Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Rhiannon on August 07, 2017, 08:17:40 AM
-
Difficult to see how this doesn't focus on particular communities.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40845911
-
Something drastic need to be done to stop people becoming radicalised and becoming a potential danger.
-
Effective rather than drastic. The question is, does Prevent fit the bill?
-
Something drastic need to be done to stop people becoming radicalised and becoming a potential danger.
like what? And why does it need to be 'drastic'?
-
Difficult to see how this doesn't focus on particular communities.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40845911
difficult to see how it can avoid it.
-
difficult to see how it can avoid it.
Yes I agree. Is there a reluctance on the part of some communities to admit there's a problem? Or is it wrong to target a certain element of society?
-
like what? And why does it need to be 'drastic'?
So are you suggesting nothing is done?
I am hoping someone can come up with a strategy, which is very effective as far too many young people are being radicalised.
There also needs to be a crackdown on religious schools, which proselytise, as it can be extremely harmful imo.
-
So are you suggesting nothing is done?
I am hoping someone can come up with a strategy, which is very effective as far too many young people are being radicalised.
There also needs to be a crackdown on religious schools, which proselytise, as it can be extremely harmful imo.
No, I'm suggesting that stating that whatever it is must be 'drastic' 8s sloganising to make you feel good. As Rhiannon pointed out, it should be effective first and foremost. That might well be a number of snakk adjustments, who knows.
Don't all religious schools proselytise?
-
No, I'm suggesting that stating that whatever it is must be 'drastic' 8s sloganising to make you feel good. As Rhiannon pointed out, it should be effective first and foremost. That might well be a number of snakk adjustments, who knows.
Don't all religious schools proselytise?
. . . but which religious schools proselytise for a religion that has sects that are proselytising militant vilolence and murder?
-
Yes I agree. Is there a reluctance on the part of some communities to admit there's a problem? Or is it wrong to target a certain element of society?
I think that there must be many in the Muslim community who fear that a badly carried out strategy will increase radicalisation. I don't think you can avoid it being about the relationship with the Muslim community but done badly, it's not going to help.
-
. . . but which religious schools proselytise for a religion that has sects that are proselytising militant vilolence and murder?
all of them.
-
No, I'm suggesting that stating that whatever it is must be 'drastic' 8s sloganising to make you feel good. As Rhiannon pointed out, it should be effective first and foremost. That might well be a number of snakk adjustments, who knows.
Don't all religious schools proselytise?
Not all of them force religion down the throats of kids. The church school nearest us is very moderate in its teaching.
-
Not all of them force religion down the throats of kids. The church school nearest us is very moderate in its teaching.
But proselytizing isn't a question of what you regard as moderate. It's about spreading their beliefs.
-
There's some info here.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-40060325
In some areas the majority of referrals are for those showing far right tendencies.
-
I think that while Prevent has some success stories in some communities, it inevitably results in feelings of alienation and anger when people are wrongly referred to Prevent due to the understandable ignorance of the people referring them.
The weakness of Prevent is that a few hours or weeks of training is not always going to enable a teacher or GP to recognise extremism as opposed to cultural behaviour that they do not understand and feel uneasy about, and once they have reported a child or a person rather than casually asking for more information and trying to gain more understanding, the victim of their over-zealous reporting will feel alienated. Children especially have reported being traumatised when the police get involved as they fear they are about to be taken away and parents will feel frustrated and unsupported that they are left to pick up the pieces after the police get involved over a misunderstanding.
My personal experience (outside of a few on this forum) is that people are fairly tolerant of differences, and do not have a problem with the expression of religious values or religious indoctrination of children. We went to Italy last month and my husband said his prayers unobtrusively in a kosher restaurant in the Jewish quarter as well as on the Al Italia plane as it was about to take off - you can pray seated and just bend forward in your seat if there is no opportunity to pray properly with all the accompanying prostrations. He was also chatting on the phone to a Muslim client while on the plane before it took off and his conversation is usually liberally sprinkled with Arabic terms when talking to other Muslims but no one showed any signs of being bothered. But there have been reports of over-zealous reporting to police on planes or in schools in certain parts of Britain, which undermines what Prevent is trying to achieve if Muslims cultural behaviour is policed more heavily than other communities e.g. advocating and supporting establishing a Jewish state as a religious duty based on violently discriminating against and stealing land from non-Jews does not get the same reaction as supporting the non-violent establishment of a Muslim state (Khilafah) that discriminates against non-Muslims.
The government also seems to regard Muslims who prohibit participating in music and dancing as being signs of extremism rather than conservatism. Which means they will alienate a certain proportion of Muslims who are conservative but not a terrorist threat and who might have helped them combat terrorism.
But not sure what the solution is. I think certain ideas need to be be able to be openly expressed in order for them to be challenged rather than the beliefs being criminalised and not allowed to be expressed. If I hear the view being expressed that 9/11 was a Jewish conspiracy orchestrated by Israel and the CIA, I challenge it as much as I challenge the belief that your average Muslim community in Britain is secretly plotting to impose Islam on Britain.
That is not to say that members of some Muslim communities do not have form for plotting violence or that certain members of Israeli government have not had form for terrorist activity or conspiracies e.g. the well-known 1954 Lavon Affair where attacks were made on British and American institutions in Egypt by Egyptian Jews on behalf of Israel and it was made to appear as if the attacks were carried out by Egyptian Arabs to damage relations between Egypt and the US and UK.
-
The immediacy of 'form' is relevant.
-
True.
Mossad/the IDF/ Israeli government officials have recent form e.g. for supporting the formation of Hamas to counter the PA, for assassinations and for ignoring the rule of law. There is still an illegal occupation and settlement building, with arbitrary arrests, road blocks that prevent access to hospital treatment and schools and violent raids to provoke Palestinian violence to justify repression.
Both sides have form for flouting international law and engaging in acts of provocation that get a reaction that can be used as propaganda for their political agenda as well as to justify fund raising for further military spending and acts of violence.
-
And propinquity is also relevant to Prevent. What Mossad does is essentially irrelevant unless you are suggesting they are behind radicalization in the UK leading to terror attacks currently?
-
Gabriella, the reporting of innocent activity by Muslims that you recount is very similar to the reporting of pagans to the authorities on the basis that some associate witchcraft and paganism with Satanism and child abuse. All bullshit of course but ignorance breeds fear.
-
And propinquity is also relevant to Prevent. What Mossad does is essentially irrelevant unless you are suggesting they are behind radicalization in the UK leading to terror attacks currently?
Not that I am aware of.
The point I am trying to make is that Prevent is looking at policing beliefs, not just violent acts or terrorism in the UK. Muslims will feel unfairly targeted if Prevent identifies beliefs such as support for the establishment of a Khilafah abroad as extremism, but non-Muslims who hold beliefs such as support for establishing a Jewish state abroad through violence or support for the overthrow of the British monarchy or support for a communist state in the UK or support for doing away with democracy is not extremism.
It becomes especially divisive if Prevent training results in teachers calling the police over things young children are saying at school. You can imagine that the parents are going to be defensive, feel alienated and this will influence those around them. One of the main criticisms of Prevent seems to be lack of transparency about how teachers and GPs are being trained to differentiate extremism from cultural differences or conservatism.
-
Not that I am aware of.
The point I am trying to make is that Prevent is looking at policing beliefs, not just violent acts or terrorism in the UK. Muslims will feel unfairly targeted if Prevent identifies beliefs such as support for the establishment of a Khilafah abroad as extremism, but non-Muslims who hold beliefs such as support for establishing a Jewish state abroad through violence or support for the overthrow of the British monarchy or support for a communist state in the UK or support for doing away with democracy is not extremism.
It becomes especially divisive if Prevent training results in teachers calling the police over things young children are saying at school. You can imagine that the parents are going to be defensive, feel alienated and this will influence those around them. One of the main criticisms of Prevent seems to be lack of transparency about how teachers and GPs are being trained to differentiate extremism from cultural differences or conservatism.
No, it is openly about terrorism to UK, either here or UK citizens abroad. Note I didn't say Muslims, we were talking about Jewish threats of which there don't seem to be any to the UK currently.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/97976/prevent-strategy-review.pdf
-
Of course we still have other home grown terrorism
http://www.irishnews.com/news/2017/07/10/news/nihe-rehouses-286-individuals-and-families-due-to-paramilitary-intimidation-1079881/?param=ds12rif76F
-
No, it is openly about terrorism to UK, either here or UK citizens abroad. Note I didn't say Muslims, we were talking about Jewish threats of which there don't seem to be any to the UK currently.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/97976/prevent-strategy-review.pdf
From your link - 3.10 says:
We remain absolutely committed to protecting freedom of speech in this country. But preventing
terrorism will mean challenging extremist (and non-violent) ideas that are also part of a terrorist
ideology. Prevent will also mean intervening to stop people moving from extremist groups or from
extremism into terrorist-related activity.
As I said, one of the criticisms of Prevent is that there is little transparency on how people are trained to determine what is and isn't an extremist non-violent idea that requires a referral and police intervention. What also appears to be a concern is that Muslims holding a non-violent idea or belief that a terrorist organisation might also hold will result in a referral to Prevent and a police intervention if someone in authority, such as a teacher, deems the idea to be extreme. IMO a better approach would be to challenge the non-violent idea and allow debate, which does happen in some schools and not in others based on media reports.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/feb/03/prevent-strategy-sowing-mistrust-fear-muslim-communities
http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/home-affairs-committee/countering-extremism/written/27920.pdf
-
From your link - 3.10 says:
We remain absolutely committed to protecting freedom of speech in this country. But preventing
terrorism will mean challenging extremist (and non-violent) ideas that are also part of a terrorist
ideology. Prevent will also mean intervening to stop people moving from extremist groups or from
extremism into terrorist-related activity.
As I said, one of the criticisms of Prevent is that there is little transparency on how people are trained to determine what is and isn't an extremist non-violent idea that requires a referral and police intervention. What also appears to be a concern is that Muslims holding a non-violent idea or belief that a terrorist organisation might also hold will result in a referral to Prevent and a police intervention if someone in authority, such as a teacher, deems the idea to be extreme. IMO a better approach would be to challenge the non-violent idea and allow debate, which does happen in some schools and not in others based on media reports.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/feb/03/prevent-strategy-sowing-mistrust-fear-muslim-communities
http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/home-affairs-committee/countering-extremism/written/27920.pdf
Not really sure what the point is that you are making here. Surely the issue about transparency isn't specific to Muslims? Given the numbers covered in Rhiannon's link earlier, those areas where the largest identified reports are about right wing extremism that also applies.
Oh and can I just check that we have moved in from the idea that we are going to have much reporting about Jewish terrorism against the UK?
Just to be clear, I am not a big fan of Prevent but any 'strategy' that is concentrating on current radicalization will be focussed to some extent on Islamic extremism, as the link makes clear that Prevent does, for the obvious reason that in UK terms that's currently the largest issue.
-
Not really sure what the point is that you are making here. Surely the issue about transparency isn't specific to Muslims? Given the numbers covered in Rhiannon's link earlier, those areas where the largest identified reports are about right wing extremism that also applies.
I've explained my point a few times now. Not sure how to explain it any differently I'm afraid.
The point I make about transparency does not need to be specific to Muslims. It is a criticism raised by some Muslims based on their experience of Prevent of over-zealous reporting based on misunderstanding of cultural differences, but it could equally apply to anyone else who has not engaged in violence but who has been referred under Prevent as being an extremist for holding non-violent ideas.
Oh and can I just check that we have moved in from the idea that we are going to have much reporting about Jewish terrorism against the UK?
I'm not sure - was your problem that you misunderstood a point I was making or did you actually think there is much reporting about Jewish terrorism in the UK? If so have you moved on from that idea?
Just to be clear, I am not a big fan of Prevent but any 'strategy' that is concentrating on current radicalization will be focussed to some extent on Islamic extremism, as the link makes clear that Prevent does, for the obvious reason that in UK terms that's currently the largest issue.
The community that Prevent is focusing on is not the issue IMO.
The issue is whether Prevent is identifying vulnerable people at risk of radicalizing and intervening to prevent radicalisation, or if a lack of sufficient training about cultural differences is resulting in over-zealous referrals made under Prevent causing a "them and us" mentality in some communities that undermines the government's objectives of creating a cohesive, integrated community with shared values to prevent alienation leading to radicalisation.
-
I think you are arguing against a strawman. I didn't bring up Jewish terrorism, you did and I was pointing out that in terns of what Prevent is aiming to deal with, it's not currently relevant. It seems to me that indulging in that sort of whataboutery is simply a distraction to any of your other points.
Part of the problem with Prevent is that in creating a duty to report, it won't matter what training will have been given, some of those reporting will be inclined to better safe than sorry. You aren't going to create in any feasible way a horde of cultural experts, and some mistakes will be inevitable. I don't see that making it more transparent is going to address that.
-
I think you are arguing against a strawman. I didn't bring up Jewish terrorism, you did and I was pointing out that in terns of what Prevent is aiming to deal with, it's not currently relevant. It seems to me that indulging in that sort of whataboutery is simply a distraction to any of your other points.
I brought up Zionist terrorism in relation to my point that some groups have form for conspiring to blame others for acts of terrorism they themselves have committed and are therefore viewed suspiciously, but I did not state Jewish terrorism was being addressed by Prevent - that was your idea, which it seems you have moved on from.
Part of the problem with Prevent is that in creating a duty to report, it won't matter what training will have been given, some of those reporting will be inclined to better safe than sorry. You aren't going to create in any feasible way a horde of cultural experts, and some mistakes will be inevitable. I don't see that making it more transparent is going to address that.
Is there something wrong with transparency? It means mistakes in training can be addressed and corrected before bad trainng is rolled out to too many people.
I think it does matter what training has been given and the hours of training that has been given. Alternatively the government can give a few cursory hours of training as part of their Prevent strategy and accept the risk that when they get it wrong, the people dealing with the aftermath of unfounded suspicion, including upset children and upset parents and their friends and family, will have a dim view of people in authority and put up barriers to information-sharing, as information-sharing is what resulted in over-zealous reporting.
If Prevent is working and catching more people vulnerable to radicalisation than it is alienating people who were mistakenly reported, and therefore communities are becoming safer from Islamic radicalisation and terrorist activity through the use of Prevent, the strategy must be working. Any idea how they are measuring these metrics to assess if the strategy is working?
-
I brought up Zionist terrorism in relation to my point that some groups have form for conspiring to blame others for acts of terrorism they themselves have committed and are therefore viewed suspiciously, but I did not state Jewish terrorism was being addressed by Prevent - that was your idea, which it seems you have moved on from.
Is there something wrong with transparency? It means mistakes in training can be addressed and corrected before bad trainng is rolled out to too many people.
I think it does matter what training has been given and the hours of training that has been given. Alternatively the government can give a few cursory hours of training as part of their Prevent strategy and accept the risk that when they get it wrong, the people dealing with the aftermath of unfounded suspicion, including upset children and upset parents and their friends and family, will have a dim view of people in authority and put up barriers to information-sharing, as information-sharing is what resulted in over-zealous reporting.
If Prevent is working and catching more people vulnerable to radicalisation than it is alienating people who were mistakenly reported, and therefore communities are becoming safer from Islamic radicalisation and terrorist activity through the use of Prevent, the strategy must be working. Any idea how they are measuring these metrics to assess if the strategy is working?
Apologies, I was reading your conspiracy theory that Islamic terrorism was actually a Jewish conspiracy as something you thought Prevent might puck up. Which Islamic terrorist attacks do you think were planned by Mossad?
Again however, you seem to mistake me for someone arguing that Prevent is a good strategy. We are disagreeing on whether transparency is the main issue. I see it as effectively being the duty to relief which increases the likelihood of the false positives, and that you ignore the feasibility of training in this scale seems odd. As to the collection of metrics, I think we have to be careful here both of those you suggest are soft figures, subject to interpretation. There is myth that everything is metrics in a scientific sense. Alienatiinis asubjective statement. As indeed is any judgement of radicalization.
To be honest, I think Prevent is a great example of we must do something, this is something, we must do this thinking. It reads lime a strategy rather than allowing a more flexible approach. Also I doubt there is a way to avoid some forms of clash between govt trying to DL something here and communities. Some of it has to be trial and error.
-
Apologies, I was reading your conspiracy theory that Islamic terrorism was actually a Jewish conspiracy as something you thought Prevent might puck up.
No problem. Which Islamic terrorist attacks do you think were planned by Mossad?
Interesting you think that - do you have any evidence to support your idea that Mossad planned terrorist attacks by Muslims? I have not looked into it myself but no doubt various journalists have and if you have read any investigations on Mossad involvement in arms or technology sales to Muslim groups that have links with terrorism, please post what you came up with.
I am aware that someone working as part of the Israeli diplomatic team in the UK recently resigned and returned to Israel after being recorded as saying he wanted to "take down" pro-Palestinian British MPs and unduly interfere in the UK democratic process, and that certain political figures have called for a full inquiry into the influence of pro-Israel lobby groups on UK politics.
The points I made are that I challenge people who claim 9/11 was a Jewish/CIA conspiracy, and I brought this up because this 9/11 claim is viewed as a sign of extremism by some people, and that while I can understand that people may view certain Zionist/ Mossad or even CIA activity with suspicion based on past form for conspiracies, there is no evidence to support the 9/11 conspiracy theories about Jewish people staying home from work or Mossad or the CIA being involved.
Again however, you seem to mistake me for someone arguing that Prevent is a good strategy.
No I had not formed that opinion about your view - I thought we were merely discussing Prevent and I was picking up on points you had made and expanding on points that I had made. No strategy is perfect so I favour trying to make an assessment on whether the strategy is working more often than it is not working.
We are disagreeing on whether transparency is the main issue.
I don't know if it is the main issue. I see it as one issue that might stop Prevent from achieving its objectives - I stated lack of transparency was one criticism.
I see it as effectively being the duty to relief which increases the likelihood of the false positives, and that you ignore the feasibility of training in this scale seems odd.
I am trying to assess whether the number of false positives is exaggerated and is damaging the objectives and whether more training or a process to share concerns with more culturally aware people before referral to the police to reduce false positives is the way to go.
As to the collection of metrics, I think we have to be careful here both of those you suggest are soft figures, subject to interpretation. There is myth that everything is metrics in a scientific sense. Alienatiinis asubjective statement. As indeed is any judgement of radicalization.
Yes and a criticism seems to be that if Prevent is seeking tocombat alienation that leads to radicalisation then people in authority need to be more careful about how they reach subjective judgements that someone is displaying signs of radicalisation or extremism as opposed to just being culturally different and conservative.
To be honest, I think Prevent is a great example of we must do something, this is something, we must do this thinking. It reads lime a strategy rather than allowing a more flexible approach. Also I doubt there is a way to avoid some forms of clash between govt trying to DL something here and communities. Some of it has to be trial and error.
Yes I agree on a trial and error approach - this approach usually involves review and feedback. It seems difficult to judge the impartiality of the review and feedback process and if the process is working.
-
Then I think we are pretty much in agreement. My worry about the mandatory nature of reporting is that I think it is more likely to cause the disjunct between what you have noted you experience in daily life with people mainly being tolerant and what is at least the perception here.
I still think that identifying isn't as easy as it might appear, but again if the commitment was to transparency there and the difficulties in such data being anything more than indicative then it could work. I fear that in some ways the govt thinks that being that open is in some way not 'tough enough' on terrorism.