Prevent is discriminatory in operation and alienates the Muslims it aims to engage

Evidence

And the criticisms of Prevent have been stronger, more specific and more widespread since the approach made it the responsibility of schools, universities, hospitals, local councils, prisons, etc. to prevent individuals from becoming terrorists. From trade unions whose members are now legally mandated to work with Prevent to international human rights research and policy organizations (Rights Watch UK 2016, Open Society Justice Initiative 2016) and UN institutions, the same concerns are raised again and again: Prevent is discriminatory in its operation, if not its intent, with the consequence that it alienates the very people it claims it wants to engage with; contrary to the ‘British values’ it extols, in its implementation Prevent involves denial of basic human rights. — Runnymede Trust (ed. Farah Elahi & Omar Khan), Islamophobia, 385

Categorization

• XREF: The ‘discriminatory in operation, if not intent’ phrasing is the report’s core mechanism for classifying state practice as racist even with professed good intentions — a stance that rivals Bleich’s neutral attitudinal definition. — connects to: Anti-Muslim discrimination is justified by invidious reference to Muslim cultural practices — A. Hussain, N. Meer, Framing Muslim Integration, 108; Counter-terrorism policy forced Muslim groups into complicity or exclusion. — A. Hussain, N. Meer, Framing Muslim Integration, 145; Perceived or actual discrimination deters Muslims from pursuing careers in security and uniformed services. — A. Hussain, N. Meer, Framing Muslim Integration, 294 (+11 more)

Related

• Prevent alienates the Muslim communities it claims to engage. (similarity 0.95)
• Prevent counter-terrorism policy harms and alienates British Muslim communities. (similarity 0.90)
• Prevent policy is discriminatory, disproportionate, and counterproductive (similarity 0.90)
• Prevent is a racist, Islamophobic state policy causing concrete harms (similarity 0.88)
• Prevent’s stated all-threats remit masks a clear targeting of Muslims (similarity 0.88)
• Prevent’s first phase explicitly placed its burden on Muslim communities (similarity 0.86)
• UK Prevent duty chills campus free speech and Muslim activism. (similarity 0.83)
• Prevent initiatives framed Muslim women only as wives and mothers who restrain men (similarity 0.81)
• Vague definitions in policy guidance enable prejudice-driven implementation. (similarity 0.81)
• Counter-terrorism policy must comply with statutory equality obligations (similarity 0.81)
• Prevent was developed and run without regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty (similarity 0.80)
• Prevent guidance disproportionately targets Islamist extremism despite formally covering all threats. (similarity 0.80)
• Prevent funding was compulsory for authorities with large Muslim populations (similarity 0.79)
• The UK’s counter-terrorism apparatus decentralizes surveillance into everyday public institutions, which enables discrimination. (similarity 0.79)
• Most Prevent ‘suspicious’ referrals are lawfully behaving Muslim children who are traumatized. (similarity 0.78)

Broader Connections

• Prevent is a racist, Islamophobic state policy causing concrete harms #corroborates (0.90) — Runnymede Trust (ed. Farah Elahi & Omar Khan), Islamophobia, 426
• Prevent’s first phase explicitly placed its burden on Muslim communities #expands (0.80) — Runnymede Trust (ed. Farah Elahi & Omar Khan), Islamophobia, 387