The march has been held after another one was suspended because of being “racist” and even if its leader is hate preacher Anjem Choudary:

Choudary is the same that stated that Islam is not “the religion of peace but of submission to Allah” and who has demanded publicy the execution of Pope Benedict XVIth for insulting Islam. And:

He is no longer a practising solicitor and has left his wife and children to concentrate on his extreme brand of Islam. It was Choudary who organised the Danish Embassy protests over the cartoons of the prophet Mohammed earlier this year, at which demonstrators dressed as suicide bombers and banners proclaimed: ‘Behead Those Who Insult Islam’.

He lauded the September 11 hijackers as ‘magnificent martyrs’ and praised Asif Hanif, the British suicide bomber who killed three in Tel Aviv in 2003.

After the July 7 atrocities in London, he vowed he would not tell the police if he knew a terror attack was being planned and urged Muslims to defend themselves against perceived attacks by ‘whatever means they have at their disposal’.

(…)Despite his hatred of all things British – he says: “If British means adopting British values, then I don’t think we can adopt British values. I’m a Muslim living in Britain. I have a British passport, but that’s a travel document to me” – he and his family live on state benefits.

Rubana is said by friends to claim £1,700 a month in housing benefit and income support while Choudary has also claimed £202 a month in income support.

Yesterday, Choudary declined to talk about his past dissolute life, dismissing it as ‘irrelevant’. He said: “I was born a Muslim and I have done my best to be a good Muslim all my life.”

Recently he also has called for people who get drunk to get flogged 40 times. And has labelled Christmas as “the pathway to hellfire”.

Anyway, I am truly surprised someone who has that past is pointing at others about prostitution. Specially after seeing these photos from Islamic tradition:

20 people orgy – India – unknown time.

The Voyeur – early XXth century – Teheran – Islamic Republic of Iran.

Women, sex and wine Teherán – Persia (La República Islámica del Irán).

Continuing with Choudary, he is a part of a greater net, joint under the influence of Omar Bakri and the Al-Mujahiroun, which include the “Islamic Thinkers Society”. They, of course, promote judeophobia, as we can see by these images:

The “Islamic Thinkers Society” is the US bracnh of the Al-Muhajiroun, an association created by Oman Bakri Mohammed.

In its demonstrations, this “pictured Jew” is a normal motive:

What would have happened if a Jew writes something like that about a Muslim?

But that’s not the only “interesting” thing about this. The picture is taken from this Aryan Nation’s cartoon:

For example, one of the last news on Islam for the UK (that is, Choudary’s web), tells us that “a brother has been arrested” after he hung a posted in his window adding that “it’s clear that the freedom of expression can’t be used by Muslims”. The posted is this one:

Of course, stating support for the killing of non-Muslims or encouraging people to do so is not “racial hatred”. But not letting someone put that poster in the window of a pro-Israeli firm and arresting him (well, there is NO link there, at least I didn’t see anyone), that’s an enormour example of “racial hatred”.

Victimization, that’s the real word to define these absolute idiots. They want to impose on others their own ideas (Lord, there are people who worship another religions!! That’s so hard on me…. when they should adore my prophet and give me more money, this time to buy a car to carry on with Jihadist obligations in a much better and comfortable way!!!), they consider just and marvellous to menace and to kill others just because they don’t agree with them and, finally, they also want to introduce their own law code based on what they personally believe instead of the Law, equal to all humans livign under the Government. But if you criticise them , that’s “racial hatred”.

Oh, please, why don’t they change their job and begin to write comical pieces? It would better for all!!

NOTE: Just in case someone gets a little bit lost. I’m not for fucking Islam or something, I’m for a logical and rational defense against the foolishness of these self-called “Islamic scholars”, who are nothing more than censors who want to be powerful and tell everybody what to do. And I am not for porn images in any of my blogs, but I’m fed up of idiots who want to give moral lessons when they certainly can’t…

There is an interesting article in The Guardian about the state of freedoms in UK. An excerpt:

Britain has such broadly drawn and elastic surveillance laws that Poole borough council could exploit them to spend two weeks spying on a family wrongly accused of lying on a school application form. The official spies reportedly made copious notes on the movements of the mother and her three children, whom they referred to as “targets”, and watched the family go home at night to establish where they were sleeping. And this is supposed to be modern Britain?

(…) Yes, fighting terrorism requires some restrictions. Yes, you can make a crime reduction case for some CCTV. But we have more CCTV, a larger DNA database and a more ambitious (and unworkable) National Identity Register scheme, as well as more police powers and more email snooping than any comparable liberal democracy. On top of which we have a bureaucracy so centralised and incompetent in managing this mass of data that it lost two computer discs containing the child benefit details of 25 million people.

(…) A couple of years ago I asked a very senior New Labour politician if his government had not got the balance between security and liberty wrong. “Well”, he replied, “one thing I can tell you is that if you ask the British people they will always choose more security.” And this is where the ball comes back to us. Since our leaders are now mainly followers – following the latest opinion poll, focus group or newspaper campaign – it’s up to us, the people, to change their view of what “the people” want.

I really want everyone to read it and to think about it. Are really Governments worrying about their citizens’ security or are they worrying only about their own security?

Some days ago I founded this post from UK Labour MEP Richard Corbett, that (I think) is not a very intelligent man, apart from being a liar. Apart from not letting his own voters (or readers) tell him clearly what do they think about his posts (comments and backlinks are disabled in his blog) he wrote this:

It is particularly sickening that UKIP and Mr Wilders are making themselves to be martyrs in this case, claiming that they are being denied the right to free speech. This is fatuous and they know it. In the same way that the likes of Abu Hamza have been arrested for inciting hatred and violence in Britain, so should Mr Wilders be barred from showing and then discussing a film that, in the words of Dutch Prime Minister Jens Balkenende, serves “no purpose other than to offend”.

Gee, that part written in bold characters, is the most truly funny piece of hypocrisy I have seen written since a long time ago. Why? Just remember what the MI5 told Abu Hamza, when he reached UK preaching violence and hate against non-Muslims: that he could continue doing it, as long as there were no terrorist attacks inside UK:

the cleric told the court that he had been approached in 1997 by officers from MI5 who had indicated that his speeches did not break the law, but who had then modified that view in 2000.

Mr Hamza told the court: “I said, ‘My sermons, is it a problem?’ They said, ‘Well, it’s freedom of speech, you don’t have to worry as long as we don’t see blood on the streets.’

“Only in 2000 they said, ‘We think you are walking on a tightrope’. They said there were some things that they don’t like.”

The preacher said he was also questioned by Special Branch: “They told me they had been watching me since 1994. I asked them myself about being vocal. He said it’s freedom of speech.”

Referring frequently to a copy of the Koran in front of him, Hamza explained his views on the tenets of Islam, claiming that his antipathy for Jews extended only to those who “use Judaism to pass off other ideas such as Zionism, globalisation and certain issues in a way that is harmful to the Muslim nation”.

But there was another worse consequence of Government’s inaction during 25 years in that case: moderate Muslims from Hamza’s mosque denounced him as a rabid hater. But nothing was done about it:

Abdulkadir Barkatullah, one of the management committee ousted by Abu Hamza, said he and community representatives went to the police seven times to complain about assaults and extremist activities inside the mosque. No action was taken.

The Prime Minister had urged the Muslim community to do more about the scourge of extremism within its own ranks but, Barkatullah said, “When we did do precisely that with Abu Hamza, we were ignored.”

And that even when everyone told British Government he was a rabid hater preacher:

If those who raised the alarm at home were overlooked, then foreign intelligence agencies were discounted. Those of France, Spain, Germany, Italy, Belgium and the Netherlands all accused Abu Hamza of being the ringmaster of a terrorist operation. The French and the Algerians had spies inside the mosque, and were horrified at what they uncovered. Egypt wanted to swap a British prisoner for Abu Hamza. All shared their findings with Whitehall, but nothing happened.

Read it all.

So, what is really this reduction of freedoms for? Is it really for defending citizens? For fighting terrorism? Are we really sure?

The chancellor has given Muslim leaders private assurances that he wants to create a “level playing field” in the economy, so that more and more “sharia compliant” financial products can be offered to British Muslims.

To comply with sharia law, financial products must not charge or earn interest, which is regarded as usury.

Brown hopes his proposed changes would remove barriers to many British and foreign Muslims participating fully in the financial system. They would help make London the natural home for Islamic funds from around the world, and increase the inflow of investment from oil-rich Middle Eastern countries.

“Making the UK and London a centre for Islamic finance means putting in place the tax and legislative framework that is supportive of Islamic products,” said a senior Treasury official.

“On top of this, we’re also looking at promoting the City abroad as a centre for Islamic finance.”

via Brown to boost Islamic banking – Times Online. This article dates back to March, 2006, but it’s importance has not diminished. Because in the present situation of global economic crisis Western countries are having similar ideas: for exmple the US:

The Risk of Shariah Finance: While Americans are selling their positions in U.S. companies, Middle Easterners flush with petrodollars are aggressively gobbling up these stocks at fire sale prices. Moreover, as American financial institutions report the losses that forced them to deplete their cash reserves, CEOs are begging for loans from oil-rich Middle East nations that have benefited from the rise in oil prices in recent years from $30 to nearly $100 per barrel. As one former Wall Street executive lamented, U.S. business leaders are “lining up to kiss the ring.”. (…) How might this harm America? If any of these investors, or a bloc of investors, gains enough controlling shares of a company, they can exact a dangerous influence. This might include the insistence that a corporation’s activities are halal, which would mean jettisoning business interests that include: banks charging interest; firms that are either based in Israel or are working with the Jewish state; firms developing weaponry used in Iraq, Israel, Afghanistan or other Middle Eastern states; casinos and other gambling companies; businesses that involve pork products; alcohol distillers and bottlers; publishers that release books critical of Islam; and even entertainment companies that could offend Muslim sensibilities or appear incompatible with Muslim values.

Melanie Phillips h/t Shariah Finance Blog was very clear as to the extent of the dangers: [Western leaders] don’t understand that the spread of sharia banking in Britain and America is a significant part of the attempt to Islamise Britain and America. Acceptance of sharia finance furthers the Islamist objective of gradually legitimising Islamic sharia law more generally in the west. (…) The most important point to grasp is that Islam recognises no authority superior to sharia. Sharia banks will therefore not recognise the superior authority of the law of the land. When trillions of pounds and dollars are locked into them, who will argue with them?