Do Schools have a Duty to prevent Extremism?

[Quintessence]

Because America sustains itself through extremist indoctrination.

Which America do you live in again?

 

[metis]

The 51st state, Canada.

Hey, do you want another province, because if Trump wins, I wish you'd annex my state of Michigan.

 

[Mister Emu]

It isn't a school's place to determine who you are, they should be helping you gain the tools necessary to determine for yourself and the training necessary to prepare you for your chosen field.

It is absolutely disgusting that a school would exert governmental force over political identification or even worse curiosity.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

A recent news story however illustrates just how absurd and difficult this policy is to enforce, with a school in hampshire ringing the police after a student visited the offical UKIP website after a class discussion on immigration, which was considered to have "politically incorrect" and "extremist views".

I used to work in Education and I formed that view that far too much is expected of school-staff. I would say that it's parents who have the duty.

 

[Revoltingest]

Hey, do you want another province, because if Trump wins, I wish you'd annex my state of Michigan.

You can move to Poutinestan, but the rest of us are stay'n right here.
Canuckistan is a nice little place, but it's not a full fledged country.
- No space program
- No nuclear weapons
- The Dristan shortage

 

[AnnaCzereda]

So, I'm wondering whether you think getting schools to "protect" or "police" their students from extremism (feel free to pick the word that suits) is a good idea?

It depends on how you define extremism. If you mean turning to physical and verbal violence against fellow students because of their religion or ethnic background, then yes such behavior should be condemned and punished accordingly. If you mean mere discussing ideas that are considered politically incorrect, then no as it's the straight road to censorship.

It's simple really. We have to consider the whole picture. Britain under Cameron's rule is turning away from democracy and towards the authoritarian regime, where free speech becomes stifled in the name of "tolerance." In one document you posted (the longest one) much space is dedicated to the internet censorship. It will allow the ****ty "charities" collaborating with the government, like the Internet Watch Foundation, to block websites they deem indecent or controversial and all of that without the court verdict. Additionally, the organizations or groups that the government considers extreme will not be able to publish their articles or blogs online or issue their own newspapers unless they have the content approved by the police. The controversial scholars won't be invited to the universities to give the lectures, won't have their books published and may even lose their jobs.

To sum up, the new law appears to be directed against the Muslim terrorists but it potentially gives the British government an opportunity to silence its political opponents and any dissenting views.

That aside, radicalization of youth is indeed a problem. Many young people, especially Muslim immigrants, make contact with ISIS terrorists online and then travel to Syria to join ISIS. Although the services like YouTube, Twitter, Facebook and Internet Archive do all in their power to remove the accounts set up by terrorists, the new ones are created immediately after the old ones are banned. It's tilting at windmills. Cameron's law somehow mirrors the EU helplessness in dealing with Muslim extremism. Multi-culturalism didn't work and now Europe is torn apart by the clash of cultures.