Anti-racists—like those who mobilised on 18 March in London—must resist the racist Prevent strategy (Picture: Guy Smallman)
Who decides whether a person should be labelled a “dangerous extremist”? Witnesses to the House of Commons home affairs select committee tripped over themselves last week in a bid to answer that question.
The committee met to discuss the recent Shawcross review of the government’s Prevent “anti-radicalisation” programme. Sir William Shawcross wrote that Prevent was spending too much time looking at people on the far right, when it should be focused on Muslims.
Security minister Tom Tugendhat and Prevent boss Michael Stewart came to the committee to explain why they thought Shawcross was right. Tugendhat said that “fear of being labelled racist” meant many people did not refer Muslims to Prevent when they should.
“The balance of referrals has not been what we’d expect,” he said. But when the committee chair asked if there was evidence for this claim, the minister admitted that “at the moment, that is a supposition”.
A similar pattern was repeated when it came to Shawcross’s claim that “divisive” Muslim organisations were being funded by the government. When the chair asked for evidence, Tugendhat muttered that Shawcross had looked at only a “couple of examples, several years ago”.
He added there were no “current examples”. In other words, the government has accepted the Shawcross report, and all its recommendations, despite there being no evidence to back up its claims.
It was all too much even for Tory MP James Daly. Addressing Tugenhat, he summed up Prevent’s success, saying, “We’re referring people into Prevent that may not have terrorist sympathies, and after they finish [the programme] they still don’t have terrorist sympathies.”
“Well, that’s one interpretation of it,” replied the minister.
In his introduction, Tugendhat had already made clear the real aim of Prevent was to define who and what ideas were “extremist”. He said that in previous decades the focus of the programme would have been Irish Republicanism, and a century ago it might have been “anarchism”. Neither ideology was automatically inclined towards using terror, but that mattered little to the two witnesses.
No wonder then that a new report has detailed dozens of cases in which people, often children, have been referred to the programme on racist grounds. The Prevent Watch group found, for example, the mother of an eight year old was brought in for questioning to discuss her son’s “concerning views”.
He had drawn a picture of a mosque and written “Muslims are better than Christians” on it. What might have resulted in a discussion between the pupil and his teacher was instead escalated to Prevent—as is demanded by law.
Soon mother and child were in a meeting with social workers and being questioned about pro-Palestine protests they had been on together. The report notes the conversation at the meeting.
Social worker: “So did you not think that this would instil hate for the government in [your son]?”
Parent: “Go and ask my child what the definition of ‘government’ is and what it means. He wouldn’t have a clue as he’s just turned eight!
Headteacher: “I believe your child goes to the mosque. Why does he go there?”
Parent: “Both the children go there every day after school to learn Arabic and to be educated on Islam.”
At the end of the meeting, the social worker said the matter had now been referred to Prevent.
Last week a joint statement called on Shawcross’s review to be withdrawn. The groups signing it included Amnesty International, Liberty, Runnymede Trust, Child Rights International Network and many Muslim civil society organisations
They argued it is “ideologically shaped” and increases the threat of discrimination, raises concerns about child protection and the right to free speech. But for ministers, that is exactly the point of Prevent.
They know that people really preparing to commit terrorist acts in Britain are not among those referred to the programme. The real aim of the policy is to allow the government to dictate what can and cannot be talked about in public—and to define who and what is extreme.
Revolutions can liberate not only humankind, but nature as well
Investors fear that it's unsustainable
Wildfires are raging, while reservoirs have dried up
Imbalances between the US and China continue to increase
