Prevent funding was compulsory for authorities with large Muslim populations

Evidence

Kundnani (2014) notes that during this period Prevent funding was compulsory for local authorities with Muslim populations of over 2,000, a practice he describes as ‘racial and religious profiling’ and which may well have been challenged as a potential violation of anti-discrimination legislation, had it been more widely known about at the time. — Runnymede Trust (ed. Farah Elahi & Omar Khan), Islamophobia, 388

Categorization

• XREF: The assertion that Prevent’s compulsory local funding amounted to racial and religious profiling gives the report’s state-critical argument a concrete, quasi-legal basis — empirics supporting the decolonial/critical Muslim studies camp. — connects to: Muslims were forced to reframe religious practice as cultural preservation to access public funds — Runnymede Trust (ed. Farah Elahi & Omar Khan), Islamophobia: Still a Challenge for Us…, 181; 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; UK ministers used coercive funding measures against Muslim organizations — Chris Allen, Islamophobia, 482 (+7 more)
• QUESTION: Worth verifying: was the compulsory-funding threshold clause actually in force, and did it survive judicial review scrutiny?

Related

• Prevent’s first phase explicitly placed its burden on Muslim communities (similarity 0.86)
• Prevent counter-terrorism policy harms and alienates British Muslim communities. (similarity 0.83)
• Prevent policy is discriminatory, disproportionate, and counterproductive (similarity 0.83)
• Prevent alienates the Muslim communities it claims to engage. (similarity 0.82)
• Prevent’s stated all-threats remit masks a clear targeting of Muslims (similarity 0.81)
• Counter-terrorism policy forced Muslim groups into complicity or exclusion. (similarity 0.81)
• Prevent is discriminatory in operation and alienates the Muslims it aims to engage (similarity 0.79)
• Muslims were forced to reframe religious practice as cultural preservation to access public funds (similarity 0.79)
• UK counter-terror funding redirected civic support away from Islamophobia work. (similarity 0.79)
• UK Prevent duty chills campus free speech and Muslim activism. (similarity 0.79)

Broader Connections

• Prevent’s first phase explicitly placed its burden on Muslim communities #expands (0.92) — Runnymede Trust (ed. Farah Elahi & Omar Khan), Islamophobia, 387
• UK ministers used coercive funding measures against Muslim organizations #expands (0.90) — Chris Allen, Islamophobia, 482
• Prevent is discriminatory in operation and alienates the Muslims it aims to engage #contradicts (0.85) — Runnymede Trust (ed. Farah Elahi & Omar Khan), Islamophobia, 385
• Prevent alienates the Muslim communities it claims to engage. #complicates (0.85) — A. Hussain, N. Meer, Framing Muslim Integration, 390
• Prevent is a racist, Islamophobic state policy causing concrete harms #complicates (0.85) — Runnymede Trust (ed. Farah Elahi & Omar Khan), Islamophobia, 426
• Prevent counter-terrorism policy harms and alienates British Muslim communities. #complicates (0.85) — A. Hussain, N. Meer, Framing Muslim Integration, 437
• Prevent’s stated all-threats remit masks a clear targeting of Muslims #expands (0.85) — Runnymede Trust (ed. Farah Elahi & Omar Khan), Islamophobia, 398
• Muslims disproportionately bear the human-rights costs of counter-terrorism #expands (0.80) — Runnymede Trust (ed. Farah Elahi & Omar Khan), Islamophobia, 427
• The surveillance industry needs racialized Muslim bodies to justify its funding #expands (0.75)