clear

Creating new perspectives since 2009

Theresa May must ditch the nonsense of ‘British values’ to tackle radicalisation

July 18, 2016 at 3:03 pm

Britain’s new Prime Minister, Theresa May, was in office for just one day when her first major international crisis hit. The Bastille Day attack in Nice was at first a diplomatic issue requiring the government to reach out to the people of France when relations have been chilled by Brexit. At home May had to reassure British citizens that such an attack is unlikely to take place in the United Kingdom. The challenge for the prime minister was to sound convincing but it is blatantly obvious to any reasonable person that a promise to keep every citizen absolutely safe rings hollow.

What is so special about the Bastille Day attack, and why does May’s response to it mean so much? The attack in Nice marked a new era in the history of terrorism in Europe; the day of the suicide bomber is over and the weapon of choice has become an ordinary thing like a truck. This is not a new tactic, but it is terrifying all the same. Vehicles have been used as weapons in occupied Palestine by Jewish settlers as well as Palestinians in recent years. Those who have resorted to this tactic tend not to be members of organised militant groups. The man responsible for the Bastille Day atrocity was, it seems, only loosely connected to Daesh in Syria. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that he was radicalised ideologically, spiritually, politically or emotionally to act outside peaceful parameters. How much of the decision was down to him and how much can be blamed on others, only he would know; we never will. He was Tunisian-born, and it’s possible that he had friends fighting in Syria (there are many Tunisian fighters there), possibly even with Daesh, and he simply wanted to “join in”.

The Bastille attack raises awkward questions for those who think that the government’s over-strenuous approach to “fighting ideology” by asserting “British values” and linked programmes are not worthwhile; that such ideological engineering of society is pernicious thought-policing by an over-bearing central government. Trying to analyse the Bastille killer, though, what else is there for us to go on apart from his ideology? He was broadcast to by Daesh — as many millions are — and he apparently appreciated the militant group’s ideological foundations. Furthermore, he did not need to meet any representative of Daesh in order to acquire his weapon; he simply hired a vehicle, having been motivated by the group’s ideology. Sadly, the Bastille attacker was most likely the first in a wave of self-starting terrorists, again motivated by ideology.

The unfortunately-named Prevent programme is at the heart of Britain’s strategy to tackle terrorism through ideological means. May relaunched Prevent on her watch as Home Secretary, and she prompted the exclusion of some providers of counter-radicalisation services from the official roster of the government’s partners; those pushed aside were, in the main, peaceful Islamist organisations.

In their place, secular Muslim or non-Muslim organisations have been selected by Home Office officials to take part in the government’s de-radicalisation efforts, alongside a limited number of carefully-vetted mosques and Muslim community centres. The idea is to stop the ideology taking root among young people before they can be driven to turn to terrorism.

It was Theresa May who also introduced legislation which made the objectives of Prevent a “statutory duty” for many public sector workers in Britain, who now have a legal obligation to report “signs of radicalisation” in children; again, the idea is to look for ideological signatures to prevent terrorist attacks. The approach has been counter-productive, and has led to a massive spike in referrals of children and young people to counter-radicalisation programmes. Much of this can be attributed to fear rather than a sudden rash of potential or actual child terrorists; if there is a legal duty in place and teachers overhear Muslim teenagers talking about Palestine, who are they to risk doing nothing in case the youngsters are also planning to blow-up the school? If a hospital admits two Muslim teenagers, one who is reading from the Qur’an and the other arguing fiercely that the invasion of Iraq was unjust, who are the admissions staff to be certain that the first is a devout and peace-loving Muslim while the other is simply passionate about politics?

All of this “de-radicalisation” is designed to inculcate “British values”. All schools in Britain — state and independent — are now inspected to ensure that they are teaching such values. This provokes the feeling of having to explain an unfunny joke; if you have to explain it, it’s not funny. Likewise, if you have to “teach British values”, the (largely unspecified) values are probably already absent from society at large.

In addition, it remains unclear exactly, and I mean exactly, how teaching British values prevents terrorism. In France, national identity is very strong: the French language is proudly independent of foreign verbiage; national cinema, music and literature are protected jealously; the French tricolour is flown proudly in a way that the Union Flag is rarely displayed in Britain. Far-right groups such as the British National Party, Britain First and the English Defence League have hijacked our flag as a national symbol; even the fiercely patriotic Conservatives have dropped it from the party’s branding.

In France, therefore, you have in French patriotism a strong counterweight to terrorist ideology, as well as the use of untargeted force by the state. François Hollande and his deputies have tried the introduction of draconian internet legislation to prevent terrorist attacks; despite criticism from the media, he has tried rounding up dissidents and throwing them in jail, albeit temporarily. France maintains its staunchly secular exclusion of religion from the public domain, and the French president has strengthened his country’s border controls, launched airstrikes in Syria and sought help from his European allies, and yet still the terrorist attacks keep coming.

The truth is that neither a strong counter-ideology nor the loss of civil liberties really works against the current brand of terrorists. Indeed, the deprivation of human rights across society only feeds dissent amongst Muslims, creating potential new recruits for the militant groups. Where there are clear chains of command from extremist group leaderships down, traditional espionage tactics may work. Against an attacker such as was seen in Nice, not tied to any terrorist organisation, it is difficult to see how intelligence agencies could have succeeded in preventing the carnage. Hence, what Theresa May should do is ignore the cultural aspect of the problem; she must abandon the menacing Orwellianism of “British values”, stop asking the public sector to spy on Muslims, and shut down Prevent.

The problem may be ideology, just as the problem with the Soviet Union was communism. However, nobody honestly thinks that the liberation of Soviet citizens was achieved through ideological warfare. The West didn’t have to convince anyone living under Russian communism that the ideology was seriously lacking in credibility. What was needed at that time was a thorough and well-resourced espionage capability, and a strategy of containment. If Theresa May wants to continue with the national embarrassment that is “British values” while continuing to fund Prevent and underfund both the police and security services, she will fail. It may feel good to be “doing something” in line with the political fashion of the day, but you can’t do anything about ideology. This may be hard to accept, but it is true.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.