Before joining Civitas, I spent over thirty years teaching philosophy and religious studies at two London so-called ‘new' universities. One was an erstwhile polytechnic in north London; the other an amalgam of ex-teachers’ training colleges in south London whose students were very similar in background to those whom I taught in the inner-city campus across the river.
Over the decades, I noticed the changing demographic profile of my students, in particular, during the last decade of my teaching career, the vastly increased numbers of those of them who were clearly Muslim, be they British-born or immigrant. Over the years, I also taught very large numbers of young adult students of Afro-Caribbean extraction, many of whom remain notable in my memory for the apparent strength of their mistrust of the intentions of the host community towards them and their like, plus the strength of their simultaneous desperate wish to be accepted and get along with the host community-- an aspiration that I believe in the main has now been achieved.
On the strength of what I would claim, therefore, is a vast pool of relevant teaching-experience, since it often involved conducting seminars on ethical issues directly affecting the lives of my students -- try teaching Plato’s ‘Republic’ without being obliged to cover practically every current ethical issue affecting their lives, if you don’t believe me! -- I think I can say with some degree of authority that seldom have I come across a more promising-sounding proposed remedy for preventing the growth of religiously-inspired violent extremism in this country than the street-level project about which Camilla Cavendish writes in her comment piece in today’s Times.
Basically, and in a nutshell, tucked away inside a small office in the superficially unpromisingly named Al Badr Heath and Fitness Centre in the east London distinct of Leyton is a tiny independent voluntary organisation called the ‘Active Change Foundation’. It seems to have devised what sounds could well be a highly effective strategy to prevent young disaffected British-born Muslims being drawn into the web of violent extremism as so many of them of late have seemed to be.
The strategy involves getting to these younsgters – so as to implant into their heads some sensible and moderate ideas about what their religion is and demands -- before any extremist co-religionists of theirs can do so, and who, in the absence of the youngsters having been given the aforementioned ideological prophylactic, can all too easily persuade these youngsters that their religion sanctions, or worse still demands, violent action in retaliation for what the extremists seem also all too easily able to persuade the youngsters is a global war currently being waged by the West against their religion and its adherents.
This strategy of ideological pre-emption has been devised and is currently being implemented by the leader of the Active Change Foundation, Hanif Qadr. With a grant from a far-sighted local police force, he has managed to produce a short feature film called ‘Blood for Blood’ that portrays the process of radicalisation. It is currently being shown to local youngsters and discussed with them in the hope that to forewarn them is better to forearm them against attempts at their radicalisation.
As I say, based on my personal experience of teaching youngsters from similar backgrounds to those of many drawn to violent extremism today, I strongly agree with Camilla Cavendish that such an approach holds out far greater promise than many more costly schemes that currently enjoy the favour and therefore largesse of central government under its ‘Preventing Violent Extremism Together’ strategy, and of which all too many focus on local mosques and imams that have little relevance for the youngsters at risk of radicalisation.
As was reported a year ago by Fosis, the Federation of Islamic Societies in the UK and Eire, a survey of young British Muslims it conducted then found that most of the latter saw their clerics as ‘out of touch and irrelevant’. Fosis reported that:
‘Only 2 per cent of the respondents said the mosque was their main source of religious knowledge; 7 per cent cited the local imams. 20 per cent said they turned to their parents; but the vast majority cited books, pamphlets, Web sites, videos and informal study groups’
This is a hugely important finding assuming it representative of young Muslims in Britain. It suggests that an entirely different approach is needed to combat their radicalisation than any mosque based or university based approach. They need to be got to and spoken to by peers whom they can trust in a language they can understood using means of communication to which they can relate.
Given, as is reported, the process of turning disaffected young Muslim homeys into jihadis can take as little as two weeks, the question of how best to combat the process of their radicalisation is one about which there should be felt to be a great deal of urgency.
In the absence of any better suggestions, I believe there is a strong case for the government placing more much faith and resources in such street-based initiatives like that of the Active Change Foundation’s than all the other nostrums currently enjoying its favour, including those proposed in the recent Siddiqui Report.
Comments (2)
Anon is right about the need for uncompromising and confident defence of the traditions of liberty, tolerance, respect for the person and respect for the rule of law which have been so important in the history of this and other countries in various ways and about the need for much better understanding of why they are important, how they came about and how thay have been advanced and defended - at least I hope that is what s/he means. That said, David Conway is also right, at least in his general points. As well as stressing general principles it is vital to address the specific context in which people are actually placed. I have not seen the film either but its central message - that there is more than one way of analysing and changing the situation of young Muslims - is an urgently necessary one. Surely, anyway, the more that organisations, individuals and communities within civil society are making the running rather than the government and its client 'community leaders' the better, that is, if we want a society that is both more free and more responsible. Does 'Anon' really want to leave it to government to tell us what to think?
Posted by Charles Brickdale | August 4, 2007 12:28 AM
Posted on August 4, 2007 00:28
If it works, great - butI have my doubts. This seems like another cuddly, softly-softly approach designed to win the hearts and minds of a particular minority group. Experience suggests that the group in question interprets kindness as weakness, and clamours for ever more appeasement, er, I mean respect, from the host community. Do you really think a little film, Government-sponsored or otherwise, will make a blind bit of difference to the vast majority of those who have come here with the paradoxical ambition of using our freedoms to impose their culture upon us? My view is that the types of initiative you describe are - unfortunately - massively ineffectual. A robust and sustained defence of the UK cultural and democratic traditions, applied equally to all inhabitants of our land, would go much further to attaining the social cohesion that we all desire, since it would provide much needed clarity over what we, as a nation, find acceptable and unacceptable. Humans need clarity, purpose and consistent guidelines - otherwise anarchy follows. A sweet little film suggesting that maybe extremist violence is not such a nice thing to do (I assume - but admit that I haven't seen the film) is unlikely to provide the necessary unequivocal guidance.
Posted by anon | July 13, 2007 11:43 AM
Posted on July 13, 2007 11:43