Project objectives Radicalisation research leads to ethical and legal questions and issues. These issues need to be addressed in way that helps the project progress in ethically and legally acceptable manner. Description of Work The legal analysis in SAFIRE addressed questions such as which behavior associated with radicalisation is criminal behaviour. The ethical issues were addressed throughout the project in close cooperation between the ethicists and the researchers using a method called ethical parallel research. Results A legal analysis was made about criminal law and radicalisation. During the project lively discussions were held in the research team about ethical issues. An ethical justification for interventions in radicalisation processes has been written. With regard to research ethics: An indirect informed consent procedure for interviews with (former) radicals has been designed. Practical guidelines to prevent obtaining information that could lead to indirect identification of respondents were developed.
In de afgelopen jaren is terrorismebestrijding wereldwijd zich meer gaan richten op het anticiperen op de dreiging die ervan uitgaat. De Veiligheidsraad van de Verenigde Naties en de Europese Commissie benadrukken daarom steeds meer dat preventie geboden is. Uitgangspunt is dat terroristische daden niet alleen kunnen worden voorkomen met repressieve maatregelen, maar dat radicaliseringsprocessen naar gewelddadig extremisme in een vroeg stadium moeten worden ontdekt. Het gaat daarbij om een fase die te boek staat als ‘vroegsignalering’, met als doel preventief dreigingen te identificeren die bijdragen aan mogelijk extremistisch geweld. De focus hierbij ligt op het signaleren van afwijkend gedrag, en tegelijkertijd op het bevorderen van sociale stabiliteit op wijkniveau. Professionals die dagelijks in direct contact staan met burgers, onder wie de lokale politieagenten, zouden hierin een sleutelrol spelen.
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.
