Reader comments · Entry ban on anti-gay US ‘shock jock’ to stay in place · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Entry ban on anti-gay US ‘shock jock’ to stay in place

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Good. This guy’s a complete tosser. And to try to make “jokes” about autism is just sick.

  2. Of course this right-wing idiot should not be barred but wonder where all the PinkNews racists who moan on about muslims in Britain are – should they not be supporting the anti-free speech stance of our racist government or are they only cheerleaders for attacks on muslims exercising their right to free speech?

  3. Angelica: We’ve said it before, and will say it again: Islam is NOT a race. It is a chosen faith. Attacking a faith for it’s dubious beliefs is not racist. If you are going to try and make an argument, please try to be concise and coherent instead of rambling on into your couscous.

  4. Ah, here come the gay wing of the BNP! Never been called a couscous eater before though.

  5. There’s always a first time, angelica. Anyway, angelica tastes better than couscous.

  6. Oh Drew, how you flatter!

  7. Simon Murphy 12 Jan 2010, 8:03pm

    Anjelica, how can insulting a freely chosen, voluntary belief system be racist?

    Please explain because you’re not making any sense with your statements.

    Do you also think that calling evangelical christians, ‘idiots’ (the ones who believe the earth is 5000 years old) is racist?

    If not then why not? Using your logic insulting Paris Hilton as a ‘moron’ for believing in Santa Claus until she was 15 is also racist.

    Get a grip.

  8. Har Davids 12 Jan 2010, 8:57pm

    The list of undesirables is growing, I wonder when I will be on it. Mr Savage is a clown, whose stupid ideas, for some reason, warrant him access to a large audience. I know some politicians im my country who would be more than welcome in the UK, even though their ideas on homosexuality and abortion are stupid too, as they are based on the ‘bible’, which is a book of fairy-tails from the Middle East.

  9. we dont want their children for the reason e he’s thinking of. we only want some tolarence and understanding but its this twat slurper
    thats rapeing peoples minds for his psychofrantic belefis made up by the cu*t monster in the sky, keep this bastard out of our country as we have enough of those muslers nazis.

  10. There are many Christians, like myself, that are also gay. I was drawn to my interpretation of the Bible because I believe Jesus to be a radical. The central teachings to love your neighbour, to live a life without being in judgment of others, to stand up for the poor and disposed spoke to me as a child and inform my life today. There are over 3,000 passages that deal with poverty, only 11 on sexuality and homosexuality never even made it into the top 10 commandments.
    I, like many other people of faith resent the way in which Churches and religious institutions have persecuted gays and lesbians by distorting the central messages of our faith.
    I hope that some of you in your comments can recognise a difference between the Bible and people of faith, and the religious institutions that attack us with their hateful words and deeds. There is a difference, and I would hate to see Pink News, which I love, become a venue where I am shouted down and made to feel excluded. Thank you for your reading.

  11. Why does he use a pseudonym as Michael Savage when he has a jewish name as Michael Weiner?

  12. theotherone 12 Jan 2010, 11:27pm

    Angelica: I take it that posting here means you’re not heterosexual?

    OK so we’ve (hopefully) established that.

    Now do you desire to cosy up to people who want to kill you? You want to scream about Muslim extremists therefore you want people to kill you.

    I’d also point out that the Muslim population in the UK is homophobic – two separate polls have shown this.

    So you’re in love with the Boot Boys then?

  13. theotherone 12 Jan 2010, 11:29pm

    Oh and about the case at point: fir firks sake – he’s a Shock Jock, his job is to p1ss people off. A danger? He’s a joke.

    Let him in and we’ll laugh at him.

  14. Good. Keep that vile scum away from our country.

  15. theotherone 12 Jan 2010, 11:44pm

    ‘Good. Keep that vile scum away from our country.’

    why spike? For saying things you disagree with? Hardly a good reason is it?

  16. Thanks for those links Kitty. This man is unbelievable!

    Well done the UK for preventing him entering your country. Let’s hope others follow suit when he tries to travel….. Keep the filth where you can keep an eye on it.

  17. OK, I said this on another thread, but I really can’t see that Michael Savage would be much of a threat if he visited the UK. In fact he’s got a much bigger media platform from being banned than he ever would have if we let him in.
    I agree he’s a hate filled bigot but then so’s a substantial percentage of the readership of the Daily Mail. Nobody gives our home grown bigots their own UK radio show either. In this instance I would guess nobody would’ve known who the hell he was and we’d still be none the wiser if the travel ban hadn’t been put in place.
    To quote the tag line from “Morons from out of space”, “He came, he saw, he did a little shopping and went home”
    The only people who’d know about his views in that scenario would be anyone unfortunate enough to be sat next to him on public transport.

  18. David in Indy 13 Jan 2010, 7:52am

    What an appalling, disgusting man. Well done UK for keeping him OUT of your country. We occasionally have to listen to his vile filth here in the US, as they sometimes like to talk about him on the American news stations. I wish they would ban him from this country, but I suppose we are stuck with him…

  19. This person is an ARSE ?

    Question… aint a weiner a SMALL suasage ?

    What has he donated to Kew ?
    His rare botanical collection …
    Might they be his beloved PANSYS ?

    I think we need to L.O.L. at this person not luagh with him, there is a diffrence HA HA HA

    Im sure Angelica would be free to show him around ?

  20. Hi theotherone, you usually make more sense, have we been on the happy juice tonight! To make generalisations about entire populations is really a bit dodgy – of course Islam, like Judaism, Christianity and all the other organised sky-god religions is homophobic but there are some muslims, jews and christers who are not – too few but there are some.

    The anti-free speech people on this website also tend to be the anti-trans people – so i am surprised you want to line up with the racists who hurl “couscous eater” about as abuse – though I can’t wait to share that perticular epithet with my colleagues!

  21. What will this vile man go down as in history?, he’s no beethoven, einstein, mozart, van gogh, tchaikovsky or Michaelangelo some thought to be on the autistic spectrum with Aspergers Syndrome or even homosexual. No, he’ll go down as an antagonistic bigot, self serving greedy materialist, using controversy as his tool of hate to get rich. Maybe he’s covering up his own strain of Aspergers, the malicious kind, self loathing because he isn’t perfect himself. Keep him out and kick out the extreemists too.

  22. JEWFAGGYPPOTARD, march me to the shower guard, less we forget, and for a Jewish man that sounds more like Hitler, it’s disgraceful to his race.

  23. Simon Murphy 13 Jan 2010, 11:31am

    Angelica – you still have not answered the question about how insulting a freely chosen, voluntary belief system can be racist?

  24. “so i am surprised you want to line up with the racists who hurl “couscous eater” about as abuse”

    Angelica apparently wishes to exemplify and model for us the stupidity of the posturing left who cannot tell the difference between “Race” and “Religion”.

    On topic – Mr Savage might be ghastly but he’s absolutely right about Autism – Lazy Parent Disease we call it in the Vulpus family den. How nu-labour to ban someone for views they don’t like.

  25. It’s stupid to ban him from the country.

    I don’t need protecting from his views.

  26. infact, why not ban the bible? why not ban the pope from coming as well?

  27. Simon, I don’t usually bother answering questions from bigots as experience has show it is a waste of time, but in this case …

    Religion is generally not a “freely chosen” belief system free of ethnic or national overtones, though of course there are instances of people choosing to follow religions outwith their own cultural inheritance. Those racists who use epithets like “couscous eater” against those who resist their attacks on free speech are not attacking “freely chosen” moral systems. The irony is that I have no time for any sky-god believing madness whether Christian, Jewish, Muslim or anything else. I’m as much anti-islam (and anti-judiasm and anti-christer) as the racist clowns who spew their bigotry on this website but I reject their racism. Are you able to follow that line or argument?

  28. Angelica: “Are you able to follow that line or argument?”
    I’m never capable of following any of your arguments. You rabble in riddles and your message, if there is one, is an incoherent collection of words thrown on the floor and then reassembled into the mumblings of a dementia-ridden leftie protester.

    I never called you a “couscous eater”, I am not a racist, I am an nationalist, and I have always fully supported free speech, as any attempt to quash it is the first act of a fascist state.

  29. I had to laugh, his real name is Weiner (chuckle chuckle)but obviously that wasnt macho enough so he goes by the name Savage grrrrr how manly!

  30. Rob, you confirm my view that it is a waste of time engaging with bigots – nationalism is such an ugly political position.

  31. Angelica, I take it that you are not British? If you in fact are, why are you so ashamed of this “ugly” fact? Why have the trendy, couscous-chomping lefties made it a crime to say “I’m British, I’m proud”?

  32. Poor rob doesn’t understand why “I’m a British Nationalist and proud of it” is problematic!

  33. theotherone 13 Jan 2010, 12:47pm

    unfortunately Angelica mu hopes for Liberal Islam are battered and bruised. I still believe it’s there, I still hope it’s there but it’s not raising it’s head.

    It has been reported here that there have been repeated pools of Muslim the Muslim population in the Uk and a near unanimous hatred of Queers has been found. Until these pools have been found to be wrong then I’m afraid I’ll have to believe the results.

    I still hope for a liberal Islam, I really do.

    As to couscous? try this Moroccan dish:

    make couscous with milk (or soy milk) instead of water with lots of cinnamon and sugar in it. It’s like rice pudding only less gloopy.

  34. For God’s sake. The attention-seeking buffoon is right now getting everything he wants. Let him in and face the barrage of blistering responses which he would deservedly get, before disappearing into deserved oblivion. No-one should be denied entry to the country unless he/she explicitly incites law-breaking or violence. What New Labour has done for lgbt people is admirable and incomparable but its record on civil liberties is dire. It never loses a chance to turn bigots into martyrs for liberty.

  35. theotherone 13 Jan 2010, 12:51pm

    angelica: I’m British and proud but I’m not a raving nut job and have spent a great deal of my life fighting arseholes who think being British is being a Racist lack wit.

    ‘trendy, couscous-chomping lefties’ – I love that statment, that’s funny.

  36. As ever, Peter Tatchell makes a fair point when talking about another case:

    “I abhor everything [Islam4UK] stand for, but defend their right to freedom of expression. Even though what they said was offensive to many people, their right to speak their mind is one of the hallmarks of a democratic society.

    “They want to destroy our democracy and freedoms. I want to defend these values. If we silence and criminalise their views, we are little better than them.”

    To be fair to Savage, he has no intention to destroy our democracy or freedom, but the point stands.

  37. theotherone 13 Jan 2010, 12:58pm

    indeed the point does stand: we can’t limit free speech.

  38. 13 Jan 2010, 1:19pm

    This is a quite interesting issue. We have free speech in this country *up to a point*. People *already in this country* who live and work here can exercise their rights *up to a point*. Should we extend the freedom to people like Savage or Phelps or other extremists from abroad?

    The “quality-of-mercy-not-strained” argument (that you can’t parcel virtues/values up and hedge them around with conditions, they are absolute and must stand either in full or not at all) is attractive. At the moment we’re seeing homophobia in the UK and beyond. We pride ourselves on our “live and let live” attitude – “I hope you die of AIDS” is not in harmony with that. Should we extend “live and let live” to people who preach like that? I’m in two minds, but in this case I don’t think an enormous wrong is done if we don’t.

    The opposing argument is “but if we ban everybody who offends us we’ll turn into a dictatorship” is exactly the same as “if everybody were homosexual the human race would die out”. Not everybody is likely to turn homosexual (though with our present over-population, global hunger, and unfair division of wealth, celibacy and other alternatives seem a good option). And we are not likely to ban everyone who offends us, just the freakish extremes.

    The main arguments in favour of tolerance are: (a) if our society is really at risk from outlandish ranters like Savage and Phelps, then it’s not really a stable society; (b) give ’em enough rope and let ’em hang themselves (i.e. common sense will prevail in the long run).

  39. theotherone 13 Jan 2010, 1:29pm

    kitty: I’d say the ‘arguments for tolerance’ you list win out :)

    Savage and Phelps are cartoon monsters not a serious threat to anyone.

  40. Sorry we keep this guy out but allow any radical cleric in??? I honestly dont see the difference, they are all preaching hate one way or the other. So either you ban them all or you let them all in regardless that they may have a right wing view. But I guess this is not in the spirtit of Brown and Co’s PC Britian…

  41. theotherone 13 Jan 2010, 1:45pm

    ‘Brown and Co’s PC Britian’ Brown’s Britain IS oppressive and Right Wing.

    And The European Court Of Human Rights agrees.

  42. theotherone 13 Jan 2010, 1:54pm

    sorry I meant to say ‘But Brown’s Britain…’

    You’ve got to get the right level of sarcasm, you might miss it without the ‘but.’

  43. Pierre Talley 13 Jan 2010, 3:46pm

    Savage is just one of many hate radio stars in the U.S. who should be banned.Hate is an industry in the United States and it need not be exported into other nations to infect unsuspecting persons.

    The people of the U.S. are used to that kind of filth and therefore,really see no harm in it.There was a murder committed within the last few days in that country that grew out of two people using type of insanity lies in store for Britons and people in other nations should those like Savage be allowed entry and pervert the course of free exchange.

    Freedom of speech does not cover attempts to incite violence and to denegrate others.Savage and others know this and this is why they try and defend it as entertainment.

    Thank God I don’t live in that country any more!

  44. Robert, ex pat Brit 13 Jan 2010, 6:42pm

    Lord West states that remarks Savage made about muslims are deeply offensive as one of the reaons to barr him from entering the UK. Well now, why isn’t Lord West and the entire government for that matter condemning islamic countries that excecute their own gay people if caught inflagrante delicto? We didn’t hear one word when those two young boys were hung in public in Iran two years ago. Instead, our government was busy deporting gay muslim refugees back to an unknown fate and were told to keep a low profile to avoid persecution or even death. An appalling display of coldhearted indifference.

  45. theotherone 13 Jan 2010, 9:06pm

    an astonishing display of appeasement more like.

    Lets face it this government thinks that by appeasing ‘Radical’ Muslims it will stop terrorist attacks. Why not try not invading their countyries for a change? That might help.

  46. theotherone 13 Jan 2010, 9:08pm

    ‘Sodomites burn in Hell’

    but larry dear, ‘sodomite’ would incorporate Heterosexuals too – you know those dirty ones who like it up the tradesman’s entrance.

  47. nyone inciting hatred of any kind towards any group should be jailed for it, he basically insinuates and peddles the old myth that gays are child molesters, when in fact the evidence is opposite and has nothing to do with a persons persuasion. I suggest vulpus rex and savage should go get a masters in psychology and ten yrs experience in the autism field before making ill informed sweeping and ignorant remarks. This hatred is obviously a product of a selfish materialistic “strong will survive” society, I hope for a more altruistic society that supports people and brings out their potential, which unfortunately may never happen, because narcissist ruthless politicians have the political system sewn up in this country. People who have gay or autistic family will have more understanding and compassion. I’m all for freedom of speech, but when it preaches ignorance and hate to the masses, with little or no knowledge of the subject and is about controversially stirring up a hornets nest for their own selfish agenda, then it’s morally wrong and should be banned or barred.

  48. Angelica: “Poor rob doesn’t understand why “I’m a British Nationalist and proud of it” is problematic!”

    It’s only problematic to narrow-minded left wing cretins like yourself that would rather sell this country down the river than showing a little loyalty and patriotism. It’s people like you that scream “racist” when somebody waves a Union Jack.

    If you don’t like this country, you know the alternative.

  49. Andrezzitti 14 Jan 2010, 12:01am Christianity isn’t tolerated in a lot of muslim countries, people with agendas take advantage of our free society, it’s time that changed, bravo to the government on it’s decision against islamforuk, in the interests of harmony and common sense.

  50. theotherone 14 Jan 2010, 12:48am

    gosh robn, so you think the BNP are good for the country (which is what she said)? Way up for t-o-t-a-l Straight Acting. No one will guess you’re an Arse Bandit now.

    *sigh* some people eh?

  51. theotherone 14 Jan 2010, 12:49am

    Andrezzitti – quoting Right Wing Christian sights doesn’t go down well here.

  52. Andrezzitti 14 Jan 2010, 2:23am

    sorry I didn’t notice the word conservative, just do a google search, the christian faith isn’t tolerated in places like Iran etc., most intelligent people know that, also most UK muslims are homophobic and would like to see sharia law, here’s another article, we all know that the president of Iran wants the annihilation of Jews and gays, just like Hitler did. I’m just against extreeme beliefs that erode hundreds of years of equality laws people have fought for here.

  53. Andrezzitti 14 Jan 2010, 2:43am

    I mean sorry, but open your eyes, there’s a war raging against minorities and weaker members of society, death penalties for homosexuality, Christianity, we are being flooded with asylum seekers getting away from these evil places, then people are saying, oh let the antagonists and extremists come in and add fuel to the fire, some people really are insane, we need to wise up and the government are doing that, it’s not totalitarian, it’s dealing with the world of now and stopping idiots from trying to tear our freedoms to shreds.

  54. Theotherone: Just because the BNP has the word “Nationalist” in it’s title does not mean I support them. I just despair of selfish people letting everyone walk over my country. Would you let people just wander into your house and raid your fridge? No. Same thing.

  55. Andrezzitti 14 Jan 2010, 11:53am

    Islam for uk should be banned as an organisation, they are basically defending the taliban, who want a medieval society, where women are slaves, and men can execute them or anyone they dislike at a whim, that’s total control in the most evil way. The Taliban and al Qa’ida want to commit genocide and ethnically cleanse their society of everything non muslim, they want to do what Hitler did, have an Arian race of their twisted evil doctrine.

  56. theotherone 14 Jan 2010, 12:01pm

    robN I didn’t think you supported the BNP but you had, unfortunately, fallen into a trap of making it look like you did.

    Andrezzitti: this is a discussion about an American Shock Jock not Islam4uk or any other group, ideology or form of potato based product. I’d happily discuss these issues where it is fit to do so and may (or may not) disagree with what you have to say but this is not the place for that.

  57. theotherone 14 Jan 2010, 12:02pm

    Oh and ‘Arian’ relates to Northern European not swarthy Asian types.

  58. Andrezzitti 14 Jan 2010, 12:07pm

    discussions have a tendency to talk about a persons beliefs and ideology, Savage has strong views on Islam and extremists, he was banned from this country, Islam For UK is also topical at the moment and has been banned. I am just following on the conversation and giving my opinion, I also have Asperger Syndrome so have an interest in this discussion.

  59. Andrezzitti 14 Jan 2010, 12:11pm

    I was grammatically correct, I was relating what hitler wanted in Germany to the Taliban doctrine of now.

  60. theotherone 14 Jan 2010, 12:31pm

    but my point, andrezzitti, is that this is a discussion about Savage not Islam4uk so it would be helpful to keep some focus in this discussion.

  61. Have we missed the point here? The United Kingdom’s laws enshrine the right of free speech for its CITIZENS, who have a right to be here. VISITORS, on the other hand, are here by privelidge and as such have no rights to speak of and no fundamental right to be here at all. Weiner is an American Citizen – he has minimal rights here in UK, and no automatic right of entry. If you turned up at the US border expressing support for 9/11 terrorists do you really think you’d get it? I suspect that not only would such a sympathiser be denied entry, they would also find themselves on the first plane to Guantanamo, Obama’s closure order notwithstanding! What rights do you have over there when you go on holiday? The US Constitution does not apply to “aliens”, as they so offensively term foreigners – you have minimal rights. Neither does it follow US citizens abroad. Has Weiner forgotten these facts? When I’m in US I respect US law, like or not, as I am there by privelidge, not right. I expect visitors to my country to afford the same courtesy. If Weiner were a British Citizen he would have the right to spout his filth here no matter how much we dislike it, and in this regard I would support Peter Tatchell’s statement (, however, he is not a British Citizen, therefore he has minimal rights, and we have enough home grown “Weiners” (eg BNP, religious extremists) to deal with without importing any more. Rights come with Responsibilities, and freedom of speech is no different.

  62. Stephen – while I sympathise with the notion that Savage is a first class bigot and not someone I want hanging round, by banning him we run the risk of turning him into a right-wing martyr.
    One way we get another anonymous wingnut tourist, who comes and goes and barely warrants any media attention, the other way we give him the oxygen of self-publicity and editorial columns in all the major national newspapers (as has already occurred) claiming that it’s an infringement of his civil liberties.
    Thinking in purely expedient terms, this one should have been a no brainer.

  63. Andrezzitti 14 Jan 2010, 6:23pm

    those plants were bought through hate money, why did kew gardens accept a donation from him?, would they accept other donations from inmmoral sources?

  64. theotherone 14 Jan 2010, 6:29pm

    stephen: your post is a bit muddled.

    1. You say that human rights in the UK allow free speech.

    2. You say Savage would have to abide by UK law and conventions if he came here.

    3. You then claim that the Rights enshrined in point 1. do not apply to Savage but in point 2. you say he should obey them.

    Surely your argument vis a vis point 2. would allow Savage into the Uk otherwise he is being treated differently and not only is he not being given the opportunity to obey or not obey UK law but Uk law is not actualy operating in the way you describe in point 2?

  65. Flapjack – I take your point – letting him come and go quietly but jumping all over him should he step out of line may have been the better approach in practice, though I think my observations still stand! :-)

    Theotherone – perhaps I could have worded things better. To answer your points:-

    1) The law allows free speech for Citizens, yes.
    2) Should he be allowed entry, he would have to abide by the law – why would it be otherwise?
    3) As a foreigner he does not, however, enjoy the same RIGHTS as a UK citizen, particularly the right of entry, but should we grant him the privelidge of entry he would still have a RESPONSIBILITY to obey the law.

    We do, however, have every right to deny him the opportunity to “obey or not obey” our laws as you put it, as happens at borders all over the world every day. Is he being treated differently from a UK Citizen? Definitely! Is he being treated unreasonably? I’m not so sure about that. As Flapjack has pointed out, this may not have been handled in the best way in practice but in my view the principles still stand, the main one being that we have the right to keep him out should we choose. If he doesn’t like that, he of course has the right to present his case to our Embassy in USA like anyone else.

  66. Andrezzitti 15 Jan 2010, 5:33pm

    no, he didn’t decide to do that though did he, in his arrogance he went on air and told his flock to boycott british goods, and slagged off one of our government ministers. He is a loose cannon with an ultra fascist right wing agenda.

  67. theotherone 15 Jan 2010, 8:42pm

    stephen: if we allow rights to be waved then they are no longer rights.

    If we do not allow him entry and the opportunity for us to mock him then we limit our own ability to speak out.

  68. Andrezzitto 12 Mar 2010, 10:15pm

    Hogwash, he needs a frontal labotomy like chris moyles, they want taking off air for their damaging ignorance.

  69. Andrezzitto 12 Mar 2010, 10:22pm

    His radio show is slipping in the ratings, LOL, Obama Ban the creep.

  70. Hey Weiner – so glad the Btits won’t let you in. Now we have to throw you out of this country.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.