As part of my PhD research into the language of counter-terrorism, I occasionally have cause to review publications that counter-terrorism is designed to challenge and this can include reading ISIS’s magazines Dabiq and, more recently, Rumiyah which appears to have replaced Dabiq.
Reading Rumiyah today caused me to read some appalling articles that should never have been written and to see some photos that should never have been taken. Among the most shocking were; instructions on committing murder, advice on slavery and the legitimacy of military occupation, multiple articles that tried to justify extreme brutality (these included images that I have decided not to describe but which were often of executions and were more brutal and shocking than anything that I have seen before), and finally, info-graphics of terror attacks and deaths around the world.
The horror of the publication, both the images and the written content, caused me to question if I should continue in my academic work which critiques PREVENT and the associated language of counter-terrorism; thinking to myself,
“surely there should be a strategy to undermine this appalling material?”
This is the problem, PREVENT and the language of counter-terrorism do not challenge or undermine this material’ they reinforce the notion in Rumiyah that there is a battle between Islam and the West. Added to this, they reinforce the notion that opposition to the state is a violent rather than rhetorical endeavor by associating radical and extreme views with violence. This is aimed at catching those who have already been taken in by the barbaric messages of Dabiq and Rumiyah, not at challenging the messages themselves. Before the relationships with my pupils were changed by PREVENT (casting me as an informant rather than as a teacher) my students regularly engaged me in conversations stemming from the kind of messaging that I read in Rumiyah. These conversations stopped happening when it became my duty to report 'extreme' and 'radical' views. As such, I’m not sure where these views are being aired if not in classrooms where they are always challenged; after all, it’s not difficult to convince a group of kids that the messages in these publications are unacceptable but you do have be able to have the conversation in the first place. Schools are great places for this, so long as the debate is not shut down before it has started. Repealing the PREVENT duty on teachers will enable them to start doing what they are good at, challenging unacceptable views and creating a more harmonious society.
