Well, one context I'm already familiar with is the counter-terrorism duty in the UK. There is a program called Prevent that is designed to tackle radicalisation risk that could result in terrorism or non-violent extremism.
These programs basically work by placing a duty on certain types of organisation to report concerning behaviours that could result in radicalisation. An example would be a teacher or social worker overhearing a teenager espousing violent ideological positions that they'd been exposed to online.
This then results in a referral to the local counter-terrorism police unit, who carry out an assessment to determine the level of vulnerability and risk. Far-right ideologies including fascism can be accounted for here. Depending on the outcome, this may result in the referral being closed, or a multi-agency support plan being developed for the individual.
In that narrow band of circumstances, determining someone's susceptibility to fascism as an extremist ideology is warranted. That's in the context of a reactive specialist law enforcement assessment, when there is a justifiable national security interest in the prevention of terrorism.
That said, this is very different to indiscriminate profiling on a population level. If everyone in the UK was subject to mandatory fascism assessments, that would be massively intrusive and disproportionate, and an enormous infringement of civil liberties - even if the government attempted to justify it on the same national security basis described above.
5 Comments
GeneralRetreat@beehaw.org · 1 pts · 3y
In what context?
Who'd be doing the identifying, how would they be doing it, and what would they be using that information for?
'Should' is a question of desirability, so the above is really critically important.
bear_delune@beehaw.org · -1 pts · 3y
Absolutely agree! I don’t have the answers to those questions
Do you have any contexts in mind?
GeneralRetreat@beehaw.org · 0 pts · 3y
Well, one context I'm already familiar with is the counter-terrorism duty in the UK. There is a program called Prevent that is designed to tackle radicalisation risk that could result in terrorism or non-violent extremism.
These programs basically work by placing a duty on certain types of organisation to report concerning behaviours that could result in radicalisation. An example would be a teacher or social worker overhearing a teenager espousing violent ideological positions that they'd been exposed to online.
This then results in a referral to the local counter-terrorism police unit, who carry out an assessment to determine the level of vulnerability and risk. Far-right ideologies including fascism can be accounted for here. Depending on the outcome, this may result in the referral being closed, or a multi-agency support plan being developed for the individual.
In that narrow band of circumstances, determining someone's susceptibility to fascism as an extremist ideology is warranted. That's in the context of a reactive specialist law enforcement assessment, when there is a justifiable national security interest in the prevention of terrorism.
That said, this is very different to indiscriminate profiling on a population level. If everyone in the UK was subject to mandatory fascism assessments, that would be massively intrusive and disproportionate, and an enormous infringement of civil liberties - even if the government attempted to justify it on the same national security basis described above.
bear_delune@beehaw.org · 1 pts · 3y
What about handling it like a mental health issue?
hoodlem@hoodlem.me · 1 pts · 3y
How would you measure someone’s susceptibility? Are you talking about in today’s world or in a kind of Minority Report dystopia?