Going to Britain? Get your passport and politically correct views in order


Think all you need is your passport for a visit to Britain? Think again… check your political views at the customs gate, please.

Stunning story by AP’s Beverley Rouse appeared in the UK’s Independent today. Apparently, Britain’s Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, has released the names of 16 people banned from entering the country so others could better understand what sort of behaviour Britain was not prepared to tolerate.

On the list were jihad preaching clerics, two members of a Russian skinhead gange who committed 20 murders, a KKK grand wizard and neo-Nazi… plus Muslim activist Abdul Ali Musa (previously Clarence Reams), murderer and Hezbollah terrorist Samir Al Quntar and Kashmiri terror group leader Nasr Javed.

Sharing that spot of “shame” was Michael Savage and anti-gay protesters, American Baptist pastor Fred Waldron Phelps Snr and his daughter Shirley Phelps-Roper.

“Coming to this country is a privilege. If you can’t live by the rules that we live by, the standards and the values that we live by, we should exclude you from this country and, what’s more, now we will make public those people that we have excluded.

“We are publishing the names of 16 of those that we have excluded since October. We are telling people who they are and why it is we don’t want them in this country.”


“If people have so clearly overstepped the mark in terms of the way not just that they are talking but the sort of attitudes that they are expressing to the extent that we think that this is likely to cause or have the potential to cause violence or inter-community tension in this country, then actually I think the right thing is not to let them into the country in the first place. Not to open the stable door then try to close it later,” Ms Smith said.

“It’s a privilege to come to this country. There are certain behaviours that mean you forfeit that privilege.”

Discussing specifically Michael Savage, Ms. Smith said:

“This is someone who has fallen into the category of fomenting hatred, of such extreme views and expressing them in such a way that it is actually likely to cause inter-community tension or even violence if that person were allowed into the country.”

ahhh… the slippery slope syndrome. The attempt to straddle the line between free speech, and incitement to hate. And now, if the country’s Home Secretary doesn’t like what you say, you’d better alter your travel pans. Since October, under the nanny control of Ms. Smith, “the list” has grown from an average of two names added monthly to five.

Truly sad to see what was once a major force in the world reduced to oppression in the name of political correctness. Parallel Shariah court systems, 50% taxes, oppressive gun laws, and now subject to the thought police just to visit the dang place…

Keep this up and more will be leaving than coming in anyway…

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments


A country should have the right to bar anyone which not a citizen – for whatever reasons it chooses. I agree with this – Britain needs less islamic fundamentalists coming over and preaching hate. Same with the others including Michael Savage. No doubt the US has barred people in the past over their views.

As for parallel Shariah court systems – agree that is a disgrace. 50% taxes is fine for the rich. Any further than 50% I would disagree with. Oppressive gun laws? Yes maybe for Americans – but there is no significant support in terms of numbers in the UK for relaxing gun laws – so that’s not an issue.

Been there, won’t go back. nuff said.

I don’t know anything about Michael Savage. I do know about Fred Phelps and I wouldn’t blame ANY country from banning his entry to their country.

Hell, I wish WE could expel him and his little group.

BUT, I also realize that in doing that, it would set a precedent that I really do not like … slippery slopes and all. So, while I loathe all things about Phelps, it is America and he is allowed his free speech and actions.

Speaking of banning people, If we had a vote of the American population, I wonder what percentage would be for deporting all illegal aliens?

This is very funny , only 16? Last year I helped fill out the application for a Uk work permit & was sure they wanted to exclude 99% of the world.

But the gun thing is a furphy. There has never been a culture of gun ownership in the UK , nor Canada , nor Australia , nor NZ .

I have seen the homicide figures for guns in the UK & they were almost non existent. Its not as if UK did not have irish terrorists for 300 years & not had the opportunities.

As a further but related example , my state of over 5 million people had about 85 homicides in 2007 & only 8 were by guns.( if I am wrong I will get back to you but as i remember it )

Recently a Hells Angel gang member was beaten to death up at Sydney Airport lounge by an airport chair & a moveable balustrade.

Even they dont do guns .

Gun ownership is not a widely held right throughout the world .

“You want your Home Secretary to decide who’s “fit” to visit Britain for you, again it’s your country”

Absolutely. I don’t particularly like her – but that’s her job. Better than than having the EU, or soft judges try to decipher the law etc. Remember the US wanted to kick out Lennon over his political views. If a country bans too many people without good enough reasons then that can have political implications. However these sixteen people are a tiny number. For too long the UK has tolerated foreign preachers like Abu Hamza al-Masri preach hate and stir up trouble. So instead of waiting until there is enough evidence to jail him and have that cost of keeping him in jail (no doubt converting others) – better not to allow such extremists in the first place.

“And in the way you are evolving, I’m sure many of us will be happy to bypass the “privilege” of visiting in the future as our way of saying, it’s your country… and you’re welcome to it.”

Well if you read and believe the headline of UK tabloids then the UK has being going to dogs for decades – if not centuries. It’s mainly hype like in any country. There’s still plenty of worn tourist trails from Buckingham Palace to Stratford-upon-Avob to Edinburgh – where you will avoid Sharia Law & 50% taxes although you will have to leave your armoury at home. Of course if you are so upset that the UK has banned people like Fred Phelps (not sure if he even wanted to visit the UK) – so much that you don’t want to visit spend your greenback in the UK – then so be it. I’m sure the debt-ridden UK will somehow cope. I’m sure the blacklist won’t put off most Americans.

Ms. Harley,

The USA Patriot Act includes an “ideological exclusion provision” that allows the USA to exclude individuals with unacceptable political views. Discuss.

You’ll notice rockybutte didn’t come back….it’s another liberal changing his/her screenname to comment. He is actually Alan Walter:

No Honeymoon for Obama/Hillary in Muslim World?

Obama’s State Dept. Praises Venezuela Vote Enabling Hugo Chavez to be Presidente for Life!

Bush’s Real Mission Accomplished

Leave a Light on Tonight

Firstly, there is no inalienable right for a non-citizen to be admitted to any other country. Savage is being denied no rights. The Brits decided that they have enough home grown problems that they don’t need to go importing any more.

Were Savage being silenced or something within the US, then he’d have a beef.

But I’ll tell you what really gets me: the blatant hypocrisy of Savage.

Savage is suing the UK, for, among other things “putting a target on [his] back.” How is this? Well, other people on the do not admit to UK list include terrorists and thugs, among others. Savage maintains that he’s at risk of being judged by the company he keeps, UK exclusion-wise. He’s afraid that someone will mistake him for a terrorist or a despot and shoot him, or whatever.

But I listened also to his show on Monday night. Never have I heard such hate-fomenting speech on broadcast media. He went into a very long tirade, comparing Barack Obama to Adolph Hitler. Hitler started out just like Obama, Savage said. And he went on and on about the parallels. At one point, in the middle of the Hitler rant, he happened to interject the view that, if Obama’s “immigration reform” plans (very similar to those of McCain and George W Bush, although Savage neglected to point this out) go through, it will “mean the end fo the USA as we know it.”

So Savage explicitly compared Obama to Hitler. Not simply guilt by association — an actual, point by point comparison. In the same rant were he talked about the end of the USA as a nation, as we know it.

And Savage would have us believe that he (Savage) out to be scared sh–less because the UK has “put a target on [his] back,” though the simple fact that the long “do not allow to enter UK” list includes a few unsavory characters, but Savage doesn’t feel that there is anything wrong with comparing Barack Obama to Adolph Hitler and saying that his policies will “lead the end of the USA as we know it.”

Now, Savage has every right to say such things in the USA, as truly nauseating and sllmey as these charges are, but he has no grounds to complain that another sovereign country, of which he is NOT a citizen, does not wish to give a megaphone to a foreigner with such views.

The Brits know a thing or two about the real Adolph Hitler, you may recall.

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA

P.S. You know who else has banned Savage, besides the UK?

The Fox News Channel, that’s who. Fox News and the United Kingdom. Both think that Savage will not add productively to serious debates on the great issues of our time.

– Larry Weisenthal/HB

Savage should thank the UK – as it has now unfortunately given him free publicity. Many people from outside the US would have never heard of him before now.

“Despite my personal opinions of either…none belong in the same category of convicted murderers like the skinheads, nor those on terrorist suspect lists and known to actively recruit or perform for the jihad movements around the world.”

Because he is on the same list doesn’t mean therefore he is a murderer or a terrorist. Just someone who is not welcome.

“You might want to start believing your own media’s “hype”. Your world is changing around you to creeping oppression under the tolerant/PC banner, and your population is rapidly changing demographics.”

Kinda like the States then?

It seems UK can’t win – if it allows those who preach hate into the country – then it’s too tolerant. If it bans them then it’s too PC?

Check out who the States is banning…


How dare they squash free speech?!;)

Savage’s views are perfectly in tune with what is currently propelling the BNP to popularity, then again, so is Richard Littlejohn(a famous right-wing commentator), who is not as irritating as Savage, but pretty close to him in earnesty and shares his talent for putting the finger straight into the festering wound to pop the abscess for a hearty grossing out of everyone who dares and cares to look.

You see, a lot of people don’t like the Nazi side of the BNP, but the situation is getting so desperate that people are beginning to seriously consider the BNP as a protest vote in absence of anything else, since apart from less reasonable ideas, their current major theme is totally spot on about what is wrong with the UK — people know the BNP as a remedy may be crap, but their diagnosis is spot on, and not the usual pack of lies that professional policians spout. Most of those ‘swing’ voters are ex-Labour voters btw and the BNP is to the left of the political spectrum with policies that are straight out of the old Labour book of ideology.

However, the biggest weapon Labour has against the BNP is the racist/nazi phobia which conveniently labels everyone who does not agree with the Labour worldview as socially unacceptably. This one-size-culls-all weapon is rapidly blunting, the peasants are no longer afraid and have started to talk about the issues loudly and openly, so, Labour have started to take heads and stick them on a pike in order to wave about and try and scare people into silence again — this time Mr. Savage’s trophy scalp is shown around, as a warning to any right-wing journualist/commenter to keep being ‘nice’ or else.

It’s the usual way of the left, first no-one wants to restrict speech really, just the bits that are causing ‘problems’ and can’t be legally stopped(how inconvenient), then people learn to read between the lines in newspaper reports and the next thing you know is that ‘no-one is going to build a wall’ either, as Honecker once promised so convincingly, just before the barbed wire and the death traps were put up at the border.

Btw, it doesn’t matter whom the US bans, two wrongs to not make a right, they add up at best, but most of the time, they multiply.

FWIW – First, the white house went after Rush trying to quelch freedom of speech. Then the U.K. goes after Dr. Savage by not allowing him into the U.K. Do we see a pattern yet? Savage is a TALK SHOW host, as is Rush. When before has a government ever gone after a talk show host?

If this doesn’t scare you folks, then maybe it should! (I don’t know who this Rush person is so I did nothing…..I don’t know who this Savage person is…………………)

Gaffa… INRE Lennon and Nixon’s attempt to deport him by using narcotic charges. You will remember that it was also the US judicial system that thwarted that event from coming to fruition. He had, and used, the American system for legal recourse.

In the case of Jacqui Smith, who does one appeal to when a single entity points the finger at you merely because she doesn’t like what you believe, and not for any substantial criminal wrongdoing or ties to designated terror groups?

Surely you are not so niave to believe the reason they wanted Lennon out was primarily because of him using cannabis four years earlier in London? Does the US try to eject every foreigners on such things? The FBi had a big old file on him due to his political views. The cannabis was just a convenient excuse. Maybe Jacqui Smith can find some parking ticket violation on Michael Savage – if that’s the smoke and mirrors game you would rather governments play.

Plenty of Home Secretaries rulings in the past have been overuled by the judicary or by parliaments in the past. And let’s see how Mr.Savage goes by suing her.

All it takes is a majority population taking over control of the government via the vote…

What are you refering to here? Are you saying that Muslims will become the majority in the UK? Btw Britain’s demographics – like a lot of countries – have been every changing since (and probably even before) the Roman times. Stricter and better Immigration control – yes. Scaremongering and exaggeration – no thanks.

Two and a half million muslims is still proportionally a small number compared to over 60 million. In recent years – the UK has seen a big influx from eastern Europe. Plus also Britain has immigration from all parts of the world like India which is mainly Hindu. So whilst I believe the Uk is too crowded and needs to have a policy of neutral immigration (those coming in match those going out) – I think limited immigration based on skills, ability to speak English and have those coming in respect the laws of the country – is a bonus.

So it’s not all about Christianity vs Islam – we should leave that to the history books. Like other previous ethnic groups I would expect in time that the growth via childbirth will tail off. In my experience not all those who are muslim are fundamentalist who push their religions on others. There are also muslims who are ‘westernised’ or moderate. And some who are counted as muslim by birth but doesn’t follow the religion. With any luck religions will all die – but that is wishful thinking. When there was an influx of people coming from the Carribbean – people like Enoch Powell warned of rivers of blood. Again this was unpleasant racist exaggeration – like the rubbish the BNP spout.

Of course there will be tension – but there are also benefits. The US has had plenty of clashes involving race and religion – and that was a country built on immigration. I guess I would worry more to the point of hysteria when the muslims turn up in their version of the Mayflower and forcibily claim the land rather them being one section of many races & creeds that are on the whole comin in through legal immigration.

However I believe that those people who are not citizens – are basically guests within a country and therefore the expectations on them are actually higher to behave. So if a guest misbehaves – preaching hate – etc – then I have no problem with deportation or refusal for them to return.

Last I checked the ACLU has no power to interpret law.

It don’t make a damn difference how they may want to re-write it, They are neither of the three branches.