Characterising the UK Terrorist Threat: The Problem with Non-Violent Ideology as a Focus for Counter-Terrorism and Terrorism as the product of ‘Vulnerability’

Richards, Anthony

doi:10.15664/jtr.414

Cited by 8 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Given the essentially contested nature of concepts such as extremism and radicalisation and the lack of clarity on exactly what radicalisation is, who the radicalised are 173 and exactly how radicalisation and extremism harm children, 174 I agree with those who warn against expanding the remit and reach of counter-terrorism into traditionally nonsecurity areas such child-protection and family law and argue that the counter-terrorist state should focus on countering terrorism and terrorist violence. 175 The family courts should resist the lines between security and other unrelated policy areas, 176 ever-increasing securitisation and the 'foregrounding' of security over all other concerns. 177 Otherwise, as Taylor warns, the family courts may find themselves 'becoming the quasi-enforcement mechanism for Prevent' and other counter-terrorism programmes.…”

Section: The Terrorist And/or Extremist Parent: An Important Developmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Childhood Radicalisation and Parental Extremism: How Should Family Law Respond? Insights from a Local Authority v X, Y and Z

Ahdash

2019

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: The Terrorist And/or Extremist Parent: An Important Developmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Childhood Radicalisation and Parental Extremism: How Should Family Law Respond? Insights from a Local Authority v X, Y and Z

Ahdash

2019

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Scholars disagree on almost everything regarding terrorism, and as Michael Kronenwetter (2004, p. 4) aptly notes, "one thing we know for sure: terrorism is wrong". Some scholars believe that creating a universal definition of terrorism is inevitable (Ganor, 2002;Hoffman, 1984); others argue that this would be close to impossible to do so (Bruce, 2013;Homolar & A. Rodríguez-Merino, 2019;Martini & Njoku, 2017;Richards, 2012). Some research is focused on the state vs non-state actor's dilemma, arguing that any government-produced definition of terrorism is self-serving; thus, it would be inevitably worded in a way to serve and protect the government (Kronenwetter, 2004;Meisels, 2009).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Defining Terrorism: how Ambiguous Definitions and Vague Classifications Open Doors for Power Acquisition

Mahon

2022

JGSS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article, I want to reflect on the difficulty of categorising the threat of terrorism within existing security frameworks and our theorising of threat assessment. As more types of terrorism get academic and political attention, various state and non-state actors use terrorist tactics or borrow some elements of terrorism to achieve their agenda. This article discusses the difficulties surrounding terrorist threat classification and how it perplexes our understanding of terrorism and counterterrorism. What have we learned over more than twenty years of researching terrorism? Terrorism is often conceptualised as both a traditional and non-traditional threat, complicating the execution of counterterrorism strategies. This ambiguity creates the need for a "special treatment" of the terrorist threat in politics proportionate to its importance, and it bears the danger of fostering opportunities for power abuse. This article reflects on different ways of categorising the threat of terrorism, showing that terrorism is multifaced, and there is no one-size-fits-all approach to defining and fighting terrorism. However, I also argue that there is a danger of assigning terrorism an extralegal status and exclusive priority, resulting in power abuse and restrictions of people's rights and freedoms.

show abstract

The British state ‘security syndrome’ and Muslim diversity: challenges for liberal democracy in the age of terror

Bonino

2016

Cont Islam

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper explores the securitisation of British Muslims within a global context in which tensions are reignited by the threat that Islamist terrorism, and Islam more generally, are considered to pose to the West. While Western involvement in Muslim-majority countries continues to fuel the idea of a 'clash of civilisations', domestic responses to terrorism and extremism take forward its rhetoric. At the heart of 15 years of wide-ranging responses lies the state 'security syndrome'. Operating through the paradigm of risk reduction, the British state has reasserted its primary role as the distributor of security in ways that move beyond the surgical targeting of violent Islamists and their supporters and instead risk impacting on Muslims qua Muslims. Counter-terrorism and anti-extremism notions and practices that conflate security risks and cultural threats signal that Great Britain is a liberal democracy that is yet to fully foster positive inter-community relations and achieve social cohesion.

show abstract

Characterising the UK Terrorist Threat: The Problem with Non-Violent Ideology as a Focus for Counter-Terrorism and Terrorism as the product of ‘Vulnerability’

Cited by 8 publications

References 4 publications

Childhood Radicalisation and Parental Extremism: How Should Family Law Respond? Insights from a Local Authority v X, Y and Z

Childhood Radicalisation and Parental Extremism: How Should Family Law Respond? Insights from a Local Authority v X, Y and Z

Defining Terrorism: how Ambiguous Definitions and Vague Classifications Open Doors for Power Acquisition

The British state ‘security syndrome’ and Muslim diversity: challenges for liberal democracy in the age of terror

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About