By Selwyn Duke
When I awoke Tuesday morning, I ambled over to the computer,
as is my wont, and made my usual cyber rounds.
I logged on to the Drudge Report
and, lo and behold, saw the following headline, “RADIO HOST MICHAEL SAVAGE
BANNED FROM UK FOR 'EXTREME VIEWS'….”
“Wow,” I thought, “Britain strikes again.”
The prohibition is the handiwork of England’s Home Secretary,
Jacqui Smith, who included Savage on a list of 16 unwelcome individuals whom
she wanted to “name and shame.”
According to Beverley Rouse writing
in The Independent, Smith says this is
“so others could better understand what sort of behaviour Britain was not
prepared to tolerate.”
Yeah, such as telling the Truth, I suppose.
Believe it or not, I can’t really say I’m surprised at
Smith’s actions. I keep my nose to the
news, and nary a week goes by that I don’t read about a couple more examples of
political correctness on steroids coming out of formerly Great Britain. If you think I exaggerate, try these on for
size: The country’s National Children’s Bureau, funded mainly with government
money, issued anti-racism guidelines stating
that if a toddler says “yuk” in response to foreign food (it’s rumored that
most U.K. toddlers say yuk in response to British food), it could be a sign of
“racism.” Then there was 14-year-old
schoolgirl Codie Stott, who was arrested
and jailed on a “racial offense” for requesting to be in a discussion group
with English-speaking students. English
in England? What an outrage. And if that makes any Brits’ blood pressure
rise, never fear, because certain local governments are using taxpayer funds to
encourage
chip shops to use salt shakers with fewer holes, which, supposedly, will reduce
sodium consumption. Hey, you can’t make
this stuff up.
So, if it’s any consolation to Michael Savage, I would say
that cause for alarm would be if Britain’s 1984
government endorsed him. I mean,
Britain’s Jacobin jobsworths
have clearly lost hold of their sanity as the nation has gone from empire to
about to expire, from rum and the lash to leather bars and the leash.
Really, though, this story strikes pretty close to home for
me, as I make regular appearances on Savage’s radio program “The Savage
Nation.” So, I have to wonder, will I
next have the honor of being banned from Nanny State Central? After all, I’m to the right of Savage on
immigration and am known for acid-penned commentary. And what about Savage’s 10 million
listeners? My guess is that about 9
million of them agree with his “extreme views.”
Will they get the boot, too?
Alas, we’ll probably just have to accept the humbling reality that we’re
too small for Orwell’s children abroad to trouble over . . . for now.
Yet, comedic tone aside, this is no laughing matter. As Codie Stott and many other “hate-speech” law
victims around the Western world prove, the left is determined to stifle
dissenting views. And labeling Savage a persona non grata is an example of
this. I will point out that if you
peruse the 16 banned individuals on the Home Office’s list,
it’s a what’s-wrong-with-this-picture experience. Savage is lumped in with neo-Nazi and
terrorist murderers simply because he
espouses unfashionable positions.
Moreover, the Home Office wrote that he was “seeking to provoke others
to serious criminal acts and fostering hatred which might lead to inter-community
violence.”
Now, the above is a bald-faced lie. I have listened to Savage’s radio show for
years and can say with assurance that nothing is more contrary to his
personality. He is passionate, he does
wear his heart on his shirtsleeve – and he can administer a good tongue lashing
– but it’s not in his heart to incite violence.
Yet critics will say that Savage’s commentary can raise ire. And it’s a point Michael himself cedes, as he
has said
that while his views are “not violent in any way,” they “may be inflammatory.” But is this to be condemned?
Remember that just as physical inflammation can have a
positive effect by helping to fight infection, inflammatory words can help combat
political and cultural infections. And
think about it: Was Patrick Henry not inflammatory when he proclaimed “Give me
liberty or give me death”? Why, it was the
Founding Fathers inflammatory words that sparked the American Revolution and
birthed our nation. Was one of the
greatest Englishman to ever live, G.K. Chesterton, not inflammatory when he
said, “It is terrible to contemplate how few politicians are hanged” (I wonder if
a vision of the future, of Jacqui Smith perhaps, inspired him to thus
lament)? He sure was, and in today’s 1984 Britain, the jolly, rotund
philosopher might be charged with hate speech and inciting violence.
The point is that inflammatory rhetoric is used by commentators
of all stripes. This is for a simple
reason: Virtually all opinions on
matters of import are inflammatory to a degree.
Why do you think we have the saying “Never discuss religion or
politics”? Anytime you express any
opinion – especially on matters that lend meaning to people’s lives – some will
side with you and others will oppose you; it is by definition divisive. But how will people react? Well, whether they’re inspired to virtue or
incited to violence depends on the person more than the positions.
So, obviously, it doesn’t matter whether views are
inflammatory or not. The critical factor
is whether they’re true. Yet, to leftists, who are moral relativists,
Truth means nothing. Thus, they simply
define anything contrary to their agenda as out-of-bounds.
For this reason, we saw the San Francisco Board of
Supervisors issue
a resolution condemning Michael Savage for “hate speech” while saying nothing
about vile college professors Bill Ayers and Ward
Churchill. And, hewing to the
mainstream-media meme of blaming talk radio for violence, Bill Moyers did a segment
titled “Rage on the Radio – What happens when America’s airwaves fill with
hate?” In it he discussed Jim David
Adkisson, the man who opened fire on parishioners at a Unitarian church in
Knoxville, Tn., in July of last year.
Moyers mentioned that a copy of Savage’s book Liberalism is a Mental Disorder was found in Adkisson’s apartment,
and the implication was clear: Talk radio hosts use their tongues irresponsibly
and incite violence. Ah, the perils of
inflammatory prose.
Yet, Moyers didn’t do a feature on how Al Gore’s book Earth in the Balance – with certain
passages highlighted – was found in the possession of Ted Kaczynski. Now, in case that name has faded into the
past, he was none other than the Unabomber, the friendly neighborhood liberal who
mailed off homemade explosive devices, murdering three innocent people. Yet will Gore be banned from Britain as
someone whose words can foment violence?
I suspect not, as Gore didn’t inflame the right people: Newspaper
editors and media talking heads.
However, should these esteemed newsmen ever resolve to connect
the carbon-credit con man with the Luddite bomb man, I have a title at the
ready: “Blood and Gore – What happens when environmental extremists take to the
pen?” And there are other stories to be
explored as well. The media could draw a
connection between Colin Ferguson – the black Long Island Railroad gunmen who
targeted whites – and the kind of rhetoric disgorged by a Reverend Jeremiah
Wright in a report called “Rage in the Pulpit – What happens when black
churches fill with hate?” But I won’t
hold my breath waiting. Far more likely
is that I’ll be called a hater for daring to criticize black churches.
So my complaint is not that leftists observe what is
inflammatory. It is that they’re numb to
what should be inflamed and what should be soothed, to what is true and what is
a lie. It is that they have thrust us
into what George Orwell called “a time of universal deceit,” where “telling the truth is a
revolutionary act.” This is
why we have Canadian “human rights tribunals” (talk about a euphemism) that
have ruled
that Truth is not a defense against a hate-speech charge. I guess that the Truth will set you free, but
not in Canada.
This all reminds me of Charles Robert Jenkins, an American
soldier who spent 39 years in captivity
in North Korea. Why? Well, listen to what he said about the
communists: “In North Korea, when you lie they think you are telling the truth,
and when you tell the truth they think you are lying. You learn real quick to say no when you mean
yes, and yes when you mean no.” The
further a society drifts from Truth, the more it will hate those who speak
it. This is the real problem Michael
Savage has. And it’s the problem we will
all have, increasingly, unless we’re willing to live those fashionable lies — or are able to defeat the fashionable liars.
© 2009 Selwyn Duke — All Rights Reserved
selwynduke.com 
Leave a reply to Outraged Cancel reply