Prevent’s stated all-threats remit masks a clear targeting of Muslims

Evidence

While the guidance states that Prevent is intended to deal with all kinds of terrorist threats, it is difficult not to read into it a clear targeting of Muslims. Noting that ‘terrorists associated with the extreme right also pose a continued threat’, the guidance nevertheless places particular emphasis on the dangerous ideology of Islamist extremists (HM Government 2015c). — Runnymede Trust (ed. Farah Elahi & Omar Khan), Islamophobia, 398

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Prevent guidance disproportionately targets Islamist extremism despite formally covering all threats. — A. Hussain, N. Meer, Framing Muslim Integration, 403; Prevent funding was compulsory for authorities with large Muslim populations — Runnymede Trust (ed. Farah Elahi & Omar Khan), Islamophobia: Still a Challenge for Us…, 388; Prevent’s first phase explicitly placed its burden on Muslim communities — Runnymede Trust (ed. Farah Elahi & Omar Khan), Islamophobia: Still a Challenge for Us…, 387 (+6 more)

Related

• Prevent guidance disproportionately targets Islamist extremism despite formally covering all threats. (similarity 0.93)
• Prevent’s first phase explicitly placed its burden on Muslim communities (similarity 0.91)
• Prevent alienates the Muslim communities it claims to engage. (similarity 0.88)
• Prevent is discriminatory in operation and alienates the Muslims it aims to engage (similarity 0.88)
• Prevent policy is discriminatory, disproportionate, and counterproductive (similarity 0.86)
• Prevent counter-terrorism policy harms and alienates British Muslim communities. (similarity 0.85)
• Prevent is a racist, Islamophobic state policy causing concrete harms (similarity 0.84)
• Most Prevent ‘suspicious’ referrals are lawfully behaving Muslim children who are traumatized. (similarity 0.84)
• Prevent’s second phase extended its reach to broadly defined extremism and legal duty (similarity 0.83)
• UK Prevent duty chills campus free speech and Muslim activism. (similarity 0.81)
• Prevent funding was compulsory for authorities with large Muslim populations (similarity 0.81)
• Vague definitions in policy guidance enable prejudice-driven implementation. (similarity 0.80)
• Prevent initiatives framed Muslim women only as wives and mothers who restrain men (similarity 0.80)
• Anti-terror safety demands are displaced onto Muslims disproportionately (similarity 0.79)
• Gross over-referral of Muslims reflects Islamophobic prejudice, not true risk (similarity 0.78)

Broader Connections

• Anti-Muslim suspicion targets all Muslims, not just violent extremists #expands (0.90) — Deepa Kumar, Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire, 540
• Prevent is discriminatory in operation and alienates the Muslims it aims to engage #corroborates (0.75) — Runnymede Trust (ed. Farah Elahi & Omar Khan), Islamophobia, 385
• NSEERS targeted men from Muslim-majority nations regardless of actual terror risk #exemplifies (0.75)
• Prevent is a racist, Islamophobic state policy causing concrete harms #corroborates (0.70) — Runnymede Trust (ed. Farah Elahi & Omar Khan), Islamophobia, 426
• Prevent alienates the Muslim communities it claims to engage. #corroborates (0.70) — A. Hussain, N. Meer, Framing Muslim Integration, 390