Prevent policy is discriminatory, disproportionate, and counterproductive

Evidence

There is substantial evidence that among the government’s four counter-terrorism strands, the current Prevent policy is discriminatory, disproportionate and counterproductive. Given the mounting evidence, the independent review must answer whether the Prevent strategy should be withdrawn and how to better separate the state’s security apparatus from wider safeguarding or social policy strategies. The government should develop funding and support Muslim and other disadvantaged communities to improve opportunities, encourage civic participation, and so provide the grounds for effective integration, but these policies should not be conceived in terms of counter-terrorism, and should not target British Muslims only. — Runnymede Trust (ed. Farah Elahi & Omar Khan), Islamophobia, 124

Categorization

• XREF: Concrete evidence that Islamophobia operates institutionally through state counter-terrorism — grounds the definitional debate in a policy case (related to The Reluctant Fundamentalist’s theme of state suspicion of Muslims). — connects to: Vague definitions in policy guidance enable prejudice-driven implementation. — A. Hussain, N. Meer, Framing Muslim Integration, 405; Counter-terrorism policy must comply with statutory equality obligations — Runnymede Trust (ed. Farah Elahi & Omar Khan), Islamophobia: Still a Challenge for Us…, 64; 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 (+8 more)

Related

• Prevent counter-terrorism policy harms and alienates British Muslim communities. (similarity 0.91)
• Prevent alienates the Muslim communities it claims to engage. (similarity 0.90)
• Prevent is discriminatory in operation and alienates the Muslims it aims to engage (similarity 0.90)
• Prevent is a racist, Islamophobic state policy causing concrete harms (similarity 0.89)
• Counter-terrorism policy must comply with statutory equality obligations (similarity 0.88)
• Prevent’s first phase explicitly placed its burden on Muslim communities (similarity 0.87)
• Prevent’s stated all-threats remit masks a clear targeting of Muslims (similarity 0.86)
• Counter-terrorism policy forced Muslim groups into complicity or exclusion. (similarity 0.83)
• Integration policy must be decoupled from counter-terrorism aims. (similarity 0.83)
• Vague definitions in policy guidance enable prejudice-driven implementation. (similarity 0.83)
• Prevent funding was compulsory for authorities with large Muslim populations (similarity 0.83)
• UK counter-terror funding redirected civic support away from Islamophobia work. (similarity 0.83)
• Prevent initiatives framed Muslim women only as wives and mothers who restrain men (similarity 0.82)
• Integration rhetoric predates anti-terror policy and lacks an evidence base (similarity 0.82)
• The UK’s counter-terrorism apparatus decentralizes surveillance into everyday public institutions, which enables discrimination. (similarity 0.82)

Broader Connections

• Prevent is discriminatory in operation and alienates the Muslims it aims to engage #corroborates (1.00) — Runnymede Trust (ed. Farah Elahi & Omar Khan), Islamophobia, 385
• Prevent is a racist, Islamophobic state policy causing concrete harms #corroborates (0.95) — Runnymede Trust (ed. Farah Elahi & Omar Khan), Islamophobia, 426
• Prevent was developed and run without regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty #corroborates (0.85) — Runnymede Trust (ed. Farah Elahi & Omar Khan), Islamophobia, 392
• Support for a targeted minority doubles as surveillance and control of that minority #expands (0.80)
• Reducing Islamophobia to private bigotry ignores state-enforced discrimination #expands (0.80) — Khaled A. Beydoun, American Islamophobia_ Understanding…, 122
• Framing discrimination as individual hate obscures its structural and policy-based causes #expands (0.75) — Evelyn Alsultany, Antisemitism and Islamophobia The…, 34
• Collective hypocrisy frames problems to justify oppressive solutions #expands (0.75) — Aimé Césaire, Discourse on Colonialism, 11
• Anti-Muslim discrimination is justified by invidious reference to Muslim cultural practices #expands (0.75) — A. Hussain, N. Meer, Framing Muslim Integration, 108