Safeguarding Children and Young people From Extremism (original) (raw)
Related papers
Children & Society, 2014
Current British Government strategies to counter terrorism (exemplified in the Prevent policy and Channel programme) are based upon a problematic fusion of certain dominant explanatory models of the 'causes of terrorism' (specifically, 'psychological vulnerability' to 'radicalisation') with discourses of 'child protection/safeguarding'. Derived from particular mainstream traditions of social scientific epistemology and inquiry, these knowledge paradigms 'legitimise' a pre-emptive, interventionist and securitising approach that affects the lives of young British Muslims. The aim of this article is to challenge some of the assumptions that underpin the understanding of 'radicalisation', 'psychological vulnerability' and 'child protection' evidenced in these state practices and policies. Language: en
Childhood Radicalisation Risk: An Emerging Practice Issue
Practice, 2015
Terrorism, radicalisation and risk are contested terms-converging around particular children and young people in England to construct an emergent category of abuse-'childhood radicalisation'. With little practice based research to date in this issue and expected responses via the state, social work needs to step up and engage with the present terrorism debates. In this paper we argue against peremptorily defining this as a child protection issue. Rather, we think that more debate is needed about the role of social work and policy influences, because social work can find itself unwittingly posing a risk to the very families we set out to help. Moreover, social workers might find themselves pawns in an ideologically driven moral panic without the benefit of debate about how we can make a contribution to families, and to this emerging practice issue. This paper offers some suggestions to bolster the confidence and skills needed in approaching this new practice issue. Social workers are themselves at risk of becoming the guardians of radicalisation risk work. This needs resisting if social work is to offer something complementary to the policing and securitization needs of an anxious politic and ever-hovering media, hungry for sensationalized risk stories.
Children, Terrorism and Counterterrorism: Lessons in Policy & Practice
2005
Children are all too often the victims of terrorist conflicts and, as the Beslan school siege tragically illustrated, this victimization can be extreme, deliberate and intentional. While all victims of terrorism attract a special interest, child victims unquestionably attract the most. Following this, how terrorist groups and governments initiate and react to violence which kills and maims children can play a major role in how conflicts are perceived and in how campaigns unfold. A failure to appreciate the critical issues surrounding the victimization of children risks undermining perceived legitimacy, eroding wider support and increasing the backing opponents enjoy. Drawing on a variety of case studies, this article provides a review of how the victimization of children has impacted in recent terrorist conflicts. Implications for policy and practice are highlighted.
NATO Exploratory Research Group “Child Warriors as the Opposing Force" Report, 2006
As a research psychologist I have had the opportunity to travel extensively and visit some of the toughest conflict zones in the world to interview and engage terrorists, family members and close associates of terrorists and even hostages of terrorists in discussions about how they behave and what motivates them. I have been particularly interested in the senders of suicide bombers and the individuals both young and old, male and female who volunteer to take on “martyrdom” missions. In these research trips I have observed and conversed with many parents of children involved in terrorism, as well as children themselves. The countries where I have conducted field research include Lebanon, Palestine, Israel (jailed terrorists), Russia, Chechnya, Uzbekistan, Morocco, Jordan and Iraq (detainees) as well as in Western Europe studying radicals in Belgium, the Netherlands, UK and France. When we talk about children’s involvement with terrorism we have to think first about who children are developmentally and the effects of psycho-social and environmental context on their emotional, cognitive and behavioral state, developmental progress and about how children respond to real events in their lives. As far as my research is concerned I have found that there two clear distinct pathways for individuals to move onto the terrorist trajectory and they differ dramatically by the context in which they occur: within or outside of conflict zones, both of which will be discussed herein (Speckhard, 2005a, 2006, 2007a; Speckhard & Ahkmedova, 2005).
Resisting Radicalisation: A Critical Analysis of the UK Prevent Duty
2018
In response to the threat of terrorism and radicalisation, the UK government introduced the counterterrorism strategy CONTEST and its four strands ‘Prepare, Prevent, Protect, Pursue’. As one of these four strands, the ‘Prevent’ strategy dates back to 2003 and is tailored to avert radicalisation in its earliest stages. What stands out as particularly controversial is the statutory duty introduced in 2015 that requires ‘specified authorities’ to “have due regard to the need to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism” (Home Office, 2015a, s. 26). Based on a critical analysis of the so-called Prevent Duty in educational institutions (excluding higher education), I argue that it not only has the potential to undermine ‘inclusive’ safe spaces in schools but may also hold the danger of further alienating the British Muslim population. Certain terminology such as ‘safeguarding’ students who are ‘vulnerable’ to extremist ideas is misleading and conveniently inflated in order to legiti...
Crime Law Soc Change, 2020
Frontline professionals such as social workers and civil servants play a crucial role in countering violent extremism. Because of their direct contact with society, firstliners are tasked with detecting individuals that may threaten national security and the democratic rule of law. Preliminary screening takes place during the pre-crime phase. However, without clear evidence or concrete indicators of unlawful action or physical violence, it is challenging to determine when someone poses a threat. There are no set patterns that can be used to identify cognitive radicalization processes that will result in violent extremism. Furthermore, prevention targets ideas and ideologies with no clear framework for assessing terrorism-risk. This article examines how civil servants responsible for public order, security and safety deal with their mandate to engage in early detection, and discusses the side effects that accompany this practice. Based on openinterviews with fifteen local security professionals in the Netherlands, we focus here on the risk assessments made by these professionals. To understand their performance, we used the following two research questions: First, what criteria do local security professionals use to determine whether or not someone forms a potential risk? Second, how do local security professionals substantiate their assessments of the radicalization processes that will develop into violent extremism? We conclude that such initial risk weightings rely strongly on 'gut feelings' or intuition. We conclude that this subjectivity may lead to prejudice and/or administrative arbitrariness in relation to preliminary risk assessment of particular youth.
Limits of UK Counterterrorism Policy and its Implications for Islamophobia and Far Right Extremism
The UK Government has recently announced a new Counter‐Terrorism and Security Act 2015 to facilitate tackling the threat of violent extremism. In light of this and previous initiatives, this paper provides a critical assessment of UK counterterrorism policy. This policy has created a notion of ‘suspect communities’ such that it has alienated young Muslims at the community engagement level, conceivably and empirically, potentially further exacerbating concerns government and communities have over questions of radicalisation, extremism, and the associated political and criminal violence. This paper argues that such policies can lead to the institutionalisation of Islamophobia, acting as an echo chamber for far right extremism to flourish. Significant gaps in government policy in this area can only be addressed by fostering effective relations between communities and policy makers, with enablers such as police officers, youth workers, activists and faith leaders empowered to formulate nuanced approaches in various local area settings. Given the social, cultural and political situation regarding British Muslim youth, including those presently thought to be fighting in parts of Iraq and Syria, as well as ongoing threats on UK soil presented as imminent and dangerous by UK government, here remain acute challenges with limited opportunities.
The scope and limits of combatting violent extremism in the United Kingdom
Revista CIDOB d'Afes Internacionals, 2021
This article situates the debate on the United Kingdom’s Prevent policy in the broader framework of the global paradigm for countering violent extremism (CVE), which appeared at the end of 2015. It argues that omission of a nuanced focus on the social, cultural, economic, and political characteristics of radicalised people has led to a tendency to introduce blanket measures which, inadvertently and indirectly, have had harmful results. Moreover, although Prevent has been the fundamental element of the British government’s counterterrorist strategy since 2006, it confuses legitimate political resistance of young British Muslims with signs of violent extremism, thus giving credence to the argument that Prevent is a form of social engineering which, in the last instance, pacifies resistance by reaffirming the status quo in the country’s domestic and foreign policy.