UK integration policy redefined Muslim integration as an antidote to extremism

Evidence

In Creating the Conditions for Integration, then-Communities Secretary Eric Pickles defined integration as an antidote to extremism and intolerance (DCLG 2012). In this, there was no shift in the discourse about Muslims as a fifth column established by talk about parallel lives over the preceding decade. — Runnymede Trust (ed. Farah Elahi & Omar Khan), Islamophobia, 446

Categorization

• XREF: Directly relevant to the reader’s map: this official redefinition of ‘integration’ as counter-extremism is a rival, securitized definition that the Runnymede/decolonial camps contest. — connects to: Radicalization anxieties drive integration discourse despite Muslims being integrated. — A. Hussain, N. Meer, Framing Muslim Integration, 468; UK state intervention shaped and rivalized Muslim political representation. — A. Hussain, N. Meer, Framing Muslim Integration, 495; UK counter-terror funding redirected civic support away from Islamophobia work. — A. Hussain, N. Meer, Framing Muslim Integration, 496 (+9 more)
• DEFINE: Shows how ‘integration’ itself becomes a contested definitional object in the Islamophobia debate, not just ‘Islamophobia’ — the two are locked together.

Related

• Official UK integration strategy framed Muslims as a threat to national cohesion (similarity 0.90)
• Integration policy must be decoupled from counter-terrorism aims. (similarity 0.88)
• Integration rhetoric predates anti-terror policy and lacks an evidence base (similarity 0.87)
• Radicalization anxieties drive integration discourse despite Muslims being integrated. (similarity 0.87)
• British integration policy elites recycled assimilationist rhetoric against Muslims decades after it failed (similarity 0.86)
• Integration discourse is deployed as state control over Muslims without evidence (similarity 0.86)
• UK integration discourse shifted from organic integration toward a muscular clash-of-values stance (similarity 0.85)
• British official dossier linked its own foreign policy to Muslim radicalization (similarity 0.85)
• UK counter-terror funding redirected civic support away from Islamophobia work. (similarity 0.85)
• UK integration discourse framed Muslims as demographic threats to national existence (similarity 0.83)
• Integration discourse is both descriptive process and prescriptive ideal (similarity 0.82)
• UK governments deployed the term Islamophobia only to co-opt Muslims into security policies. (similarity 0.81)
• The Islamophobia definition is a policy instrument, not merely analysis (similarity 0.81)
• UK state intervention shaped and rivalized Muslim political representation. (similarity 0.81)
• Islamophobia is one of several challenges British Muslims confront. (similarity 0.81)

Broader Connections

• UK integration discourse shifted from organic integration toward a muscular clash-of-values stance #expands (0.88) — Runnymede Trust (ed. Farah Elahi & Omar Khan), Islamophobia, 452
• UK integration discourse framed Muslims as demographic threats to national existence #expands (0.85) — Runnymede Trust (ed. Farah Elahi & Omar Khan), Islamophobia, 447
• Divide-and-conquer foreign policy tactics moved into domestic Muslim communities via CVE #expands (0.82) — Khaled A. Beydoun, American Islamophobia_ Understanding…, 409
• Anti-terror and immigration policies become conflated in framing Muslims as foreign enemies #expands (0.80) — Chris Allen, Islamophobia, 580