Your site – here – for my other readers to follow.

From your site I clicked through to the report here on Homeland Security on governments clamping down on these websites. Or attempting to! How do you compete against YouTube, for a start?

As governments around the world become increasingly aware of the role of the Internet in disseminating and facilitating terrorist activities and organizing a move is afoot to confront that threat through censorship of information promoting “extremist ideologies”. In January in the UK Home Secretary Jacqui Smith announced a new crackdown on Web sites that promote violent Muslim extremism. The UK policy is to track down and remove Illegal material on the Internet aimed at recruiting susceptible people into terrorism following the same tactics already used to combat online pedophiles.

Not sure how you regard their progress, Bill, but here in Britain, we hear very little. Our dhimmi, brainwashed, infiltrated liberal press and mouthy ‘intelligentsia’ populace continues to put forward the line that we should trust our politicians less, far less than such as comment at The Guardian’s ‘Comment is Free’ articles.

I suppose if this crowd of jihadists had managed to kill Brown or Blair the doubters might actually notice. Some of them, anyway. Of course the commenters at Cif would most likely be cheering to the rafters.

Clamping down, or at least weeding out jihadi sympathisers who have infiltrated the online newspapers’ columns is another priority, imho. But how do you do it in lands with a free press?

We have a BIG problem.

I’d appreciate it it you kept us informed.

Many thanks.

On a quick search I found this, from 16th December, 2007:

… referring to the New York Times article here of the same date

Any updates that you know of?

Steyn seems to be saying similar to a lot of us. His site is here. Perhaps we should all volunteer to be charged!

He uses the same phrases – ’slippery slope’ etc as we often use. No, “murder all infidels” or “kill unbelievers/ apostates” as far as I can see in his writings. But then again, THAT’S permitted it would seem, as long as it comes from a certain quarter.

And being taken to task for his words on 2040 – how incredible!

In Canada, the official complaint about my own so-called “flagrant Islamophobia”—filed by the Canadian Islamic Congress—attributes to me the following “assertions”:

America will be an Islamic Republic by 2040. There will be a break for Muslim prayers during the Super Bowl. There will be a religious police enforcing Islamic norms. The USS Ronald Reagan will be renamed after Osama bin Laden. Females will not be allowed to be cheerleaders. Popular American radio and TV hosts will be replaced by Imams.

In fact, I didn’t “assert” any of these things. They are plot twists I cited in my review of Robert Ferrigno’s novel, Prayers for the Assassin. It’s customary in reviewing novels to cite aspects of the plot. For example, a review of Moby Dick will usually mention the whale. These days, apparently, the Canadian Islamic Congress and the government’s human rights investigators (who have taken up the case) believe that describing the plot of a novel should be illegal.

My goodness, have they read my thoughts on “Wiki Labour 2050″? I’d better cancel that trip to Canada. It’s a touch more free here in good ol’ blighty for homegrown citizens – so far!

I am sincerely hoping that the people appearing in court today in London over the kill Brown & Blair business – IF they are guilty – will serve as an example. No-one should be free to encourage, solicit or glorify terrorist acts.

The boundaries between free speech and the security of all of us need to be reset.

After all, terrorist fundamentalists don’t DO irony or sarcasm.

Only murder. And that’s not a laughing matter.

Btw, thanks for this “heads-up” as you Americans say, Beowulf.

I think I might use it in in its own page here.

The ‘Lights Out on Liberty’ artcile is here

http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis.asp