UK Government Prevent Strategy to Counter Violent Extremism and Terrorism - Case Study Example

Student Name: Tutor: Title: UK Government Prevent Strategy Date: ©2016 UK Government Prevent Strategy to Counter Violent Extremism and Terrorism Designed to work at the pre-criminal stage, the prevent strategy is achieved by encouraging societal and individual interventions against radicalistic ideologies and behaviors [Rec]. In the recent past, several contributory factors have been advanced as to the increasing young people’s susceptibility to radicalization by extremist groups. Reconstruct UK suggests that a complex interplay exists between individual, community and family factors including identity and belonging, alienation and boredom, denial and lack of challenge born out of passive support for racist and far right extremism, as well as intergenerational family attitudes and beliefs. Description of the strategy (aims and objectives) Terrorism and extremism in the UK has been advanced by violent Islamism and its associated movements such as the extreme groups. The strategy of prevention in UK got launched in 2007 due to the 2005 London bombings. The strategy focused on youth, women and counter radicalization projects with a ‘hearts and minds’ technique to preventing Al Qaeda inspired domestic terrorism in the country in the theological context. The approach was therefore to achieve inclusion in thought and body to counter the radicalization The prevent strategy works as from the pre-criminal stage i.e. before any crime has been perpetrated. Early interventions therefore are the core preventative measures and mainly focuses on the ability of individuals and communities to reject terrorism as an ideology (Reconstruct UK). To this end, work has been taking place across communities, faith groups, healthcare providers, through education, criminal justice organizations and through the internet and social media. The strategy was re-launched in 2011, based on the assumption that a there was a high alert on terrorist attacks. The 2011 launch targeted both violent and non-violent extremism The strategy’s primary objectives include: i) To support mainstream voices whilst challenging the ideology of violent extremism ii) To counter the promotion and recruitment strategies used by violent extremists through offering guidance and support to vulnerable individuals who could be targeted. iii) Educating the communities on the importance of rejecting extremist ideologies thus making them resilient to pressure to join. iv) Safeguarding vulnerable people from radicalization The prevent strategy consists of ‘The Channel’ part that entails the identification of highly vulnerable individuals through behavioral and background checks. The Channel is an early prevention approach that involves several stakeholders including the police, local authorities, statutory partners and the community as a whole. It is structured in a multi-agency panel designed to safeguard vulnerable individuals at risk of being drawn into extremist or terrorist behavior. The multi-agency partnership develops a clear understanding about the threshold level of risk and for which intervention services ought to come into play. Issues regarding safeguards do focus on the most vulnerable of them all, that is the children and the youth. This approach has placed greater emphasis on prevention, linked to a programme of safer neighbourhoods and the idea of preventing radicalization rather than dealing with its consequences. Impact of the strategy (critical assessment of barriers to success/ implementation, evidence of progress) Critics have labelled the prevent strategy as counter-productive and that it discriminates against Islamic faithful. Others question the lack quantifiable benefits that can be derived from such a strategy. Many of those involved in delivering Prevent in cities such as London have been accused of not understanding the communities they serve. Upon review of the strategy in 2010, it was acknowledged that an overlap existed between the Prevent and Community Cohesion policies, which led to conclusions that they were only interested in Islamic communities in relation to the risk of terrorism’, necessitating a revised Prevent strategy in June 2011 separating the two. Local authorities in the UK have also opposed Prevent, stating that they felt that it was insensitive to local issues and alienated communities who saw it as a state surveillance programme. Toole et al, (2015) states that Prevent has been greatly opposed by the Muslim civil society while others have proposed changes to several of its facets terming it as a spying programme. This has led to the response by the Muslim organizations to refuse to engage with Prevent. Other organizations have used their expertise and positions to negotiate and insist on new engagement terms that they feel suit them perfectly, one such example is the East London Mosque (ELM), often described as a radicalization center, is intricately involved in governance activities and also non-governmental organizations. Other critics have termed Prevent as part of a neo-Conservative worldview that is aggressive and confronting towards the Islamic community. As a result, it is believed that Muslims are shying away from offering cooperative efforts to government while those that cooperate do so secretly. (Cage, 2013) asserts that government civil servants including teachers and doctors are being systematically indoctrinated into a politicized Islamic understanding making expert analysis in the field more difficult. The strategy of prevention has however registered some element of success. According to National Channel Referral Figures, ACPO since 2006 nearly 4,000 people have been referred, with about 20% needing further action. Channel has picked up significant momentum over its lifespan: only 80 people were referred in the program’s first two years, compared with over 1,200 in 2014. As from April 2007 all the way to the end of March 2014 Channel received a total of 1,450 referrals of young people below 18 years of age (National Channel Referral Figures, ACPO). Despite efforts to prevent radicalization, a youthful stream of people have travelled to the Middle East especially Syria to join extremist terror groups. According to the International Centre for the Study of Radicalization, an estimate of more than 20,000 people from around the world have travelled to join the jihadist. Among these, over 500 are citizens of the UK and at least 3,000 from the rest of Europe. As Khui, 2015 notes, there is an increasing proportion of female participants involved in the whole radicalization process. Role played by partnership and communities in the operation of the strategy Channel works in a similar way to existing multi-agency partnerships for other vulnerable individuals. It is a voluntary process allowing the individual to withdraw from the programme at any time. Individuals referred to Channel are not viewed exclusively as would-be extremists or terrorists but also as young people who require personal guidance and societal acceptance, many finding themselves under peer pressure or being drawn into extremist groups, both from the far right and Islamist militancy. Referrals come from a variety of sources, mainly through the police but also through teachers or social workers. Cases are then discussed by a panel to decide whether any action is needed and if so, what. Partnership involvement means there is access to a wide range of support which could include mainstream health, education, employment or housing services through to specialist mentoring or faith guidance and wider diversionary activities such as sporting activities. Suggestions for improved delivery of the strategy Improved delivery of the strategy can be enhanced by paying attention to factors that buffer the risk of joining criminal gangs in the first place. According to Reconstruct UK, 2015, the key elements that are important in fighting extremism include building the self esteem of the vulnarable population, legitimate and authentic religious guidances and social support. Encouraging young people to learn about risky behavior and the risks they might be exposed to, and about morality and spirituality and healthy ways of growing all contribute to a protective environment. Prevent and Education In the prevention process, schools are identified as one of the key organizations that should commit to work with other countering groups including the policing task force in order to effectively counter the extremism menace. Schools can play a vital role in identifying and working with young people, both boys and girls, who may be at risk and vulnerable to radicalization and extremism. Teachers have been required by law since 2012 to avoid instance that may be viewed as undermining fundamental British values. This involves the rule of law, democracy, individual liberty and mutual respect, and tolerance of those with different faiths and beliefs”. An updated Ofsted inspection framework published in January 2013 sets out expectations on preventing extremism and how well a school responds to extremist behavior. Ofsted recently published a report warning that pupils at six independent schools in east London were 'vulnerable to extreme influences' and there have been concerns around the development of Free Schools and the potential for minority groups with extreme views to apply to run them. Key points for schools: To make sure that signs of radicalization are easily identifiable by teachers and those tasked with it. To minimize the possibility of extremist ideologies being promoted outside school then later spreading to the school environment. To offer support to children service agencies and other education stakeholders in child development. Develop products for teachers to use And for Government and Ofsted: Promote shared values during inspections and avoid discriminative procedures. Offer support and legal hand to school standards thus strengthening it. To develop guidance principles and standards that guide teachers on the subject of extremism. To reduce or completely eliminate the risk of free uncontrolled schools being set up. Prevent in the NHS The prevention strategy covers all the all NHS commissioners, providers and contracted out services including General Practices, Hospitals, Mental Health and Learning Disability services, community health service providers and therapists. The NHS is expected to work hand in hand with main stakeholders including the policing task force, local authorities, probation, housing and prison services and the local community in the identification of the vulnerable proportion of the population, assess the level of risk and come up with most appropriate means of support for such individuals. Referrals will generally use either existing safeguarding routes or follow area specific ones. References Bartlett, J. and Birdwell, J., 2010. From suspects to citizens: preventing violent extremism in a big society. Demos, pp.8-9. Birt, Y., 2009. Promoting virulent envy? Reconsidering the UK's terrorist prevention strategy. The RUSI Journal, 154(4), pp.52-58. Briggs, R., 2010. Community engagement for counterterrorism: lessons from the United Kingdom. International Affairs, 86(4), pp.971-981. Byers, M., 2002. Terrorism, the use of force and international law after 11 September. International Relations, 16(2), pp.155-170. Cunningham, D.J., 1991. In Defense of Extremism. Educational Technology, 31(9), pp.26-27. Curtis, L.A., 2007. US aid to Pakistan: countering extremism through education reform. Heritage Foundation. Davies, L., 2008. Education against extremism. Stoke on Trent and Sterling: Trentham Books. Donaldson, L. and Banatvala, N., 2007. Health is global: proposals for a UK Government-wide strategy. The Lancet, 369(9564), pp.857-861. Garland, D., 1996. The limits of the Sovereign state strategies of crime control in contemporary society. British journal of criminology, 36(4), pp.445-471. Lindekilde, L., 2012. Neo-liberal Governing of" Radicals": Danish Radicalization Prevention Policies and Potential Iatrogenic Effects. International Journal of Conflict and Violence, 6(1), p.109. McDonald, B. and Mir, Y., 2011. Al-Qaida-influenced violent extremism, UK government prevention policy and community engagement. Journal of aggression, conflict and peace research, 3(1), pp.32-44. O’Toole, T., Meer, N., DeHanas, D.N., Jones, S.H. and Modood, T., 2015. Governing through prevent? Regulation and contested practice in State–Muslim engagement. Sociology, p.0038038514564437. Overstreet, H.A. and Overstreet, B., 1964. The strange tactics of extremism (p. 101). New York: Norton. Paraskevas, A. and Arendell, B., 2007. A strategic framework for terrorism prevention and mitigation in tourism destinations. Tourism Management, 28(6), pp.1560-1573. Parkman, J., 2014. Independent school inspections and outcomes, including compliance with regulations: 1 September 2013 to 31 August 2014. Richards, A., 2011. The problem with ‘radicalization’: the remit of ‘Prevent’and the need to refocus on terrorism in the UK. International Affairs, 87(1), pp.143-152. Summerfield, D., 2016. Mandating doctors to attend counter-terrorism workshops is medically unethical. BJPsych Bull, pp.pb-bp. Thomas, P., 2009. Between two stools? The government's ‘preventing violent extremism’agenda. The Political Quarterly, 80(2), pp.282-291. Thomas, P., 2010. Failed and friendless: the UK's ‘Preventing Violent Extremism’programme. The British Journal of Politics & International Relations, 12(3), pp.442-458. Vertigans, S., 2010. British Muslims and the UK government's ‘war on terror’within: evidence of a clash of civilizations or emergent de‐civilizing processes?. The British journal of sociology, 61(1), pp.26-44. Read More