The way to stop extremists like Anjem Choudary is through reintegration, not lifelong imprisonment

Anjem Choudary’s release has created a small storm in the counterterrorism world. The idea that one of the most significant recruiters to a banned organisation, who was connected to some 20 per cent of convicted jihadist terrorists in the UK, and who had declared allegiance to Isis and served such a short time in prison, does raise reasonable questions.

So how do we deal with convicted terrorists upon release? How do we seek to reintegrate or merely integrate them into society? Is there a process of deradicalisation that is taking place in prisons? And how do we stop Choudary doing what he did for years – radicalising and recruiting individuals into either undertaking violent acts in the UK or travelling abroad to fight, not just in conflict zones but as part of an army of foreign fighters (such as the likes of “Jihadi John” and the Isis “Beatles”), undertaking horrific acts of violence on other people?

At the moment, there is only anecdotal evidence surrounding individuals returning to extremist organisations and then being convicted of offences under the Terrorism Act. But there is not – at least according to the UK’s current counterterrorism policy, Contest – a formal systemic approach aimed at grievance reduction, challenging of ideology, or disengagement policies, let alone deradicalisation, implemented within the UK prison system as a whole.

There have been some internal processes aimed at separating recruiters from the general prison population. Preventing them from preaching to a captive audience – an audience which is already aggrieved, often has demonstrated a psychological desire for change, and has in many instances manifest inclination towards violence (and sadly a disproportionately higher number of Muslims versus the numbers within the Muslim diaspora in the UK) – is certainly important.

Then there are the other, more disparate practices and initiatives going on in prisons. There have been successful examples of individuals completely reshaping not just their attitude to violence, but also their world view or ideology, as well as their own spiritual relationship to their community and the society around them, rejecting not just violent actions but also extremist beliefs. The example of Jordan Horner springs to mind. Horner was once part of a “Muslim Patrol” vigilante group which attempted to enforce sharia law on the streets of east London. He has since apologised for his behaviour both publicly and to his victims after serving time in prison. The efforts of the likes of Usman Raja and Unity Initiative to radically change Horner cannot be underestimated.

There are many people who have, like myself, worked with prison communities to help radicalised individuals – both inside prison walls and after they’re released. Working with such individuals involves not just challenging them to reconsider what they inflicted on others and the consequences they themselves have had to face as a result, but also challenging their often (though not always) distorted understanding of the world.

It involves looking closely at how they have internalised their genuine experiences of discrimination. It means unpicking the political realities of the rights and wrongs dealt to their own fraternity of the faithful, and how they make sense of their faith, scripture and religious teachings in a world of imperial conflict and ideological supremacism.

The government has rightly identified the need to create a systemic approach to disengagement, deradicalisation and integration as a part of its strategy to tackle extremist and ideologically-inspired violence.

A systematic approach to dealing with jihadist violence and the growing number of far-right violent ideologues is vital. My hope is that they can follow the example of successful cases, research findings, and best practices to shape an effective strategy, and carefully monitor its implementation without staunch ideologies influencing its decision-making process.

We must learn the lessons from our past and not ignore the ideological component. We need to use everything at our disposal – our years of working with violent criminals and our understanding of their cognitive and psychological triggers – to appreciate the broader issues that influence these people. And we must deliver justice, both to those wronged by such individuals and to the perpetrators. Having a serious and realistic approach to rehabilitation is not just an ideal of liberal do-gooders, it is a vital strategic necessity.

Rashad Ali works on deradicalisation initiatives alongside prisons, probation services, police and community groups. He is a senior fellow at the Institute for Strategic Dialogue (ISD)