In recent years, the fight against terrorism and political violence has focused more on anticipating the threats that they pose. Therefore, early detection of ideas by local professionals has become an important part of the preventive approach in countering radicalization. Frontline workers who operate in the arteries of society are encouraged to identify processes toward violent behavior at an early stage. To date, however, little is known about how these professionals take on this screening task at their own discretion. Research from the Netherlands suggests that subjective assessment appears to exist. In this article, we argue that the absence of a clear norm for preliminary judgments affects prejudice or administrative arbitrariness, which may cause side effects due to unjustified profiling.
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.
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.
