Poppy-burning and the limits of tolerance
Anjem Choudary is the man the tabloids love to hate, but does the government risk turning him into a free speech martyr?
By Nelson Jones Published 11 November 2011 14:15
So Theresa May has given in to the temptation, so often indulged by her New Labour predecessors, of banning a group associated with Anjem Choudary, the media's favourite Muslim radical. The latest news is that premises associated with the proscribed group have been raided by the police. "They've got nothing on me," was Choudary's reaction today. "Obviously it's inconvenient, but that doesn't stop me propagating what I believe."
No, I very much doubt that it will.
Officially, Muslims Against Crusades has been banned for glorifying terrorism (a vaguely defined crime under the Terrorism Act of 2000) and because it was -- the Home Office has only just realised -- another name for groups that had previously been banned. It was a continuation of Al-Muhajaroun by other names. But the ban -- certainly the timing of it -- surely had more to do with Choudary's plan to burn some poppies on Remembrance Day and the outrage that caused.
We've been here before, after all. The group's last incarnation, Islam4UK, was banned at the start of 2010 after Choudary declared that he and his dozen or so friends would march through the streets of Wootton Bassett in tribute (he claimed) to the thousands of unremarked Muslim casualties of Afghanistan and Iraq. As with the poppy protest, he didn't actually need to do this. It was enough that he said he would. The reaction that followed proved that however obnoxious his cause Choudary has something of a genius for publicity.
And indeed, there's a good argument for ignoring Choudary's groups rather than banning them simply because such bans play into his hands. Banning his outfit gives him more even more publicity. It gives him the one thing he craves even more than Islamist domination: getting his beard on the telly. The pragmatic response would be to ignore him.
The sad truth, though, is that it's impossible to ignore Anjem Choudary. It's doubtful that he is actually getting more publicity for being banned than he would have got for burning poppies. For Choudary not to get publicity would mean the press and broadcast media ending their love-affair with his unique brand of precisely-targeted outrage. He's successful because he inhabits a stereotype so well. He plays the part of an angry, puffed-up, anti-Western, terrorist-sympathising Islamic fundamentalist with such conviction and aplomb.
His views are cartoonish: with his visions of the flag of Islam flying over Buckingham Palace and Trafalgar Square turned into a popular venue for Saudi-style beheadings, he offers a reductio ad absurdum of radical Islamism. The only proper response -- certainly, the proper British response -- is to laugh. As a country, we laughed at Hitler, as we laughed at his British wannabe Oswald Mosley. And Choudary is closer to Roderick Spode than he is to Mosley. Another figure he resembles is the Rev Fred Phelps of the Westboro Baptist Church, who shares his belief in the efficacy of hate-filled placards. Phelps and his group were, you may remember, banned from Britain by Jacqui Smith after they proposed (without really intending to) bringing their "God hates Fags" campaign to the streets of Basingstoke.
Choudary gets attention because he is, in a strange way, reassuring. I've no doubt that he admires terrorists (even if he would never have the balls to be a terrorist himself) and that he would like to see Islamic law imposed on all the citizens of this country. He certainly has dubious connections, most notably his mentor, the now-exiled Omar Bakri Mohamed. But these days he's little more than a propagandist. Above all he's just too visible to be a real threat. It's true that the tabloids profess to be outraged rather than amused by his antics. But I doubt he would be quite so successful at getting his message across were it not for his essentially comic persona.
At the same time, he has an unerring instinct for the pressure-points of British society. Take Wotton Bassett. By the time he announced his would-be march, the Wiltshire town had become both the focus and the locus of that attenuated thing we're supposed to call Britishness, a place where the military covenant, elsewhere a hollow joke, became almost sacral. In the absence of any clear explanation of what we were doing in Afghanistan, Wootton Bassett became not merely the scene of tribute but, in an odd way, the mission's whole justification.
The true name for Choudary's crime on that occasion -- and again this year with his mooted poppy-burning -- is not glorifying terrorism or threatening public order. It is blasphemy. The public and political reaction to his group's noisy protests is the closest that secular British society comes to the strength of feeling elicited among some Muslims by Salman Rushdie or the Danish cartoons, or among some Christians by Jerry Springer: The Opera.
But is blaspheming against the national consensus a good enough reason to outlaw him or his fan-club?
Choudary naturally exasperates more mainstream Muslims who, consequently, get much less airtime. But he is a product of the very freedoms, the very Western decadence, he professes to despise. That, too, is a principle that we are supposed to hold sacred. And this brings me to a more principled objection to banning his group.
The quintessential Choudary placard was the one that read "Freedom go to Hell", his group's response to the Danish cartoons and, indeed, to all instances where non-Muslims had exercised their rights to free expression in ways that were uncongenial to his brand of Islam. There would certainly not be much free speech in the Islamic republic he dreams that Britain will one day become. He is not, therefore, in much position to complain that the government wants to stifle his own freedom, though that is precisely what he has been doing all day as he toured the major TV studios. The fact that he is a hypocrite, however, does not mean that he is not correct in pointing out the hypocrisy of those who want to ban him.
The hard truth is that the freedom to be outrageous is one of the freedoms for which people in both world wars fought and, in some cases died.
Latest tweets
More from New Statesman
- Tools and services:
- Polls
- Predictions
- Jobs
- Archive
- Magazine
- PDF edition
- RSS feeds
- Subscribe
- Special supplements
- Stockists

















67 comments
Freedom of expression? What freedom of expression? Didn't New Labour ban the flying of the England flag on St George's day since that would be "provocative and jingoistic?" LabCon don't have any compunctions at all about silencing those they disagree with. They disagree with the flying of the national flag. They agree with this nutty poppy burning guy.
Sometimes these types will say and do things just to provoke. Of course this nut, just like Rev. Phelps (can he really be called a reverend?), know the reaction and headlines they'll generate and that's all they are looking for.
Here in the US we are forever having an argument over flag burning, free speech or hate ? Most Americans do not agree with flag burning but do agree that one has the right to do it if one wants. Basically , one has the right to be an ass if they want to.
Personally I think if anybody, especially politicians , think about this, one would have to ask , what in the world does disrespecting WWI vets , which after all is what the poppy really repesents, have to do with Muslim rights?
jankaas: "those poppies feel pain when burned?" No poppies don't feel pain... people do.. good people, noble people, decent people, people who fought against totalitarianism true fascism not imagined. The political-left love affair with violent, intolerant, medieval Islam is destroying the political-left, and you are too stupid... you can't even see that..
@gerry - What a load of poppycock! According to a revision of one government’s counter terrorism strategy, an Islamic extremist is defined as someone who advocates a caliphate; promotes Sharia law, believes in armed resistance anywhere in the world, specifically in Palestine; believes that homosexuality is sinful or banned in Islam; or fails to condemn the killing of British forces illegally occupying Iraq and Afghanistan. That definition makes many people and like minded pacifists all Islamic extremists. Is a person who prays 5 times a day an extremely better Muslim (more extreme) than one that prays zero times a day?
What we have to understand is that Extremism is now a loaded propaganda term used by many extreme Governments and like-minded brainwashed sheeple to demonize those who oppose its foreign policy, to justify occupation/colonialization, and nothing to do with religion or terrorism.
In your case, I would be more worried about the threat of seasonal flu than the threat of extremism, and I will not even begin to mention the threat of America/NATO to Islamic nations who have deliberately invaded Islamic countries under false pretences and murdered millions of Muslims just in the last decade.
I would argue that Christianity is more of a threat to our freedom with respect to homophobia, sexism, war, and the crusade against creationism. Again, I won't even mention the scourge of zionism.
Regarding Stephen Timms, this is just more propaganda for the sheeple. The poor Bangladeshi kid from East Ham had done two years at Kings College London, and was on-track for a first. Why would an obviously intelligent young woman consciously mount an assassination attempt against a man who was at best a bit-part participant in a war that she and so many others opposed, in full knowledge of the inevitable consequences to her personally? The reason given by the government was the same classic tune i.e. she was radicalised by an extremist preacher. Again, utter poppycock!
I would urge you to go back and thoroughly study your own religion and history, let alone pretending to be an expert on Islam.
Poppy-burning and the limits of tolerance. Do we tolerate paedophilia wife beating and child cruelty of course not. So why should we tolerate this hatemonger and hypocrite. "but does the government risk turning him into a free speech martyr?" Do you mean just like the political-left did with Mr Griffin?
I'm pretty sure those people in WW1, WW2 and other wars (Suez Canal crisis, Cyprus crisis, Gulf war, Somalia, Iraq, Afghan) didn't die to protect the rights of a person who waves a 'behead those who insult Islam' placard.
@Ian
"My point Jackass"
still being a twat i see. is there no cure?
"is that being born here does not mean you have to stay"
so by all means leave if it's all too much for you.
"getting feed up being told my culture is offensive to Islam"
news flash you twat; your culture is offensive to many, not just muslims. i also find the culture of ignorance and xenophobia you represent repellant. but i defend your right to be the way you are, as long as you don't break the law.
and that's the whole point. geddit?
My goodness!
@gerry
Comparing Choudary to Hitler is just silly and hysterical. The two are nothing alike - Hitler was head of the German state and thus a threat, whilst Choudary is head of a ragtag mob of cranks. I'm not denying that these people really are extremists, and some of them may safely be labelled fascists- but the context and the threat are compleatly different.
that said...
Just because the extremists aren't a threat on the scale of fascism doesn't mean that they do not exist and are not harmful, both to the image of Muslims in general and to people within their communities (esp muslim women). And these people need to be challenged. Banning these organisations isn't really challenging them, its more akin to sweeping them under the carpet and hoping they'll go away (guess what-they won't). But they do need to be confronted - just because some of us don't want the government to run around banning things doesn't mean we are wimps or are burying our heads in the sand like colin..
Which brings me to...
@colin
What exactly did motivate the Stephen Timms attack given the attacker herself specifically said that she was influenced by Anwar al-Awlaki's sermonizing? Even 'obviously intelligent' people can believe some bizzare and abhorent things.
@Ian
"Jankarse"
stil being an utter twat i see.
"but what if the majority of people here want that level of xenophobia and ignorance"
they don't, you're in the minority. albeit a very noise and aggressive one.
"I'm neither xenophobic nor ignorant ."
then you don't know the meaning of either word. you are texbook xenophobic and staggeringly ignorant.
"if you think appeasing fanatics is a way out of any problem."
still unable to comprehend my posts i see. no surprise since you are an ignorant twat. i never said appease them, is said treat them with the same level of scorn we treat other fanatics.
you do understand those are entirely different approaches no?
i guess you don't, because you are such a thick twat....
@gerry
"Ian - good post!"
oh dear, the kiss of death....
"People like Jankaas"
only those who read what i actually write, the others can't stand me. sod 'em.
"Nowadays, there are thousands and thousands of UK extremists"
any evidence, or should we just take your word? and of course you need to define what actions mark another as being 'extremist'.
"a "moderate" Muslim is becoming an oxymoron."
yawn....
@Luddite
"Poppy-burning and the limits of tolerance. Do we tolerate paedophilia wife beating and child cruelty of course not. So why should we tolerate this hatemonger and hypocrite."
what a ridiculous mess. only to someone who sees an equivalence between physical harm to a person, and hurty feelings, is this meaningful. (unless of course you believe those poppies feel pain when burned?)
sad to say there are plenty like you who think this is a salient comparison.
as it happens i find it an extremely offensive comparison, but i defend your right to make such an odious claim.
and that is the whole point.....
@Luddite
Griffin is NOT a free speech martyr. He's able to spread his bull, but everyone is also fully entitled to tear those views to shreds and make mockery of him. Throwing stuff at him was an irrational move, but on the whole society's being rather tolerant to him- we've not banned the BNP, have we?
Some eople think that they can do anything they want in the name of some apparent right to destroy part of the fabric of a Nation,
Well tolerance like free speech has its limits.
A little off topic but still linked.
My in-laws have just come back from touring many parts of India.
Without them bringing up the subject they said that most of the local people they met where 'Islamphobes'...and that all had a healthy fear and loathing of Islam...irrational of course...IDL???
I wonder what kind of lefty think tank or media outlet in India might start to castigate these people and tell them they are wrong to fear Islam and that they are misguided? They must be linked to far right parties out there?? INP?
Sigh....what would be more open and honest is that black is black, white is white and the fear of Islam and all it entails is felt by people all over the world. That what we feel is real and not a phobia or something imagined. That we who are fearful of Islam are not bad people and not intrinsically racist or bigots. On the contrary we are freedom loving people who don't want there lives ruled or violated by Islam in any sort of way.
Ciarán.. Mr Griffin became a martyr.. because of his two Leeds crown court appearances.. his popularity rocketed the far-right polled 1 million votes..
Jankaas - we're not going to agree, clearly but I did document in an earlier post examples of extremism from UK Muslims, including support for sharia law in the UK, sanctions including death against gays and lesbians, threatening rationalist and secular Muslims with murder eg Dr Hasan, that 2005 Guardian poll just after 7/7 which said that "only" 18% of UK Muslims said they had sympathy with the backpack bombers, and "only" 40% backed jihadis going to fith in Afghanistan/Iraq..
It was the great African writer Wole Soyinka who said in 2008 that the UK has become "a cesspool of Islamic extremism" by which he meant the plethora of extremist Islamic student societies (under the aegis of the terror-backing umbrella group FOSIS)and growth of literally thousands of extremist madrassas where open hatred of the West, hatred of democracy and of human rights is taught every day to vulnerable little children, exposed for all to see in the Dispatches Undercover Mosque programme...
UK Islamic extremism is there for all to see, it is widespread, normalised, and growing...Chaudhury is just one tiny part of it. You may not be concerned about it, but I think we all underplay it at our own peril, Jankaas!
Does anyone understand the futility of wars? that they are decided by rulers who have no respect for the living used as cannon fodder to suit their politics (e.g. GW Bush and his allies, now his successor and allies). At present, it is not about Islamists, it is still about 'the West' occupying/meddling in the Near and Middle East, from Afghanistan to Palestine. The unfortunate guys killed fighting those wars to 'defend our values' should have thought twice about 'serving their country'. Choudary & co. are the result of the 'West''s involvement (=terrorism) in 'the East'.
Jankarse, but what if the majority of people here want that level of xenophobia and ignorance.assuming your correct. So Muslims find it repellent, fine then go. I'm neither xenophobic nor ignorant . I just refuse to allow Sharia in any form to get a hold here in my country. Should I also be hypocritical and say I'm all for this multifaith multicultural society, I'm not, but then nor is Mr Choudary. Read what he's written. Your the twat, if you think appeasing fanatics is a way out of any problem. Still glad to see you agree that my culture offends Muslims...so simple solution. Don't come here or stay here. Keep it simple stupid. I'm fine with partition in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh , its what they wanted. so it can work!!!!!!!!!
CJC Choudary is nothing to do with the Wests involvement in the East, thats just a band wagon he's jumped on. He's into the East's involvement in the West... Sharia law for the UK. His views are out there for all to see and read. Not one word condemning muslim on muslin violence...now that's strange.
@gerry
"Jankaas - we're not going to agree"
indeed it looks unlikely.
"You may not be concerned about it"
oh but i am, i just don't agree with your reaction to it, nor with your solutions as you've explained them.
it's a question of tactics, and crucially, consistancy. we should treat all extremist nutters exactly the same and not resort to cheap stereotypes and hyteria.
"but I think we all underplay it at our own peril, Jankaas!"
quite, but hopefully you can also see there is a rather predictable desire to overplay things, with disastrous consequences?
remember Iraq?
remember Afghanistan?
just to name 2 recent events where we seriously over-reacted....
we need cool, clear, calm heads. not just more of the same tired old rhetoric.
Ian - good post!
People like Jankaas who defends the "rights" of Islam's many many fanatics like Chaudhoury and all the other sharia-worshippers, are in mnay ways worse than the fascists they defend...
There were always appeasers of fascism in the 1930s, and quite a few of them were on the left!
Today, many of Islam's appeasers are on the left too, history repeating itself, even though most Muslims are profoundly politically to the right of Genghis Khan!
And that is why Chaudhury is so dangerous..his goal is not just to outrage British people, but to make sure that fundamentalism, extremism sinks still deeper roots into the UK Muslim community. Nowadays, there are thousands and thousands of UK extremists - a "moderate" Muslim is becoming an oxymoron.
I would love all of them to piss off back to Pakistan or Somalia or Egypt or Bangladesh or any other Islamic state...but of course they wont!
The worst thing you could do, Nelson Jones, is to treat Anjem Choudary like a clown. He's wily and clever, and knows just how to press the buttons of Islamist fanatics in this country. You are afflicted with the malaise of the arrogant - you truly believe that the cult he represents (in whatever guise it chooses to be known) is simply an irritation - if we ignore it it will go away. It is because of people like you and others posting here of the same mind that we are fighting Islamism with one hand tied behind our backs. We not only really have to be aware of the danger we face from Islam, those of us who are aware of it have to battle to persuade people like Nelson Jones, the fellow travellers of the likes of Choudary, and the fascist perpetrators of the kind of liberalism we are forced to put up with in our country - to wake up before it is too late.
People like some who post here follow like sheep the intrigues of the government, who want to keep the indigenous white Brits dumbed down by smearing groups like the EDL, simply British citizens who are fed up with being disadvantaged because the authorities would rather "celebrate diversity" and appease Muslims, than listen to their own countrymen when they warn of the demise of our culture and sovereignty.
My point Jackass is that being born here does not mean you have to stay, getting feed up being told my culture is offensive to Islam..Firstly no need to come here. Secondly those here are mobile and there are states practising both the major forms of Islam. So why stay and be offended. It is that simple. If you bothered watching the Remeberance service you would have seen several Islamic nations laying wreathes of poppies, because they too sacrificed. The burning is an insult to many nations.
When a Florida Pastor threatens to burn the racist Koran the world goes mad and the US President intervenes to dissuade him from doing so. Yet Islamofascists believe they have a right to burn the poppy because of Libya, Afghanistan, palestine and every other imagined grievance. Choudhery is not an isolated figure. He has substantial support among the 2 million Pakistani Islamist settlers in the UK. They start burning poppies again then thought needs to be given about removing the Islamist settlers.
Please don't defend the freedom of speech of this pimple on the nation's bahoochie unless you are willing in the same sentence to defend the EDL and other critics and opponents of Islamism, who, unlike Choudary, are actually suffering for expressing their views.
I'd like to commend the Police for rounding up the 136+ EDL tanked up on alcohol before stepping out of the Pub and strolling down to St Pauls for a rendezvouz with the Anti Capitalist Protestors. The MET seemed to have got it right this time with some good intelligence and premptive action.
@Luddite
"No poppies don't feel pain."
glad we got that straight.
now for next bit; ready to accept that the hurt feelings of someone who cares about poppies, or has even been bereaved, is as nothing compared to the hurt feelings of a child being raped?
because that is exactly what you claim to be true. hey, maybe i'm just not smart like you?
Jankaaas - why do you wilfully down play the extremism of UK Muslims? 2009 Mori poll - 40% of UK Muslims said that they wanted an Islamic state based on sharia law in the UK...2010 survey - 89% of UK Muslims said homosexuality was unaccaeptable, and 71% supported sanctions against them...2010 Dr Usama Hasan, scientist and on the board of his local London mosque, forced to go into hiding after being threatened with death from local Muslims for daring to write that Darwin/evolution was right..2011 unveiled Muslim female shop worker threatened with murder by local fanatics in Tower Hamlets...I could go on and on but this is a post!
You seem to be blissfully unaware of just how far Fascism/islamic fundamentalism has seeped into the marrow of many UK Muslim communities, but especially in London, Luton, Bradford and Manchester..why dont you just read your local papers?
Oh and Colin...you are delusional! Islamic extremism - from Nigeria (where just this week Boko Haram murdered 100 innocent Christians) to Libya (where, hilariously, the Nato-backed Transitional National Council openly declared its intent to impose full sharia law in Libya, even polygamy!)to the UK - has been on the rise for the last 30 years and clearly has the support of millions and millions of Muslims, including in the UK. What did Lenin call people like you - oh yes, useful idiot!
No. I think we can all know a fruitcake when we see one.
I'm not one of those people who like Voltaire say: I'll fight for the right for people to speak freely ... blah blah blah ...etc etc etc', especially when they start spouting objectionable inflammatory and ridiculous nonsense.
The point is we don't want to go down the road of abstract philosohical discussions when the man, and others like him, are an obvious threat and present danger to decent society.
I don't think he's an obvious threat and danger. I think he's a pathetic, deluded little man.
The real problem is that the media pander to a pathetic deluded little man.
Swatantra - ok, I'll rise to that. There's no reason to believe that the EDL had any intention of confronting the anti-capitalist protestors (I recommend a hyphen), who had already marched past them without incident. The so-called police intelligence seems to consist of a message on a social networking site, which could have been put there by anybody - and probably didn't even imply confrontation. I'd go and have a look at the protest camp if I was in the vicinity. I imagine the individuals corralled into the pub and roughed up there by the police will have a case for wrongful arrest - and we, as taxpayers, will have to foot the bill.
People on the left are noticeably selective in their defence of freedom of speech. Is it really a matter of principle with you? Because it's hard to distinguish from western self-hatred and lickspittle support of Islamists. Fortunately, there's an easy way to test the integrity of your position: would you burn a Koran? Would you defend a person's right to burn a Koran? How about painting a poppy on a mosque? - there are two men in jail for 12 months each for that right now. How often do people get 12 months for vandalism?
Never mind the burning poppies anyway - that's just symbolic. But deliberately preventing people from experiencing the two-minute silence by organising a mass violation of it - how is that not breach of the peace?
@Gerry
"why do you wilfully down play the extremism of UK Muslims?"
you serious? ok, because they have no power, and their aspirations are out of the question by default.
unlike you i am not scared of others letting off steam. and as for these Muslims holding "extremist" views, there are plenty of Catholics and Creationists who agree with them 100% regarding homosexuality and evolution.
so what? they're all a bit thick, and the world will just work past them regardless.
i just find it strange that people like you still see Bogey Men, and loose all sense of proportion as a result.
@swatantra
"an obvious threat and present danger to decent society."
nope. go back and read the article again.
the only "threat" is our desire to play along with these eejits.
Here's a conspiracy theory for you... Guys like this are an MI6 honeypot operation. Set them up to do something completely outrageous, make sure it gets publicised and then find out which moths get attracted to the flame.
Choudhury is a fat bearded buffoon in a silly set if pyjamas.
He is recognised by the Public as the poor man's Islamic answer to Ian Paisley that he is.
@swatantra
Choudary is a half-baked loon with delusions of grandeur. The problem is that the Government and media lend him an authority and seriousness he does not deserve when they give him house room and go around banning things associated with him. He can now turn to his followers as well as impressionable young people and say 'look - everything I told you is true - liberty is just a front, and the British state is actually an oppressive force'. And some might just believe him. If you treat him as if he's powerful, he'll acheive a degree of power. Far better to expose him for what he truly is - a hypocrite, a fantasisit, a bigot and a joke.
@Ian
so you've had a whole day to describe your precious culture, merrily posting on other threads, and nothing here.
i knew you were just bluff and bluster. you've no idea what it is that you are desperately wanting to protect.
pathetic.
I recently saw a video of two Libyan toddlers who'd been maimed by NATO ordnance. One little girl had her lower jaw ripped off, and the other had her legs mangled. They lay in hospital, catatonic, I'm sure they're dead now.
I remember when the RAF bombed Zlitan in August, killing 85 civilians including children.
All us Brits can whine about is some burned poppies. Maybe we should introspect and ask ourselves where these poppy burners' views come from?
Jankaas, more like jack ass, "because they have no power"..so what, they want it and will use extreme measures to obtain it. That's why they are labelled extremists. When their letting off steam means backpack bombs on the tube, I'd rather control them or fight them now than wait fingers crossed for "the world to work past them". If they succeed lets hope your Islam is their Islam , me I want them out of my country. Let them go to Iran, Pakistan or Saudi but not here.
@Martin
Where do you get these videos?
In death in war is horrible and futile but it happens. But didn't the majority of Libyan people request Nato intervene to save them from worse slaughter?
I think you probably have better targets to pick if you want to find some kind of justification for Choudreys hate mob
@Martin
Hey, if I had my way people involved in a civil war should be left to slug it out for themselves.
When the west gets involved there is always someone crying foul, be it Bosnia, Sierra Leone, Somalia wherever.
You hold whatever beliefs you like Martin - that's the great thing about a democracy. If you were in Libya a year ago and had anti Gadaffi sentiments you'd most likely be shot.
What nonsense! Anjem Choudry is well known to be on MI5's payroll to stir up hatred and Islamophobia. He is obviously not a Muslim in any way, shape or form, and does not represent an iota of Islam. He is a hypocrite, an enemy of Islam. What he is doing is actually against the very fundamentals of Islam.
His collection of organisations, be it, HT, AM, MAC Islam4UK etc are either unbelievably naive, stupid or are paid agent provocateurs. These ridiculous and sinister organisations are fake and have only one obvious purpose.
There is much evidence of MI5 blackmailing vulnerable British Muslims, in order to spread propaganda. Anjem Choudary (like his mentor Omar Bakri) is an agent of MI5, he is used to portray Muslims as a threat in order to continue government policies of war in Muslim countries, as well as inciting divisions in society so people never focus their anger on the true blameworthy culprit, our government, but instead our focus is on each other.
The new MAC front is just another tool that the MI5 will use to cause further tensions between Muslims and Non-muslims in the UK.
It actually amazes me how no one sees this connection up to this point, even with his ability to walk around the streets without being attacked, his seemingly infinite amount of money to fund his subversive campaigns and roadshows, as well as the elephant in the room, the fact that no action is being taken against him. His arrest, or his house being raided is just a ploy, to appease the public and ensure that he remains dormant under the covers for a time, only to pop back out, when it's convenient for the MI5/government.
I would urge people of all faiths to understand that you are being manipulated, by MI5, to hate "the other". Laugh at Choudary for what he is, a cartoon character, a Muslim bogeyman under your bed, a puppet which has been set up. But focus on those who are pulling his strings.
@Noah
"You are afflicted with the malaise of the arrogant"
and let me guess; you don't think you suffer from such a debilitating affliction? well let's see....
"He's wily and clever, and knows just how to press the buttons of Islamist fanatics in this country."
nope, clearly he is far more effective at pushing your buttons. which was the point of this article btw.
you know what irony means? if not look it up.
Des Demona,
No, the majority of the Libyan people absolutely did not ask for intervention. The NATO-appointed NTC occupation council asked for it. The NTC is unelected and consists entirely of Western stooges. Myths such as the one you propagate are essential for these wars to be waged, and the Libya war is awash with such myths.
If you want to see the video, do a search for "British media use puppy dog imagery to sell genocidal attack on Libya".
Also I recommend "The Top Ten Myths of the Libya War" by Maximilian Forte.
Burning a poppy or the koran or the bible in your back yard is not a crime. I've disposed of old poppies, in the days I used to wear poppies, and unsolicited and tattered bibles and korans in the bin.
It becomes a crime of incitement when its done in public, on TV or on film or facebook as a demonstration or protest, because its done to offend.
Similarly, if a poppy is painted on a mosque or the cross of David painted on a synagogue that is a racist act and a crime and deserves a heavy penalty. Because its sending a message other than 'kilroy woz here'.
Disturbing the peace as MAC were proposing would have been a serious crime. But MAC were stopped rightly so. And because MAC wasn't there the EDL maybe were thinking of turning ther violence on the St Pauls Protestors So I commend the MET for stepping in.
Our fathers and grandfathers didn't fight in the last Wars for the likes of MAC and EDL.
I do wish mountains of red poppies had been burnt and replaced by the white poppies of peace. The red poppies are the symbol of wars that could have been avoided (yes it includes both world wars).Those who have died in Afghanistan and Iraq were professionals who trained to kill, they are not "our boys who died for our country". Let us stop glorifying war, especially the long one against the people of the Middle East, long subjected to colonialism.
"War is when the government tells you who the bad guy is. Revolution is when you decide that for yourself."
Jankaas - you are seriously deluded, man!
The more Islam in any society (including in Muslim majority countries) the less freedom, human rights, freedom of speech, womens rights, gay equality, freedom from religion..and on and on and on.
The world Chaudhury and the miilions of Islamists want may be fine by you but progressive poeple like me will NEVER be in alliance with violent medievalism especially of the murderous Islamic kind.
Jackass, how many Muslim countries are ruled by the minority faith....sorry oppressed by the minority faith. Extremists, be they Islamic, Catholic, Hindu etc must be stood against (just too many gods to name them all).
I cannot see why any Muslim would wish to come here, or considering the mobility of the human race remain here. So Chaudhury should just go , or is he too scared of becoming a minnow in a much bigger pond.
Oh Nelson - Chaudhury et al are not just "buffoons" as you say, and nor was Hitler..laughing at him was the biggest mistake his enemies made. They underestimated the wide appeal of Fascism, just as you wilfully underplay the appeal (and danger) of radical extremist Islamism.
Whilst some Muslims amy disagree with his provocative actions, many Uk Muslims clearly support their aims - sharia law, punishment of unbelievers and blasphemers, against the UK in Afghanistan..MAC, like other extreme Islamic groups such as FOSIS, MAB, Islamic Forum Europe should not be underestimated - that fanatical Muslim woman who tried to murder Stephen Timms MP was a member of her local Islamic student group, and many would be and actual terrorists and jihadists have been through their ranks, or been directly influenced by them.
Dont downplay just how extreme many Muslims in the Uk actually are, MAC being just one example...
Post new comment