|
|
|
Sort Order |
|
|
|
Items / Page
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
168896
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article looks specifically at the front end of the radicalization problem and argues that vulnerability to political violence is first and foremost a social problem. The article explores the historical counterradicalization approach in Britain and the government/community relationship, and argues that addressing the disaffection that comes with social vulnerability is the key to building resilience to radicalization. Last, the article profiles a holistic counterradicalization response undertaken by Quintessential Insight and the Barking Mosque whereby social vulnerability is reduced, individuals and communities are empowered, social and political agency is maximized, social contracts are restored, and resilience to radicalization is increased.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
160518
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Since 2005, Britain has utilized a handful of interventionists to engage with those at risk of violent extremism and those convicted of terrorism related charges in order to manage its risk of terrorism. The goal of the interventionists is to “deradicalize” those that they interact with to facilitate their reintegration in society. This article discusses the mentoring environment in the United Kingdom, how intervention providers establish their credibility with individuals, communities, and government, some of the structural safeguards and their impact on mentoring, how success is conceived, and the absence of reporting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
156620
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The role of communities in preventing or responding to terrorism and political violence is increasingly finding prominence within government strategies, nationally and internationally. At the same time, implementation of effective community-based partnerships has been nominal. Adding additional complexity to this problem are policies such as Prevent in Britain, which was arguably developed with good intentions but has received significant and sustained criticism by the very communities it sought to engage with. The result has been ongoing discussions within community practice and research arenas associated with radicalization, extremism, and terrorism, as to the role, if any, that communities might play in the counterterrorism environment. This article explores that environment and highlights some of the community-based perceptions and initiatives that prevail in the United Kingdom. In particular, innovations around the development of psychotherapeutic frameworks of understanding in relation to counterterrorism are discussed, alongside the role of connectors.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|