Bill Carmichael: Why was vile hate preacher Anjem Choudary left to spread evil for so long?

The people who will be celebrating this most avidly are the majority of law-abiding, decent Muslims who looked on in despair as the BBC and other left-wing news outlets continually played court before Choudary and gave him a voice as though he was representative of an entire community.

I recall a Muslim friend asking me after Choudary made ugly and incendiary comments over the murder of Lee Rigby in 2013: “Why do the media always go to him for a comment after a terrorism atrocity? He doesn’t speak for me.”

In fact, far from representing the majority of Muslims, Choudary was the mouthpiece for a small, blood-soaked, nihilistic death cult.

That is not to say he was not influential – and highly dangerous. To life’s failures – the petty thieves and small-time drug dealers looking to bring some order to the chaos of their lives – he was an immensely powerful draw.

To these sad inadequates, Choudary brought a black and white simplicity to a complex and confusing world. The West, with its democracy, human rights, women’s equality, gay rights and tolerance, was irredeemably evil and had to be destroyed and replaced by subjugation under the black flag of
Islam.

Choudary, a cunning and manipulative character who never put his own safety or comfort at risk, would reel in these vulnerable simpletons and set them on the path to violent jihad.

The world is a safer place – and our community relations will be more harmonious – now this divisive and hateful chancer is safely locked behind bars.

But before we break out the bubbly there is one question that needs to be asked – how in heaven’s name did he get away with it for so long?

My problem is not with what Choudary said, although much of it was obnoxious and offensive. For example, when Choudary’s mob set fire to a poppy on Remembrance Sunday, I defended their right to do so.

Free speech means nothing if you do not extend it to people you disagree with. It is the price we pay for living in a free society.

But once you start directly inciting violence you overstep the boundaries of free speech – and it has been clear for almost two decades that is exactly what Choudary was up to.

More than a dozen terror plots – from the shoe bomber Richard Reid in 2001 to the 7/7 London bombings in 2005 and the murder of Lee Rigby three years ago – drew inspiration from Choudary’s rantings and many of the perpetrators can be directly linked to extremist groups that he ran.

But Choudary was seemingly untouchable. Some argued that he cleverly kept just on the right side of the law or that the security services wanted to keep him at liberty because 
he attracted dangerous fanatics like wasps to a jar of jam.

I suspect the answer is more straightforward – simple fear. As we
saw in the Rotherham sex abuse scandal, the police are so terrified of being accused of racism or ‘Islamophobia’
that they often refuse to act even when there is clear evidence of criminal wrongdoing.

One lesson from the Choudary case is the next time a hate preacher starts inciting violence he should be packed off to jail well before two decades of damage is done.

Sadly the same politically correct timidity is in evidence in the prison service, which has woefully failed to deal with Islamic extremism and jihadi recruitment in British jails.

The prison population, with its collection of vulnerable and damaged young men, has proved a fertile recruiting ground for the Islamist fanatics. There has been a dramatic
surge in the number of Muslim
prisoners in jail and they now account for more than 14 per cent of those incarcerated.

We must be sure not to make the same mistake with Choudary. He should be put in solitary confinement for the whole length of his sentence and strictly forbidden access to phones, computers and the internet.