One man's radical: the radicalisation debate and Australian counterterrorism policy

Nell Bennett*

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

155 Downloads (Pure)


Australia's counterterrorism policy is often justified publicly by the perceived threat of radicalisation. The purported rise of radicalisation, however, is based on conflicting academic opinion and limited empirical evidence. This article examines the radicalisation discourse and argues that there is no consensus in the field as to how a person can become radicalised, or even what the end point of radicalisation should be. Furthermore, scholars are yet to formulate a persuasive explanation for how ideas can actually lead to violence. The radicalisation debate may result in the securitisation of unconventional views, which could threaten the freedom of political discourse that underpins the Australian democratic system.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)47-62
Number of pages16
JournalSecurity challenges
Issue number1
Publication statusPublished - 2019

Bibliographical note

Version archived for private and non-commercial use with the permission of the author/s and according to publisher conditions. For further rights please contact the publisher.


  • extremism
  • pathways
  • violence
  • Muslims


Dive into the research topics of 'One man's radical: the radicalisation debate and Australian counterterrorism policy'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this