Frontline professionals such as social workers and civil servants play a crucial role in countering violent extremism.Because of their direct contac twith society,first liners are tasked with detecting individuals that may threaten national security and the democratic rule of law. Preliminary screening takes place during the pre-crime phase. However, without clear evidence or concrete indicators of unlawful action or physical violence, it is challenging to determine when someone poses a threat. There are no set patterns that can be used to identify cognitive radicalization processes that will result in violent extremism. Furthermore, prevention targets ideas and ideologies with no clear framework for assessing terrorism-risk. This article examines how civil servants responsible for public order, security and safety deal with their mandate to engage in early detection, and discusses the side effects that accompany this practice. Based on openinterviews with fifteen local security professionals in the Netherlands, we focus here on the risk assessments made by these professionals. To understand their performance, we used the following two research questions: First, what criteria do local security professionals use to determine whether or not someone forms a potential risk? Second, how do local security professionals substantiate their assessments of the radicalization processes that will develop into violent extremism? We conclude that such initial risk weightings rely strongly on ‘gut feelings’ or intuition. We conclude that this subjectivitymayleadto prejudiceand/oradministrativearbitrariness in relationtopreliminary risk assessment of particular youth.
DOCUMENT
Het Kenniscentrum Sociale Innovatie van Hogeschool Utrecht doet onderzoek naar de maatschappelijke effecten van de lokale aanpak extremisme. Centraal staat daarbij de vraag: beschikken eerstelijnswerkers over de nodige kennis en begrip om de mate van bereidheid voor (gewelddadig) extremisme en terrorisme van een individu te beoordelen? Vandaag komt het tweede rapport uit in een reeks van drie. Het verkennende onderzoek richt zich op risico-inschattingen van lokale veiligheidsprofessionals aangaande de volgende vraag: in hoeverre is een jongere over wie signalen van vermeende radicalisering binnenkomen, bereid om geweld te gebruiken? In de meeste gevallen gaat het wellicht om vijandige uitingen of gedrag, maar niet om jongeren die voornemens zijn om daadwerkelijk gewelddadige acties te ondernemen. Als zodanig beslissen eerstelijnsprofessionals bij het adresseren van risico’s of bedreigingen tegelijkertijd ook over het recht op vrijheid van meningsuiting. Dan is het wel van groot belang om in kaart te brengen hoe vermeende signalen gewogen en geduid worden op gemeentelijk niveau.
DOCUMENT
Building resilience to radicalization has become a key pillar of many policies for preventing violent extremism. However, sustained debates over the precise nature of the terms radicalisation and resilience impact the ability to implement these policies. A growing body of literature argues that the way in which key ideas are understood matters to what happens in practice. Additionally, the cross-sector collaboration called for in PVE policy can be made more challenging through divergences in understanding of central concepts. As such, the way in which resilience to radicalization is being understood by frontline workers matters. In light of this, a q-methodology study was conducted, which identified four perspectives on resilience to radicalization amongst policy-makers and practitioners in Belgium, the Netherlands, and the UK. These perspectives are examined in light of the broader debates around both resilience and radicalization, and the extent to which the divergences matter for collaboration is considered.
DOCUMENT
