38 International Journal of Cultic Studies ■ Vol. 9, 2018
At the state level, an example of the broader
strategic measures undertaken include
developing community-cohesion programs,
including a Community Cohesion Ambassador’s
Program to enable community leaders to work
with students in schools and the community “to
provide advice on the risk of violent extremism
and the importance of community cohesion”
(Angus, 2016, p. 11). The New South Wales
(NSW) Government has established a support
and advice telephone line and a training program
for NSW Government workers, together with
capacity-building programs for community
workers. In addition, the Premier has set up an
expert panel (Countering Violent Extremism
[CVE] Expert Panel) to provide advice and has
appointed a Director for CVE Programs attached
to the Department of Premier and Cabinet. On a
more proactive level, an audit of prayer groups
in the State school system has been established
to ensure that extremists are not able to
indoctrinate school kids in informal prayer
groups, and presumably in scripture (or special
religious education) classes (Angus, 2016).
At the Commonwealth level, under the Living
Safe Together Grants Programme, $1.6 million
was allocated in August 2014 “to 34
community-based organizations to help divert
individuals away from extreme ideologies”
(Angus, 2016, p. 10), while in 2015 an
announcement was made for the investment of
$22 million in “programs designed to monitor
and counter extremist material online” (p. 10).
The different level of financial resources
allocated to these programs is interesting when
one notes that in its own September 2015 Living
Safe Together awareness kit, the Commonwealth
states that “radicalisation is most often led by
personal face-to-face relationships, but there are
some examples of people becoming involved in
radical groups through the internet” (Angus,
2016, pp. 4–5).
This suggests to me that, in the crucial area of
subject diversion through radicalization
programs, the Commonwealth is flying by the
seat of its pants and is sampling self-started
programs in a desperate effort to find something
that works. The paltry level of financial
resources also indicates that there are very few
of these programs available, and probably even
fewer that could be properly described as
focusing on subject deconversion. In addition,
the approach of community outreach and
education of Government workers begs the
question, “Are these efforts merely the blind
leading the blind?” For example, among the
numerous criticisms of extant CVE programs,
Hussain Nadim notes, in relation to the training
of school teachers to be on the lookout for
extremism, that “It is almost impossible to
identify at-risk students. How is the government
or teachers going to identify who is at risk and
who is not at risk at the age of 13, 14, 15 and
16?” (Angus, 2016, p. 13).
Human-Information and Apostate-
Focused Research
With respect to both the broader approach of
community engagement and education, and the
more focused efforts to deradicalize at-risk
individuals, the field of cultic studies offers
insights into a far more effective approach.
Streams of complaint about potentially
dangerous religious or ideological actors can
sometimes remain largely unexamined or
overlooked because most Western democracies
are reluctant to regulate the broader sector that
encompasses religion and belief, of which the
religious cults referred to previously comprise
an intrinsic component, as do contemporary
terrorist groups. Complaints come from
disillusioned followers (apostates) who have left
the groups, or their bewildered families and
friends. Even when timely information is
received by the relevant authorities, it is
sometimes not acted upon because present
arrangements do not sufficiently facilitate the
type of ongoing, channeled, detailed information
gathering required to facilitate multidisciplinary,
research-based analysis about extremist groups
and actors.
I have previously noted that the best way to
gather “timely information most needed by
public officials is that which can be provided by
leavers [apostates] and families and friends of
people in high-demand groups” (Mutch, 2006, p.
187). In addition to studies based on apostate
testimonies and complaints made by group
critics, I have suggested that in a triangulated
approach other scholars might focus on group-
At the state level, an example of the broader
strategic measures undertaken include
developing community-cohesion programs,
including a Community Cohesion Ambassador’s
Program to enable community leaders to work
with students in schools and the community “to
provide advice on the risk of violent extremism
and the importance of community cohesion”
(Angus, 2016, p. 11). The New South Wales
(NSW) Government has established a support
and advice telephone line and a training program
for NSW Government workers, together with
capacity-building programs for community
workers. In addition, the Premier has set up an
expert panel (Countering Violent Extremism
[CVE] Expert Panel) to provide advice and has
appointed a Director for CVE Programs attached
to the Department of Premier and Cabinet. On a
more proactive level, an audit of prayer groups
in the State school system has been established
to ensure that extremists are not able to
indoctrinate school kids in informal prayer
groups, and presumably in scripture (or special
religious education) classes (Angus, 2016).
At the Commonwealth level, under the Living
Safe Together Grants Programme, $1.6 million
was allocated in August 2014 “to 34
community-based organizations to help divert
individuals away from extreme ideologies”
(Angus, 2016, p. 10), while in 2015 an
announcement was made for the investment of
$22 million in “programs designed to monitor
and counter extremist material online” (p. 10).
The different level of financial resources
allocated to these programs is interesting when
one notes that in its own September 2015 Living
Safe Together awareness kit, the Commonwealth
states that “radicalisation is most often led by
personal face-to-face relationships, but there are
some examples of people becoming involved in
radical groups through the internet” (Angus,
2016, pp. 4–5).
This suggests to me that, in the crucial area of
subject diversion through radicalization
programs, the Commonwealth is flying by the
seat of its pants and is sampling self-started
programs in a desperate effort to find something
that works. The paltry level of financial
resources also indicates that there are very few
of these programs available, and probably even
fewer that could be properly described as
focusing on subject deconversion. In addition,
the approach of community outreach and
education of Government workers begs the
question, “Are these efforts merely the blind
leading the blind?” For example, among the
numerous criticisms of extant CVE programs,
Hussain Nadim notes, in relation to the training
of school teachers to be on the lookout for
extremism, that “It is almost impossible to
identify at-risk students. How is the government
or teachers going to identify who is at risk and
who is not at risk at the age of 13, 14, 15 and
16?” (Angus, 2016, p. 13).
Human-Information and Apostate-
Focused Research
With respect to both the broader approach of
community engagement and education, and the
more focused efforts to deradicalize at-risk
individuals, the field of cultic studies offers
insights into a far more effective approach.
Streams of complaint about potentially
dangerous religious or ideological actors can
sometimes remain largely unexamined or
overlooked because most Western democracies
are reluctant to regulate the broader sector that
encompasses religion and belief, of which the
religious cults referred to previously comprise
an intrinsic component, as do contemporary
terrorist groups. Complaints come from
disillusioned followers (apostates) who have left
the groups, or their bewildered families and
friends. Even when timely information is
received by the relevant authorities, it is
sometimes not acted upon because present
arrangements do not sufficiently facilitate the
type of ongoing, channeled, detailed information
gathering required to facilitate multidisciplinary,
research-based analysis about extremist groups
and actors.
I have previously noted that the best way to
gather “timely information most needed by
public officials is that which can be provided by
leavers [apostates] and families and friends of
people in high-demand groups” (Mutch, 2006, p.
187). In addition to studies based on apostate
testimonies and complaints made by group
critics, I have suggested that in a triangulated
approach other scholars might focus on group-
