...although if he is, I hope Victoria Derbyshire doesn't do the interviewing.
There's little doubt that Michael Savage is a complete cunt. Here's a man who has called the Koran a 'book of hate' and said that autistic children are 'brats'. He's the archetypal reactionary idiot shock-jock, a man who makes Littlejohn look like Sartre, a man whom I hadn't even heard of until yesterday, when I found out he'd been banned from the country - had he even tried to get in?
There are three main reasons why I would argue he should be allowed in - aside from the obvious argument about allowing him freedom of speech. First, I hadn't heard of the vile little prick until yesterday - and the only reason I did have his poisonous shite enter my life was because he'd been banned from entering the country. Not letting this horrible cuntbag into Britain means that his disgusting views actually get more publicity than they otherwise would have done. He gets to be the victim, just like Geert Wilders, who should also have been allowed into this country to spout his phenomenally monstrous opinions - and whose presence at the invitation of UKIP would remind the public of just which way that particular political party leans. These people aren't victims; they're bullies. Like many reactionary extremists, they like to make out that they're the poor lambs who are being repressed by the PC Brigade and the liberal-left establishment, whereas in fact they represent hegemony, and power, and stamp down on minorities with hatred.
Second, if he must come over here, then let him be subject to criticism and scrutiny - proper criticism and scrutiny, and real debate. Take him out of his comfort zone, where he's just allowed to shout people down, and see how his opinions really stack up against the facts.
In which case, don't let him be interviewed by Victoria Derbyshire. On the radio this morning she allowed on that horrible venomous toad Christopher Monckton, who stated - completely unchallenged - as a form of defence of Savage's right to free speech that if you went into "any Mosque" then you would find religious or racial "hatred" being preached. Any Mosque. He was allowed to get away with that by Derbyshire - implying that all Muslims are extremists and all Mosques are home to hatred and racism. He also stated that two million Muslims had arrived in Britain since "Labour came to power", again unchallenged, implying the wave of mass immigration so beloved of extremist groups like the BNP.
Which brings me to my third argument. You can't discriminate against extremist bastard scum on the basis of nationality - there's no use in letting a complete fucking shithouse like Monckton say whatever the fuck he likes (and blithely letting him get away with poisonous bullshit because you don't know what the hell you're doing) but then drawing the line at someone else with equally appalling views who happens to live overseas being able to express them. It's almost as if foreign bigots are worse than British bigots - which strikes me as being a bit like, well, racism. I think all bigots should be treated equally - with equal disdain, from my point of view, obviously - but it's a bit silly to bar them entry because of their discriminatory views on the basis of their nationality.
There's another thing, as well. I get the sense that disgusting bastards like Savage may ostensibly be banned from Britain because of the views they hold, but a different narrative gets taken up by the press (and where might they get it from?) - that anti-Islam scum might be at risk of being beaten up, murdered or flayed alive by Muslim extremists. In other words, it's to protect tosswipes like Savage and Wilders; it's to imply that the real danger comes, as ever, from Islam. Which is just the sort of thinking that Savage might agree with, ironically enough.