If David Cameron wants to tackle radicalisation, he should address inequality
|
Version 0 of 1. In his speech in Birmingham on Monday, David Cameron focused yet again on the contentious idea that the main cause of young people’s involvement in terrorism is exposure to extremist ideology (Cameron offers parents way to stop young fleeing to join Isis, 21 July). Academic research shows that a primary focus on ideology is unhelpful and is an uncertain indicator of how people may be drawn into terrorism. Nevertheless the government’s Prevent strategy requires teachers to spot signs of radicalisation that include “a desire for political and moral change”, “feelings of grievance and injustice” and “a need for identity, meaning and belonging”. Prevent casts particular suspicion on Muslim children who haven’t broken the law, when there is no reasonable suspicion that they will be involved in terrorism. This is leading to increased anti-Muslim racism and Islamophobia. Young people with radical opinions, or who take part in protests like the Occupy movement, are also coming under increasing scrutiny. The government’s anti-extremism strategy is likely to undermine trust and alienate pupils and families, and be ineffective and counterproductive. We believe it is essential that schools remain safe, welcoming and inclusive spaces where all children feel a sense of belonging, whatever their background. There are positive alternatives to the government’s narrow, stigmatising approach. These involve widening space in the school curriculum for learning about citizenship, democracy, rights, justice and fairness, and developing children’s skills for critical thinking, argument and participation. Such alternatives are based on education, not surveillance.Dr Laura Zahra McDonald ConnectJusticeZubeda Limbada ConnectJustice Professor Lynn Davies ConnectJusticeCanon Dr Giles FraserDavid Lundie Liverpool Hope UniversityDr Shamim Miah senior lecturer, University of HuddersfieldRemi Salisbury University of LeedsDr Jenny Taylor Lapido MediaSarah Soyei EqualiteachKate Hollinsgead EqualiteachKenny Frederick Former headteacher and education consultantRobin Richardson Insted consultancyBill Bolloten education consultantTait Coles Dixons City Academy, BradfordMalia Bouattia NUS black students’ officerSandra Beeton Executive director, Association of Panel MembersKieran Dhunna Halliwell Teacher and writerLucy Sweetman Freelance writer, consultant and youth workerDarren Chetty Doctoral researcher, UCL Institute of EducationIlona Aronovsky Education consultantNick Anderson WriterDiane Leedham Literacy and EAL consultantSarah Harris Retired headteacherAnne Booth Children’s writer • David Cameron’s proposals that radicalisation can be tackled by encouraging an adoption of British values (View from Birmingham, 21 July) completely miss the point about the true reasons for radicalisation, and are likely to lead to greater levels of disaffection. Britain is not the only country where radicalisation is seen as a problem, and while local circumstances may vary, the common underlying factor is inequality; inequality within countries and across nations. Decades of unquestioning adherence to neoliberal economic policies have seen the gap between rich and poor growing ever wider, but now the easy dissemination of information across the internet means that awareness of the gap is growing. So is it any wonder that young people around the world, increasingly aware of the odds that are stacked against them, take actions that they hope will give them a sense of identity? For some this may be religious fundamentalism, for others it may be to seek to migrate to richer European countries, but to think that these linked trends can be stifled by telling people to follow good old British principles of fair play is plainly ridiculous. Until prevailing economic orthodoxies change, and the world starts moving towards a more equitable distribution of resources, our current crises of radicalisation and mass migration to western Europe are likely to grow ever stronger.Bryan HopkinsSheffield • David Cameron says he wants to tackle segregation between schools (Four steps to thwart creation of ‘a barbaric realm’, 21 July). If he’s serious, his party will stop toying with expanding selective systems that divide children up according to race and social background at age 11. In my richly diverse town of High Wycombe, in one school 4% of children in this year’s intake were of Pakistani heritage. In a school less than a mile away the equivalent figure was 65%. The difference between these schools? The first is a grammar school, the second a secondary modern. Year after year, we see how the 11-plus institutionalises segregation in our town, reducing opportunities for children from different backgrounds to learn together. Separate and unequal. Sadly, we suspect that the government’s interest in promoting integration stops well short of one measure that would certainly help to achieve this – abolishing all selection at age 11.Rebecca HickmanComprehensive Future • During his speech on counter-extremism David Cameron said “there is a danger in some of our communities that you can go your whole life and have little to do with other religions and communities.” I agree. But I wonder whether he would acknowledge that faith schools, which segregate children by religion, contribute to this.John BoalerCalne, Wiltshire • Would Cameron agree that his comments about people who go their whole life having little to do with people from other faiths and backgrounds is highly relevant as regards the educational and faith background of a large proportion of our legislators in both the Commons and the Lords?Paul TattamChinley, Derbyshire • The prime minister’s speech is more notable for what it does not say than for what it does. One would have thought that in seeking to analyse the causes of extremism he would have referred to the words of one of the few jihadi terrorists who lived to say why he took the action he did. Michael Adebolajo said, after murdering fusilier Lee Rigby, “The only reason we have killed this man today is because Muslims are dying daily by British soldiers”. As Seumas Milne has pointed out in your columns (Britain is up to its neck in US dirty wars and death squads, 5 December 2013), Mr Cameron presides over a government that is closely aligned with US forces that continue to regard the whole world as a battlefield in the war against terror. Almost every drone strike or operation by special forces involves civilian casualties and helps to recruit more extremists in the UK and elsewhere.Graham DaveyBristol • With some justification David Cameron trumpets British values as a strong weapon against any “barbaric realm”. Is it not possible that certain extremes of our own culture act to inflate reactions against the west? However unfairly, it is not impossible that the predominance of pornography in the sexual experience of the young, their mass involvement in alcohol abuse, teenage pregnancies and drugs, inordinate greed within society, intergenerational contempt, the degradation of women in the media, and the loneliness and isolation of the elderly may, unjustly, be characterised as the western hegemony in future cultural globalisation. Such an impression would make the temptation of unity against these more likely. Should we therefore look at what would appear to be our own doubtful offerings to more modest and traditional communities? Ian FlintoffOxford |