Anti-terror safety demands are displaced onto Muslims disproportionately

Evidence

Ensuring safety from terrorism is in the interests of all citizens, including Muslims. However, it is contrary to both equality and human rights law that Muslims, far more than any other group, are expected to pay for such safety at the cost of being subject to suspicion, demonization, racial stereotyping and unwarranted interference with their private lives. — A. Hussain, N. Meer, Framing Muslim Integration, 432

Categorization

• SEED: A possible essay angle: the asymmetry in who pays the hidden costs of collective security — Muslims asked to buy safety with suspicion, while other citizens get it free.
• XREF: connects to: Counter-terrorism policy forced Muslim groups into complicity or exclusion. — A. Hussain, N. Meer, Framing Muslim Integration, 145; Prevent guidance disproportionately targets Islamist extremism despite formally covering all threats. — A. Hussain, N. Meer, Framing Muslim Integration, 403; Muslims disproportionately bear the human-rights costs of counter-terrorism — Runnymede Trust (ed. Farah Elahi & Omar Khan), Islamophobia: Still a Challenge for Us…, 427 (+6 more)

Related

• Muslims disproportionately bear the human-rights costs of counter-terrorism (similarity 0.93)
• Counter-terrorism policy forced Muslim groups into complicity or exclusion. (similarity 0.84)
• The radicalized Muslim threat narrative is a fear instrument rather than a safety measure (similarity 0.82)
• Prevent counter-terrorism policy harms and alienates British Muslim communities. (similarity 0.81)
• Each terrorist attack resets Muslims into heightened suspicion and surveillance (similarity 0.80)
• Prevent’s first phase explicitly placed its burden on Muslim communities (similarity 0.80)
• Terrorism and extremism are treated as exclusive to Islam (similarity 0.80)
• Integration policy must be decoupled from counter-terrorism aims. (similarity 0.80)
• Framing counter-terrorism as safeguarding is openly contested. (similarity 0.80)
• Prevent guidance disproportionately targets Islamist extremism despite formally covering all threats. (similarity 0.80)
• Prevent alienates the Muslim communities it claims to engage. (similarity 0.79)
• Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act enforcement targeted Muslims despite neutral wording. (similarity 0.79)
• UK counter-terror funding redirected civic support away from Islamophobia work. (similarity 0.79)
• Islamophobia is one of several challenges British Muslims confront. (similarity 0.79)
• Covert policies couched as counterterrorism provoked no protest while overt anti-Muslim rhetoric did. (similarity 0.79)

Broader Connections

• Muslims disproportionately bear the human-rights costs of counter-terrorism #corroborates (1.00) — Runnymede Trust (ed. Farah Elahi & Omar Khan), Islamophobia, 427
• Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act enforcement targeted Muslims despite neutral wording. #exemplifies (0.90) — Khaled A. Beydoun, American Islamophobia_ Understanding…, 259
• Muslim bodies are treated as potential terrorists until proven otherwise #expands (0.85) — , Selod, Saher - Forever Suspect_…, 282
• Muslims are presumed terrorists until interrogation proves otherwise #expands (0.85)
• Counterterrorism rhetoric masks an offensive campaign against Muslims. #expands (0.75)
• The radicalized Muslim threat narrative is a fear instrument rather than a safety measure #qualifies (0.75) — Deepa Kumar, Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire, 32