U.K. moves toward "broader definition of extremism," including the advocacy of Sharia law

This is exactly what we have been saying here at Infidel Bloggers Alliance for years.

Of course, we are more specific and draconian about it. We say, anyone caught advocating Sharia law is guilty of Sedition and the penalty ought to be death/life imprisonment, or immediate deportation.

Eventually, Britain and the United States will come to agree with. When face with one WMD attack after another, there will be no more room for appeasement of Radical Islam.

Radical Islam is

1) Sharia law advocacy - i.e. calling for death to gays, apostates and adulterers, the marginalization of women (women are worth half in a court of law), and the dhimmification of non-Muslims (non-Muslims must pay a protection tax)

2) calling for Jihad against the Infidel and Jew

Anytime any person calls for these INSANE practices to be enshrined in Law, they are calling for the overthrow of the current Government (as these ideas are absolutely against what the governments of the Western world profess to stand for).

From Jihad Watch:

There is progress here in the recognition that putatively non-violent "extremist" groups are dealing in the same poison as openly violent ones, and both share the same supremacist, totalitarian agenda to impose Sharia, to destroy and erase Western civil society, culture, and values, and to subjugate women and all non-Muslims.
The purpose of jihad in all its forms is the imposition of Sharia law, which would be equally intolerable by whichever means it were to be achieved. "PM wins row with Nick Clegg over crackdown on Muslim extremists," from the Guardian, June 4 (thanks to Gerard):

David Cameron will emerge as the victor from a bitter cabinet battle over multiculturalism this week as the government unveils a hardline approach to tackling Islamist extremism.

Home Office sources say that Cameron has quashed Nick Clegg's argument for a more tolerant attitude to Muslim groups by insisting on a strategy centred upon the notion that violent extremism is incubated within the ideology of non-violent extremism.

The shift in approach will be outlined when the government's counter-terrorism strategy is unveiled by the home secretary, Theresa May, on Tuesday. Central to the Prevent strategy is a broader definition of extremism that will be extended beyond groups condoning violence to those considered non-violent but whose views, such as the advocacy of sharia law, fail to "reflect British mainstream values".

A Home Office source said: "There will be a direct challenge to these [non-violent] groups."

The Prevent review has been delayed for five months because of disagreements within the coalition cabinet. In his view that engaging with non-violent extremists can be used as a bulwark against violent extremists, Clegg has been joined by the attorney general, Dominic Grieve, the Tory chairman, Baroness Warsi, and others including Charles Farr, the head of the office of security and extremism. They argue it is crucial to maintain a distinction between violent and non-violent extremism and that it is necessary to engage rather than alienate.

All they would be combating is violence, not "extremism," echoing the uselessness of a war on "terror." Clegg appears to have been taken in by a deliberate shell game designed to keep the ideology out of consideration.

Warsi, who sits on the cabinet subcommittee dealing with integration, is understood to disagree strongly with the new direction of Prevent but has been dissuaded from publicly criticising the strategy.

Among those supporting the prime minister on a crackdown on Muslim groups was the education secretary, Michael Gove, and Lord Carlile, who is in charge of the Prevent review.

Ostensibly the strategy echoes Cameron's contentious speech to an international counter-terrorism conference in Munich last February when he suggested that "state multiculturalism" had failed.

That moment finally came after a decade of the Labour Party's quiet, but deliberate campaign to transform Britain into a "truly multicultural society."

During the speech the Tory leader categorised those who espoused an ideology of Islamic extremism alongside those who supported violence. He said: "Move along the spectrum, and you find people who may reject violence, but who accept various parts of the extremist world view, including real hostility towards western democracy and liberal values."

A Home Office source said: "When a prime minister states something so unequivocally, it is unlikely they will be allowed to deviate from that."...

A FURTHER COMMENT FROM MRS. PASTORIUS:

Law-centered cultures define themselves by their own laws. So it is appropriate that a Law-centered culture would define the imposition of another system of Law, which stands in opposition to it's own native system, as an "Extremist Threat" to it's own existence.

You can see why I married the old lady, can't you?