Boris: Children at risk of radicalisation should be in care

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

..I wonder if the same attitude would be taken for children of BNP supporters? Or Christian fundamentalists? Couldn't this a scary precedent?
After all, some might feel revolutionary leftist ideals are potentially very dangerous and could influence children to grow up into a different kind of radical.
Thoughts?

Muslim children who risk radicalisation by their parents should be taken into care, Boris Johnson has said.
Writing in his weekly Daily Telegraph column, the London mayor said such children were victims of child abuse.
Mr Johnson said they should be removed from their families to stop them being turned into "potential killers or suicide bombers".
A "fatal squeamishness" had developed over intervening in the behaviour of certain groups in society, he added.
But he said there was a need to be "stronger and clearer in asserting our understanding of British values".
He warned that some young people were being "taught crazy stuff" similar to the views expressed by the two men who killed Fusilier Lee Rigby on a south-east London street.

(More here - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26413024)

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

..I wonder if the same attitude would be taken for children of BNP supporters?

I loathe Boris Johnson but it seems that he is at least consistent on that point:


He later told LBC Radio similar action may be considered to deal with extreme race hatred propagated by BNP members.

that said, I'm sure the racism of the BNP is a secondary concern after the "Radicalization" of Muslims - more brought up to preserve the pretense of even-handedness than any actual desire to confront British fascism.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Weird how people with their 'communist' hat on can talk about the break up of the nuclear family, and probably don't bat an eyelid when thinking about state-sanctioned childcare in the former GDR, for example, yet somehow this is a story?

This isn't directed at the OP, btw.

There was already a case where a UKIP family was denied the possibility to adopt a child. I'd say that's fair. I'd also say it's fair that the children of any fundamentalist religious extremist could be placed in a more appropriate environment.

[Red Economist]

This is really Islamophobia because of idea that "Muslims=terrorists" which has gained currency through the 'enemy' image fed to people by the mass media since 9/11. It's the only reason why he would specifically target Muslims.


But the [Quilliam] Foundation said changing the law to enable intervention when children are merely at risk of radicalisation was "dangerous territory", adding that there was little academic evidence to suggest parents played a key role in radicalisation.

From what I've read on the internet [as someone who questions their sanity for being on the left occasionally], the research on the psychology of 'extremism' and it's relationship to 'terrorism'/political violence shows that it really isn't predictable and there aren't any clear factors in the development of radical or extreme views (though family problems help). The research is itself rather difficult to carry out as- not surprisingly- 'extremists' avoid academics who don't sympathize with their cause because they're on the 'wrong' side. Nor does the willingness to commit acts of violence necessarily equal pathology, but rather is a myth serving the 'enemy' image of an evil, fanatical and irrational threat.

As I remember, the link below was a fairly good summary of the problems and approaches on the issue;
http://webservlb.surrey.ac.uk/politics/research/researchareasofstaff/isppsummeracademy/instructors%20/The%20Terrost%20mind.pdf

[Sea]

For those of us who are non-UKish (tootles from across the pond!):

What is this Boris fellow known for, besides driving the shaggin wagon? Who is he?

Weird how people with their 'communist' hat on can talk about the break up of the nuclear family, and probably don't bat an eyelid when thinking about state-sanctioned childcare in the former GDR, for example, yet somehow this is a story?

This isn't directed at the OP, btw.

There was already a case where a UKIP family was denied the possibility to adopt a child. I'd say that's fair. I'd also say it's fair that the children of any fundamentalist religious extremist could be placed in a more appropriate environment.I don't see how the capitalist state of East Germany should be treated differently than the capitalist state of West Germany.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

For those of us who are non-UKish (tootles from across the pond!):

What is this Boris fellow known for, besides driving the shaggin wagon? Who is he?

He's on the right-wing of the conservative party and masquerades his racist, ultra-Thatcherite views behind his apparently 'loveable' blonde joker image. People tend to like him personally, so he gets away with a lot of shit.


I don't see how the capitalist state of East Germany should be treated differently than the capitalist state of West Germany.

Neither do I. And, on reflection, i'm not sure how fervently such a policy should be supported. I would just tentatively say that there is nothing inherently wrong with breaking up the nuclear family in extreme circumstances to protect a child's welfare.

[Sea]

He's on the right-wing of the conservative party and masquerades his racist, ultra-Thatcherite views behind his apparently 'loveable' blonde joker image. People tend to like him personally, so he gets away with a lot of shit.



Neither do I. And, on reflection, i'm not sure how fervently such a policy should be supported. I would just tentatively say that there is nothing inherently wrong with breaking up the nuclear family in extreme circumstances to protect a child's welfare.Just read some of his wiki page. What an ass.

[brigadista]

more power for social policing of the working class

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Neither do I. And, on reflection, i'm not sure how fervently such a policy should be supported. I would just tentatively say that there is nothing inherently wrong with breaking up the nuclear family in extreme circumstances to protect a child's welfare.

I don't think such a policy should be supported at all, indeed I think it should be opposed. They ain't pulling this shit to protect the welfare of children, quite apart from the dubious proposition that parents are a reliably significant factor in so-called "radicalisation".