A decade Lost: Rethinking Radicalism & Extremism (2015 Study)

Presented in the British House of Commons (last night)

Executive Summary:

An official narrative holds that terrorism is caused by the presence of extremist ideology. Extremism is defined as opposition to British values. To prevent terrorism, according to this narrative, the government should intervene to stem the expression of extremist opinions and demand allegiance to British values.
Over the last decade, this narrative has been repeatedly promoted by government ministers. Yet, as an account of what causes terrorism, it does not stand up to scholarly scrutiny. A growing body of academic work holds this position to be fundamentally flawed. Policy based on this narrative is at best partial and at worst counter-productive. A better account of the causes of terrorism would acknowledge that radical religious ideology does not correlate well with incidents of terrorist violence and that terrorism is best understood as the product of aninteraction between state and non-state actors.
The factors which lead someone to commit acts of terrorism are complex and cannot be reduced to holding a set of values deemed to be radical. There is little evidence to support the view that there is a single cause to terrorism. Accepting this analysis has significant implications for the development of policies to reduce the risk of terrorism.
Rather than a broad policy that seeks to criminalise or restrictextremist opinions, a better approach is to focus on individuals who can be reasonably suspected of intending to engage in a terrorist plot, finance terrorism or incite it. The best way of preventing terrorist violence is to widen the range of opinions that can be freely expressed, not restrict it.
In light of this more authoritative understanding, the government should end its Prevent policy. This will help to avoid nurturing a new generation of antagonised and disenfranchised citizens. Ultimately, Prevent- style policies make Britain less safe.

Muadh_Khan wrote:

View original post

Quote:

Executive Summary:

An official narrative holds that terrorism is caused by the presence of extremist ideology. Extremism is defined as opposition to British values. To prevent terrorism, according to this narrative, the government should intervene to stem the expression of extremist opinions and demand allegiance to British values.[/quote]

There is global perspective and there is micro-detail. In any issue both aspects usually have their importance. In some cases micro-details sometimes overwhelm the current global perspective. In acse of the issue under consideration, the T-word, the global problem has overwhelmed the micro-details and that is how it should be approached.

Quote:

Over the last decade, this narrative has been repeatedly promoted by government ministers. Yet, as an account of what causes terrorism, it does not stand up to scholarly scrutiny. A growing body of academic work holds this position to be fundamentally flawed. Policy based on this narrative is at best partial and at worst counter-productive. A better account of the causes of terrorism would acknowledge that radical religious ideology does not correlate well with incidents of terrorist violence and that terrorism is best understood as the product of aninteraction between state and non-state actors.[/quote]

Forget about radicalisation of individuals. that is the micro-detail based approach to the problem.
Has the westeren society, that includes the UK, given the due space to Islam and Muslims? are they, the west, infringing upon, encroaching upon the social, cultural, economic, trade, industrial, political, military, scientific and technological space of Muslims?

When the problem is all pervasive, when it is global, when it is wide spread, when it is of macro level,as it is at the present moment in history, then the micro-management is hardly of any use.

Quote:

The factors which lead someone to commit acts of terrorism are complex and cannot be reduced to holding a set of values deemed to be radical. There is little evidence to support the view that there is a single cause to terrorism. Accepting this analysis has significant implications for the development of policies to reduce the risk of terrorism.

True. There is a lready a complex or problems, a whole discourse around a multutude of issues. To think of the peculiar neural network configuration of young Muslims is not going to be very effective either in short term and not at all in long term.
[quote] Rather than a broad policy that seeks to criminalise or restrict extremist opinions, a better approach is to focus on individuals who can be reasonably suspected of intending to engage in a terrorist plot, finance terrorism or incite it. The best way of preventing terrorist violence is to widen the range of opinions that can be freely expressed, not restrict it.

UK, as well as the US, the Europe and Australia has to send a very clear signal to the Muslim world, that should automatically reach the militant elements, that the west is ready to deal with the Muslim world at something like equal terms.

This signal should be as clear at Tony Blair's apology after atrocity.

[quote] In light of this more authoritative understanding, the government should end its Prevent policy. This will help to avoid nurturing a new generation of antagonised and disenfranchised citizens. Ultimately, Prevent- style policies make Britain less safe.

It is futile to focus upon the options available to law enforcement agencies. Theirs is a technical problem and they are best qualified to think about their issues and devise strategies and implement them. The time is ripe to focus upon the global broad view and address the problem from that point of view.

This brings us to the issue of whom UK should talk to in order to address the problem between the west and the Muslim world.

Sadly they have not allowed any credible authorities to survive or thrive in the Muslim world. Those who exist will not talk freely owing the the deep crusade era biases of western society. for example the word Shariah is an anathema to the western ears. once one assimilates this nuance there is precious little left to talk about.

Yet these are the lines along which lies the solution to the present world conundrum.

The UK society and the US, Europe and australia must start talking to the Muslim scholars in their own lands to mull over the problem that both are facing in their own way. Muslims face the encroachment upon their life space while the west faces the violence wrecked by the Muslim youth pushed into an impossible situation.

A decade Lost: Rethinking Radicalism & Extremism (2015 Study)

Font Size

Font Weight

Executive Summary: