How to stop radicalisation?

Over the past year the world has been confronted with outrageous acts of violence against innocents in the the name of Islam. Whether in Iraq and Syria by ISIL, or by Boko Haram in Africa or by so called 'lone wolf ' adherents in Paris or Toronto or Sydney.

With the capture of Ramadi highlighting recent setbacks in our war against ISIL, and the magentic influence of the 'death-cult' on misguided youth in the west, we are once again trying to understand the causes , the mindset , the process of radicalization and how to combat it.

There is no shortage of words on the subject. So you don't need too much from me. But I won't let that won't stop me , and who knows where another insight may lead.

The Jihadist strategy

What is it that motivates the instigators of these crimes? No, I don't mean the perpetrators, I think we should focus on the instigators. Those who provide the underlying 'philosophy', the rationale behind the attacks, and what they aim to achieve.
I am not sure if this strategy was actually contrived, or more likely gradually evolved, but its modus operandi can be broken into three elements;

• A well defined objective
• An underlying philosophy to provide the moral justification
• A process for action and draw adherents

The Objective 
The ultimate aim seems to be to regain the power enjoyed by Islam in the glorious past, the golden age of Islam during the Middle Ages when caliphates ruled much of the world.

The Underlying Philosophy
Islamic extremism, which for clarity I would like to call 'Jihadism', is based on the Wahhabist interpretation of the Koran. This 'radical' interpretation is used as a tool to provide cohesion to the adherents. It is far easier to control a large disparate group if you have an underlying philosophy and what better than a deep-seated belief system based on religion. Religion has often been used to control large groups very successfully.
It helps that this interpretation is fundamentalist in form. It hearkens back to the origins of Islam, when Mohammed himself spread the word by the sword. This literal interpretation is familiar to all Muslims. In the same way that modern day Christians do not follow a literal interpretation of the gospel, most modern day Muslims reject the literal interpretation of the Koran. However a significant minority even in the secular West will find it compelling.

The Process
The means by which the above elements combine to create the seemingly unstoppable growth of Jihadism is a complex process. I realise that the following components fo this process will require refinement given further input. Nevertheless I think it is worthwhile to note these as a starting point.

1. Spread the word - Teach the radical interpretation of Islam as far and wide as possible, from Madrassas and Mosques.
2. Recruit - Target and enlist, the weak-minded, uneducated, disfranchised, rebellious, envious, angry, frustrated youth, wherever they are in the world. Use social media to raise awareness of successes. Promote a culture requiring adherents to sacrifice to the common cause and recognise 'martyrs' as heroes of the Jihad,'struggle' .
3. Provide the means and weapons for violent acts against the identified enemies of Islam, America, Israel, Jews, infidel, crusaders, Kaffir.
4. Execute the plans - whether singly or in groups. Every event that occurs is amplified by the press, and used to show that the sacrifice of a 'martyr' has yielded success. Success in these terms is simply gaining the attention of the world. Power is the motive and it is gained as soon as an act occurs, irrespective of the target or irrespective of the success.
5. Exploit the reaction of the West to these attacks to enlist those who may have been on the fringes. This is made easier when extremist elements make unwarranted attacks on innocent Muslims. 
6. Escalate -
1. Phase 1.Start with sporadic terror attacks by random groups. This is happening in the west, Thailand, Philipiines, Russia 
2. Phase 2. When the numbers warrant, terror groups join up to create a rebel army which fights a guerrilla war to undermine the current governments. This is happening in Nigeria, soon Cameroon,Yemen, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.
3. In phase 3, as the strength of the fighting force is sufficient to take control of a region declare it a caliphate. This is what has happened in Iraq/Syria where we have the first such Jihadist so called state ISIL. 

This process has yielded an ever increasing army of Jihadistss carrying out their evil mission around the world.

The vicious cycle ; Reaction creates recruits

There is little doubt that this strategy has been working. It is hard to deny the unrelenting increase in Jihadism over the past 3 decades.

There are a number of potential reasons for this rise.

Increasing world affluence and ease of travel has opened up rapid migration both legal and illegal, across the globe. This has spread Islamic culture to many countries, where the struggle for survival and success leaves areas of poverty and discrimination. Such enclaves are fertile grounds for radicalization.

In many predominantly Muslim countries Jihadist insurgencies break down law and order, causing mass displacement, refugees, poverty. These are again ideal grounds for radicalization of unemployed, disenchanted youth.

While these and other demographic causes no doubt contribute to the rise, it is apparent that the reaction to counter acts of terror is also exploited to generate more recruits.

This vicious cycle seems to operate for any of the common reactions to a terror attack; Mass media attention, Increased police presence, and discrimination against Muslims.

Mass media attention, irrespective of how negative it may be towards them, empowers Jihadists, and provides a justification for 'fringe' Jihadists to take up the cause. Most often the perpetrator's name and photo, indeed his whole life become the focus of public discourse. He has gained notoriety. This is attractive to many, who for diverse reasons, feel estranged from their communities and question their significance in the world.

Increased police presence and counter terrorism actions provide further evidence of the 'power' of the Jihadist to influence state affairs. In the same way as mass media attention this is a positive effect for those fringe Jihadists who have identified with the sense of belonging offered by the recruiters.

Discriminating against all Muslims, though strongly discouraged by the vast majority of leaders, is an inevitable reaction to terrorism that is stated clearly to be in Islam's name. The reactions of Muslims to unfair discrimination is mostly benign , but borderline radicals can be tipped over the edge.

It seems that the most common and sensible reactions to acts of terror by Jihadists can be used by recruiters to create more Jihadists.

What we can do?

The response in Western states has varied from strong policing and law enforcement, including the enactment of terror laws, to attempts at analysis and in particular 'self -analysis'. What makes the terrorist and what is wrong with our society that a 'normal', 'average' teenager or fellow countryman would turn jihadist?
This is also reflected in the population with some suggesting 'I will ride with you' and others declaring a verbal war on all Muslims.

Law enforcement has been very successful. With an extensive intelligence network to track jihadists a great majority of terror plots have been discovered before they were executed. This however has not stopped the occasional terror plot succeeding, nor has it stopped the growth in recruitment to terror. Indeed the recent case of ISIL, where large numbers of jihadists have 'broken cover' and joined the fight in Syria and Iraq. For many, ISIL has become a turning point as it presents the re-birth of the caliphate, long promised and now 'achieved'.

Given our current efforts are failing, we do need to look afresh, and see if we can break the Jihadist cycle that threatens our Western civilization.

I don't pretend I have a solution, just some observations on what our society can do to fight this insidious evil.

• Always protect Western values; freedom of speech, rights of individuals, respect for the law, respect for each other. This includes vigorously enforcing the law especially when it relates to these values
• Always distinguish between Islam and violent Islam and ideally consistently call it 'Jihadism'. We respect freedom of religion as long as it does not promote Jihadism. 
• Call out the instigators, perpetrators and supporters of violence as Jihadists. This includes criticizing religious or other leaders who equivocate about terrorist violence. There is NO justification for violence against innocents NO matter the circumstances.
• Strengthen and enforce hate speech laws sufficiently to ensure recruitment to Jihad is effectively banned. Enforce the laws against hate speech, even if it occurs in a place of worship. (If required law enforcement should record all sermons by Imams and rabbis and Priests). 
• Strengthen and enforce immigration laws to prevent non-citizen advocates of Jihadism to enter or re-enter the country. Strip citizenship from dual-citizen Jihadists deport them or do not allow them to re-enter the country. If they have decided to join the other side during a conflict that is their choice, but by doing so they have given up the privilege to be citizens. Jihadists who have only Australian citizenship should be charged and face the consequences within Australia.
• Encourage moderate Muslims to speak out and give them a voice in the media. Break down animosity against Muslims with cross cultural events. Perhaps a 'Muslims against Jihad' rally or just 'Australians against Jihadism' march in which moderate Muslims can stand, united with the rest of our society against extremism.

Doing nothing is not an option

An open society always considers and considers and considers. Looking for reasons and self analyzing instead of acting. However the threat we face today will not wait. Jihadism is at our doorsteps and doing nothing is not an option. Moreover despite our best efforts to date, it is growing. So we need to manage our instinctive responses, clearly explain our revised policies and then enforce them rigorously. Clarity of purpose is often the weakness that sabotages what would otherwise be a successful policy.


Copyright(C)2015 Grappy's Soap Box, all rights reserved

The mass media moving the masses

I am back from a rather long trip overseas. Mostly a holiday although with the ususal travail of travel.

Away from the keyboard, disconnected from the daily mayhem of the local media, gives some perspective.

The world is a small place. No matter where we were, mainly Europe, the topics of conversation were the same. The headlines, the focus of conversation and debate on our telvisions all the same. The focus of conversation with fellow tourists and indeed local passers-by, all the same. The tone was also similar. Disdainful of this, praising of that, surprising uniformity of opinion on even complex issues, where alternative views were often glossed over or even neglected.

The topics seem to be set by circumstance; the war in Yemen, an election in the UK, an asylum boat sinking in the Mediterranean, but the focus and tone is set by the media. Be it print, radio or television, the topic of conversation becomes the same. Like the under-six football team journos seem to all follow the same topic at least over the 'news cycle'. The tone also seemed very similar, as if a single person was mouthing the opinions of the minions of journalists. As result of a collective group-think dominates our ear-waves.

In my relatively few posts I have often mentioned the media, and you may surmise I have a 'bee in my bonnet' about the media. Indeed I do.

I am concerned that our media has too much influence on our daily lives and that this influence is too uniform, often stifling debate and apparently pushing an agenda.

This does not mean I don't recognise the value of free media in any democratic society. On the contrary, the Fourth Estate is an essential component of any democratic society and I would do nothing to curtail its freedom to investigate and report on any aspect of our society.

However I believe our democratic freedoms will be at risk, when the media can influence government policies and public opinion to even change governments without the democratic control of the society it is meant to serve.

I don't believe this is the case in Australia, yet. However there is already a tendency for some in the media to limit debate and to try to funnel opinions without reasoned argument. This tendency is not limited to our media of course. Disruptive demonstrations have been part and parcel of 'normal' politics, and most disturbingly, in recent times it has even invaded our University campuses. However it is the integrity of the media that is critical. Since we rely on our free media to not only investigate and report, but also to call-out arguments not supported by the facts, to give voice to alternate views and to encourage reasoned debate.

As consumers of the media's product we must resist this tendency to corral our views. We can do so by using direct and indirect communications ( through social media) to highlight lack of balanced debate, topics which are not being discussed and to call-out open bias.

Moreover we should insist that the ABC, our public broadcaster enforces its own very well written code of practice, which requires it to maintain accuracy, diversity and impartiality.  I have strong reservations that this is currently the case, but will leave that argument for another day.


Copyright(C)2015 Grappy's Soap Box, all rights reserved

A Wel-fairer system

The recent McClure report has highlighted the plight of our welfare system.

Our welfare budget is currently $150 B / yr.

This is spent in a rather complex array of payments to qualifying individuals, be they unemployed, sick, disabled, children, so on. The system is complex, expensive to operate and arguably mis-directed, creating disincentives to recipients to seek work and allocating payments to those not 'in need'.

$150 B is a lot of money! Could it be allocated in a more efficient and more effective way? McClure has suggested a much simplified system that is currently being scrutinized by the government and will no doubt lead to a response over the next few months.

I have only had a brief introduction to the McClure report so cannot comment on it, other than note that it still seems complex. 

It starts by classifying welfare recipients according to various criteria and then establishes how each is to be treated by the system. Although much simpler than the current bureaucratic nightmare, I wonder if this is the right approach?

Welfare, at its core, is intended for those who, for whatever reason, are 'in need'. Simply stated, they cannot afford to pay for their day to day living and medical expenses themselves. It can be due to unemployment, hopefully temporary, illness, disability, etc. No matter the cause, the problem is they have insufficient earnings for their needs.

So why not use earnings as the sole criterion for determining who receives welfare?

Under this alternative approach welfare recipients would all have to pass an earnings test. The test itself would take into account only a few factors, such as number and age of dependents, special needs for the physically disabled, and the value of assets for high nett worth individuals.

Welfare payments would go to those whose earnings were below the benchmark minimum earnings (BME) for their group. The size of the payment would be equal to the difference between their current earning and the BME for their group, but would be subject to an adjustment to ensure there was always an incentive to work. The details for this adjustment have to be thought through and I accept there is some 'devil in this detail'. For the current overview suffice it to note that the adjustment would be sufficient to ensure there is a financial benefit for a welfare recipient to secure employment if there is any opportunity to do so.

I can see two key advantages of this approach. Firstly, it would be simple to administer and easy to understand These criteria are too often ignored when framing government policies. And Secondly it would bring a visible 'fairness' into the system by ensuring that only those in need received welfare payments and that the value they received was related directly to the extent of their need.

I have not done the sums on this (yet), but feel that by eliminating mis-directed expenditure, this alternative approach would deliver a higher welfare benefit to those in genuine need without increasing the overall welfare budget .


Copyright(C)2015 Grappy's Soap Box, all rights reserved

'Fairness' is in the eyes of the beholder

Much has been said about the lack of 'Fairness' of the 2014 Hockey budget. But what is 'fair' to one may well be 'unfair' to another.

In the table below I have compiled a short list of questions of fairness, reflecting our society. What do you think ?

Is it “fair”?

Is it fair for Labour to now reject budget savings of some $5b that it proposed when it was in government?

Is it fair for the senate to reject withdrawing a tax cut that was introduced to compensate households for the impact of the carbon tax now that tax has been abolished?

Is it fair to run on going budget deficits funded by borrowing and thereby putting the burden on future generations?

Is it fair for politicians to make promises to the electorate that they later abandon when in office?

Is it fair that only the top 20% of earners pay more taxes than they receive in payments from the government?

Is it fair to have penalty rates which prevent employers hiring available workers?

Is it fair to have any welfare payments that are not means tested?

Is it fair to have lower paid workers through their taxes subsidise asset rich part pensioners?

Is it fair that superannuants do not pay tax on their income or earnings?

My guess is that all of us will think of some as fair and some not. But that is the point. "Fairness" is in the eyes of the beholder.

Want money? Tell us who pays!

Cacophony of demands

Dissatisfaction abounds. Education, healthcare, security, indigenous affairs, welfare, all beckon for resources with increasingly shrill calls to action. Not a day passes without some individual or group arguing their case in the media.

The demands are often simple and specific, requesting a justifiable "investment" of public funds either to achieve greater benefits or to avert decline and social costs. The claims are substantiated by statistics and success stories, and although many of the statistics, I suggest, would not pass muster by any but the most cursory examination, and that many of the claimed benefits are not directly measurable, lets take them at face value. No doubt there are many, many projects which would provide great benefits to our common wealth. But where can the money come from? This is rarely raised as part of a demand. After all the focus is on the problem and the benefits of investment. Any discussion about funding could be a distraction. Even in those cases where there is a suggestion of how to fund the investment, it is by general statements such as ; "a new levy", "general revenue", or "the welfare budget".

Limited sources of funds

Ultimately the target for all these calls is the ''magic pudding" of public money; state or federal governments. Since these governments are not sitting around with loads of cash, quite the contrary, all governments seem to be in debt up to their necks, all funding can only be achieved by increasing taxes, borrowing or offsetting any new spending by cutting another program.

Raising taxes is an anathema to the electorate, and consequently for politicians who want to be re-elected. Hence it is generally avoided, until all other avenues have been exhausted.

The second option is taking the money from another program. Unfortunately politicians find this option difficult as it always carries a backlash from unhappy voters who lose funding for their projects.

Finally, borrowing which is often the last option standing. Borrowing is a mixed bag. It can be readily justified when the expected revenue generated by the target program is greater than the expected outlay. This will apply to projects which in one way or another add to productive capacity. However borrowing for improved welfare or social services is effectively spending money you haven't yet earned and is unsustainable. Consider it as borrowing from your grand-children. By the way much of our current deficit is due to expenditure on social services and hence borrowing to pay these deficits is effectively asking our grand-children to fund our lifestyle.

Whenever a politician announces a new initiative using public funds, which have not been budgeted, the money is being borrowed. They are spending money we don't have.

Squelching Squeaky calls

With the many conflicting demands money and resources what should a society do? How can a society rationally distribute its wealth and resources and satisfy the many conflicting demands of special interest groups?

Currently it seems it is the squeakiest door that gets oiled and this has generated a cacophony of demands.

I suggest we could lower the volume by demanding that whenever any group advocates an investment of public funds they should identify the source of the funds they require.

If they suggest there should be new taxes, tell us how much and who pays.

If it is to be by borrowing, prove that the investment will generate greater revenue over time.

If it is to be from general revenue, then tell us who you are asking to forego their funding.

Fat chance I hear you say? I guess so. After all why would any advocate want to weaken their case and perhaps generate opponents to their cause? Sure they will resist, but we the public, directly and through the media, should demand it.We should insist that the funding question be answered before any money is spent. This also applies to our politicians, who often make funding commitments without due consideration of budget constraints. It is all too easy to spend future money, especially when it belongs to someone else.

 Our media should never flinch from asking the question, "where is the money coming from?"



Copyright(C)2015 Grappy's Soap Box, all rights reserved