Ironically on the very day that the Coalition government announced its revision of the Prevent strategy to counter radicalisation, the Report from its own independent reviewer challenges the government narrative that Prevent monies have been used to fund extremist groups. Lord Carlisle’s Review also concludes that there has been no systematic attempt to recruit or radicalise people in universities and full time education. Hence the Home Office Minister Teresa May’s declaration that the government’s Prevent strategy will launch “an unyielding fight against extremism…. use smart engagement… a ruthless determination to find and punish those who promote or take to violence” points to a government intent on building policy on the basis of ideological flourishes rather than hard evidence and fact.
The government’s definition of extremism as a vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs is a classic case of double speak as the deliberate targeting of Muslims and Islam undercuts the notion of respect that that the policy appears to espouse. Instead the policy is an attempt to impose a state-sanctioned version of Islam and the act of targeting Prevent funding into community settings, schools, universities and the criminal justice system effectively labels ALL Muslims as potential extremists and terrorists.
The identification of Leeds and Bradford as being in the top 25 cities being most susceptible to influences from Al Qaida radicalism, will undoubtedly have a profound impact on Muslim communities living, working, socialising and studying in these 2 cities. Rather than draw on the lessons of the Arab Spring that has seen millions of Muslims across the Arab world protesting peacefully for basic civil rights and social justice, the government is intent on peddling an unprogressive version of Islam.
While Labour’s policy held the Muslim community responsible for combating extremism and terrorism, the Coalition government believes that the views held by the Muslim community serve as a conveyor belt that transports people into violent extremism. Despite government protestations that only a ‘minority’ is to blame for promoting extremism its current policy is predicated on the belief that you are extremist until proven moderate.
The reality is that there are already clear legal instruments for dealing with incitement of racial and religious violence and hate. The net effect of the policy will be to criminalise the Muslim community even further, subject it to ongoing surveillance and monitoring and legitimise the right-wing assault against Islam.
Significantly the government’s stated support for the Channel programme will continue the highly questionable practice of labelling Muslim children in primary and secondary schools as potential extremists. The ‘criminalisation’ of children based on the highly subjective criteria of referrals by teachers, youth workers, classroom assistants, community support officers etc.is deeply problematic in the absence of an independent scrutiny framework. Likewise the government’s declared intention of bringing the policy under the ambit of its integration and localism agenda is highly risky as it encourages a free for all ‘dob an extremist’ approach towards Muslims who are an integral part of British society.
Ultimately relegating Muslims to the status of a mythical bogeyperson may be expedient, but it fails to acknowledge the impact of UK foreign policy as a catalyst in the process of radicalization. New Prevent could have been an opportunity for normalising relations with the Muslim community in the UK and bringing an end to the last 10 years of government polices that have created a breach in the fabric of Muslim and non-Muslim community relations.
Unfortunately Cameron’s ideological posturing may bolster his national and international reputation as a politician ‘tough’ on extremism and terrorism, but it will do little to mend the breach in relations with the Muslim community, the vast majority of whom share the aspirations of liberty, freedom and equality as all other communities in the UK.
In the final analysis, those committed to the vision of multiculturalism, equality and fairplay must be vigilant against giving this policy credence. Instead we need to learn from the mistakes of the last few years by taking proactive steps to hold those charged with implementing Prevent – the police, local authorities and communities – accountable. Leeds and Bradford should work together to develop a community-led scrutiny framework that holds those charged with implementing this divisive policy to account as a matter of urgent priority.
Ratna Lachman
Expressions of interest to join an independent Prevent scrutiny panel
JUST would like to invite expressions of interest from Leeds and Bradford organisations interested in being part of an independent voluntary sector-led scrutiny panel on Prevent. Contact JUST on 01274 542222
Prevent Strategy
Report to the Home Secretary of Independent Oversight of Prevent Review and Strategy
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
