Integration policy must be decoupled from counter-terrorism aims.

Evidence

The government should develop funding and support Muslim and other disadvantaged communities to improve opportunities, encourage civic participation, and so provide the grounds for effective integration, but these policies should not be conceived in terms of counter-terrorism, and should not target British Muslims only. — A. Hussain, N. Meer, Framing Muslim Integration, 130

Categorization

• SEED: The idea that security-driven integration policy is itself a form of securitization of Muslim life could anchor an essay about how policy language creates or denies group identity.
• DEFINE: Contrasts functionally non-security integration with security-conceived integration — a key distinction in the definitional politics of Islamophobia.
• XREF: connects to: 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; UK integration policy redefined Muslim integration as an antidote to extremism — Runnymede Trust (ed. Farah Elahi & Omar Khan), Islamophobia: Still a Challenge for Us…, 446; Prevent counter-terrorism policy harms and alienates British Muslim communities. — A. Hussain, N. Meer, Framing Muslim Integration, 437 (+1 more)

Related

• Integration discourse is deployed as state control over Muslims without evidence (similarity 0.91)
• Integration rhetoric predates anti-terror policy and lacks an evidence base (similarity 0.90)
• UK integration policy redefined Muslim integration as an antidote to extremism (similarity 0.88)
• Prevent counter-terrorism policy harms and alienates British Muslim communities. (similarity 0.88)
• UK counter-terror funding redirected civic support away from Islamophobia work. (similarity 0.87)
• Official UK integration strategy framed Muslims as a threat to national cohesion (similarity 0.85)
• Counter-terrorism policy forced Muslim groups into complicity or exclusion. (similarity 0.85)
• British integration policy elites recycled assimilationist rhetoric against Muslims decades after it failed (similarity 0.84)
• Prevent alienates the Muslim communities it claims to engage. (similarity 0.84)
• Prevent policy is discriminatory, disproportionate, and counterproductive (similarity 0.83)
• Radicalization anxieties drive integration discourse despite Muslims being integrated. (similarity 0.83)
• UK ministers used coercive funding measures against Muslim organizations (similarity 0.82)
• Counter-terrorism policy must comply with statutory equality obligations (similarity 0.82)
• Government engagement with Muslim groups was conditional on accepting state security assumptions. (similarity 0.82)
• Islamophobia is one of several challenges British Muslims confront. (similarity 0.82)

Broader Connections

• Integration rhetoric predates anti-terror policy and lacks an evidence base #corroborates (0.85) — Runnymede Trust (ed. Farah Elahi & Omar Khan), Islamophobia, 425
• UK integration policy redefined Muslim integration as an antidote to extremism #contradicts (0.80) — Runnymede Trust (ed. Farah Elahi & Omar Khan), Islamophobia, 446
• Integration discourse is deployed as state control over Muslims without evidence #corroborates (0.80) — A. Hussain, N. Meer, Framing Muslim Integration, 430
• Prevent counter-terrorism policy harms and alienates British Muslim communities. #qualifies (0.75) — A. Hussain, N. Meer, Framing Muslim Integration, 437