000 02164nab a22002057a 4500
005 20170420103516.0
008 120229t xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
040 _aES-MaBCA
_cES-MaBCA
100 _914767
_aMuscha, Witold
245 _aPolarization, Stigmatization, Radicalization
_h[Recurso electrónico] PDF
_b: Counterterrorism and Homeland Security in France and Germany
300 _aRecurso online, 25 p.
520 _aThe article analyzes the commonalities and differences of counterterrorism (CT) practices applied by governments in France and Germany and their effects on the local ground. Altogether, there has been a qualitative difference of CT responses. Paris has launched more extensive measures than Berlin. Regardless of the differences, the policies of both governments lack attention towards the unintended effects of these specific measures. For instance, the concern raised by human rights organizations such as Amnesty International (AI) about the prolongation of the state of emergency in France is one starting point of analysis. AI accused the French authorities of abetting home-grown radicalization as a result of the discriminate repression in marginalized suburbs of Paris. The paper’s argument is twofold: First, decision-makers in Paris and Berlin respond to terrorist threats in a one-sided and linear way. Second, they disregard that the very CT measures are likely to fuel radicalization. In this light, polarization and stigmatization breed radicalization. Based on this discussion, policy recommendations will be presented. Amongst other things, these recommendations include a more symmetric integration of local actors in the overall de-radicalization effort. This refers to the content and tone of public debates as well as to the equal treatment of prison imams.
650 0 _95470
_aRadicalismo
650 0 _9973
_aSeguridad interior
651 0 _91234
_aFrancia
651 0 _9994
_aAlemania
773 0 _aJournal for Deradicalization
_g. -- Vol. 10 (Spring 2017) p. 230-254
_iEn :
_tJournal for Deradicalization
_w2017890
856 4 _uhttp://journals.sfu.ca/jd/index.php/jd/article/view/89/79
_qPDF
942 _2udc
_cAN
999 _c19527
_d19530