SAVAGES!

The United Kingdom has banned Michael Savage from entry, and the trolls are ballistic. One is certain that the Internet will be on fire with rantings about how the British are opposed to free speech, that the death of liberty is imminent, and the English are opposed to fairness in general. One is also certain of something else.

The trolls will be wrong.

Michael Savage is unquestionably hateful. If an award were given for fulfilling the requirements of any pejorative that the Gentle Reader deems appropriate, little question exists that Mr. Savage would be a finalist if not the grand-prize winner. He is simply not a very nice person.

Savage, nee Weiner, has been quite the firebrand for limiting access to the abundance enabled by the American constitution to white, heterosexual, Judeo-Christian, and English speaking persons who adhere to his particularly strict definitions of "Language, Borders, and Culture." No tolerance exists for those who disagree with Savage's viewpoints, while dissenting opinions are mocked as unworthy of consideration. Savage is the most unusual of creatures: a Jew whose sympathies are more closely aligned with the practices of German National Socialism.

One notes with great amusement that the first well-publicized act impeding the international movement of an individual based upon his politically sensitive speech be directed at Michael Savage. He has made his career upon advocating an agenda which specifies which opinions and groups are worthy of entry into discourse. Savage's infernal hatred of those who disagree with him has resulted in his banishment from the United Kingdom.

The British have a great tradition of discourse. One suspects little challenge to free speech actually exists in the UK, but the differences between the Magna Carta and the Constitution force the British to preclude opinions advocating antipathy for smaller populations coming from abroad. The list included a legion of bigots from multiple societal subsets.

No one is incarcerating the National Front in Britain. There is a big difference between protecting the right to minority opinion and permitting an atmosphere which empowers the same groups to impose their opinions upon others from overseas. The liberty to espouse an unpopular outlook does not bring with it the leverage to import reserves from beyond borders.

The British home office, under the auspices of the Labour party, have moved to restrict entry to radicals of multiple viewpoints. Were all of the affected from a particular, distinct religious and/or political viewpoint, or being culled from the number of British Subjects, then it would be incumbent to question a commitment to liberty of conscience.

The libertarian standard of the United States ends at the border. Michael Savage, and the numbers who agree with his narrow view of acceptable behavior in the United Kingdom will conflate tolerance and endorsement of opposing viewpoints. To challenge the unrestricted entry of persons whose presence may be considered disruptive to the well-being of societal structures is not unknown in this country, either, and Savage has been an advocate.

The real point that the British made was that if one chooses to be outspoken about one's intolerance and vehement regarding one's conditions of acceptability, then one is also expected to abide by the same standard.

There is nothing so unfair as being asked to live up to one's most bigoted criteria.