free speech is not limited to the right to express one’s viewpoints. It means the right not to be punished for legally expressing contentious political ideas. It includes the right not to be banned from a country as a means of censorship. It also includes the right not to be defamed.
Free speech constitutes a necessary foundation for free and democratic societies. Without free speech there can be no political opposition. Those who oppose government or mainstream views are oppressed, penalized, imprisoned, or even executed. All socialist, communist, fascist, and tyrannical regimes know that the first step in stemming political opposition to their power is to stifle free speech. Both the Nazis and Stalin outlawed various forms of speech. Iran is currently jailing those who peacefully protest June’s election outcome. Several Islamic theocracies criminalize criticism of Islam. And now in the US, national security threats related to radical Islam can no longer be freely discussed by intelligence professionals for fear of being labeled “Islamophobic”. DHS whitewashes the problem. The media fails to report it. In some American journalistic circles, Islamic terrorism seems less subject to criticism than commentary on its roots.
Free speech should not be considered a privilege, but a right. Its restriction not only violates human rights, but also poses a national security risk. In order to secure America’s freedom, the public must be informed of freedom’s ideological threats. Traditional threat doctrine demands that intelligence be able to identify and discuss all motivations for terrorism. The media has a duty to provide full and accurate reporting. And, academia has an obligation to foster platforms for independent thought.
Those who speak out openly on the violent and anti-freedom manifestations of radical Islam are incrementally being silenced. Michael Savage is just one in a series of examples. Lately, the U.S. government seems to consider Fort Hood and all other “lone wolf” murders to be “isolated incidents”. Perhaps promoting dialogue on the nature of radical Islam, rather than discouraging it, would help the government connect the dots.
______________________________________________________________________________ Deborah Weiss is an attorney, lobbies for www.vigilancenow.org and provides speeches and seminars its behalf. Her articles have been published in The Washington Times, FrontPage Magazine, The Weekly Standard, National Review Online, American Spectator Online, Human Events Online, and American Thinker.
