Why Silence Is the Real Radicaliser
How Censorship, Fear, and Suppression Breed Extremism
Introduction: Misdiagnosing Radicalisation
Public discourse frequently identifies extremism with exposure to radical ideas. The dominant narrative is:
People become radicalised because they hear the wrong things.
This essay argues the opposite:
People become radicalised because they are forbidden from asking, challenging, and debating.
Silence, not speech, is the true radicaliser.
1. The Mechanism of Silence
When critique is taboo:
Questions go unasked
Doubt goes unexpressed
Internal tension festers
This creates a pressure cooker. Youth are left with private dissonance and no outlet. Unable to reconcile internal contradictions openly, some turn to extremist interpretations as a form of clarity and identity.
Silence substitutes for guidance and debate, not for belief itself.
2. Censorship and Social Isolation
Post-Christchurch New Zealand illustrates this effect:
Media and universities self-censor critique of Islam
Public discourse conflates criticism with hate
Youth perceive questioning as betrayal
The effect is social isolation. Young Muslims cannot openly discuss doubts without fear. The forbidden becomes attractive and powerful. Silence transforms curiosity into radicalisation risk.
3. The Psychological Cost
Cognitive dissonance thrives in silence. When moral or doctrinal conflicts cannot be aired:
Anxiety increases
Identity becomes rigid
Authority is internalised without challenge
This rigidity is a hallmark of extremism. Silence enforces dogmatic compliance without internalisation of reasoning.
4. How Silence Protects Power, Not People
Those who control religious interpretation benefit:
Gatekeepers consolidate authority
Reformers are silenced
Questioners are ostracised
By presenting the appearance of safety, silence masks structural harm. Protection of ideas is mistaken for protection of individuals, but the opposite occurs. The vulnerable are abandoned.
5. Silence as Recruitment Vector
Extremist groups exploit silence:
They offer spaces where doubts can be discussed
They promise answers forbidden elsewhere
They frame external suppression as evidence of conspiracy
Thus, censorship indirectly facilitates the very radicalisation it aims to prevent.
6. Historical Precedents
Extremist movements rarely emerge where debate is allowed:
Open religious critique in Renaissance Europe limited fanaticism
Secular critique in 19th-century societies prevented ideological monopolies
Suppressed discourse in totalitarian regimes consistently produced radical underground movements
History demonstrates a consistent causal link: repression, not exposure, drives extremism.
7. Youth and the Cost of Controlled Discourse
Muslim youth in New Zealand face:
Contradictory secular and religious norms
Forbidden critique of text, leaders, or doctrine
Social, familial, and institutional pressure to conform
Without spaces to question, youth experience cognitive pressure that primes extremism. Silence becomes the conduit for radical ideology.
8. Freedom, Dialogue, and Resilience
Resilient societies allow:
Open debate about ideas, even sacred ones
Protected spaces for dissent within communities
Encouragement of questioning, reasoning, and dialogue
Such societies prevent radicalisation by allowing tensions to surface safely, rather than forcing them underground.
9. Conclusion: Offence, Debate, and Prevention
Radicalisation is not caused by offence, criticism, or exposure to alternative ideas.
It is caused by silence, suppression, and fear of questioning.
If New Zealand is serious about preventing extremism, the solution is not policing offence. It is restoring open, fearless discourse—especially about religion, doctrine, and authority.
Silence is not protection. Silence is the radicaliser.
No comments:
Post a Comment