The conveyor belt theory is a caricature of those who seek to tackle extremism
In discourse around counter-extremism we often hear about the ‘conveyor-belt theory of radicalisation’, widely understood as the idea that non-violent extremism acts as a conveyor belt leading to violent extremism.
Or, in other words, non-violent extremists are heading towards violent extremism in a linear fashion, hence to prevent terrorism we must tackle non-violent extremism.
Critics of those that point to the role of non-violent Islamist groups in the radicalisation process, such as CAGE, keen to rebut this theory, refer to it as ‘discredited’ or suggest there is no evidence to support it.
What seems to have evaded most concerned with this subject area is that the conveyor belt theory actually doesn’t exist. Yes that is correct, there is no conveyor theory of radicalisation and no-one has proposed such a theory.
I would be happy to be proven wrong on this point but my research suggests such a theory was never put forward by anyone and the term ‘conveyor belt theory of radicalisation’ was concocted by those that are now critics of the theory. It is a grand straw man; the mother of all straw men if you like.
When asked about proponents of the fictitious conveyor belt theory, the critics often end up pointing to the Quilliam Foundation. However, no Quilliam spokesperson has ever referenced the conveyor belt theory. According to the Quilliam website:
“One can be a radical without being violent, or advocating violence. However, some who follow an Islamist agenda do use their political/religious beliefs in order to justify acts of violence, including violence that deliberately targets civilians. As such, Islamists often provide a narrative in which Islam as a faith is portrayed as being under attack. Such an interpretation can play into the hands of those who argue that Islam is in need of self-defense, even if it includes attacking civilians, including Muslims. Non-violent Islamists can champion this narrative, providing the mood music to which suicide bombers dance.”
This is a far cry from the conveyor belt theory that critics claim Quilliam posits. It therefore appears that the conveyor belt is nothing more than a caricature of those who seek to tackle non-violent extremism, often because such individuals are non-violent extremists themselves or allied to them. Having exposed this dirty trick, a number of additional points also need to be made.
Firstly, the term ‘non-violent extremism’ is slightly misleading because the organizations and individuals that it refers to (such as Hizb ut Tahrir) are not really non-violent but do not believe in terrorist attacks as a means of achieving political goals. They certainly believe in offensive jihad to conquer territory once their Islamic state has been established and they certainly intend to be violent towards gays, ex-muslims and those that do not conform to their moral norms.
So non-terrorist rather than non-violent would be more accurate.
Secondly, regardless of whether or not it causes terrorism, such non-terrorist extremism is problematic in itself. To have groups of individuals preaching the destruction of the West – as well as the necessity of establishing an Islamic state that implements barbaric capital punishments and kills dissenters – can cause a few problems in society. One of those problems being that it helps create a future support base for such a state when it does emerge, as we are now learning.
Thirdly, where there are non-terrorist extremists, terrorist extremist will eventually emerge just as if racism or homophobia were to proliferate in any society there would eventually be violent racist and homophobic attacks. This is just plain common sense and is borne out by the facts. Throughout the 90s we had Hizb ut Tahrir preaching the importance of defeating the West and establishing an Islamic state. Towards the late-90s, al-Muhajiroun splintered off and eventually began engaging in calls for jihad with many adherents now convicted of terrorism related offences.
Ideology interprets grievances, shapes identity and presents idealistic solutions that ultimately guides behavior. Extremist ideology preached with fervor sets the kettle boiling and eventually some of the water spills over.
Interestingly, those keen to deny the links between violent and non-violent extremists often argue the opposite when it comes to Islamophobia. They are very keen to point out the links between groups like the English Defence League, Britain First and anti-Muslim hate crime. Ideology suddenly becomes key and a precursor to violence when it is right-wing but not when it is Islamist.
We have a bizarre situation in this country whereby few are interested in trying to understand radicalisation yet many appear keen to use it to critique their political opponents. In the eyes of the hard-left, radicalized Muslims are a tool to exploit in a grand strategy to oppose western capitalism. Islamist extremists who preach the importance and necessity of establishing an Islamist state suddenly pretend their efforts are not linked to those seeking to establish their ideology through violent means.
Meanwhile we have sections of the press and academia that have already decided that the real issue is nasty Tory policies like Prevent – rather than extremists advocating religious supremacy.
Amjad Khan is a Muslim writer and commentator
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
28 Responses to “Extremism and the conveyor-belt fallacy”
Jugurtha
That’s right. And so instead the Muslim community chooses to unite in its opposition to Islamism by joining its own organisations such as…erm…y’know….thingy.
Jack
You’re quoting Quilliam in 2008. DO you think that is strictly relevant now? What if they have developed intellectually; is it still valid to criticise the policy recommendations they give today fi they bear no resemblance to their beliefs in 2008?
You also seem to not be understanding the nuances of the point. While morons who buy into “non-violent” groups may never become violent extremists themselves, the ideas they espouse, taken to their logical conclusion, lead to violence. That is not the so-called conveyor-belt theory that people criticise, but a statement of clear fact.
No, not all members of so called ‘non-violent’ groups become violent. Their ideals will always have a violent spectrum though, being as they are deeply supremacist, bigoted, and backward.
Johnny Wong
And yet the evidence suggests otherwise.
http://anonymousmugwump.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/think-again-david-cameron-conveyer.html
Please feel free to produce some studies which support your claims.
Jack
The link takes me to a blog that quotes studies which purport to show that individuals supporting a certain “non violent” (which I will hereafter use in its loose, misleading sense) group are not particularly likely to support a militant group. I can reasonably conclude then that you didn’t read my comment carefully enough.
The individuals supporting a given non-violent group may or may not support a militant group. That does not negate the proposition that the ideas put forward by certain non-violent groups are ideas that, if embraced by other individuals who may not support the non-violent group at all (probably because they are not violent enough), logically lead this other individual to violence.
It is obviously easier for individuals to become violent extremists if there is an abundance of very vocal, active groups, who normalise things like anti-Semitism, chauvanism, and racism in society. These individuals may never support the non-violent groups that express bigoted ideals, but that doesn’t mean they won’t take these ideas on board, and bring them to their logical conclusion – violence.
Do you understand now? I can rephrase it using letters so you understand the different actors involved here:
Person A is a part of a non-violent group that thinks all Zs are bad. Person B also thinks that all Zs are bad, but he has no time for group A. Instead, person B feeds off group As hatred for Z, who act as a handy normaliser for B’s even more extreme hatred of Z. There is a reason we dont stand for things like nationalism in this country, you know.
Johnny Wong
And again, please produce some studies which back your claims up rather than armchair theorising.