“A defence of the concept of “extremist” as presenting a precursor to a terrorist is justified in her particularly catchy soundbite: not all extremists are terrorists but “all terrorists are extremists”. This quip attempts to circumvent the establishing academic consensus which postulates that focus on ideology is misplaced. Compounding this is the politically subjective terminology of the designation “terrorist”. Would Nelson Mandela, whose statue stands in Parliament Square, be considered an extremist? Would American revolutionaries whom violently opposed the British monarchy – and therefore considered terrorists today – spurred on by Enlightenment ideas, also be considered extremists given the “values” they subscribed too were philosophically similar to those espoused by Casey as “British values? Or are only those beliefs not dominated and distorted by liberalism to be cast as extremist? Quite simply, there is absolutely nothing remotely objective about PREVENT or its construction of “extremism”.”
Part 1 (Introduction): A Review of the Casey review (1)
The ideological slant of the Casey Review is manifest in its discourse on PREVENT. In this part, the interlinking between social cohesion, extremism and terrorism will be analysed, along with the Review’s determined agenda to manage the negative perceptions of the crisis-stricken PREVENT policy.
Conveyor Belt theory in all but Name
The Casey Review extends the notion of controlling ideas (a topic thoroughly explored in the next part) from potential threats to the state to whole communities which are “not integrated”, by leveraging PREVENT-based “British values” from the Counter Extremism Strategy:
View original post 1,963 more words