Teenage 'terrorist'

Times are hard for adult Americans.

The state of affairs in the world is such that Joe Biden has actually been reduced to begging protestors gathered in Europe in preparation for the G-20 summit to “give us a chance.”

But while trudging through our daily “how much did the DOW fall today?” grown-up troubles, we have failed to notice that those younger than we have some bones to pick with the government, too.

A police scheme in Britain known as the “Channel project” is intended to identify children who are “vulnerable” to the black hole that is Islamic radicalization. It has labeled more than 200 children, some as young as 13, as potential terrorists.

Spotting the troublemakers is relatively simple: They tend to be less social at recess, are drawn toward more violent video games and are rarely willing to trade their Snack Packs at lunch.

The giveaway, however, is that they are 13-year-olds with political views. The police described flag-raising beliefs as “racism and the adoption of bad attitudes toward ‘the West.’” These elements are simple to pick out in potential kid-terrorists because they are pretty much nonexistent among everyone else in Europe.

Once identified, the kids are lucky enough to take part in a “program of intervention tailored to the needs of the individual.” Often this includes discussions with trusted adults that – while the police never explicitly stated of what the discussion should consist – I imagine would intend to do away with the whole “virgins waiting upon death” thing (I feel like that’s key for middle school boys).

The potential threat of the children could, however, be deemed serious enough to necessitate police intervention.

It is important to note that although the program has focused on Muslim children, the Muslim community is not being targeted.

In an intriguing paradox, police proclaimed that they “are targeting criminals and would-be terrorists who happen to be cloaking themselves in Islamic rhetoric. That is not the same as targeting the Muslim community.”

They seem to have missed an important discrepancy: The junior high kids they’re prosecuting aren’t actually guilty of a crime. They just kind of seem like they could maybe be guilty in 20 years or so.

We, as citizens of democracy, have a nice little saying about criminal prosecution: “innocent until proven guilty.” Instead of targeting problem children (who all just happen to be Muslim) and “intervening” in the lives of law-abiding seventh graders, perhaps we should demonstrate to them that the reason to avoid extremism, the real reason to support democracy, is because in a democratic system everyone is equal, the law is fair and the courts and the legal system are just.

Because, hypothetically speaking, in a democracy, one will never be prosecuted for a crime one has yet to commit or be targeted for one’s religious beliefs. Maybe if we demonstrated the real benefits of democracy to these “vulnerable” kids, they wouldn’t need police intervention to show them why they should appreciate the “freedoms” against which they should not rebel.