Academic claims current definition of extremism includes his “Spectator reading step-mother” and may increase rather than reduce the likelihood of terrorism.

New research presented at this Wednesday's Westminster Faith Debate suggests that the Government’s attempts to narrow the focus of the Prevent strategy have not gone far enough. Mark Sedgwick argues that targeting radical or “intolerant” beliefs casts the net too wide, and risks making violence more rather than less likely.  What is needed is a narrower focus on known signals such as recruitment activities by known terrorist groups, preparation of terrorist acts, travel to conflict zones and a history of violent behaviour.

Citing the current Prevent 2 definition of extremism as including "vocal or active opposition to... mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs", Mark Sedgwick challenges the government to explain why this doesn’t include his Spectator-reading stepmother and large sections of the British population. Intolerant attitudes, hostility to democratic institutions, or belief that duty to God overrides duties to the state, are not reliable indicators of support for violence.

Marat Shterin shows how state attempts in Russia to eliminate non-violent expressions of “radical” political, religious and ideological positions make violent expressions of these positions more likely by creating an “us and them” culture. After 10 years in force, loosely defined provisions of the Russian Law on Combating Extremism have led to hundreds of police raids on Jehovah’s Witnesses, a ban on the Gülen Movement, and not a single arrest leading to preventing terrorism.

Drawing on his research in the UK, Matthew Francis describes attending a workshop to raise awareness of the Prevent programme during which he was shown a film clip from “This is England” showing “vulnerable” people sitting chatting in a council flat, and told that this was a good example of “the process of radicalisation”. He argues that lots of money is being spent on an initiative that, because it casts the net too wide, doesn't work.

Charles Clarke, former Home Secretary and co-host of the Westminster Faith Debates said: "For the last decade there has been a tension between averting potential terrorist threats and alienating broader communities. This is not an easy balance and no government has yet got it right. This research shows the need to focus very closely on those at risk of violent behaviours, not broader groups holding illiberal beliefs."

Ed Husain and Mehdi Hasan will respond to the research.

Notes for Editors

More information about the research can be found on the new Radicalisationresearch.org website sponsored by the Religion and Society Programme.
The Westminster Faith Debates are supported by the £12m AHRC/ESRC Religion and Society Programme, and organised in partnership with Theos and Charles Clarke.
They are designed to bring the best academic research into the public eye, making the very topical debates on the role of religion in society more informed on subjects from extremism to multiculturalism, welfare reform to religious freedom. All details are available on the website: http://www.religionandsociety.org.uk/faith_debates.
Mark Sedgwick is a Professor in the Department of Culture and Society, Aarhus University. Marat Shterin is Lecturer in Sociology of Religion at King’s College London. Matthew Francis is editor of radicalisationresearch.org for the Religion and Society Programme
Press enquiries should be directed to the Theos Press Office.

Theos
77 Great Peter Street, London SW1P 2EZ
E. press@theosthinktank.co.uk
T. 0207 828 7777
M. 07796325170 (out of hours)