Search

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Within an antagonistic atmosphere, radicalism becomes an attractive path for young Muslim inmates who feel disaffected. This is especially the case for those who are easily manipulated emotionally, due to being separated from friends and family. Radicalism makes them feel like they are in the "right" place. This article contrasts the radicalization processes occurring within United Kingdom prisons with those occurring in Lebanese prisons. Prisons are frequently designated as the "hotbeds" of radicalization, violent extremism, and terrorism, but in the United Kingdom, they are seen more as "homegrown" terrorist plots. Focusing solely on security is insufficient to prevent radicalization. Instead, an approach is needed that not only strengthens the legal framework, but is grounded in wisdom and justice, as otherwise further anti-Muslim backlash to terror attacks will only drive more terrorist attacks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Drawing on Razzaque's seminal book, From Human Being to Human Bomb which identifies patterns of extremist thought processes amongst young British Muslims, this study is the very first attempt at empirically testing such a concept and establishes a precedent for the study of the links between psychology and Islamism that continue to be critically underdeveloped. By analysing responses from two small samples, a test group of British Muslim UCL students and a control group of British non-Muslim UCL students, this project attempts to pioneer the use of alternative methods in the fight against extremism and ambitions to serve as a small but noteworthy part of an improved holistic national and international policy in the United Kingdom. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although researchers know a great deal about persuasive messages that encourage terrorism, they know far less about persuasive messages that denounce terrorism and little about how these two sides come together. We propose a conceptualization that distinguishes a message's support for an act from its support for the ideology underlying an act. Our prediction is tested using corpus-linguistic analysis of 250 counter-extremist messages written by Muslims and U.K. officials and a comparison set of 250 Muslim extremist messages. Consistent with our prediction, Muslim extremist and Muslim counter-messages show disagreement on terrorist actions but agreement in ideological aspects, while U.K. officials' counter-messages show disagreement with both Muslim extremists' acts and ideology. Our findings suggest that counter-messages should not be viewed as a homogenous group and that being against violent extremism does not necessarily equate to having positive perceptions of Western values. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

After the 7 July and 21 July 2005 attacks on London the government-sponsored effort to ‘prevent extremism together’ has repeatedly acknowledged the central role of anger at UK foreign policy in the radicalization of some British Muslims. This acknowledgement has been incorporated into a ‘comprehensive framework for action’ centring upon the need for increased ‘integration’ and an effort, critically, to re-work British multiculturalism as a means to combat terrorism. Examining the history of multiculturalism in Britain and the tradition of living and acting ‘together’ that it suggests, however, raises a set of questions about the society into which integration is supposed to occur, what integration might involve and its real efficacy for combating terrorists. In addressing these issues, this article suggests that the debate over contemporary multiculturalism should be situated within a much wider social and political crisis over the meaning of ‘community’ in the UK, to which questions of global order and foreign policy are central. Comparing the ‘ethical’ basis of Al-Qaeda's attacks with Tony Blair's invocation of ‘values’ as the foundation for military intervention reveals that both seek to realize models of community through violence and a shared process of ‘radicalization’ which in both cases precedes 9/11 and which might be traced back to the Gulf War of 1991. The article concludes that debate over the future of multiculturalism in the UK is being conducted alongside and is implicated within a second, violent global conflict over community: one which is central to, but essentially unarticulated within the domestic context. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]