British media reporting on responses to the British government’s Counter-Extremism Strategy (original) (raw)
Related papers
Contemporary Extremism in Islam: A British Context
2011
There is a need to further develop academic discourse around what actually constitutes extremism in Islam in view of the government’s continuing conflation of non-extremist entities with either violent or non-violent extremism. The government appears to have relied upon evidence and advice which apparently lacks sufficient academic rigour upon which to develop a tailored but comprehensive policy that effectively addresses the phenomenon of religious extremism. That is not all. They have failed to identify alternative entities to address the vacuum that has been created by withdrawing funding from groups established to have been successful in countering violent radicalisation in the UK.
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.
Addressing religious extremism: a positive approach for policy makers and practitioners
Extreme violence in the name of religion has become a feature of our society. However, there is a risk that hasty policy reactions to such violence can confuse extremism with conservative views that are legitimate in a liberal democracy that supports freedom of religion and belief. This can damage social cohesion by associating these events with a generalised picture of a religion. National policy needs to be integrated, including a positive educational approach. Better understanding of religions and engagement with people of other faiths, while not a solution on its own, is an important factor in countering extremism and building tolerance and respect among different groups. This can only help to foster democratic citizenship in national and global society, argues ROBERT JACKSON. Cases of 'religious extremism' often involve extreme violence against innocent people such as the 9/11 attacks in the USA, the Madrid and London bombings of 2004 and 2005 and the murders of British and American hostages in 2014. There is a real danger that 'knee jerk' shifts of policy in response to such events can contribute to social division and fragmentation rather than promoting social cohesion. This is especially true when the extreme views and actions of a few are taken to correspond to a generalised picture of a religion. Avoiding policies built on these dangerous generalisations requires well-researched, integrated strategies. A positive educational response, that could form part of policy and practice anchored in a constitutional recognition of religious freedom, should have a broad set of aims. It should aim to increase young people's knowledge and understanding of religions, regardless of whether their own family background is religious or not. This should include, among other strategies, facilitating communication between young people from different religious and non-religious backgrounds. The Council of Europe, for example, through its ministerial recommendation on education about religions and non-religious convictions,1 regards this form of education as necessary to the development of intercultural understanding. However, it is important that this is set within a wider strategy to counter violent extremism. A religious education that sets out only to promote tolerance and social cohesion is inadequate since it assumes that understanding and knowledge necessarily foster tolerance. Knowledge and understanding are necessary but not sufficient conditions for genuinely removing prejudice. Liam Gearon2 is a critic of this approach who misrepresents it as constituting a discrete 'historical-political paradigm' of religious education with a single aim of achieving 'political' goals (such as increasing tolerance) while failing to develop any understanding of what it means to be religious. This results, he argues, in its naively colluding with the agendas of security organisations, whose interest in promoting understanding of religions he perceives to
Terrorism and Political Violence, 2019
That the distinctions between terrorism and extremism have become increasingly blurred is something of a truism, but there has been little systematic analysis of whether this is truly the case nor of its possible implications. This paper argues that there has been a recent convergence between these two concepts in British parliamentary discourse, reproducing the same signifiers and meanings for non-violent extremism as previously existed for terrorism. In doing so, the paper makes a threefold contribution: methodologically through utilising the underdeveloped approach of post-foundationalist discourse analysis (PFDA) and applying it to the field of terrorism studies; empirically through analysing all the discourse in 1,037 British parliamentary debates between 2010 and 2017; theoretically through drawing together post-foundationalism with Bourdieusian practice theory to show that this transformation of discourse has coincided with social practices of informal criminalization targeting non-violent extremism as if it were terrorism. This has important policy implications as it prescribes particular counter-terrorism practices associated with the hegemonic discourse of terrorism which, when extended to extremism, risk alienating, dehumanizing and motivating the very people deemed to be “at risk” of extremism. The paper illustrates these issues through a discussion of their application in the Prevent Strategy for Higher Education.
Common Law World Review
The growth of right-wing extremism, especially where it segues into hate crime and terrorism, poses new challenges for governments, not least because its perpetrators are typically lone actors, often radicalized online. The United Kingdom has struggled to define, tackle or legitimate against extremism, though it already has an extensive array of terrorism-related offences that target expression, encouragement, publication and possession of terrorist material. In 2019, the United Kingdom went further to make viewing terrorist-related material online on a single occasion a crime carrying a 15-year maximum sentence. This article considers whether UK responses to extremism, particularly those that target non-violent extremism, are necessary, proportionate, effective and compliant with fundamental rights. It explores whether criminalizing the curiosity of those who explore radical political ideas constitutes legitimate criminalization or overextends state power and risks chilling effects...