The journey to jihadism and how society can attempt to counter it
|
Version 0 of 1. If ever the law of unintended consequences needed heeding it is in relation to the prevention of radicalisation of students in universities and colleges (Coalition split over proposed campus ban on hate preachers, 2 March). Coalition dissension pivots around the statutory Prevent guidance shortly to be issued under the Counterterrorism and Security Act. In the House of Lords, Lord Bates conceded that compulsory pre-censorship of what visiting speakers to campuses intended to say would be dropped from the final guidance. It must not now come back in another guise. Universities are powerful engines of deradicalisation because they expose their students to rigour, challenge and truth It is not a choice, as Grant Shapps told Sky News, between respecting free speech but banning “preaching death”. The latter is already a crime, reinforced by six other anti-terrorist enactments in the last 14 years (many hardly implemented, by the way). Theresa May warns that “we are not talking about regulating legitimate debate” but only doing more to “stop radicalisation on campus”. But the hard reality is that it is delusive to think there is a certain way of entirely achieving that. Indeed, new and more forceful laws can be counter-productive. Overwhelmingly, universities are powerful engines of deradicalisation precisely because they expose their students to rigour, challenge and truth within a culture of tolerance and freedom. We meddle with that at our peril.Andrew PhillipsHouse of Lords, Liberal Democrat • It is something when a Guardian comment writer can produce a piece dismissing Magna Carta as “retro-libertarianism” and in which the only reference to the erosion of fundamental human rights and civil liberties comes from a quote from Cameron and Clegg (Don’t blame the intelligence agencies for jihadism, 2 March). For a liberal newspaper to gloss over the important distinction between “terrorists” and “terror suspects” surely means that the terrorists (the real ones, that is, as distinct from the innocent people whose lives have been wrecked by Matthew d’Ancona’s beloved “intelligence” agencies) have already won.Jim GrozierBrighton, East Sussex • Since Mohammed Emwazi was publicly identified stories about him have filled this paper and others. The constant focus on one man, the pocket biographies, the photos splashed across the front pages, all inadvertently elevate him to celebrity status. Any wavering youth considering passage to Syria will see that they, too, might become the most talked-about man or woman in Britain, at least until the next MP scandal. It is undoubtedly important for the public to be informed about the flow of volunteers from this country and others to fight for Isis: their numbers, their rationales, and their fates once they reach their destination. But surely this can be accomplished without a hagiography of the infamous.Alexander Sayer Gard-MurrayOxford • Never was a word so misused as the application of the term “radicalisation” to the mental abduction of young people by doctrinaire and violent adherents of Islam. A radical – the term derives from the Latin radix, meaning root – is rarely, if ever, a conventional adherent of a faith but a questioner who looks beyond the superficial to seek out the origins of things. True radicals do not bow down to ideologies but worship at the altar of the question mark and are thus often condemned as heretics or apostates. The so-called radical Islamist of today is a million miles removed from the great (but reviled in their day) radicals of the past such as Galileo Galilei, Mary Wollstonecraft or Ludwig Feuerbach, to name just a few who were in due course vindicated by history. There is a world of difference between the genuine free thinker who throws off the restrictions of convention and the gullible and mindless prisoner captured by a sect or a cult. Just as the infringement of civil liberties in pursuit of “the war on terror” has been queried, so too should be the unquestioned and slightly sinister use of the term radicalisation in the same context. Roger BibbingsMalvern, Worcestershire • You report that Theresa May has urged media outlets to demonstrate restraint in their reports on extremists such as Mohammed Emwazi (Report, 3 March). My initial thought was “I will if you will”, as for too long those in government have preached one thing but then done something entirely different themselves when it suits them. But that was simply a kneejerk reaction. On reflection the only proper response is an emphatic “no”. Why should any of us (whether those who write the truth, or those who hope to receive it via your pages) exercise restraint, and what is that even meant to mean? I do not exercise restraint in condemning murderers in any other aspect of life and nor should anyone else. Promoting our entirely correct values in that respect does not and cannot radicalise the peaceful. The fact is that, for whatever reason, Emwazi has it within his persona the wherewithal to murder the innocent. That is something one possesses or it is not. But that should not cause any of us, least of all the free press, to shy away from condemning that. If Theresa May thinks differently she should look for a different portfolio. James CouserLondon • Can I be the only parent of a mildly autistic-spectrum young man who felt a frisson of recognition when reading about the defining characteristics of some young men lured by Isis, including Mohammed Emwazi (Isis lures ‘Jihadi John’ and all those who crave certainty, 28 February)? A craving for certainty, an inclination towards “techie” occupations such as engineering or computer science, difficulty in dealing with intense emotions, an over-developed persecution complex, and a lack of empathy for the feelings and perspectives of others – all of these we saw in our son, particularly in his teenage years and young 20s. Thankfully, with the right diagnosis (eventually), therapy for an associated auditory problem and a great deal of structured encouragement and support from family, friends and college, said son has emerged as a well-functioning adult with a job, a happy marriage, and some harmless, although somewhat nerdily obsessive, hobbies, with no inclination towards violence of any kind. I do not suggest that Emwazi and his ilk are not responsible for their own horrible actions because they may be undiagnosed as on the autistic spectrum. Nor am I suggesting that people with autism are more inclined towards violence and mayhem than “normal” people. But in my experience they are, particularly in adolescence, very vulnerable to influence by people who prey on their sense of grievance and not-belonging to encourage them to believe and do things that will make them feel empowered, often things that are criminal orantisocial. Autism experts such as Simon Baron-Cohen now suggest that 10% of the male population may be somewhere on the autistic spectrum, a prevalence that suggests that autism is a “normal” way of being and seeing, which should be recognised by schools, health professionals and families, and support and learning techniques adopted accordingly. This would not prevent radicalisation, terrorism and violent crime, but my hunch is it would go a long way in reducing the quantities of vulnerable young people attracted to them.Name and address withheld • Having heard details of this man’s history from his teachers on the Today programme, I am 99% certain he has undiagnosed autism.Dr AA KhakooCommunity paediatrician, Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS |