Integration discourse is deployed as state control over Muslims without evidence

Evidence

In contemporary Britain, Muslims are regarded as a policing and social policy problem, in requirement of state intervention. In terms of counter-terrorism, this manifests itself in Prevent, with the state demanding cooperation and partnership from the ‘Muslim community’ (no matter how much this totalizing term is rejected by Muslims themselves). However, this is also expressed through the longer-standing demand (predating the ‘war on terror’ period which saw the introduction of Prevent) for Muslim ‘integration’. Recent government reports pertaining to Muslim ‘integration’ have argued that better integration would protect against the likelihood of extremism and radicalization (see Casey 2016). While such rhetoric is politically expedient, it is completely devoid of a supportive evidence base. — A. Hussain, N. Meer, Framing Muslim Integration, 430

Categorization

• XREF: Connects to the Runnymede/anti-Muslim-racism camp in the definitional debate this module examines — the claim that ‘integration’ rhetoric is a governing tool rather than a neutral policy aim. — connects to: Radicalization anxieties drive integration discourse despite Muslims being integrated. — A. Hussain, N. Meer, Framing Muslim Integration, 468; Integration policy must be decoupled from counter-terrorism aims. — A. Hussain, N. Meer, Framing Muslim Integration, 130; Integration rhetoric predates anti-terror policy and lacks an evidence base — Runnymede Trust (ed. Farah Elahi & Omar Khan), Islamophobia: Still a Challenge for Us…, 425 (+1 more)

Related

• Integration rhetoric predates anti-terror policy and lacks an evidence base (similarity 0.96)
• Integration policy must be decoupled from counter-terrorism aims. (similarity 0.91)
• Radicalization anxieties drive integration discourse despite Muslims being integrated. (similarity 0.87)
• UK integration policy redefined Muslim integration as an antidote to extremism (similarity 0.86)
• British integration policy elites recycled assimilationist rhetoric against Muslims decades after it failed (similarity 0.83)
• Prevent counter-terrorism policy harms and alienates British Muslim communities. (similarity 0.83)
• Integration discourse is both descriptive process and prescriptive ideal (similarity 0.82)
• Prevent alienates the Muslim communities it claims to engage. (similarity 0.81)
• Official UK integration strategy framed Muslims as a threat to national cohesion (similarity 0.81)
• UK counter-terror funding redirected civic support away from Islamophobia work. (similarity 0.81)
• Prevent policy is discriminatory, disproportionate, and counterproductive (similarity 0.80)
• UK integration discourse shifted from organic integration toward a muscular clash-of-values stance (similarity 0.80)
• State counter-terrorism focus has fostered and furthered Islamophobia in the UK (similarity 0.80)
• Prevent is a racist, Islamophobic state policy causing concrete harms (similarity 0.79)
• Counter-terrorism policy forced Muslim groups into complicity or exclusion. (similarity 0.78)

Broader Connections

• Integration rhetoric predates anti-terror policy and lacks an evidence base #corroborates (0.90) — Runnymede Trust (ed. Farah Elahi & Omar Khan), Islamophobia, 425