As if the world needed it, Friday’s chilling attacks in France, Tunisia and Kuwait were a savage reminder of terrorism’s ongoing threat.

Governments from all over the globe are looking at how they can stop people being brainwashed into joining radical terrorist groups.

And many countries, including Australia, have little to no tolerance for returning fighters.

• Terrorists to lose Australian citizenship: PM
• Internet bans for would-be terror recruits
• No leniency for overseas fighters: Abbott

But can people be truly reformed once they’ve been exposed to such extreme horrors? Deradicalisation expert, Dr Clarke Jones from the Australian National University, believes so.

“It [deradicalisation] can be very successful. I’ve seen some real hard nuts change their ways but it is mainly those who are younger,” Dr Jones told The New Daily.

“It can be very hard to change older people who might be very solid in their beliefs. I’ve seen plenty of success though.

“In life, events can be the trigger to turn people to terrorism but events can also be the trigger to drive that change.

“I’m a positive believer that we can do something that provides long-term benefits for the Australian community instead of the ‘lock them up’ approach.”

So how does it work?

Dr Jones acknowledges that many previous approaches have been unsuccessful.

He also says there is no ‘one-size-fits-all’ program, but after an initial assessment, mentoring and focussing on other interests is crucial.

“Initial stages that people need to go through are psychological consultations, meeting with social workers and religious counselling,” he said.

“Once a person is assessed, it’s about providing a new direction. What is really critical in these approaches are mentoring programs, not from a family member, (but) someone they can really look up to.

“It can be very difficult. There’s lots of resistance from hard-headed kids. It really depends on their length of indoctrination and level of belief.

“I’ve interviewed people who were just paid more – Islamic State provided them an income. The [process of deradicalisation] is easier for some.

“Those kids who are not sure on life – if you can focus on their interests, they can quite quickly be deradicalised. It could be six months, it could be 12.

“But there’s no use providing a program that ends after a year. It can take several years longer for those more indoctrinated.”

Overseas success

Aarhus in Denmark is the home of a successful and much-discussed deradicalisation program that focuses on inclusion in society.

Denmark is a country highly affected by radicalisation.

An International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation and Political Violence (ICSR) study earlier this year showed that only Belgium produced more fighters per capita than Denmark in western Europe.

The Aarhus program provides individual mentors for each of those affected and many fighters are now returning home to seek help through it.

It is not a free pass for those who have committed crimes while overseas – they will be investigated and prosecuted if guilty – but early signs are that the re-integration is working well.

And in Germany, Hayat, launched in 2011 and funded by taxpayers’ money, works closely with the families of extremists.

Hayat say families have the best chance of changing the minds of young fighters and their success soon saw them swamped with calls from Austria, Canada, France and Sweden.

A British branch of Hayat will be launched soon.

Where does Australia sit?

As reported in May, three Australians – who are thought to have joined Islamic State – are keen to return home.

They’re worried about the ramifications of coming back, though, and Prime Minister Tony Abbott did not mince his words in response.

The PM said: “If you go abroad to break Australian law, if you go abroad to kill innocent people in the name of misguided fundamental extremism, if you go abroad to be an Islamist killer, well we are hardly going to welcome you back into this country.”

Those comments were a blow to those who argue former jihadists can play a major role in deradicalisation.

And while Dr Jones commended the government’s “strong national security posture”, he feels they are using “very divisive” language.

Dr Jones also thinks the balance of funds in the $630 million counter-terrorism package is skewed.

Of that sum, just $13.4 million went to community engagement programs that focus on preventing young Australians from joining extremist groups.

“The balance needs to be a lot better but having said that, the government is making considerable headway in that regard,” he said.

“It doesn’t sound like much but the government can also do a lot more in the way they express themselves. It means a lot.”