Tackling radicalisation is an ugly business
by Jamie Bartlett
The Home Affairs Select Committee report on the roots of violent radicalisation is published today, and it leads with a concern that far-right terrorism has been hitherto overlooked, and demands more attention. I gave oral evidence to the Committee, and think its conclusion broadly accurate. Nevertheless, there will be a clamour to pour money into tackling far-right radicalisation, and I think this should be avoided.
My scepticism is based on the inability of government policy to tackle something as complex as radicalisation, rather than a denial that it exists. The last five years of Prevent work with Muslim communities revealed, however well intended, tackling radicalisation is an ugly business. It was difficult to distinguish those at risk of violent extremism from who held radical – but peaceful – political or social views. It was difficult to know what sort of intervention actually worked to mollify or divert. It was difficult to effectively split counter-terrorism work from community cohesion work. It was difficult to identify local partners in this endeavour. It was difficult to do any of this without alienating large numbers of people. These hard lessons have resulted in a useful corrective, a scaling back of a lot of prevention work, coupled with recognition that the most effective response to countering violent extremism remains the hard-edge intelligence work: monitoring, intelligence gathering, disruption, and pre-emptive arrests.
The Government must bear these lessons in mind in respect of far-right (or in the future, even far-left) radicalisation. A new expansive effort to tackle this type of radicalisation could backfire more dramatically than the last Prevent policy. Certainly the English Defence League - as self proclaimed defenders of liberalism and democracy - would make hay of being targeted for government intervention, which might slow their continued demise and fracturing. Even though the Guardian are incapable of writing about far-right terrorism without a picture of the EDL, the terrorist threat does not come from them, but rather the neo-Nazi, white supremacist groups such as the Ayrian Strike Force, offshoots of the Blood and Honour scene and new iterations of Combat 18. The most valuable contribution of the Select Committee report is to encourage that the security services take threats from these groups as seriously as it does from al-Qaeda inspired ones.
Jon
"Even though the Guardian are incapable of writing about far-right terrorism without a picture of the EDL, the terrorist threat does not come from them, but rather the neo-Nazi, white supremacist groups such as the Ayrian Strike Force, offshoots of the Blood and Honour scene and new iterations of Combat 18"
But the EDL belongs to the same Far-Right political constellation. They share a common support base with the other organisation. Its not possible to simply draw a line in between these groups, treating them as seperate systems with no inpact on the other. And from what I've been reading online, the EDL are becomming more overtly white nationalist, racialist, and growing in desperation. And this can not simply be explained as the other far-right organisations having a greater influence 'within the EDL' - they are EDL.
Personally, while I'm not going to say the EDL are Nazis (though again, they share many similiarities with these movements), simply dismissing the threat that the EDL pose as less because they are not Nazis is irresponsible. Particulary when many Neo-Nazis, who may not have anything to do with the EDL, are adopting a more predominantly Islamophobic worldview: a worldview the EDL are actively encouraging. Lets stop pretending we need to focus on one group more than another. Lets stop pretending we don't have the resources to tackle radicalisation (be it Left, Right, Centre, Salafi, EDL, Kahanism, etc) wherever it is found.
And again, since when did radicalisation only result in terrorism? It results in other forms of violence and conflict. And the EDL have been at the forefront in recent months in this regard.
Raff
Interesting post. Given the problems with Prevent, certainly a rush in a new direction is an ill-advised idea - however, given the expectation that CT costs are going to cut post Olympics, it is hard to imagine there is going to be a huge influx of funding (unless something dramatic happens unfortunately).
The thing that has always bothered me about the right wing threat is that a lot of these chaps are astonishingly inept (but that is something they often share with some of the violent Islamists), but more than than that they have an obsession with gathering material. I recall some cases with people found with dozens of viable IEDs, but no clear sense that they were about to use them or what they were going to do with them. There seems to a fixation on the right side of things to collect weapons and stuff, I imagine as they are waiting fearfully for the race war to start. But I don't know how many cases there have been where they are actually planning on moving into action.