在法国防止暴力极端主义 ： 从一个警惕的社会到一个怀疑的社会 ？

CIDOB Opinion 600, November 2019, discusses the French government's call for increased vigilance in identifying early signs of violent radicalization across various settings. The main concerns revolve around the blurring of lines between "vigilance" and "suspicion," particularly in the context of extending the use of "early signs" to detect radicalization.

The government has suggested that any individual displaying signs of radicalization should be more systematically reported. The minister of Home Affairs, Christophe Castaner, highlighted specific behaviors as indicative of radicalization, including strict religious practices, facial marks, changes in greeting customs, and practices such as ritual prayer and wearing full-face veils.

However, the report argues that this approach risks creating a climate of generalized suspicion rather than enhancing vigilance. The concern is that applying these indicators could unfairly target large numbers of individuals, including both Muslims and non-Muslims, potentially leading to discrimination and suspicion within society.

The use of such indicators in preventing violent extremism policies lacks scientific foundation. While they may correlate with certain behaviors, they do not reliably diagnose the process of radicalization. Moreover, focusing primarily on religious practices and appearances can mislead in distinguishing between religious practice and violent ideology, as well as between cognitive radicalization and violent radicalization. This approach could inadvertently encourage the marginalization of certain segments of society and undermine efforts toward inclusion, which are crucial in making vulnerable communities more resilient to radicalization.

The report emphasizes that the practical application of these indicators can lead to unintended consequences, such as discrimination, suspicion, and mistrust, particularly within the Muslim community. Therefore, the adoption of indicators as a tool for detecting violent radicalization should be reconsidered, given its lack of scientific basis and potential negative impacts on societal harmony.