England’s been on my mind recently, mainly due to the plight of much maligned blogger Lionheart who will become the first Christian martyr to the Islamic kingdom that surely will take the place of our stoic allies within a few years.

Lionheart’s crime is to be one of the few Englishmen to stand up for his country, a country where radical Muslims control entire neighborhoods; where the authorities are allowing sexual exploitation of children to flourish; where the standard of living has fallen so far below what one should expect from a civilized country that only those willing to lie can make the case that England is anywhere near America in quality of life.

Lionheart has recently done a wonderful interview that explains his plight and debunks the myth of his neo-Nazism quite nicely, but there is a new development in England that casts doubt on his ability to receive any type of fair trial in that benighted country.

The Daily Mail is reporting that England will replace the term “terrorism” with “anti-Islamic activity” in a move designed to appease Muslims and no doubt accelerate the Islamization of the United Kingdom:

Ministers have adopted a new language for declarations on Islamic terrorism.

In future, fanatics will be referred to as pursuing “anti-Islamic activity”.

Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said that extremists were behaving contrary to their faith, rather than acting in the name of Islam.

Security officials believe that directly linking terrorism to Islam is inflammatory, and risks alienating mainstream Muslim opinion.

In her first major speech on radicalization, Miss Smith repeatedly used the phrase “anti-Islamic”.

In one passage she said: “As so many Muslims in the UK and across the world have pointed out, there is nothing Islamic about the wish to terrorize, nothing Islamic about plotting murder, pain and grief.

“Indeed, if anything, these actions are anti-Islamic’.

Another section referred to enlisting the Muslim community against “anti-Islamic activity”.

Her words were chosen to reflect new Government strategy on labelling the terrorists and their recruiting agents.

The shift follows a decision taken last year to stop using the phrase “war on terror”, first adopted by U.S. President Bush.

Officials were concerned it could act as a recruiting tool for Al Qaeda, which is determined to manufacture a battle between the values of Islam and the West.

The strategy emerging across Government is to portray terrorists as nothing more than cold-blooded murderers who are not fighting for any religious cause.

The problem is that such a policy will eventually be used to conflate the “un-Islamic activity” of non-Muslims into terrorism. If it becomes accepted parlance to call Al-Qaeda an un-Islamic or anti-Islamic organization, then counter-jihadists, Muslim apostates and anti-Sharia activists become, by virtue of their anti-Islamic activity, as bad as Al-Qaeda.

This is more than a dangerous word game, but an attempt for a floundering leftist government to realign itself with Islamic Imperialists in England who will gladly disavow Al-Qaeda for a chance to make un-Islamic activities (like Homosexuality, Women’s rights and religious freedom) prosecutable, at least in the court of public opinion. This is Orwellian social engineering at it’s worst, and bloggers like Lionheart will be the first to fall prey to a new set of legal standards where being “anti-Islamic” will literally be treated as the same as crashing airplanes into the World Trade Center.

While I believe in freedom of religion, I’m not a Muslim and am not a big fan of Islam. I express often my disagreement with Islamic values and faith. Am I a terrorist? Is it terrorism to leave Islam, which is considered anti-Islamic? Is eating pork terrorism?

Philosophically, the English are well on their way to saying those things are.