Prevent’s first phase explicitly placed its burden on Muslim communities

Evidence

Prevent has had two distinct phases. Initially it was concerned with preventing violent extremism, with the principal threat seen to come from ‘Islamist terrorists’. Prevent put the onus on Muslim communities, providing funding to support local programmes for young Muslims. — Runnymede Trust (ed. Farah Elahi & Omar Khan), Islamophobia, 387

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Prevent alienates the Muslim communities it claims to engage. — A. Hussain, N. Meer, Framing Muslim Integration, 390; 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; Prevent funding was compulsory for authorities with large Muslim populations — Runnymede Trust (ed. Farah Elahi & Omar Khan), Islamophobia: Still a Challenge for Us…, 388 (+6 more)

Related

• Prevent’s stated all-threats remit masks a clear targeting of Muslims (similarity 0.91)
• Prevent alienates the Muslim communities it claims to engage. (similarity 0.91)
• Prevent counter-terrorism policy harms and alienates British Muslim communities. (similarity 0.90)
• Prevent policy is discriminatory, disproportionate, and counterproductive (similarity 0.87)
• Prevent is discriminatory in operation and alienates the Muslims it aims to engage (similarity 0.86)
• Prevent funding was compulsory for authorities with large Muslim populations (similarity 0.86)
• Prevent is a racist, Islamophobic state policy causing concrete harms (similarity 0.85)
• Counter-terrorism policy forced Muslim groups into complicity or exclusion. (similarity 0.84)
• Prevent guidance disproportionately targets Islamist extremism despite formally covering all threats. (similarity 0.84)
• UK Prevent duty chills campus free speech and Muslim activism. (similarity 0.83)
• Prevent’s second phase extended its reach to broadly defined extremism and legal duty (similarity 0.83)
• UK counter-terror funding redirected civic support away from Islamophobia work. (similarity 0.82)
• Integration policy must be decoupled from counter-terrorism aims. (similarity 0.81)
• Anti-terror safety demands are displaced onto Muslims disproportionately (similarity 0.80)
• Most Prevent ‘suspicious’ referrals are lawfully behaving Muslim children who are traumatized. (similarity 0.80)

Broader Connections

• Counter-terrorism policy forced Muslim groups into complicity or exclusion. #corroborates (0.85) — A. Hussain, N. Meer, Framing Muslim Integration, 145
• Prevent is a racist, Islamophobic state policy causing concrete harms #corroborates (0.80) — Runnymede Trust (ed. Farah Elahi & Omar Khan), Islamophobia, 426
• Anti-terror safety demands are displaced onto Muslims disproportionately #corroborates (0.80) — A. Hussain, N. Meer, Framing Muslim Integration, 432
• Prevent’s second phase extended its reach to broadly defined extremism and legal duty #qualifies (0.80) — Runnymede Trust (ed. Farah Elahi & Omar Khan), Islamophobia, 388
• Prevent’s stated all-threats remit masks a clear targeting of Muslims #corroborates (0.80) — Runnymede Trust (ed. Farah Elahi & Omar Khan), Islamophobia, 398
• Prevent counter-terrorism policy harms and alienates British Muslim communities. #corroborates (0.70) — A. Hussain, N. Meer, Framing Muslim Integration, 437