Side event HRC: The differences of De-radicalisation

DAESH has had an increasing impact in Europe over these last few years, but they are not the only terrorist group in the world. Their actions vastly differ compared to previous terrorist groups in Europe which makes it difficult to stop them as they are completely unpredictable. DAESH´s movement are completely different as their targeted victims are random, which creates a greater impact in society as it especially affects ordinary people.

Furthermore, the use of social media contributes to the fast expansion of their ideology, which brings forward the global argument that countries should create a coordinated media security as soon as possible.  This would mean considering where the limits of freedom of education are, and of non-discrimination in order to protect civilians’ security.

In order to fight against this extremism, different nations are using different techniques in order to control it. Belgium has decided to prevent those who left the country to join ISIS from coming back home by increasing the penalties in law. On the other hand, Denmark, after achieving de-radicalism of neo-Nazis, considered giving them a second chance. Other countries find themselves contemplating between these two different positions. Dr. Farhad Khosrokhavar brought out the idea of avoiding a generalized treatment in this de-radicalization process, which takes three different notions in consideration.

  • Differences among nations: Each country has its own history and culture. So countries must take into consideration that every nation has its own procedure which can be influenced at some point by others, but will not necessarily be the same.
  • Different people: Radicalized people can be very different, woman groups are on the rise, which makes up to more than 10% of all groups, and have many peculiarities compared to men. Another new group is the middle class, which has also increased in the last years. The third group is of young radicalized, teenagers who follow more intensively than just ideological motivations. And finally the converts, which can be between 8% and 25% depending on the country.
  • Different people that return. People that come back can have different reasons or circumstances for choosing to do that. One group is the repentant, people rejecting the radicalized jihadism with which they have been living for the past months. Another group is the ambivalent, people in instable situations, which are confused and that can become really dangerous. Third group is the intransigent, people convinced their point of view is the only correct one, and who see the west society as enemies: this group can be very dangerous as their faith cannot be disputed. Finally, the last group are the traumatized, people who have seen violence and horrors which are potentially dangerous, not for ideological reasons but for pathological reasons.

After taking these different groups into consideration, we can clearly see that it is not only a matter about religion. As Dr. Hervé Gonsolin claimed, “religion is just the instrument which extremists and governments have used throughout history for justifying political affairs and to convince people to join them”. This is where states must become involved in the process of de-radicalization, listening and caring about the potential extremist communities. Mr. Reda Benkirane argued that giving them “alternatives against this extremist ideology” may convince and avoid these communities from becoming violent, and help them distinguish between religion and politics.

Pere Grau

 

479

Anuncios

Responder

Introduce tus datos o haz clic en un icono para iniciar sesión:

Logo de WordPress.com

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de WordPress.com. Cerrar sesión / Cambiar )

Imagen de Twitter

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Twitter. Cerrar sesión / Cambiar )

Foto de Facebook

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Facebook. Cerrar sesión / Cambiar )

Google+ photo

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Google+. Cerrar sesión / Cambiar )

Conectando a %s