Here a Sky News journalist admits that broadcasters had been deliberately avoiding approaching Choudhary for comments after jihad outrages. Of course I'm sure the fact that his remarks would reflect badly on the "Religion of Peace" played no part in their deliberations.
There's been a conscious effort on the part of Sky News and the BBC, ITV, other broadcasters, and even the tabloids to an extent as well, not to approach him for the kind of comment that we would have in the past after a terrorist atrocity because he would say the kind of things that would get him publicity and get, as he sees it, his message across.It's tempting to cheer at Choudary's imprisonment but I think that temptation should be foregone. Why?
First, because Choudary was useful in exposing the true nature of Islam. Jihad attacks are, in themselves, trivial. The real threat from Muslims is demographic. We need to mobilise sufficient anti-Islam consciousness to win enough support for blocking Muslim immigration and/or expelling the existing Muslim population. Undisguised jihadis like Choudary are actually useful to us in achieving that goal.
Second, his imprisonment is yet a further sign of the suppression of free speech. The presence of Africans and Asians in our countries is leading to a continuous erosion in our basic liberties.
Rather than suppress everyone's freedom, it would be better to create a legal distinction between ancestral inhabitants of a country and those of recent immigrant origin, even the ones who were born in the country. This is what I call the Probationary Citizenship Framework* (link) that would impose trans-generational obligations on immigrants and their descendants for several generations. Free speech could then be preserved for ancestral inhabitants of the country while severe sanctions and restrictions were applied to the speech and actions of probationary citizens.
Beyond the Probationary Citizenship Framework, I would suggest that Participation in Jihad be made a specific crime in itself with an automatic death penalty. Participation should be defined very broadly indeed to include even expressing verbal support for jihad.
*The British government has now adopted this term probationary citizenship and are now proposing to introduce it into new regulations governing the granting of citizenship, unfortunately not in the way I suggested. Their regulations would apply only to a brief period in the life of a single immigrant who would have to prove they had participated fully in British life. So maybe I should adopt a new name for my idea like Trans-generational Probationary Citizenship.