Harry's Place

She’s a crook. We don’t generally let those convicted of serious criminal offences into this country.

It is a privilege to enter the UK, not a right.

I actually think that there had to be some token white people in there or the muslims would have whinged that the list just comprised terrorist Islamic types, even though they’re the only ones that are actually “dangerous”.

I know a fair amount about the Islamists who are on the list, and what they get up to when they get into the UK.

A number of them have engaged in Hamas fundraising.

Now, yes, we could let them in and then prosecute them. We might catch them at it with enough evidence. Then we’d be able to put them on trial – that’s a few hundred thousand – and then we can put them in prison – that’s a few hundred thousand more.

But, frankly, let’s just keep them out, and save the money, eh?

Serious criminals and promoters of crime, including terrorism, should be kept out, since it’s a privelege and not a right to enter the UK, as long as this is done consistently. I don’t see Jacqui Smith as having either the brains or the backbone to do this consistently.
And people who are neither criminals nor promote crime should not be barred simply because their views are not shared by the government currently in office. In this country, the government in office does not embody the state. Some such people are currently being barred, although this may be “only” (sarcasm off) because Jacqui Smith is too much of a coward to stand up to intimidation by those who oppose their views, not because she believes that she embodies the state.

I agree with Sarah. This list has been compiled to include “extremists” from every political/cultural group simply not to be offensive those groups who have. It’s PC driven and it’s bilge.

Is Martha Stewart allowed to broadcast into the UK? If she is, couldn’t she then incite innocent tele-shoppers interested in roasting pans or meat thermometers to commit some heinous crime? And what would be the position vis-a-vis QVC personnel? Personally, there’s nothing I fear more than the possibility of a foreign tax cheat sneaking into this country. Isn’t it wonderful that when someone has served his or sentence in a foreign country for a non-violent financial crime, they are punished by having the ‘privilege’ of entering Britain withdrawn? I suppose Martha, scourge of humanity that she is, is now trapped in the US. The folks there ought to consider branding folks like her on the face as a warning to others to keep well back.

It is a privilege to enter the UK, not a right.

Whoops, bang goes David T’s invite to the No Borders Winterfest jamboree.

“If they step over the line and break the law, it’s at that moment the law should be enacted [I think he means "enforced"], not beforehand.

“If people are keeping their odious views to themselves, that’s their business. We should not be in the business of policing people’s minds.”

The govt. knows very well the sort of crap the ex-pat Islamists holed-up in London post on their websites and say in interviews to Arabic media (many of which are in London). They also know very well the sort of things these Islamists said and did before they claimed asylum. Therefore, it’s a bit like shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted.

Could the reason for Bungleman’s selective opposition to such measures be that he himself admires several of the people on the list?

or the muslims would have whinged that the list just comprised terrorist Islamic types

I dare say most Muslims are effusive in their support for banning hate preachers and Islamists.

I really don’t see what purpose is served by the further persecution of Martha Stewart. Her success was mainly the result of her own efforts and she was much-loved by most Americans. Her fall from grace was therefore regrettable.

Judged by the standards of corporate America – or the current expense-fiddling, noses-in-the-trough standards of the British parliament and cabinet ministers such as Hazel Blears – her crime was trivial.

Judged by the standards of the politicians who were in office in the country and at the time she was convicted, she is a an absolute saint.

She told a couple of lies. For which she has served a prison sentence.

By contrast, the falsehoods repeated by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and co. in order to justify an unprovoked assault on a country, leading to the deaths of scores of thousands of people, can never be forgiven.

Never, ever.

Martha Stewart is welcome in my kitchen or at my dinner table any time she likes, whereas the above-named politicos should rot in hell for eternity and a day.

In short, in the case of war criminals like Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Olmert and Zippy I say let them into the country.

But provide no protection.

“By Jove, that ‘Manchurian’ blighter is right!” said Colonel Blimp.

“I say, what about the terrorist spokespeople / sympathizers / enablers already here and resolutely blogging? Isn’t there a well-known Saudi oppositionist, one Dr Masaari, still industriously doing his best to stir up hate and discontent in one of BAe Systems’ best customer’s backyard?”

More to the point, do HP readers have any suggestions for additions to Jacqui Jackboots’ “Banned from the U.K.” list?

Let’s give the interesting example of the South Armagh P.I.R.A. warlord Slab Murphy.

Is Slab Murphy an Irish citizen or does he automatically qualify for U.K. citizenship, living where he does? If he’s only a citizen of the Irish Republic, he ought to be formally banned from the U.K. Or maybe not, since he supports the “peace process,” after his own fashion.

Discuss.

Anyone else of interest out there?

In short, in the case of war criminals like Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Olmert and Zippy

Oh god, he is off on his ignorant nonsense again.

Her success was mainly the result of her own efforts and she was much-loved by most Americans.

Do tell how being ‘much-loved’ is relevant.

Her fall from grace was therefore regrettable.

To whom? I take it you do realise that you do not represent everybody else’s views?

K Ronstadt

I’m on your side. The term ‘convicted felon’ could apply, say, to a Muslim-born Iranian who has converted to the Baha’i faith. Assuming such a person could eventually get an Iranian passport, would that individual be allowed into the UK? [The Iranian majlis, I've read, has passed a draft bill proposing that male apostates be publicly murdered as a sort of crowd-pleasing entertainment and that female apostates be jailed for life without parole. If this law is enacted, my hypothetical case is wrecked!]

Here, it’s often remarked on, one third of adults males have some sort of criminal record. Does this mean that the authorities in Spain or Cyprus are on the lookout for the vast numbers of British tourists reaching these destinations who are ‘convicted felons’? Many of these men have at some time done far, far nastier things to other human beings than use insider knowledge to pocket some bunce on the stock exchange.

Or do other countries have rational laws to deal with this issue? Was I naïve to believe that the spirit of Monsieur Javert no longer roamed the arrivals counters of our ferry terminals and airports looking for possible Jean Valjeans?

All right, Heath: defining the line for exclusion and defining convicted felon was always going to be difficult.
How about convicted of a crime that in the UK would carry a one-year prison sentence or more?

Doctor Heath

I think any laws limiting our freedom of movement are in principle wrong.

There are far, far worse people on the loose than the vast majority of “convicted felons”.

It is wrong to punish people for things they did years ago and for which they have already served a sentence. It’s a kind of double jeopardy. And it is vindictive.

This is about further intrusion of the state into our lives and it is ordinary people who will suffer.

Personally I think the case against Martha Stewart with the 1001 law, entrapment and using taped conversations raised has implications for people less well able to defend themselves than she was. But I don’t have time to discuss them now, going out to dinner.

So, take care and thanks.

Martha’s turkey is overdone.

Dr Masaari

Hani el-Saba’i, Abu Basir al-Tartusi, Abu Jalal al-Manfaluti, Dr Faisal Saleh etc.

I like Martha, she is everything I want to be when I grow up.

There quite a lot of irony in Americans complaining about other countries refusing entry to US citizens, given what America’s border control has been getting up to in recent years.

I like Martha, she is everything I want to be when I grow up.

Ex-con?

K Ronstadt going out to dinner? I thought he was already out to lunch

There quite a lot of irony in Americans complaining about other countries refusing entry to US citizens, given what America’s border control has been getting up to in recent years.

I forget which crime Martha was convicted of. Can someone help me out?

Radio talk-show host Michael Savage is an ignorant, offensive, hateful blowhard who thrives on his reputation as a slash-and-burn proponent of “conservative” values and supposed scourge of liberalism.

So isn’t the Daily Mail offering him a job?

I expect phelps was included for the reason given by sarah.
The shockjock however is an implied threat to scots nationalists. Secede and we’re going to send you Galloway back.

My comment should lookk more like this:

There quite a lot of irony in Americans complaining about other countries refusing entry to US citizens, given what America’s border control has been getting up to in recent years.

What has the Border Control Service been up to in recent year?

Also, I forget which crime Martha was convicted of. Can someone help me out?

“Now, yes, we could let them in and then prosecute them.”

Like fuck could we; Mrs Blair and partners would be all over them and at the end of a trial they would get costs and be allowed to have compensation.

I left Britain because I knew if was fucked up beyond hope; it will get worse before it gets better. The schools have been destroyed, the Universities (in particular) have been destroyed, the social contract has been destroyed, respect from democracy, law, the civil service, local government and the media has vanished.

Members of this Labour government are as corrupt as members of the Roman Senate. The party is going to be destroyed, its refugees heading for the Lib-Dems and more worryingly the pro-Islamicist left in the form of RESPECT/SWP and the anti-Muslim left in the form of BNP.
Peter Hain has called for the formation of anti-BNP militias and this is only the start. It might not get as far as civil war, but it will be close.

What has the Border Control Service been up to in recent year?

Among other things, booting out Egyptian Islamist Wagdi Ghoneim. He is one of the names on the new UK list. This is good news: he most certainly is an extremist and was in the UK celebrating Hamas’s “victory” in Gaza just two months ago.

Savage’s exclusion is a token. It skirts the possibility of the Home Office being labelled “Islamophobic” by pressure groups.

It is cowardice and as ridiculous as the US authorities banning James Whale.

Although Savage is undoubtedly a highly offensive individual, I must admit to finding his reaction to being barred from entering Britain rather witty.
” Darn! And I was just planning a trip to England for their superior dental work.”

Mesquito -a true story: 7 years ago an Israeli family I know organised a once in a lifetime trip for the whole of their extended family -two brothers, their wives and all their children and the grandparents. The trip was a family celebration of the fact that the grandmother had just recovered from cancer. They booked a cruise round the Carribean which was to depart from Florida. Duly they went to the American embassy in Tel Aviv to request visas. Entirely by chance they were planned to fly on 11/09/2002. They were refused entry visas to the US because the grandmother, a woman in her 70s who had been in Israel for over 40 years and is of course Jewish, had been born in Iraq.

Martha Stewart did not commit a violent crime and is unlikely to break the law in the future. Banning her from the UK is more the UK’s lost, in that she is a wealthy woman and visiting the UK would mean her spending money for hotels, restaurants, theater, etc. Banning her and Savage, is too stupid for words.

Also, I forget which crime Martha was convicted of. Can someone help me out?

“Stewart, 63, was convicted in March [2004] of lying to investigators about why she sold ImClone stock in December 2001, just before the stock price plunged.”

I will bet that I have listened to more Michael Savage than anyone else at HP. There is no doubt he is tough and can be offensive but he says he has no intention to visit the UK and so why would you bother to announce he is banned?

Even if he came to the UK I doubt he has any intention to stand on Speakers Corner.

He can be freely interviewed via the telephone if anyone wants him invited to speak his mind.

I agree with the comments that without a few non-Muslims being on the list then the list looks a bit upsetting for the Muslim Community. There are still six names they won’t announce. I wonder why? Would it further upset “the community”?

I wonder if Nelson Mandela is on the list, convicted felon that he is…

Is Martha Stewart barred from Britain???? How rude! Housewives of Britain should certainly unite and take action.

I was thinking, since Home Office has a list of Islamists not welcome in UK, is it also possible to make a sort of reversed list? Britons you would want to send off to the Islamic world. Why not George Galloway, Ken Livingstone…?

There are still six names they won’t announce

Some excluded people have not been named for security reasons. Let’s say, for example, that you know someone is involved in terrorist activities. But you don’t want that knowledge to be revealed, in order to protect the process that led to him or her. That’s a good reason to ban without naming. Even better, should that person have committed crimes under UK law, and be so foolish as to show up at Heathrow one day, an appropriate welcome team can be called in.

“What has the Border Control Service been up to in recent year?”

Denying entry to Amy Winehouse, Cat Stevens, Ian McEwan, Sebastien Horsley, Robert Fisk, amongst many others. All dangerous insurgents, I’m sure.

Also:

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2009/01/24/1232471656805.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3122632.stm

http://notthebeastmaster.typepad.com/weblog/2007/10/us-government-b.html

http://www.theage.com.au/news/Breaking/Blogger-blocked-by-US-immigration/2005/03/22/1111254012558.html

http://thetyee.ca/News/2007/04/23/Feldmar/

And many, many more. Apparently, they now do Google searches at customs to see if you’ve said anything critical of America. Actually, given what he has said about the government since Obama’s inauguration, if Savage did travel to the UK would be allowed back into the US afterwards?

I have to say that a lot of people convicted as “felons” in many parts of the world are perfectly harmless. But I don’t in the least mind insider-trading rich bastards who almost certainly fiddle their taxes as well being banned from Britain. We’ve got enough of those already.

Apparently, they now do Google searches at customs to see if you’ve said anything critical of America.

But Galloway got in last month.

Gener:

On the other hand, I think the UK is probably strong enough to survive a visit by him– or even by the wretched “God hates fags” minister Fred Phelps.

That rather puts you at odds with the UK’s distinctly illiberal Home Secretary – Ms Smith.

But really, what is the purpose of these lists

It’s unbridled ‘We know what’s best’ control freakary stateism.

Is Martha Stewart really banned?

Israeli nurse:

Yeah, I believe it.

The southern border is more or less wide open, and the really bad people tend to be young males of a certain faith. Still, the border authorities insist on being deeply, bureaucratically stupid.

“But Galloway got in last month.”

He was probably in the trunk of a car.

Three very dodgy ones in the last couple of months – Wilders, Savage and the recent 9 hour detention at Heathrow and 7 day visa finally granted to the Australian Dr Philiip Nitschke of the voluntary euthanasia group EXIT.

Indicative of a worrying, distinctly illiberal mindset in HMG.

What a sad state of affairs.

This reminds me of our new “brilliant” Homeland Security Sec. Janet Napalitano. She thinks that we need to secure the border with Canada like we do with Mexico, for reasons of not being bigoted and treating everyone the same no doubt…..regarless of whether our drug, violence, and illegal immigration problems are largely on our southern border with Mexico. This is the same type of braindead poop that has TSA searching 80 year old Swedish grandmothers at the airports.

Banning Savage was a splendid demonstration of Smith’s idiocy. But Phelps is in a different category. If he was allowed in, we would have to spend taxpayer funds to ensure he was unable to disrupt funerals, and outrage bereaved Britons.
But now we are going to have to spend taxpayers money when Savage sues that fat, useless lump of lard in the Home Office.

I can’t help thinking that the odious Savage being banned is down to some research assistant being told, “hey, find some US joker on teh interwebs who hates Muslims”, rather than any more serious consideration.

The Newsnight discussion on the subject a few nights ago was risibly uninformed on all sides.

I wonder why none of the following performers (apart from me and Sarah Maguire of course) can’t get into the country. Of course it isn’t done blatantly by means of a list of the proscribed. It’s just that it turns out that the Palestinian poets can’t get the necessary travel documents. So the event is cancelled.

Refuge in Words
Friday 22 May, 7pm
Venue: The Brunei Gallery, SOAS, Thornhaugh St, Russell Square, London, WC1H 0XG
The Palestine Film Foundation, English PEN and the Poetry Translation Centre invite you to join us for an evening of poetry and short fiction from Palestine celebrating the publication of new work in translation from Gaza commissioned by the English PEN World Atlas. Faten al-Gharra will share her erotic, meditative, vivid poems and Khaled Abedallah will read his bold new poetry; their translations will be read by Sarah Maguire. Atef Abu Seif and Khaled Juma’a will present their work via video from Gaza, while Michael Rosen, our MC, will read his translations of Juma’a’s resonant lyrics, including new work from 2009. Also via video, John Berger reads Ghassan Kanafani’s classic Letter from Gaza. And there will be a chance to talk to the writers about their work and life in Gaza.

It’s just a collection of harmless non-Muslim nutters mixed in with Muslim hate-preachers to make Tacqui Jacqui seem even handed. Just like the people at HP who say there are extremists of all religions. We all know damn well which religion is the real threat – the one where the “extreme” is mainstream.

Gene

I am sure britain could withstand the prescence of those on this list who do not pose a real and present danger to community relations, at some cost, disruption and irritation.

But why do we have to extend any kind of invitation to those who want to piss on our party?

This really isn’t a free speech argument at all and shouldn’t be presented as one by the likes of Bunglawala.

These people have free speech and are entitled to their views.

They are all (except for those with criminal convictions who are presumptively barred from most states most especially the US) however polemicists, who seek public audiences to proselytise for their divisive views.

Well they can’t come here to do so, should they be so minded, is all they have been told.

They suffer nothing, no rights and freedoms of theirs have been infringed.

They have simply been inconvenienced by having to make other vacation plans.

Given that they seem to prefer, very busy, active working vacations, I am sure they have contingency plans of where else they may go to ventilate their toxic breath.

Bunglawala is exceptionally silly in making the argument that we should not ban them as their views are already disseminated via the internet.

Well even more reason to refuse them entry then. Noone here will be deprived, of their bigotry, stupidity, viciousness and malice.

Should they need such a psychological downer, their fix is but a few cicks away.

I suspect that Michael Savage’s banning has as much to do with his comments about a Duke University Rape Victim.

Such things are taken very seriously here.

In exactly the same way we have banned for decades American militant anti-abortion activists from entering the UK as it is quite clear that they have sought to agitate for an activist abortion politics.

We do not have an extreme and violently politicised anti-abortion movement in the UK, in fact our policy remains multi-partisan and we wish to keep it that way.

There is all the world of difference between free speech and feeling that you are obliged to let someone into your home (and certainly not a funeral) to harangue your relatives.

The odious Phelps family seem to have benefited from a rather quaintly perverse US view of free speech that has allowed them to picket funerals of Gay men pouring hatred and venom upon the deceased and tyrannising grieving relatives.

His brood’s behaviour would have always broken so many possible laws here that it is a no brainer to keep them out and really has nothing to do with PC balance.

And as for banning Savage.

There is a certain amount of irony in a man who has upheld the absolute right of the US to refuse entry to anyone it (or rather he) feels shouldn’t be admitted, who has called immigrants ‘brown supremacists’, discovering that yes indeed, permission to enter a sovereign state of which one is not a citizen, is a privilege, a discretionary permission that can be withheld as a sovereign right.

There is nothing he can do about it.

Oh well Michael, never mind eh? No one really likes poetry anyway. They say they do, but secretly they all find it a bit tiresome.

You’re absolutely right, Bissli. I can’t stand the stuff myself. I just pretend. And – doh! – that’s why the Palestinian poets weren’t allowed to travel. It’s because no one likes poetry.

mettaculture,

I suppose my main concern is the “slippery slope” (or “salami slicing”) aspect of this. If you can ban someone for extremely offensive speech, you can ban someone else for slightly less offensive speech– and so on and so on. Where do you draw the line? And there’s the utter arbitrariness and randomness of the Home Office, which just as easily could have banned 16 other offensive people instead.

Michael, I was hoping you’d have something to say about this. If you do, please post it there, not here.

Actually – not entirely relevant I admit – Savage must have the worst teeth I’ve seen on a well-paid American in many a year. Is it all part of his wild man image?

Gene
“Radio talk-show host Michael Savage is an ignorant, offensive, hateful blowhard who thrives on his reputation as a slash-and-burn proponent of “conservative” values and supposed scourge of liberalism.”

Michael Weiner AKA Michael Savage :
On his radio show, Savage told listeners that “intelligent people, wealthy people … are very depressed by the weakness that America is showing to these psychotics in the Muslim world. They say, ‘Oh, there’s a billion of them.’ ” Savage continued: “I said, ‘So, kill 100 million of them, then there’d be 900 million of them.

We take it from thus that Gene and HP would be loudly supporting the entry into the UK of someone who said the same about Jews. Not.

“I suppose my main concern is the “slippery slope” (or “salami slicing”) aspect of this. If you can ban someone for extremely offensive speech, you can ban someone else for slightly less offensive speech– and so on and so on. Where do you draw the line? And there’s the utter arbitrariness and randomness of the Home Office, which just as easily could have banned 16 other offensive people instead.”

But shouldn’t you be more concerned about your own country doing this for the past eight years, rather than Britain doing it now? Isn’t Britain just following America’s example in barring entry to people for increasingly random and spurious reasons? Although surely it’s better that these decisions are made by an elected and accountable politician, as in England, than by any and every jumped-up little-Hitler working for the Customs and Border Protection department of Homeland Security, as in the US.

Savage is I think intending to sue for defamation, not for being banned from entry.

Cunt he may be, but he has a point – if he or anyone else on the list had never tried to enter the UK then publishing his name on the list seems a pretty clear case of defamation for defamation’s sake.

Tacqui Jacqui and co are too scared to admit that they want to ban Muslims. They know damn well that it is Muslims – the ones who preach true Islam – that are the threat. Hide them among nasty, or simply outspoken people, and they might just get away with it.

I think the US should ban Seamus Milne from entering the US.

We take it from thus that Gene and HP would be loudly supporting the entry into the UK of someone who said the same about Jews. Not.

I think the UK is probably strong enough to survive a visit by an American who said similarly hateful things about Jews– assuming he was subject to UK law like anyone else. After all the US survived a visit by Nick Griffin of the BNP a couple of years ago.

In fact, I’d be willing to bet that thousands of Americans who hold and express hateful views about blacks, Jews or Muslims visit the UK each year. It’s just that what they say hasn’t been widely publicized.

And I don’t think I’m being especially loud.

Do you think that the US should make a public list of banishment, of Europeans that hold and or espouse Anti American views?

Surely the very fact that the list has been published is strange? Why does this information need to be at the disposal of the general public unless its aim is to make a political point? If the people on this list are so undesirable then why not a) wait until they actually do try to enter Britain before publishing any decision or b) just let the border control officials get on with their job?
Or maybe the Home Office are all too aware of the ridiculous permeability of Britain’s borders and are counting on the public to make a citizen’s arrest on Martha Stewart when we encounter her in the M&S food section.

Israelinurse

Good point. It seems that in Britain policy has become nothing but a series of media managed events to demonstrate a model, or pilot programme, or community testing, or plan, or rough outline, or just a list of what an actual policy might look like.

Of course the vast majority of these policy demonstration clips are never actually implemented let alone evaluated, because that would require real people with actual initiative to do actual things and other real people would have to examine criticially the policy to see if its actual outcomes bear any resemblance to its stated policy goals..

Such people have long been replaced by other people who do not do things but have flow charts that can show the ups and downs of a model that can show change in various performance targets.

These targets are established by other people who do such things in response to the governments desire to see improvement in targets.

This can be done very easily to the complete satisfaction of the political class, by very flexible people who don’t actually need to know any content based information because their approach is universally applicable to words on paper, with rapidly developed, centrally imposed targets that can be made to show improvement without any reference to any actual activities that might be inadvertently implied (but certainly not intended) by any particular policy.

This approach to policy formulation and actual service delivery is one of the very best and innovative managment approaches to have been adopted from the private sector to flush out the sclerotic and inefficient old style of public service by officials with actual knowledge of a subject.

Think of it as a kind of cool new thing like derivatives in stock market trading.

I mean in the old days people actually bought and sold pork bellies but this always had the risk of someone ending up with some actual pork bellies that they had to like sell when the price had dropped so far that you wouldn’t bother if they weren’t going to just rot in your living room.

No the zany wonderful world of futures and options and swaptions and such has done away with the need for actual pork bellies.

Well the market has been so keen (and so encouraged) to share its wisdom in managing things that don’t really have a market but have lots of potential consumers with that fusty old public sector to modernise and streamline and improve its ability to identify and target its new consumers with absolutely no need for yucky pork belly old style products when there are so many simpler and easier derivatives that work just the same way.

So a news clip, a sound bite and a shot of a list, gives a robust image of action with a share in the promise of a future option to actually really do something if it is needed.

Its all so modern and efficient and I havn’t even mentioned ‘branding’ as a way to signal a coherent ‘policy’ using brand attributes to firm up brand loyalty.

There’s just so much that can be done these days to get a politician on TV to be seen to bbe doing something without actually having to hold stocks of any actual policies cluttering up offices, being misunderstood , lost behind the photocopier etc.

No as long as the government is seen as able to deliver the policy at a future date, that option is still a commodity for public consumption.

“I think the US should ban Seamus Milne from entering the US”

I’d rather they didn’t, but then he shouldn’t be allowed back in.

Metta -
I’d like to copy and distribute that, with your permission. Hilariously funny (or would be, if it weren’t an accurate snapshot of reality).

>>> It’s just that it turns out that the Palestinian poets can’t get the necessary travel documents. So the event is cancelled.

Strange – the Brown Saucers are usually such vocal fans of freedom of expression.

But in this case the only response was “no-one likes poetry”.

>>> Savage continued: “I said, ‘So, kill 100 million of them, then there’d be 900 million of them.

He sounds just like a moderate version of Someone who comments here.

Martha’s turkey is overdone.

She is disturbingly hot though, or is it just me? I always go for the bad girls.

“You’re absolutely right, Bissli. I can’t stand the stuff myself. I just pretend. And – doh! – that’s why the Palestinian poets weren’t allowed to travel. It’s because no one likes poetry.”

Who refused them papers? Nasty old Israel?

Aleida Guevara

Martha’s turkey is overdone.
She is disturbingly hot though, or is it just me? I always go for the bad girls. — TonyS

While in prison, she got into trouble for smuggling seasonings in her bra. Damn right, she’s bad!

mettaculture wrote: “I suspect that Michael Savage’s banning has as much to do with his comments about a Duke University Rape Victim.”

There was no such person. There was an accuser. A false accuser as it turned out.

“>>> Savage continued: “I said, ‘So, kill 100 million of them, then there’d be 900 million of them.

He sounds just like a moderate version of Someone who comments here.”

Is Linda suffering from sort weird type of Tourette’s, would you say? Maybe ADHD? She seems incapable of posting without lying.
Show us where I advocated killing 100 million Muslims, liar.

kmag: “While in prison, she got into trouble for smuggling seasonings in her bra. Damn right, she’s bad!”

Talk about doing hard thyme!

‘I’m forced to agree with Inayat Bunglawala, of the Muslim Council of Britain, who said people should be free to enter the country, regardless of their views.’

Yes.

I’m sure that he supports that for all countries. Even for the future Caliphate.

Gene, you failed to mention the most obnoxious fact about Savage. I had to find this out from the Observer;

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/may/10/michael-savage-radio-homeopathy-jacqui-smith
where the excellent Catherine Bennett says:
Yes Jacqui, let’s keep out those dangerous homeopaths.

After revealing that he has published works of homeopathy under his real name Michael Weiner, Bennett says:
Wilders was bad enough, but the ban on Savage is so far from being a comprehensible act, so staggeringly capricious and stupid, as to defy evaluation. For all the sense it made to blither, after a day’s desperate rummaging, about hurt feelings in the US autism community,Smith might as well have defended a ban on a foreign rabbit or an offensive mango.

Martha Stewart is the same kind of crook most politicians are. The only real difference between her and them is that she got caught. Do you allow your politicians into the country?

Regards,

Inna

Someone

Of course you can:)