This Tactic Used On Violent Soccer Fans Could Work On Terrorists, Too
Even before the Islamic State released a second gruesome video showing the murder of an American journalist, apparently voiced by a British jihadist and warning that the next victim would be British, the government's attempts to crack down on home-grown extremism seemed half-cocked.
It would do all it could to protect the country from "these barbaric terrorists", said David Cameron, the prime minister. But what, exactly?
Mr Cameron announced a few measures in Parliament on September 1st. The police will be able to seize at the border the passports of those they suspect of travel ling to fight with extremist groups in the Middle East. Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures (TPIMs), used to restrict the freedoms of the odd suspected terrorist, might be beefed up, though none is presently in force. Airlines must share passenger lists with the authorities and comply with no-fly arrangements.
But all this was rather less dramatic than had been billed, and it ran into trouble. Mr Cameron's Liberal Democrat coalition partners are queasy about using TPIMs to force people to move.
Mr Cameron would like to deprive Britons who fight abroad of their passports, but doing so is tricky under international law. It would be asking for trouble anyway, says Lord Carlile, previously the government's independent reviewer of terrorism legislation. Other countries might follow suit and abandon their terrorists in Britain.
Still, there is much that could be done. The government's Channel programme, part of its anti-radicalisation strategy, aims to divert people from extremism of all kinds.
Some 4,000 have been referred to it since 2007, of whom about one-fifth are deemed vulnerable.
They undergo tailored interventions led by police, social services, psychologists and others. This is thought to work well--so well that Denmark and Sweden model their programmes on it.
Channel could be extended to returnees, reckons Peter Neumann of the International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation at King's College London. It already resembles efforts to rehabilitate other criminals, such as gang members, but for jihadists would involve a religious figure to convince them that their fight offends the tenets of Islam. In future, those who have undergone such programmes could be involved; Indonesia uses former terrorists to persuade others to abandon their fight.
More extremists might be stopped from leaving Britain in the first place, too. Football hooligans are commonly banned from travelling around international tournaments: almost 1,500 had to surrender their passports for the World Cup this summer. Football banning orders can be issued not just to those previously convicted of hooliganism but also to people considered likely to cause trouble--because they socialise with known offenders, for instance.
All these measures will be of limited use. Deradicalisation efforts will work best on those who already have doubts about their jihad. As with hooligans, some extremists will slip out. Solving the problem of home-grown extremism is impossible. But it can be reduced.Click here to subscribe to The Economist
