Anjem Choudary has made an occasional appearance in this space. He’s an Islamic zealot of the most extremist stripe, and is notorious for his outrageous statements and demands. His followers were on hand in Luton this past March reviling returning British soldiers. He has called for the annexation of the UK to the Caliphate, refers to the 9-11 hijackers as “the magnificent 19”, styles himself the “Judge of the Shari’ah Court of the UK”, maintains that Southall will be the capital of the future Islamic state of Britain, and describes native British children as “prostitutes”.
He’s a piece of work.
His latest escapade involves a debate about Shariah law, which was to be held at a venue in Holborn. The event had to be called off because Mr. Choudary’s organization, Al Muhajiroun, physically prevented men and women from sitting together — and not just the Muslimas and their masters, but infidel men and women as well.
Here’s an account of the proceedings from The Daily Mail:
Scuffles as Extremist Muslim Group Orders Men and Woman to be Segregated at Public Meeting
A public debate organised by banned Islamic sect Al Muhajiroun was cancelled today after an angry confrontation broke out over the segregation of men and women.
Management at the meeting’s venue said ‘fundamentalist thugs’ forced the event to be called off after they physically prevented men and women sitting together.
Giles Enders, Chairman of the South Place Ethical Society, which runs Conway Hall in Holborn, London, said scuffles broke out over the group’s heavy-handed approach.
The meeting came as the group’s new leader, Anjem Choudary, issued a challenge to the Government to ban the group after it emerged it was reforming.
This is the perplexing part — is the idea to ban Al Muhajiroun because it was reforming? Or in spite of its reform?
And does Mr. Choudary mean real reform, or Islamic “reform” — i.e., a return to the timeless and bloodthirsty verities of the Koran?
The article continues:
– – – – – – – – –
Al Muhajiroun has sparked controversy after he said he wanted Sharia law in Britain and called 9/11 terrorists as the ‘Magnificent 19’.
The group was hoping to hold its first public meeting in five years but Mr Enders said the group had broken the terms for its hire of the hall.
Today’s debate, called Sharia Law Versus British Law, was intended to pit Choudary against Douglas Murray, director of right-wing think tank the Centre for Social Cohesion.
Taking to the stage, Mr Enders said: ‘A group of thugs at the door have refused to let women in. I’m cancelling this meeting.’
He was cheered by a small group of women sitting in the balcony but was also heckled by many of the 100 or so men in the main hall.
Mr Choudary, who sat on stage during the scuffles and Mr Enders’ announcement, then grabbed the microphone and after led chants saying: ‘This is a victory for Osama Muslims.’
But Mr Enders took the microphone back from Mr Choudary and ordered everyone in the hall to leave.
Alexander Hitchens, of the Centre for Social Cohesion, said his group was invited to the debate with Mr Choudary on the understanding that it would be held on neutral ground with no segregation.
He said he was greeted by members of Al Muhajiroun on the door before being barred from entering.
‘We were led to believe it would be completely neutral,’ he said.
What ever gave him that idea? Hasn’t Anjem Choudary made himself perfectly clear by now? Did Mr. Hitchens and Mr. Enders think that all those incendiary declamations were mere figures of speech?
Outside the hall, Mr Choudary criticised British society as ‘dirty’ and predicted that, within one or two decades, Muslims would be the majority here.
Asked why he was living here, he said: ‘We come here to civilise people, get them to come out of the darkness and injustice into the beauty of Islam.’
Mr Murray, who arrived at the venue with his own security guards, said the platform of tonight’s planned debate was ‘completely unacceptable’.
He said: ‘I’m perfectly willing to debate Anjem Choudary and Al Muhajiroun’s ideas. His ideas are not difficult. They do not stand up.
‘But it’s very clear that this debate is not neutral. This was a segregated event, policed by Al Muhajiroun’s guards.’
He added he had been led to the event under false pretences by a front organisation called Global Issues Society.
Mr Murray confronted Mr Choudary and his supporters in the street and the pair spoke for about 10 minutes.
Here’s where we come to the nitty-gritty of the matter — nothing that Anjem Choudary and his associates do is in any way illegal under current British law:
Mr Choudary said he had not broken any laws and called to Muslims to join his group.
‘We are not a proscribed group and it is not illegal to be a member,’ he said.
‘That’s a challenge to the Government and to the media — we were not doing anything that was terrorist-related in the past.’
In this context, “terrorist-related” means being caught with automatic weapons, semtex, and a detailed floor-plan of the Houses of Parliament. Even then, the evidence would have to be obtained through non-discriminatory means, with an absence of racial profiling, and taking into account the full range of protections offered to the suspects by the legal traditions of Great Britain.
In other words, “terrorism” simply doesn’t exist until the bomb has already detonated and hundreds or thousands of people are dead.
Incitement, treason, and sedition no longer have any meaning. That’s Stone Age thinking, unfit for Cool Britannia.
Nevertheless, Mr. Choudary allows that he will have to mind his manners just a bit:
Accepting that the group would have to pay attention to laws which outlaw the glorification of terrorism, he said: ‘We will have to choose our words a little bit more carefully.’
And the government acknowledges that it is unable to act against Al Muhajiroun:
Opposition leaders called on ministers to act swiftly to implement a ban.
However, the Home Office said a ban could only be implemented if there was evidence that a group was involved with terrorism.
A spokesman said: ‘Proscription is a tough but necessary power to tackle terrorism.
‘Decisions on proscription must be proportionate and based on evidence that a group is concerned in terrorism as defined in the Terrorism Act 2000.
‘Organisations which cause us concern, including those which might change their name to avoid the consequences of proscription, are kept under constant review.
‘As and when new material comes to light, it is considered and the organisation reassessed as part of that process.’
So nothing can be done. These thugs are free to do as they please. The destruction of British culture is not against the law. In effect, there is no rule of law in the United Kingdom.
Except as it applies to wheelie-bins. Better watch out if you misuse one of those.
Hat tip: CB.