At a cross-party event in Brussels, speakers outlined classroom practice, governance gaps and platform dynamics, with extended interventions from Nigel Goodrich, Imam Mohammad Tawhidi, Shannon Seban and Erik Van Den Berghe.
The conference, held at the European Parliament, “Bridging Divides: Addressing Polarisation & Radicalisation Among Europe’s Youth,” brought together MEPs, practitioners and officials to assess drivers of youth radicalisation and to propose responses spanning education, civil society and platform accountability. The meeting was co-organised with the International Movement for Peace & Coexistence (IMPAC).
Opening frame: education and enforcement
Host MEP Sabrina Repp said online extremism was spilling into schools. “What happens on social media does not stay there. The same values and boundaries must apply as in real life,” she told delegates, calling for enforcement against hate speech and for platform accountability. Co-host Antonio López-Istúriz White urged an education-first approach: “Our first line of defence is education… Democracies have won before; we can do it again.”
European Commission official Francisco Gaztelu Mezquiriz set out institutional work under way: renewal of the EU’s anti-radicalisation agenda by end-2025 and contributions to a Pact for the Mediterranean with a “people” pillar focused on youth opportunities, education, media independence and fact-checking.
Nigel Goodrich — findings from Shaping Minds, Shaping Society
Education specialist Nigel Goodrich presented IMPAC’s review of classroom resources in Belgium. “Antisemitic incidents in Belgium have surged by more than 1,000% since 7 October 2023… and fully 42% of Belgian Jews consider emigrating,” he said, explaining why the team audited 57 items used by teachers and pupils.
According to Goodrich, the supply chain for classroom content includes publicly funded NGOs, media outlets and portals for teachers. “There’s a direct line of funding between the government and the providers of educational material,” he said.
The review found a “huge disproportion” of materials on Israel–Palestine and, within that, “100% of the resources were critical of one party”. He described resources that failed basic evidence tests and discouraged critical thinking. “Texts without context are surely pretexts,” he argued.
Goodrich set out six recommendations: avoid politicised “global citizenship” packs aimed at mobilising pupils; scrutinise public funding for ideologically driven content; prevent early, binary framing of conflicts at primary level; require media producers to separate fact and comment in school packs; establish independent evaluation of providers for neutrality; and review state funding to political NGOs. “What’s happening in schools? That’s what we wanted to find out,” he said, adding that strengthening analytical skills should take precedence over activism.
Imam Mohammad Tawhidi — network analysis and a three-pillar response
Imam Mohammad Tawhidi characterised current trends as a coordinated, long-term strategy by Islamist networks. “This is a patient, strategic, and increasingly dangerous campaign… to infiltrate and subvert the institutions that hold European democracy together,” he said, identifying the Muslim Brotherhood as the central actor.
He described four vectors: (1) the NGO and charity sector as conduits for indoctrination and foreign money; (2) political access via proxies claiming to represent communities; (3) influence in universities, unions and social-justice causes; and (4) narrative control through broadcast and social platforms. He warned of routine rebranding to evade scrutiny: “Another logo, another name.”
Tawhidi called for “full transparency” for organisations receiving public funds or institutional access; a Europe-wide inquiry to map networks; and support for independent Muslim organisations that reject political Islamism. “When a terrorist is in broad daylight using democracy to weaken democracy… it’s a matter of enacting existing laws and applying them,” he said. “Complacency is no longer an option.”
Shannon Seban — street-level intimidation and a law-and-education track
French politician and activist Shannon Seban, Shannon Seban, speaking on behalf of Combat Antisemitism Movement, linked radicalisation to antisemitism experienced during a campaign. She described being abused in the street—“move from here, dirty Zionist”—and subsequently targeted online. “Because I am Jewish… I was [said to be] supporting a genocide, and… a killer of babies,” she said, noting that 40% of her district’s population is under 25. “On a daily basis… hate, radicalisation, extremism is coming from ignorance.”
Seban urged authorities “to denounce, to punish, and to privilege free education”. She proposed a bright-line test for public discourse: “When you deny the very right of the people to have his own territory… the red line is crossed.” Alongside enforcement, she emphasised inter-faith contact and routine school visits to dismantle stereotypes. She warned against political incentives that reward polarisation: “There is an assumption that to be effective in politics you must be extremist. We should show there is a path for tolerance and coexistence.”
Erik Van Den Berghe — classroom practice: critical thinking and ethics
Brussels educator and local councillor Erik Van Den Berghe presented a practitioner model focused on early prevention through dialogue and ethics. “Freedom of speech is the cornerstone of European democracy, but inciting to violence or hatred has no place within it,” he said.
He recounted a pupil who called democracy “a Western trick.” Instead of punishment, the class engaged in structured debate and source analysis. “Dialogue, trust, education,” Van Den Berghe said; months later the pupil led an inter-faith project. His approach rests on two pillars: (1) critical thinking—pupils deconstruct propaganda in videos, posts and slogans; and (2) ethics—recognising the dignity of people of all faiths and none. Scaling this requires teacher training “to navigate conflict,” curricula that include philosophy, ethics and cultural literacy, and regular intercultural exchanges. A pupil once told him she finally felt she belonged “in this classroom”. “That is where de-radicalisation begins,” he said—“in relationships, recognition, dignity.”
Additional perspectives
Belgian educator Mohamad Wehbe described sessions after 7 October that combined brief historical context with discussion of Islamic teachings on peace for majority-Muslim cohorts, plus systematic source-checking of material pupils brought to class. UAE analyst Sara Al-Hosani addressed social-media dynamics: “The algorithm did not care… it just pushed what got clicks. And unfortunately, what got clicks was hate,” she said, proposing values-based messaging, embedded digital literacy and support for youth-led initiatives. German political scientist Gülden Hennemann urged prevention anchored in democratic values and warned against partnering with groups “that themselves stand for fundamentalist ideology”.
Saïd Oujibou — theological clarity and a civic compact
The most detailed country case came from Saïd Oujibou, a Franco-Moroccan socio-religious mediator who has worked for two decades between municipal, community and faith actors. Speaking in French, he began with a personal disclosure: “One of the terrorists of the Bataclan… is a member of my family.” He said he spent hours in an anti-terror cell on the night of 13 November 2015 and undertook “a whole work on reparative justice for a year.” He cautioned against “simplistic and binary” explanations of radicalisation.
Oujibou argued that pathways into violent extremism were multi-factor. “The reasons are multiple… historical, political, socio-economic, identity… [and] also religious,” he said. In France, he described “a deficit of history and an excess of memory,” and a pattern of policy missteps—on integration, immigration and secularism—that left some young people feeling “humiliated, rejected, ostracised,” and susceptible to ideologies “that legitimise… violence.”
He challenged the claim that Islamist violence is wholly separate from religious sources. “We cannot accept… statements… according to which Islamists [have] nothing to do with Islam. This denial is intolerable,” he said. In his view, some Qur’anic verses and certain readings of hadith are cited by violent actors as justification. He listed examples that extremists “use as a religious base”—including references in Surah 9 and Surah 47 that, taken out of historical context, are deployed to justify attacks and decapitation—adding that groups such as Daesh have invoked hadith to legitimise sexual slavery. “These atrocities… are all rooted in existing texts,” he said.
His remedy combined theological reform with civic obligation. “There must be an essential reform… a critical and contextual reading of the Qur’an [and] hadith and a clear distinction between spiritual faith and the… warrior context [of] the 7th century,” he said. Without this, “Islamists will continue to grow,” aided by “a silent West” deterred by fear or economic interest. He urged an end to “victimisation stories” and called for accountability within Muslim communities: “In France, being a Muslim is not enough. You have to be of France.” He framed integration as embracing national history and republican principles: “France has duties towards its citizens, but the residents also have duties towards France.”
Oujibou also criticised foreign state influence, arguing that strands of Islamism had been “actively… spread” by funding networks and radical preaching across several countries, while some regimes exploited the threat—“work with me, it will save you from jihadism”—to secure a free hand. He said ignoring these realities left youths “mentally and psychologically violated,” and pressed for a “collective mea culpa” within Islamic thought alongside a rules-based civic settlement in Europe.
His overarching diagnosis was that durable prevention rests on three pillars: honest engagement with texts where they are misused; consistent public standards that avoid double-speak; and a renewal of the social contract—rights matched by duties—grounded in France’s republican order. “Let’s be serious,” he said. “Looking back… there has been no [sufficient] responsibility or internal questioning… To benefit without contributing is untenable.”
Through-lines
Across contributions, three themes recurred: education as the principal long-term tool; transparency and governance standards for publicly funded organisations; and the role of attention-driven platforms as accelerants, strengthening the case for digital literacy and consistent enforcement online.
Repp closed by thanking participants for a “very good exchange of views”. Moderator Patricia Teitelbaum said the effort would continue through practical cooperation: “We have to work all together. It’s a global problem and we will have only a global answer.”
Programme: European Parliament, co-organised with IMPAC — “Bridging Divides: Addressing Polarisation & Radicalisation Among Europe’s Youth.”
Belgium’s Radicalisation Crisis: Ideology, Identity, and the Limits of Integration
