4.1.1. Finland
In November 2011, the Government of Finland started preparing the International Security Programme, which lead to the appointment of a group of experts to draft a Programme of Measures for the prevention of violent extremism (The Ministry of the Interior 2012: 7). In Finland, the prevention of terrorism is administered by the Ministry of the Interior and organized by the police. However, some of the responsibility lies on the shoulders of parents, pedagogues and educators, as well as communities and organizations. The Finnish Ministry of the Interior (2010) mentions key factors to prevent radicalization and violent attacks that could possibly follow: equality, human rights, democracy, prevention of social exclusion, and acceptance of multiculturalism.
Even though the threat of extremism in Finland is relatively low, the Finnish government has taken steps towards a more active approach towards the issue, since it is on the rise in Europe.
The Ministry of the Interior publishes biannual reports on the status of extremism in Finland.
According to them, the biggest threats concerning extremism in Finland are due to the fact that the distinction between fact and opinion has blurred. This has led to an increasing amount of hate speech and fake news, which then increase polarization between different demographic groups. This polarization can help some people find justification for extremist ideologies and actions. (The Ministry of the Interior 2017: 9)
4.1.2. The United Kingdom
Since 2015, different authorities (including teachers) in The UK have had to by law practice what is called “Prevent duty”. For teachers, this means having to educate their students about extremism and to do what they can to prevent them from radicalization and being drawn into extremism and terrorism (HM Government 2015). The Prevent Duty Guidance: for England and Wales is “Guidance for specified authorities in England and Wales on the duty in the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 to have due regard to the need to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism.” In relation to Prevent duty, the Prevention of Violent Extremism –program (PVE) is a part of the UK’s anti-terrorism project CONTEST (HM Government 2011). CONTEST consists of four elements: Pursue, Prevent, Protect and Prepare.
However, Prevent duty has been criticized for being too focused on young Muslims, thus making itself counterproductive by highlighting the fact that some terrorist attacks that have happened in The UK have been conducted by British Muslims (Thomas 2010, Kundnani 2009).
Thomas (2010) argues that Prevent is a “failed and friendless” project, but with originally good intentions. The counter productivity of the project stems from labelling the entire Muslim community as especially vulnerable to radicalization, as Prevent duty has done. However, it is also stated that only a few individuals from British Muslim communities are actually involved in terrorist activity (HM Government 2015). By giving so much emphasis on a certain religious group as being somehow susceptible to radicalization naturally raises suspicion, mistrust and prejudice in the surrounding community. Kundnani (2009: 6) also found that the amount of funding for Prevent was directly connected to the amount of Muslims living in the area. This can be seen as a clear sign of Prevent seeing Muslim communities as somehow in need of more support than others.
There are multiple organizations doing anti-terrorism work by, for example, helping the families of those affected by terrorist organizations or extremist groups. Examples of these organizations are Counterextremism.org Project, ConnectJustice, ConnectFuture, Women without Borders with their campaign SAVE (Sisters against Violent Extremism), and Active Change Foundation. For example, the Active Change Foundation helped a British mother and their family when her son left for Kenya to join the terrorist organization Al Shabaab. The son later died when fighting for the organization. Her and her family’s story has been made into a BAFTA-winning documentary My Son the Jihadi in 2015, which might also be an interesting watch in the classroom.
4.1.3. The United States
The United States is implementing Countering Violent Extremism Task Force, CVE, which tries to diminish the effects and efforts of violent extremist groups (U.S. Department of Homeland Security 2018). Stakeholders of the CVE Task Force include actors from both the public and private sectors, such as educators, non-governmental organizations, law enforcement, et cetera. The CVE includes a wide array of different strategies, sectors and subdivisions, such as Empowering Local Partners to Prevent Violent Extremism in the United States and Strategy for Countering Violent extremism by the Department of Homeland Security. These are discussed below.
According to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) (2011), the main strategy of the US is to strengthen existing programs in order to enhance communities, families and institutions. This is done, for example, by preventing gang activity, increasing trust between the people and the police and increasing school safety and students’ health, communality increases.
These actions are hoped to help creating an environment, ideologically, where extremism is not needed. It should be noted though that this publication is from the time when Barack Obama was president. His views on many issues may differ from the current president’s, Donald Trump’s.
The DHS (2011: 8) states eight main principles the government implements to counterattack the threat of violent extremism. The first is examining and studying different extremist groups in order to be aware and better understand them. Factors that are also emphasized are protecting American citizens while taking care of their civil rights and liberties, thus stopping extremist from dividing the community by encouraging people against one another, building partnerships and enhancing mutual support and respect between people. It is also stated that the actions of a few individuals should not be generalized to apply to the entire community that they represent.
For example, religious beliefs, no matter how strong they are, do not equal extremism. Freedom of religion is every citizen’s right, as is the freedom to criticize the government. It is democracy – everyone has a right to be dissatisfied with the selected governance. This should not be seen as unpatriotic. Supporting a wide array of national and local prevention programs, thus harnessing local knowledge of the area’s demographic, are also mentioned as one of the main principles.
The US government also has numerous other programs related to preventing violent extremism, terrorism, and violence in general, such as the If you see something, say something, Safe Schools/Healthy Students and Active Shooter Preparedness campaigns. The Office of Partner Engagement of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) (2016) has also published material for schools about preventing violent extremism. They state that high school students are especially vulnerable targets for extremist propaganda, which is why they should be educated on its possible forms, actions and consequences. Teachers are in contact with the students almost daily, so they have a prime opportunity to affect the students’ attitudes and mindsets by promoting diversity, tolerance and acceptance. By assessing different drivers towards violent extremism schools can have a major impact on the prevention of extremism in the US.