Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here’s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Why say and commit funding to 'deradicalisation' but not deliver on the promise?

By Kendall Galbraith - posted Friday, 24 March 2017


Australia’s preferences for hard counter terrorism measures over soft is in striking contrast to the political rhetoric and funding committed in recent years. The introduction of anti-terrorism laws indicate that Australia is in pursuit of quick counter terrorism solutions, leaving the underlying problems unresolved, namely implementing ‘deradicalisation’ programs in our penal systems.

International attacks claimed by Islamic State have substantially increased public social fears of Islamic extremism and home-grown terrorism, making all efforts to deter the extremist threat a political and social priority. And yet, a national or even state rehabilitation program that specifically targets this problem in our custody has not previously been, nor currently is, operational.

The discussions date back to 2010 with the White Paper “Securing Australia, Protecting Community’, and the establishment of the Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) Unit in the Attorney Generals Department, where they sought to invest $9.7million to initiativesand programs designed to target extremism. It was identified and included in this strategy that supporting rehabilitation and ‘deradicalisation’ programs in our Correctional Services was a key element to reducing the Australian extremist threat.

Advertisement

Further and significant funding was later announced in August 2014 for a counter terrorism (CT) package worth $630million and within that, $13.4million was allocated to a CVE strategy that focused on programs and initiatives to tackle ‘resilience’ and ‘radicalisation’, specifically - ‘deradicalisation’ programs.

The Minister for Justice, Michael Keenan, followed on from this at the renowned Malaysian International Conference on “Deradicalisation and Countering Violent Extremism” (January 2016) and said: 

Prisons are another priority area for the Australian Government. Australia has a small but increasing number of prisoners showing signs of radicalisation. Recognising this, the government has funded a number of programmes in Australian prisons to address the problem.

Then why are ‘deradicalisation programs’ still not evident, when the actions, words and more importantly, the million-dollar funding commitments from the Australian Government for the past seven years maintain that prison radicalisation is a serious threat that needs to be tackled and that they will, indeed, address it?

‘Deradicalisation programs’ attempt to disengage or redirect convicted terrorists of their militant and sectarian views of Islamic violent extremism. They aim to mitigate the potential threat whilst terrorists are detained, and when due to be released back into society.

Deradicalisation is broadly considered to be a tool that supports counter terrorism strategies, however the methodology lacks support globally, and subsequently generates mostly haphazard approaches. This is largely a result of ‘deradicalisation programs’ not receiving sustained efforts to measure their impact, but more importantly it is because the concept of ‘deradicalisation’ lacks genuine belief and therefore stagnates its development.

Advertisement

For instance, Professor Boaz Ganor from the International Policy for Counter Terrorism said:

I don’t believe in deradicalisation in general terms because once those people have been radicalised, it is practically impossible to uproot those ideas in their heads.

If it is cognitively assumed that a person can go from A to B, why is it not plausible that a person has the potential to reverse their thinking, or alternatively ‘disengage’ from the violence; the latter is arguably considered, to be more of a viable option in academic circles. Both options are worth pursuing, and regardless of the probability of success, a defeatist perspective towards ‘deradicalisation’ is irresponsible considering the current growing problem.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

13 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Kendall Galbraith is a research analyst and writer for the Global Issues Practice Centre at Edith Cowan University who primarily focuses on countering violent extremism and terrorism. Kendall worked under counter terrorism expert Dr Anne Aly who is now an Australian MP. Kendall has an undergraduate degree in International Relations from Curtin University and is currently doing her masters in Counter Terrorism and Security Studies at Charles Sturt University.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Kendall Galbraith

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Kendall Galbraith
Article Tools
Comment 13 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy