Integration rhetoric predates anti-terror policy and lacks an evidence base

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. — Runnymede Trust (ed. Farah Elahi & Omar Khan), Islamophobia, 425

Categorization

• XREF: The integration-versus-extremism link being ‘devoid of an evidence base’ is a challenge relevant to Halliday’s anti-Muslimism critique and to the Runnymede definitional frame. — 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 discourse is deployed as state control over Muslims without evidence — A. Hussain, N. Meer, Framing Muslim Integration, 430 (+5 more)

Related

• Integration discourse is deployed as state control over Muslims without evidence (similarity 0.96)
• Integration policy must be decoupled from counter-terrorism aims. (similarity 0.90)
• Radicalization anxieties drive integration discourse despite Muslims being integrated. (similarity 0.87)
• UK integration policy redefined Muslim integration as an antidote to extremism (similarity 0.87)
• British integration policy elites recycled assimilationist rhetoric against Muslims decades after it failed (similarity 0.84)
• Prevent counter-terrorism policy harms and alienates British Muslim communities. (similarity 0.83)
• Official UK integration strategy framed Muslims as a threat to national cohesion (similarity 0.83)
• UK counter-terror funding redirected civic support away from Islamophobia work. (similarity 0.82)
• Public Islamophobia debate lacks empirical grounding and nuance (similarity 0.82)
• State counter-terrorism focus has fostered and furthered Islamophobia in the UK (similarity 0.82)
• Islamophobia is one of several challenges British Muslims confront. (similarity 0.82)
• Prevent policy is discriminatory, disproportionate, and counterproductive (similarity 0.82)
• Prevent alienates the Muslim communities it claims to engage. (similarity 0.82)
• UK governments deployed the term Islamophobia only to co-opt Muslims into security policies. (similarity 0.81)
• Prevent is a racist, Islamophobic state policy causing concrete harms (similarity 0.81)

Broader Connections

• Public Islamophobia debate lacks empirical grounding and nuance #corroborates (0.82) — Runnymede Trust (ed. Farah Elahi & Omar Khan), Islamophobia, 42
• UK integration policy redefined Muslim integration as an antidote to extremism #complicates (0.80) — Runnymede Trust (ed. Farah Elahi & Omar Khan), Islamophobia, 446
• Evidence-based advocacy fails when the political configuration is unready for it #complicates (0.75) — , The Rod and the Child, 9030
• Anti-terror and immigration policies become conflated in framing Muslims as foreign enemies #expands (0.72) — Chris Allen, Islamophobia, 580