CAA comment
This article, with comments submitted by James Basham, will be of great interest to the majority of our readers as it identifies quite clearly how the government is bereft of effective strategies to deal with terrorism and has headed down the path of a system that is loosely based on the failed Restorative Justice approach to problems in our society.
The Government really need to secure pragmatic thinkers who are not distracted by ideology to focus on how to best manage radicalisation in our society.
Critically, as this author points out, there is an absolute need for whatever system or strategy is adopted it must not bypass the current legal system, with all its flaws.
Establishing whether an individual has been radicalised based on a burden of proof of ‘the balance of probabilities’ at least gives a fair starting point to protect the wrongly accused and allow the community to defend itself.
**********************
EXTRACTS FROM THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE AUSTRALIAN INSTITUTE OF CRIMINOLOGY (AIC) REPORT TO THE DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS (DHA) REGARDING COUNTERING VIOLENT EXTREMISM (CVE) – AND COMMENTARY
Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC) was engaged to conduct a process and outcome evaluation of the Living Safe Together Intervention Program (LSTIP). The evaluation focused on reviewing the different models implemented in each jurisdiction, the underlying theory of change, and early indicators of positive outcomes for at-risk or radicalised individuals. The evaluation involved two principles [sic] methods—a rapid evidence assessment of effective Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) interventions and an extensive, national consultation process with stakeholders involved in the program.
THE RAPID ASSESSMENT OF ONLY POSITIVE INTERVENTIONS, TOGETHER WITH EXTENSIVE STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATIONS, ALLOWS AND PREDICTS A SERIOUSLY BIASED REPORT. IT’S UTILITY AND VALIDITY IS QUESTIONABLE… Author
When the LSTIP commenced, there was some uncertainty as to the scope of the problem and the degree to which a dedicated intervention program was required. There is an established, recognised and agreed need for the program.
THIS POINTS OUT THAT THE PROBLEM WAS ILL-DEFINED, IF AT ALL. THE LSTIP WAS A “GOOD IDEA” LOOKING FOR A PROBLEM TO SOLVE. LSTIP WAS APPLIED TO THE ILL-DEFINED PROBLEM. BUREAUCRACY IS THEN SEEKING TO JUSTIFY THE EXISTENCE AND REFINEMENT OF A SYSTEM THAT HAS AN ILL-DEFINED OR HIJACKED PURPOSE. THE LSTIP MAY DELIVER SOME COMMUNITY VALUE, BUT IT DOES NOT SQUARELY ADDRESS COMMUNITY NEEDS FOR SECURITY AGAINST RADICAL EXTREMISM – NOR SHOULD IT BE PURPORTED TO DO SO… Author
The program has become embedded within broader counter-terrorism response with the level of intervention activity commensurate to relative threat level and demand…..
FALLACY. THE PROGRAM IS NOT “…COMMENSURATE WITH THREAT…” DURING JANUARY 2025, RADICALISM IS OUTPACING AUTHORITY’S PROTECTIVE POWERS TO PREVENT COMMUNITY HARM. THE PROGRAM CAN BE EXPECTED TO CONTINUE TO FAIL TO DELIVER COMMUNITY SECURITY – EVEN IF LEGISLATED… Author
The programs are embedded as part of the broader counter-terrorism response in each jurisdiction, providing a viable alternative to arresting and monitoring at-risk individuals. All of the Intervention Coordinators can case manage clients who are referred to the program.
IF DEMONSTRATED VIOLENT RADICALISM IS THE MEASUREMENT CRITERIA, THE PROGRAM IS NOT WORKING SUCCESSFULLY – IT IS NOT VIABLE. OFFENDERS ARE FREE TO CONTINUE THEIR DAMAGING ACTIVITIES, EVEN THOUGH PERHAPS A LITTLE MORE SOCIALLY ORIENTED DUE TO THE PROGRAM. THE COMMUNITY EXPECTS AND ACCEPTS THAT OFFENDERS INVOLVED IN DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE (DUI’s ) OR APPREHENDED VIOLENCE ORDERS (AVO’s) ARE ARRESTED AND/OR MONITORED. THE LAW PROVIDES FOR NUMEROUS CONTROLS TO BE APPLIED. SIMILARLY, SO SHOULD THE LAW BE APPLIED TO VIOLENT RADICALS DUE TO THEIR SERIOUSLY NEGATIVE EFFECTS ON COMMUNITIES – REGARDLESS OF AGE OR GENDER, WHICH APPEAR TO HAVE NO BEARING ON THE OFFENDING.
ALL INTERVENTION COORDINATORS ARE SAID TO HAVE THE CAPACITY TO MANAGE REFERRED CLIENTS – WHICH THAT MANAGING FOR COMPLIANCE TO THE INADEQUATE SYSTEM IS A FUTILE ACTIVITY…Author
The number of clients who have been engaged in the intervention program differs between the states and territories but appears to broadly reflect the threat level and demand in each jurisdiction.
OBVIOUSLY, THIS DOES NOT WORK TO PROTECT THE COMMUNITY BECAUSE OFFENDERS OFTEN ARE ACTUALLY REPEAT OFFENDERS – THE PROGRAM IS POWERLESS TO PROTECT THE COMMUNITY. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OR LOGIC PRESENTED THAT SUGGESTS THAT THE PROGRAM HAS PREVENTED RADICAL BEHAVIOUR – IT’S CONSPICUOUS BY ITS ABSENCE IN THE REPORT… Author
There was broad agreement that the CVE Intervention Coordinators are committed and highly skilled individuals who have effectively established and monitored the various processes necessary for the operation of the program.
THAT’S ABOUT PROCESSES – MANAGING FOR COMPLIANCE TO THE INADEQUATE PROGRAM. IT’S NOT ABOUT OUTCOMES THAT ARE EFFECTIVE/PROTECTIVE…Author
The ability of Coordinators to form relationships with other agencies to develop referral pathways and deliver services to clients was noted as being particularly well-developed. They are proactive in identifying implementation barriers but have, at times, had limited capacity to overcome these issues.
COORDINATORS ARE PROACTIVE AND CAPABLE AT IMPLEMENTING A PARTICULARLY WELL-DEVELOPED SYSTEM – THAT SYSTEM LEAVES THE COMMUNITY VULNERABLE AND LEAVES OFFENDERS FREE TO REPEAT/RENEW THEIR OFFENDING. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE SYSTEM/PROGRAM AND COMMUNITY SECURITY IS, AT BEST, TENUOUS..Author
…….case plans are tailored to individual needs; interventions focus on positive community integration and participation with a view to building clients’ social and emotional resilience to extremist ideologies and introducing positive influences into their social network; and access is provided to mental health services that address issues with psychopathology and antisocial traits.
WONDERFUL!!…… BUT THERE ARE NO INDEPENDENT EXTERNAL DISINCENTIVES TO DOING RADICAL COMMUNITY HARM. TOLERANCE FOR COGNITIVE DISSONANCE IS INTERNALLY CONTROLLED. SELECTIVE PERCEPTION AND CONFIRMATION BIAS HAVE PROBABLY BEEN INSTRUMENTAL IN DEVELOPING RADICALISM IN THE FIRST PLACE, AND THEY WILL CONTINUE TO APPLY TO RESIST EXPERIENTIAL LEARNING BY CLIENTS IN THE LIVING SAFE TOGETHER INTERVENTION PROGRAM (LSTIP) SYSTEM. LSTIP CLIENTS, WITH THEIR NEWFOUND SOCIAL AND EMOTIONAL RESILIENCE, MAY THEN BE EVEN BETTER EQUIPPED TO RETAIN AND CAMOUFLAGE THEIR REAL ORIGINAL VIEWS AND TO INFLUENCE OTHERS ADVERSELY… Author
However, interventions focusing on developing critical thinking and empathic skills, and those specifically focused on countering extremist ideological messaging in some way, are not being used.
THE MAJOR FOCUS OF BUREAUCRACY IS TO MAKE THE “CLIENT” FEEL LOVED [AND THEREBY ENCOURAGED TO FEEL GOOD ABOUT THEMSELVES] RATHER THAN PROVIDING THEM WITH KNOWLEDGE AND SKILLS TO FILTER INPUTS OF OTHER RADICALS AND TO UNDERSTAND THEIR IMPACT ON INDIVIDUALS AND COMMUNITY. EVEN IF THIS SERIOUS SHORTFALL WAS ADDRESSED, IT MIGHT NOT BE SUFFICIENT TO OVERCOME THE CLIENT’S TOLERANCE FOR COGNITIVE DISSONANCE [AS ABOVE]… Author
This includes improved access to mental health services, improved confidence and self-worth, forming prosocial relationships with peers, enhanced social and independent living skills, increased employability, and improved access to various government and non-government support services. There are positive signs of attitudinal change among young people with extremist views, but mixed evidence in relation to changes in behaviour and how these attitudes had manifested. ………………..there is a clear need to develop mechanisms for monitoring the progress of clients and measuring the impact of the intervention program across relevant outcome domains.
BUREAUCRACY FACILITATES/ENABLES OPPORTUNITY FOR CLIENT/OFFENDERS TO SPREAD THEIR RADICAL INFLUENCE FURTHER – AND FEEL GOOD ABOUT IT……..DESPITE HAVING “…limited data available on the impact of the intervention program”. IN THE REPORT, THIS IS HEADED AS “…promising evidence of positive outcomes….”
ACTUALLY, THE COMMUNITY IS LEFT VULNERABLE BY UNCERTAIN OUTCOMES OF A PROGRAM THAT IS NOT KNOWN TO BE EFFECTIVE.
THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE AIC REPORT WINDS UP WITH A DAMNING STATEMENT ABOUT THE SHORTFALLS OF THE PROGRAM [LSTIP]:…Author
Among the most pressing issues are the absence of appropriate, consistent and formalised case management processes, different opinions about who should be included in the program, and concerns about the suitability of the s. 47E(d) tool, barriers to information sharing, the lack of consistent agreement about the aim of the program and definition of success, unanswered questions regarding the need for an intervention component, and concerns about the longer-term sustainability of the LSTIP.
THE LSTIP PROGRAM MAY DELIVER SOME DESIRABLE SOCIAL OUTCOMES, BUT IT IS NOT THE ANSWER TO VIOLENT EXTREMISM IN OUR COMMUNITY.
IT WOULD BE IRRESPONSIBLE TO LEGISLATE INTERVENTION ATTENDANCE BY EXTREMISTS IN THE MISTAKEN BELIEF THAT IT IS A SOLUTION TO THE SECURITY PROBLEMS THEY PRESENT.