Counter-terrorism policy must comply with statutory equality obligations

Evidence

There should be a full independent and fully transparent inquiry into the government’s counter-terrorism strategy. The government should recognize its statutory equality obligations as set out in the public sector equality duty (PSED) in the implementation of all counter-terrorism policies. Counter-terrorism measures must not lead to discrimination on the grounds of race, colour, religion, descent, or national or ethnic origin, in purpose or effect. — Runnymede Trust (ed. Farah Elahi & Omar Khan), Islamophobia, 64

Categorization

• XREF: The demand that counter-terrorism not discriminate ‘in purpose or effect’ echoes the UN CERD framing and the 2017 racialization turn; connects to the field debate over whether Islamophobia is racial or religious discrimination. — connects to: Prevent counter-terrorism policy harms and alienates British Muslim communities. — A. Hussain, N. Meer, Framing Muslim Integration, 437; Prevent is discriminatory in operation and alienates the Muslims it aims to engage — Runnymede Trust (ed. Farah Elahi & Omar Khan), Islamophobia: Still a Challenge for Us…, 385; Anti-Muslim discrimination should be fought through existing anti-racism frameworks — A. Hussain, N. Meer, Framing Muslim Integration, 58 (+2 more)

Related

• Prevent policy is discriminatory, disproportionate, and counterproductive (similarity 0.88)
• Prevent counter-terrorism policy harms and alienates British Muslim communities. (similarity 0.84)
• Prevent alienates the Muslim communities it claims to engage. (similarity 0.84)
• Integration policy must be decoupled from counter-terrorism aims. (similarity 0.82)
• Prevent is discriminatory in operation and alienates the Muslims it aims to engage (similarity 0.81)
• Counter-terrorism policy forced Muslim groups into complicity or exclusion. (similarity 0.81)
• UK counter-terror funding redirected civic support away from Islamophobia work. (similarity 0.80)
• Prevent is a racist, Islamophobic state policy causing concrete harms (similarity 0.80)
• Prevent’s first phase explicitly placed its burden on Muslim communities (similarity 0.80)
• Integration rhetoric predates anti-terror policy and lacks an evidence base (similarity 0.79)
• The UK’s counter-terrorism apparatus decentralizes surveillance into everyday public institutions, which enables discrimination. (similarity 0.78)
• Prevent was developed and run without regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty (similarity 0.78)
• Anti-terror safety demands are displaced onto Muslims disproportionately (similarity 0.78)

Broader Connections

• Prevent is discriminatory in operation and alienates the Muslims it aims to engage #expands (0.85) — Runnymede Trust (ed. Farah Elahi & Omar Khan), Islamophobia, 385
• Prevent policy is discriminatory, disproportionate, and counterproductive #expands (0.85) — Runnymede Trust (ed. Farah Elahi & Omar Khan), Islamophobia, 124
• Prevent counter-terrorism policy harms and alienates British Muslim communities. #expands (0.82) — A. Hussain, N. Meer, Framing Muslim Integration, 437
• Constitutional violations are deemed acceptable when targeting Islam or Muslims. #expands (0.80) — Khaled A. Beydoun, American Islamophobia_ Understanding…, 310
• Anti-Muslim discrimination should be fought through existing anti-racism frameworks #expands (0.78) — A. Hussain, N. Meer, Framing Muslim Integration, 58