I've recently come across a booklet which discusses
how we can prevent violent extremism and radicalisation
in Australia.

I thought that this might make an interesting discussion
topic on this forum.

We're told in the booklet that:

" Australia is one of the most culturally and linguistically
diverse nations in the world. Australians identify with over
100 different faiths or religious traditions and there are
over 300 languages spoken in Australian households."

"The challenge for Australia is to accept difference while
also promoting social cohesion. A breakdwon in social
cohesion can lead to a breakdown in community resilience.
This in turn can lead to a wide range of social problems
including violent extremism."

I would like to hear poster's thoughts on how we can
prevent violent extremism and help people (especially our
young vulnerable people) disengage from violent ideologies?

Should parents, schools, universities, churches, take on this
responsibility? Should it be part of our education system?

Hi Foxy,

There is a narrow divide between a moderate society, and one that crosses that line and enters the dark world of extremism. We are learning now that the pandemic is creating fertile ground for some elements of extremism. If fear and dissatisfaction reaches a critical point a charismatic leader like a Hitler or Mussolini with a simplistic message will gain traction with the masses, and ultimately absolute power.

Hi Paul,

It is scary. Look at what Trump did in the
US. Hopefully this won't happen here. Our
voters are not that stupid.

Our voters are not that stupid.
Foxy,
Well, that depends to be seen in a few months at the next Election & if Labor gets in you're proven wrong !

individual,

Predicting anything in politics is risky at the
best of times as we've learned.

For starters Muslims could start revising the Quran and taking out all the bits that justify killing fellow human beings who just happen to not be believers in Muhammad’s message.

Individuals who work in schools, youth clubs, religious
centers, community organisations, social services, and
non-government organisations sometimes encounter young
people vulnerable to radicalisation.

Many people who become radicalised to violence have
personal welfare problems or have encountered social
marginalisation. They may also be a victim or a
perpetrator of vandalism, harassment and violence
associated with extremist ideas and groups.

However -

Professional people and key community members can be
in a position to assist and help keep their community safe.
They can help influence these young people for the better.

How can we prevent violent extremism and radicalisation in Australia?

Well, for a start we need to address that part of the body politic that follows the more violent words of Mohamed. The Mohomedians need to be disabused of the Medina versions of the Koran and encouraged to adhere to the Meccan Koran. Additionally of course, we need to stop importing potential Medina Koran adherents.

Next we need to address the increasing radicalisation of parts of the aboriginal lobby and ensure that the violent aspects of the US BLM movement don't infect Australia.

Ultimately, radicalisation is based on ignorance. People are radicalised because they are feed stories about the past that suit the leadership of the radical movements. People who know their nation's history are much more difficult to radicalise.

Finally, people need to be acquainted with our culture and its history. It's much easier to radicalise a people who are disconnected from their ancestry. It's what is behind the 1619 movement or the attempts make 1788 an invasion.

One other way a populace becomes radicalised is as a reaction to economic distress - see Germany in 1932 and Russia in 1917. I am increasingly sure the nation is headed in very much the wrong direction and that the next few decades are going to see a relative, and maybe even an absolute, decline in economic welfare. The losers in that process will be much more open to hearing and accepting radical ideas and radical solutions.

Dear Foxy,

Don't we all like to prevent violence?

But why focus particularly on violent extremism?
Violence is violence, regardless whether the one carrying it is an extremist or otherwise!

Violence can even be carried out by "normative" people in authority in the course of attempting to create social cohesion.

Gandhi was an extremist who gave his life for non-violence.

If you have any doubt of where we are heading with high levels of
immigration, just look at Europe.
France is struggling to remain France. Germany has a Turkish government
supported political party.
The UK police force only investigates non-moslem crime unless a row blows up.
Moslem women are denied access to UK family courts if their marriage
was Islamic. The Sharia Islamic courts hear their cases.

There is a reform movement in Islamic communities but to promote
that is punishable by death. It appears to exist in Australia but
I have only seen one person comment on it.

Hi Yuyutsu, well said.

The greatest form of violence is that sanctioned by the state. Ordinary people given the authority by government to act violently towards others, often innocent people. Why should we be shocked when soldiers trained to carry out these barbaric acts of killing in war do so. I can't understand the ingenuity and wasted resources modern man puts into the killing of others.

BTW, I rate Mahatma Gandhi as the greatest person to have lived in the 20th century, he was up there with Buddha and Jesus in my book for his influence for the good of mankind.

Condoning ignorant idealism is among the roots of violence !

What do you condone Indy? Violence and hatred, judging by your posts you have very little regard for your fellow human beings. Provided you are sitting comfortably on your undeserved aged welfare, its a case of bugger the rest.

When people radicalise to the point of justifying,
promoting or threatening violence for their cause-
both the community and the government have a
responsibility to act.

Thos who display threatening behaviour, incite
hatred or promote the use of violence for their
cause require some form of intervention.

This can come from family, religious or community
leaders or law enforcement.

Communities play a vital role in helping people to
move away from violent extremism and intervene to
stop acts before they occur.

We've been lucky in this country thus far. Here we've
seen that over time people do fit in to the wider
Australian community leaving their unique cultural
influences behind. The amount of radicals in our
communities have been relatively small thanks to the
involvement of families, religious and community
leaders as well as law enforcement agencies.

Foxy,
The effect of radicals in this country has been small because of the intervention of the appropriate authorities and the unbelievable stupidity and ineptitude of the radicals.

Paul,
Gandhi used violence for his own ends and I doubt very much that he would have agreed with your assessment of him.

Yes Foxy the intervention of the police and the sentencing of the Bil Al gang
to very long terms in the Max Security gaol I believe discouraged
the development of Rotherham UK style gangs.
The police had the support of a very brave young lady .

Many are not aware that the Islamic belief is that Moslems are subject
to Sharia law, not the law of the country where they may live.
Our law and courts must tackle that belief and make it clear that idea
does not apply in this country.

Is Mise,

And here I was thinking that it was due to the fact
that in this country we are better in handling personal
welfare problems and social marginalisation problems.

That we have professionals who work in schools,
youth clubs, religious centres, community organisations
social services and non-government organisations who when
they encounter young people vulnerable to radicalisation
they are in a position to assist and help keep communities
and the kids safe.

In this country we are one of the most culturally and
linguistically diverse nations in the world.
Australians identify with our 100 different faiths or
religious traditions and there are over 300 languages
spoken in Australian households.

The challenge for Australia is to accept difference
while also promoting social cohesion.

A breakdwon in social cohesion can lead to a breakdown
in community resilience. This in turn can lead to a wide
range of social problems including violent extremism.

But we've been lucky thus far - due to the melting pot
that Australia has become.

Dear Bazz,

Thanks for that.

Dear Foxy,

Do you consider the concept/belief that "some people or groups of people may legitimately control the lives of others, tell them how to live, then apply threats and violence as necessary to ensure that they comply" to be radical? Is it sufficiently radical that we ought to try to prevent this as best we can?

Or is it no longer radical because we have now become so used to it, because for centuries we could not remember any other way to live, other than as sheep?

Australia has very few cultural and so-called-religious extremist terrorists, it is practically non-existent here, not really an issue. Rather, our home-grown violent radicalists who subscribe to the above concept, have the seats of power in this country.

They don't hear a bad word from their families, because these are well fed with the proceeds of violence; they listen not to religious leaders because they consider themselves to be God; they do not hear any reproach from the other "community leaders" who are in their same clique; and they laugh at law-enforcement because they are their own employees and it is themselves who make the laws.

You then ask: «how we can
prevent violent extremism and help people (especially our
young vulnerable people) disengage from violent ideologies?»

I am not quite sure exactly how, but certainly the first step is that we all, or at least as many of us, recognise our predicament clearly for what it is!

Yuyutsu,

Frankly I don't understand what you are talking about.
You'll have to be more specific.

Foxy,
We are lucky that our extremists are dimwits, had they a fraction of the cunning and intelligence of the Irish plotters who blew up the hotel in Brighton and really frightened the English Conservatives then we’d really have a problem.
The great problem that we have is sleeping Islam.

Is Mise,

As individuals there's much we can learn from
each other's cultures. I think all things
considered, when we hear about the problems in
the US and Europe, we can only trust that this
won't happen here.

Dear Foxy,

«Frankly I don't understand what you are talking about.
You'll have to be more specific.»

I was referring to the state and its government, which attempt to control our lives, legislate what we may or may not do, then use threats and violence as needed to enforce their laws - and then consider that violence as legitimate.

Such concepts/beliefs (i.e. that the state's violence is legitimate) are radical and violent, even though we tend to forget it because we have been used to it for centuries and never had a chance to be free of them, neither even our parents or grandparents. Violent behaviour based on such concepts is far more rampant in Australia (and in most of the world) than cultural or so-called-"religious" (such as Islamic) extremism. Yet what do we do about it?

Foxy,
The problems in other countries will happen here because we will let them happen, as I said ages ago, my good Muslim mate in India thinks that Australia is mad to encourage Muslim migration, and he knows his own people very well, as a Muslim, as a soldier, as a politician and as a ruler (whilst nominally he is not a noble and his inherited title no longer exists, he is revered by thousands as a God appointed ruler).

Hi Issy, How's dem guns a hangn'

"I doubt very much that he (Gandhi) would have agreed with your assessment of him." It goes without saying I made an exception for your good self. I hope he wouldn't agree with me, otherwise he'ed be a bit of a "BIG HEAD", therefore not the greatest person of the 20th century, again I make an exception for you.

Paul,
You didn’t mention Gandhi’s use of violence for his struggle against British rule.

Yuyutsu,

We don't always like the laws or rules, since they often
mean that someone is telling us what to do, or
keeping us from doing what we want. Yet we live in a
civil society, we must have some rules and laws to follow
to keep all of us safe. Laws are rules that bind people
living in a community. They protect our general safety and
ensure our rights as citizens against abuse by other
people, by organizations and by the government itself.

We have laws to help provide for our general safety safety.
They exist at the local, state, and national levels and
include things like - laws about food safety, speed limits
and traffic laws, licensing for professions (doctors, nurses,
lawyers, and so on), laws that guarantee our basic freedoms
like freedom of religion. Laws that protect us from discrimination
because of our race, gender, age, disability - and so on.

I think that you get the picture.

cont'd ...

Yuyutsu,

A democracy works best when it is supported by the
rule of law. Democratic values determine how government
is managed.

Where ruling power is decided by the people, for the
people, the rule of law ensures those in power are subject
to the law and those laws are known and followed therefore
providing protection from anarchy, lawlessness and
corruption. No system is perfect - but so far - its the
best we've got.

Sorry Issy, none of us are perfect, but I do make an exception in your case. I'll put Gandhi on my reading list, Gandhi (The Perfect Revolutionary) by Anna Claybourne looks okay, or do you have a recommendation? I read a Gandhi book many years ago but I can't remember the title etc. Please don't confuse Gandhi with Gander, Mahatma and Goosey Goosey, they are two different fellas, although you would be more familiar with the latter having Mummy read all his works to you before bedtime.

BTW; I've completed both 'Dark Emu' and 'Farmers Or Hunter-Gatherers?' If you ever get around to actually reading one or both, we maybe able to have an intelligent discussion about the "True Facts". Not like those silly Gunnie topics of yours!

BBTW; When I said Gandhi was my person of the 20th century, I didn't mention the 19th century where you were the winner hands down.

BTW Issy,

Ghandi made a moral judgement between cowardice and violence as a means of defence of ones self, or loved ones. Wars, those involved in such are rarely engaged in defence but rather just the opposite they are usually involved in violent aggression.

Your hero Goosey Goosey was the violent one, always biting other geese like little Bunty!

If you were attacked by 50 club wielding Hells Angles, make that 100 just to be sure, intent on your total demise, and the only weapon you had at your disposal, was the loincloth you were wearing that evening. All I can say is; "Best of luck, start running!"

Indy, if we get Labor, Liberal or Green we've proven without doubt that the electorate is, in fact, dumber than a block of clay.

So Fellas who should we get, what's your choice? I like these people who make such statements, but are coy when it comes to spilling their guts as to who they believe we should get.

coy when it comes to spilling their guts as to who they believe we should get.
Paul1405,
You'd have to be thicker than that block of clay Albie's talking about if you haven't picked up by now which crowd we' prefer !
BTW, how would you deal with juvenile delinquents to prevent them from becoming violent extremists ? Continue to teach them how to bleat discrimination or appeal to their remaining senses to be more responsible to others & even more to themselves ?
I think I have posted my views enough times here !

Dear Foxy,

«We don't always like the laws or rules»

Now this is all about our philosophical and moral values, not about what we happen to like or not.

Do we believe that violence is OK so long as it is perpetrated by a large group of people who have been controlling the earth for centuries?

The word "society" is confusing and misleading as it can easily be stretched, pulled and extended as one desires. Each one of us is probably involved in dozens of societies, circles of people with whom they socialise in one way or another.

What's in a name that determines that if a group of people call themselves the "Philatelic society", "The Translucent Jade Warriors" or the "Church of Scientology" then they are expected to preserve the peace and not enlist others to their society without their consent, but if they call their group "Commonwealth of Australia" then they are suddenly entitled to do such things by violent means?

Have you any solid philosophical grounds to differentiate between the powers of the "Philatelic society" and the "Commonwealth of Australia", or is it just because the group calling themselves "Commonwealth of Australia" makes you personally feel warmer and more protected from others and from the forces of nature?

[continued...]

[...continued]

I understand that you feel insecure, so let me clarify: it is legitimate for you (and for all others) to defend yourself. It is even legitimate for you to join with others in order to create a society of mutual self-defense. Such a society may then utilise the total powers of its members to work towards its shared goals: physical powers, mental powers and also moral powers.

Your society has and may use up to, but no more than the combined sum of powers of its members. What is obvious with physical and mental powers is also true about its morality: it may do what it takes to defend its members from harm, but it has no moral authority to "protect" others who are not its members and thus never willingly lent their moral authority to it.

By attempting to protect others who never willingly subscribed to its membership, your "Commonwealth of Australia" society (as well as practically any other state today) is acting violently beyond its moral powers. In other words it is immoral.

It is typical of extremists to fail to recognise their extremism. They may say, "but I only follow the Bible", "I only follow the Koran", "I only follow the traditions of my forefathers", "I only", "I only", "I only"...

What you are essentially saying is "I only want to feel safe", without considering what effects your attempt to feel safer has on others who hold other values/preferences and might not share your particular feelings of insecurity.

If you really believe in what you wrote in your last two posts to me, then without recognising it, you are a radical extremist.

Paul,
Why do you keep evading the fact that Gandhi used violence to achieve his ends?

Indy, I am well aware of which crowd you prefer, One Nation, hateful, bigoted, racists, they suit you to a tee. You could choose Palmer and Katter as well, although I like Bob he's at least good value at times.

One Nation,
Paul1405,
Cheers for proving to all of us that you are in fact thicker than Albie's clay block !

Yuyutsu,
What do you say to necessary violence ? For example when the need arises to defend oneself or when you're forced to intrude on other's territory to find food ?
Violence is all around us but as humans we should have the sense to see the difference between necessary violence & the violence of greed power !
The violence of hypocrisy such as is perpetually being spawned by the likes of Paul1405 et al is highly insidious as it constantly advocates disunity on account of a long gone past ! A past we must work on to build a better future instead of Paul1405's tactic to incite Extremism and Radicalisation to ensure disharmony !

Indy,

I don't know what wind blows up this Albie blokes arse, nor do I care. He seems a rather benign forum character most of the time. Now you on the other hand, and your hateful, bigoted, racism is well documented here. Your smelly wind blows from the extreme right, regardless of what you might say.

Paul1405,
Did I hit another nerve ?

Issy

Any evidence that Gandhi used violence to achieve his ends, as you claim?

In his earlier period, Gandhi spent a long time in South Africa. Examining his writings from that period reveal him to be a monumental racist who would have been perfectly at home in your average KKK meeting and held racial views concerning Aryans that were based on the same ideas that fuelled Nazi philosophy.

While in SA, Gandhi had written to the authorities that the Indians there were required to join the same queues as the blacks (he called them kaffirs) which he considered to be deeming to the Indians who were obviously better. ("We felt the indignity too much and … petitioned the authorities to do away with the invidious distinction, and they have now provided three separate entrances for natives, Asiatics and Europeans.”).

"“I venture to point out that both the English and the Indians spring from a common stock, called the Indo-Aryan..." Hitler felt kindly toward the Indians for the same reason.

He complained that the British arrangements "degrade[d] us to the level of the raw kaffir whose occupation is hunting, and whose sole ambition is to collect a certain number of cattle to buy a wife with, and then, pass his life in indolence and nakedness.”

“We believe also that the white race in South Africa should be the predominating race.”

While imprisoned in SA he complained about being treated like a native..."We could understand not being classed with the whites, but to be placed on the same level with the Natives seemed too much to put up with.”

Somehow, I'm not surprised Paul admires him.

Dear Individual,

«What do you say to necessary violence ? For example when the need arises to defend oneself or when you're forced to intrude on other's territory to find food ?»

The average person cannot live without some degree of violence, only saints can, so it would be unreasonable to expect the ordinary person to refrain from self-defense when attacked.

Unprovoked intruding on others' living-space to find food goes a step beyond self-defense, so is harder to justify, even though we do it all the time in regards to animals.

Curbing our violence is a long-term project which we ought to keep working on and improve. Meanwhile, restricting violence to self-defense alone (including the defense of our dependents) is morally acceptable.

Being selective there mhaze, Gandhi pre WWI in South Africa, his writings concerning Blacks by todays standards can be considered racists, as can the views of about every World leader pre WWII. Later on Gandhi developed anti-racists opinions, and his writings etc reflected those opinions. Of course you fail to make any mention of that fact.

Pre WWII the founder of the Liberal Party Robert Menzies showed his racism through his support for the White Australia policy, and his subsequent treatment of Aboriginal people in this country, proving Menzies was a racists. Pre WWII Menzies was a supporter of Nazism, as demonstrated by his 1938 visit to Nazi Germany and the glowing report he delivered on his return. Menzies was most disappointed that he failed to meet the Fuhrer.

Can I take it then mhaze as a Liberal Party supporter (from reading your posts, its highly probable) you agree with Menzies racists and extreme views.

Paul,

Oh so the bloke who says he never explains...explains.

"Being selective there mhaze,"

Yes I was. I elected not to mention Gandhi's paedophilia.

It's more than a little funny that Paul suddenly develops some nuance about his hero's racism. Somehow it's ok that he was racist if he stopped being racist later. Let's remember that Gandhi was well into his 40s when he finally left South Africa so his racism wasn't exactly the views of a naive kid.

Then somehow Paul decrees that since Menzies was a racist then that excuses Gandhi....or something. The logic or lack thereof seems to be that if one person's a racist then its ok for another to be one.

"Can I take it then mhaze as a Liberal Party supporter..."

I'm not a Liberal supporter. Haven't been for some time. I've mentioned quite often.
But even if I was I don't see how it follows that I therefore agree with everything Menzies said or did. Yes, the White Australia Policy was racist. Who else supported it - Calwell?, Chifley? the union movement? Evatt? And let's not talk about Whitlam and Cairns racism toward Vietnamese.

It was a different world with different views. But passing strange that that only occurs to you when your own hero is shown to be flawed.

Paul,
Gandhi’s whole campaign depended on provoking violence from the British he succeeded admirably.
The Salt March is a good example,
Gandhi knew full well that it was a red rag to a bull and that there was every likelihood of lives being lost in a head on confrontation.
History could be counted upon to repeat itself, which it did, and he got World wide publicity; he was arrested but he knew full well that the Brits would never make a martyr of him.
So he used violence for his own ends.
I greatly admire him.

"Gandhi’s whole campaign depended on provoking violence from the British" did he tell you that Issy or are you making it up? "he knew full well that the Brits would never make a martyr of him." When did he pass that gem of knowledge onto you? I think you are making it up as you go. Unless you have real evidence, and not just what you believe to be true

Paul,
Read a bit about Gandhi and educate yourself.

There is an adage that Australian politicians, especially nationally, are generally up to a generation behind actual voters round social issues, values and concerns; legacy media too (all pale and/or skip).

Both politicians (especially neoconservatives of the right) and our legacy media reflect middle and older generations, especially regions, where most cannot empathise with immigrants, minorities etc., when told not to and subjected to constant dog whistling by same legacy media (off into crazy land with Sky AD etc.).

Be careful what you wish for as dog whistling expert Prof. Ian Haney-Lopez of Berkeley states that it 'destroys the middle class' (consensus), while former UK Tory Party co-Chair Baroness Warsi has criticised Patel, Johnson et al. for the same and stating that dog whistling can also 'destroy a nation'; obsession with creating negativity round identity to divide electorates....

But Issy old chap, you don't read unapproved literature like 'Dark Emu' you said so yourself, yet you were full of comment on it. I asked you for your recommended reading on Gandhi. I read a lot, read a Gandhi book years ago, can't recall the title, but it was a good book, I have always been a reader. Since moving to Brisbane in retirement and joining the BCL I have been privileged to have access to an excellent collection of books. I spend about 2 hours a day reading, with the 'lockdown' here now its more like four. Unfortunately I have not been able to obtain a copy of your book; 'Road Kill Recipes for the Unsuccessful Hunter' by Issy Dizzy, I'm sure it has some juicy tid-bits in it for those with a hungry appetite. Recently went to a book fair, we came away with about 20 books. The wife is reading the classic 'Black Beauty' (Its about a horse, not a black fella, so it should be okay for you).

Gandhi was a pacifists, he didn't believe in violence for violence sake, but he also didn't believe in total submissiveness. Gandhi believed in the need to defend oneself and love ones from violent aggressors, otherwise it was cowardice. Take the Vietnam War, like the Korean War before it the Vietnamese people were forced to defend themselves from an imperialist aggressor in that case firstly the French and then the Americans and their flunkies. Unfortunately under the circumstance at the time that is what they were forced to do, even though they were peace loving people.

Paul,
Well, you’re right about the Koreans having to defend themselves, fortunately they had the UN and it’s members ready to help them when the aggressive North Koreans invaded their country.
Gandhi was not violent himself but he provoked British violence to aid his cause.