Tim ive never heard so much nonsense and anti - western/ european **** for a long time but then again its the new statesmen.
Yep we can go again because it IS a problem that needs to be solved which is proven the case everyday ! so saying "here we go again" means nothing.

so because europe has beef with fascist, violent , islamists means europe has "darkness"? another meaningless statement.

when did europe throw out god? The sheer amount of churches built in the 20th century alone stands testament to otherwise, and what exactly does that point even mean with regard to immigrant islamofascists in europe?

As for the end just seems to be the ussual extremeleft redundant idea that europe is to blame for everything whilst wanting to live here?

and if you actually studied your history properly slavery on the largest and cruellest scale ever and still to this day was done by muslims on millions and millions in africa, and still done in Sudan, with muslims on Christians.

Genocide?? of course its what's happening to the native europeans of this continent via mass migration.

How many london eastenders from towerhamelets would have fought hitler in the 40's if they knew they would be ethnically cleansed from the area due to mass muslim immigration and the borough become a default islamic hellhole??
Also yea the millions of Armenian's killed by muslim turks comes to mind which the turkish government still wont apologise for, utterly sickening.

As for China, they will most likely be a powerfull ally against islamic terrorism with a much much firmer fist. the chinese would never tollerate for a second the islamic radicals that have been allowed to settle here in europe.

Matthew - superb post!

Luddite - straight and to the point!
I think the NS should hire you both!

I've read this article a few times but I can't see what the exact nature of the "crackdown" is going to be.

If I plan to build the Caliphate in East Cheam, what exactly is Theresa May going to do to me?

There is a hugely significant difference between violent and non-violent groups. It is part of living in a free society that people are allowed to freely air abhorrent views.

This still does not mean the state should fund these groups.

Maybe it should, maybe it should not - but denying an organisation legitimisation through engagement with the state is not the same as criminalising Muslims.

hmmm... "Non-violent extremist groups which do not "reflect British mainstream views" will face a crackdown."

So that also includes animal rights protesters, environmental groups, Nationalist parties, language campaigners, republicans? And what are "British Mainstream Views" anyway? Where does it end? Unless you drink tea and wave a Union Jack you are headed for a concentration camp?

I hear forcing your countries value's down immigrant cultures throats really works...

I mean just look at France!!! Yeah they may have a ghetto culture almost as bad as America. And yeah a third of the country may vote for the far right. But... Still...

This has been badly phrased, but we all know what it means:
British common law is supreme.

Continually giving in to special demands is stupid and suicidal, as is paying out vast sums for people to live in Europe at our expense rather than having to work.

NO DOLE FOR CHILDREN UNDER 26!
NO CHILD ALLOWANCE FOR CHILDREN NOT ATTENDING SCHOOL!
CHILD ALLOWANCE ONLY FOR THE FIRST 3 CHILDREN.

Gerry:

"Dont you see that if you tolerate mainstream Islamic extremism ... hatred of gays and lesbians"

Er, that would be right in the middle of 'mainstream British views', based on the media and the government. In fact, the more you look at 'extremist' Islamic views, the more they are equivalent to the views of Nadine Dorries... interesting, that.

The basic tenet of an information age society is that speech and action are different. It doesn't matter how many liberal teenagers answer an online poll, the LibDems will still lose the election; speech, not action. Equally, it doesn't matter how many people campaign in Hyde Park to prevent an aggressive war; if they don't do anything violent they can be safely ignored. Speech, not action.

It doesn't matter how often an imam preaches against Western materialism and lax morality; the children of his peers will still buy denim. Speech, not action.

When a specific person murders their child for a medieval sense of honour, or firebombs a synagogue due to misunderstanding of the Bible, or bombs a pub in the 20th century because of grudges from the 17th; these are actions. We already have a legal system which is designed to deal with such actions. They can be proved with evidence in open court; they can be prosecuted as crimes. Because they're actions, not speech.

Now, having established that baseline of modern thought (which has been available since John Stewart Mill if not earlier), take a look at what's actually being discussed here. We're talking about prosecuting people, not merely for what they say but for what they think. A requirement in law that everyone must 'reflect mainstream British views' is a requirement that everyone must think as Rupert Murdoch wants them too.

This is the concept of orthodoxy at its witch-hunting best; one must think right, where 'right' is defined as 'like David Cameron'. We should not, in a modern 'democratic' society, be even discussing the idea of prosecuting thought-crimes, let alone legislating them.

Gerry:

"Al - you are being really silly now! There is a huge difference between religious hardcore extremism and animal rights activists... "

We think so too; what's dangerous about this Conservative project is that it does /not/. Neither are 'mainstream British views'; therefore, each are equally criminalised by this law. It is no use saying that a law aimed at one set of victims will never be used to punish another; look at how cannabis laws(originally a law aimed at allowing US police to arrest Mexicans on sight) were used against peace protesters in the 1960s.

Also:

"Al - you are being really silly now! There is a huge difference between religious hardcore extremism and animal rights activists... "

This is complete rubbish. More blood has been spilled by militant Christianity, as epitomised by Dubya and the Dominionists he surrounded himself with, than by radical Islam. American Christians are constantly blowing up abortion clinics and shooting doctors, blowing up creches which happen to be run by local governmentin Oklahoma, ranting about how every death in New Orleans during Katrina was a punishment from God for their licentious ways...

In truth, better than one third of all humans subscribe to a religion which is used as an excuse for hatred, death, torture and intolerance. And in no case is the religion the cause of these things.

People are intolerant out of fear. They hate out of shame and pain. The torture and kill because they feel they are threatened. People just use the religions as a useful PR mechanism.

"Or Mohammed Hasnath, just 18 years old, convicted last week for putting up "Gay Free Zone" stickers all across London, quoting the Koran's punishment for homosexuals...which is death."

Anyone remember the Admiral Duncan? David Copeland was not a Muslim.

Um. My second quote there should have read:

"Nearly all major religions have abandoned their bloodthirsty pasts, and have reconciled themselves to living peacefully within secular, democratic, gender equal nation states.

Only one hasn't - Islam."

The next bit of argument would have made a lot more sense if I'd got the c&p right first time... sorry.

Yet more divisive stupidity coming from that vile man Cameron.

We should engage the non-violent Muslim community in the hope that by showing a more inclusive attitude we may mitigate the feelings of alienation and marginalisation that are becoming pervasive in the Muslim community.

Outright confrontation will not stem the tide of Islamist extremism in this country, it will simply drive it underground where it will thrive - as has anything that has become outlawed.

Moderate Muslims could see this as yet another attack on them, not a direct attack of course but an indirect one because they are increasingly becoming associated with the extremist faction of their religion. In the face of yet more condemnation from the government to whom do these moderate Muslims turn?

The extremists are waiting with open arms.

Whilst his foreign policy was not specifically under a Christian banner, GWB did claim God told him to invade Iraq and Afghanistan.

He claimed a moral and religious reason to act and his war on terror rhetoric.......good v evil, us v them, referring to Iraqis and Afghanis generally as evil do-ers, calling for troops to be protected by God whilst they do HIS will, talking of Islam enslaving whole nations, overthrowing whole govts through mass rallying of the Muslim populuation.....all of which only serve to highlight the religious rationale and connotations behind his war on terror.

"I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, 'George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan.' And I did, and then God would tell me, 'George go and end the tyranny in Iraq,' and I did."

Not immediately relevant but can the Sovereign marry a person of the Muslin faith?
Is it specifically forbidden - that is, is it written down somewhere?
From King John, through Henry IIIV to Elizabeth I, many English monarchs played the Moslem card: no formal alliances, of course. Nevertheless, this stratagem kept the Pope and Spain on their toes. It's about time for some gratitude.

The Long View

If I vote SNP do I get jailed now?
Suppose it was only a matter or time.

Like Des Demona and Trampolene I can't see how withdrawing funding amounts to "crackdown" and criminalising". Perhaps the writer of the original post could explain how they do.

Judging by the last paragraph (and many of the comments) people seem to be under the impression that Cameron is trying to criminalise those holding extreme opinions. As I understand it, no one is talking about criminalising the "non-violent extremists", Cameron merely wants to stop showering them with money for a purpose that is not being achieved. This, to me, seems perfectly sensible. Not sure why anybody would find this outrageous (apart from those losing funding)

Shouldn't a crackdown on non-violent extremism that doesn't reflect Britain's values also apply to the BNP then? I actually think such a crackdown is necessary, as what you find are non-violent extremists encouraging others to perpetrate violence and acts of terrorism, while never getting involved directly themselves.

I fear the state more than I fear Muslims. Once the laws and apparatus are in place, who knows what groups it will be applied to. Free expression is to be cherished and fought for.

I ran a Prevent project in west London for two years.

Theory is all v well - but you need to draw lines somewhere for policy to be meted out in practice.

The only line I know of which marcates this agenda successfully is the line running between violent and non-violent behaviour.

The young people I worked with who wanted to "kill Jews" or "fight the infidel" changed their tune with the right time and attention paid to them. I never even once referred a young person to the police Prevent schemes, though I worked hard with police in the locality - with some good results.

Marking hate-filled young people as a threat only fuels the fire. In effect we would be radicalising them - and pushing them to further extremes.

Some of Prevent's best work has been to create safe spaces where young people can open up on issues and share ideas. One idea would be to build on that - but let's wait to read the review before we all jump up and down, eh?

There is only one way to defeat Extreme ism. No give-ways please. They have no right of way and MUST not be afforded one. That is how Womens rights were won. That is how workers rights were won.

We can only win against extremism by confronting them and not by yielding to them.

Ban Sharia. Ban Burkha. Way to go.

Since Muslims have conspicuously failed to put their own house in order, it is now up to the government to take on the job.

Ordinary Muslims ought to welcome this development. The Muslim community has pretty much lost the trust of the general public, and only the wholesale eradication of extremism can restore it.

it's a evil excuse of a relgion .. if you want shara law in the uk then live in a cave in the middle east instead of forcing your evil belifs on other's . how would some from the middle east tolerate someone from the uk trying to convert them into christanty in there own country. it would be un heard of . the trouble is with the uk is we have lost the freedom of free speech , thanks to the 3 main parties we might offend these gutless bastard's . when will people of britan realise that the only way foward is to get rid of polital correction shit out of our country and start voting for the smaller parties . becuase under the 3 major parties forgnier 's will come first before there own people .and the goverment are feeding the right wing parties .i am up for some forgenior living in the uk that execpt our laws and way off life , but we have to many forginer's in this country becuase we are a soft touch . why can't the uk be like australia . if we aren't carefull the uk will under shira law within 5 years . and i will not have these bastard's tell me how i should live in my own country . so for christ sake cammeron grow some balls and start kicking out these troublemaker's off the uk ,and close our borders and get out of the e.u . because great britian does not exsit . and im ashamed to say im english ....

correction Bolshevik. The penalty should be the same as possession of heroin, a prison sentence OR the choice of exile to Pakistan.

Here we go again: Muslims and Islam being talked about as if they are a problem that needs to be solved.

Montgomery Watt wrote: '...the darkness ascribed to one's enemies is a projection of the darkness in one's self that is not fully admitted.' He was talking about Europe's attitude to Islam.

So instead of solving your own issues or dealing with integration sensibly you spread lies, manipulate and put all the focus on Muslims and Islam.

Europe threw out God, and what did it get in the 20th Century: Communism, Fascism, the Nazis, 2 world wars, new levels of brutality, the Holocaust, continued colonialism, the corporate state, apartheid, segregation...

The British fought for liberty from tyranny and the French for their country back and yet resisted the dismantling of their Empires. You went through the enlightenment and yet still colonized, carried out the slave trade, committed genocide across the globe. Europe doesn't have the right to act smug and patronizing after all that.

Can western civilization survive without the need for an enemy? If it's not Islam it will be China.