Countering extremism – ideology and evidence
Categories: Latest News
Monday August 25 2014
A number of the national newspapers on Friday led with the story of journalist James Foley’s barbaric beheading by an ISIS fighter strongly suspected of being a Briton; see the Daily Express, Daily Mail, Daily Telegraph, The Independent, The Times and The Guardian.
Many of the papers, including Thursday’s lead story in the Metro, highlight the exhortations of Muslim leaders to assist in the search to identify the executioner labelled ‘Jihadi John’. Some mention the Muslim Council of Britain’s press release denouncing the ‘psychotic violence’ of ISIS and the ‘jihadi-cool’ subculture which has seduced young Britons to join the ISIS ‘caliphate’.
There is some speculation in the papers about the number of young Muslim Britons who have travelled to Syria with estimates ranging from 400-500 to ‘more than 1500’, a figure attributed to Khalid Mahmood MP. The Times on its front page declares the latter figure reflects ‘Hundreds more UK Muslims choose jihad than army’, a not so subtle suggestion that British Muslims are, in part, not loyal to Britain.
The Guardian notes the imminent publication of the Intelligence and Security Committee’s report into the murder of Drummer Lee Rigby last spring and the lessons to be drawn by the security agencies from the affair. The newspaper quotes ISC member, Dr Julian Lewis MP, who said “If we try to be neutral between the arsonist and the fire brigade then we run into problems. We were not neutral in this country between Nazi doctrine and democracy or between Communist doctrine and democracy. We should not be neutral between Islamist totalitarianism and democracy.”
Lewis throws his weight behind the thinking present in the Prime Minister’s speech on ‘muscular liberalism’ and repeated after the Rigby murder, that tackling extremism must move beyond its violent manifestations to extend to ‘non-violent extremism’.
Among counter-terrorism measures floated in the Guardian piece is the return of control orders.
The Daily Mail adds to the discussion about the Government’s counter-terrorism strategy complaining that recommendations proposed by the Taskforce on Tackling Radicalisation, which was set up in the days following Lee Rigby’s murder, have yet to be implemented. Proposals mentioned include the so-called ‘terror ASBOs’ and the removal of incendiary material from websites.
The Daily Mail invites a view from Professor Anthony Glees. He told the paper ‘Why are there Brits there? In my view this is because Islamist extremist ideologies have been able to be spread with relative ease in our country under the cover of religion, free speech and multiculturalism.’
No mention in the quote of foreign policy as a contributing factor. Though this is not near as disturbing as the assumption that ‘Islamist extremist ideologies’ are buttressed by ‘the cover or religion, free speech and multiculturalism’.
While there is some criticism of the Government’s lackadaisical approach to countering extremism there is less rigour on the policies that have adopted to date and their efficacy. As Francis Davis, a former advisor to the Rt. Hon. John Denham MP during the latter’s time as Communities and Local Government Secretary writes in a blog for The Tablet, “Theresa May leans in the same direction as did Tony Blair, Ruth Kelly and Hazel Blears before her. The trouble though is that from the Northern Ireland to South Africa, Jerusalem to Nicaragua and beyond, state-led community interventions to identify ‘moderate’ radicals, or to identify potential agents of political violence in advance have more often than not had a radicalising rather than a moderating impact because of their very bluntness and over emphasis on ideology over evidence.”
The criticism of ‘ideology’ trumping ‘evidence’ was first identified in the Prevent inquiry report by the Communities and Local Government in 2010 which stated:
‘Regarding the Government’s analysis of the factors which lead people to become involved in violent extremism, we conclude that there has been a pre-occupation with the theological basis of radicalisation, when the evidence seems to indicate that politics, policy and socio-economics may be more important factors in the process.
‘There is a sense that Government has sought to engineer a ‘moderate’ form of Islam, promoting and funding only those groups which conform to this model. We do not think it is the job of Government to intervene in theological matters…’
As the debate about ISIS turns to the question of the Government’s counter-terrorism strategy, now would be a good time to address its preoccupation with ideology over evidence.