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".
Seems like a pretty obvious but necessary move to make. The move is necessary to prevent state funds from falling into Muslim extremist groups.
My question is, why are state funds used at all? That becomes an endorsement for a group's views if the state is funding them.
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.
Indeed. Moderates don't become suicide bombers*.
* There are instances where someone at one point in their life was a moderate - or even a non-Muslim - but their religious views changed, perhaps very quickly, and they became extremists whereupon they became violent extremists.
One group, the Mosques and Imams National Advisory Board, which has links to the hardline Muslim Association of Britain, received £250,000 in the year up to April but has already had its annual public funding withdrawn, the Observer has learned.
During the Munich speech Cameron said it was "nonsense" to fund groups with extremist elements, adding: "Would you allow far-right groups a share of public funds if they promise to help you lure young white men away from fascist terrorism? Of course not."
Good point, but I would also say it's absurd for the state to fund religious groups, regardless of their views.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011 ... extremists
