The UK’s counter-terrorism apparatus decentralizes surveillance into everyday public institutions, which enables discrimination.
Evidence
An inevitable outcome of the CTSA is that counter-terrorism is now within the country’s classrooms, lecture halls, hospitals and public libraries. No longer solely the preserve of the police, now teachers, lecturers, doctors, social workers and public sector staff more broadly form the core of the state counter-terrorism apparatus. With key Prevent operators often only informed by a one-hour Prevent presentation of dubious quality (carried out by private companies), it is unsurprising that acts of discrimination and prejudice occur in the over-zealous reporting of supposedly ‘suspicious’ individuals … Within a national climate of anti-Muslim racism, where the necessity of Prevent is routinely associated by the government and media with Muslims and/ or Islam, there is evidence of frontline professionals relying on existing biases and stereotypes. — A. Hussain, N. Meer, Framing Muslim Integration, 418
Categorization
- XREF: Connects to the surveillance state / national security literature and to Foucault’s disciplinary society reading I have. — connects to: British institutions have normalized surveillance of Muslims across daily life — A. Hussain, N. Meer, Framing Muslim Integration, 172; British state institutions formalised surveillance targeting Muslims based on appearance — Chris Allen, Islamophobia, 481; Prevent counter-terrorism policy harms and alienates British Muslim communities. — A. Hussain, N. Meer, Framing Muslim Integration, 437 (+2 more)
Related
- British institutions have normalized surveillance of Muslims across daily life (similarity 0.87)
- Prevent alienates the Muslim communities it claims to engage. (similarity 0.84)
- State counter-terrorism focus has fostered and furthered Islamophobia in the UK (similarity 0.84)
- Prevent counter-terrorism policy harms and alienates British Muslim communities. (similarity 0.84)
- British state institutions formalised surveillance targeting Muslims based on appearance (similarity 0.84)
- UK Prevent duty chills campus free speech and Muslim activism. (similarity 0.82)
- Prevent policy is discriminatory, disproportionate, and counterproductive (similarity 0.82)
- UK counter-terror funding redirected civic support away from Islamophobia work. (similarity 0.82)
- Counter-terrorism policy forced Muslim groups into complicity or exclusion. (similarity 0.82)
- Islamophobia is one of several challenges British Muslims confront. (similarity 0.80)
- Integration policy must be decoupled from counter-terrorism aims. (similarity 0.79)
- Prevent is discriminatory in operation and alienates the Muslims it aims to engage (similarity 0.79)
- Muslim political actors in 1990 Britain already perceived a state campaign against them. (similarity 0.79)
- Framing counter-terrorism as safeguarding is openly contested. (similarity 0.79)
- Prevent is a racist, Islamophobic state policy causing concrete harms (similarity 0.79)
Broader Connections
- British state institutions formalised surveillance targeting Muslims based on appearance
#expands(0.90) — Chris Allen, Islamophobia, 481 - Prevent counter-terrorism policy harms and alienates British Muslim communities.
#expands(0.85) — A. Hussain, N. Meer, Framing Muslim Integration, 437 - State counter-terrorism focus has fostered and furthered Islamophobia in the UK
#expands(0.85) — Runnymede Trust (ed. Farah Elahi & Omar Khan), Islamophobia, 384 - Muslim religious identity becomes a racial category through surveillance.
#expands(0.80)