UK Prevent duty chills campus free speech and Muslim activism.

Evidence

However, there is a real risk that in meeting the Prevent duty universities will feel obliged to give lesser weight to protecting free speech, since they are advised by the guidance that in addition to identifying individuals vulnerable to radicalization, a university should not permit an event involving an external speaker to take place unless the university is ‘entirely convinced’ that any extremist views likely to draw people into terrorism can be fully mitigated (HM Government 2015b). Prevent officers are known to have actively worked to persuade venues to cancel legitimate events on the topic of Prevent and Islamophobia, sought to place student Islamic societies on university campuses under surveillance and requested details of event attendees. Prevent is infringing on the rights of citizens, and particularly those campaigning from within Muslim civil society. — A. Hussain, N. Meer, Framing Muslim Integration, 411

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: UK counter-terror funding redirected civic support away from Islamophobia work. — A. Hussain, N. Meer, Framing Muslim Integration, 496; Prevent counter-terrorism policy harms and alienates British Muslim communities. — A. Hussain, N. Meer, Framing Muslim Integration, 437; State counter-terrorism focus has fostered and furthered Islamophobia in the UK — Runnymede Trust (ed. Farah Elahi & Omar Khan), Islamophobia: Still a Challenge for Us…, 384 (+5 more)

Related

• Prevent alienates the Muslim communities it claims to engage. (similarity 0.88)
• Prevent counter-terrorism policy harms and alienates British Muslim communities. (similarity 0.87)
• UK counter-terror funding redirected civic support away from Islamophobia work. (similarity 0.85)
• Prevent’s first phase explicitly placed its burden on Muslim communities (similarity 0.83)
• Prevent is discriminatory in operation and alienates the Muslims it aims to engage (similarity 0.83)
• The UK’s counter-terrorism apparatus decentralizes surveillance into everyday public institutions, which enables discrimination. (similarity 0.82)
• Prevent’s stated all-threats remit masks a clear targeting of Muslims (similarity 0.81)
• Prevent is a racist, Islamophobic state policy causing concrete harms (similarity 0.81)
• Prevent policy is discriminatory, disproportionate, and counterproductive (similarity 0.81)
• Most Prevent ‘suspicious’ referrals are lawfully behaving Muslim children who are traumatized. (similarity 0.80)
• Counter-terrorism policy forced Muslim groups into complicity or exclusion. (similarity 0.80)
• Official discourse systematically downplays Prevent’s harms as isolated errors. (similarity 0.79)
• Prevent funding was compulsory for authorities with large Muslim populations (similarity 0.79)

Broader Connections

• Prevent counter-terrorism policy harms and alienates British Muslim communities. #corroborates (0.95) — A. Hussain, N. Meer, Framing Muslim Integration, 437
• Prevent is discriminatory in operation and alienates the Muslims it aims to engage #corroborates (0.95) — Runnymede Trust (ed. Farah Elahi & Omar Khan), Islamophobia, 385
• State counter-terrorism focus has fostered and furthered Islamophobia in the UK #corroborates (0.82) — Runnymede Trust (ed. Farah Elahi & Omar Khan), Islamophobia, 384
• Most Prevent ‘suspicious’ referrals are lawfully behaving Muslim children who are traumatized. #expands (0.78) — A. Hussain, N. Meer, Framing Muslim Integration, 418
• British institutions have normalized surveillance of Muslims across daily life #expands (0.75) — A. Hussain, N. Meer, Framing Muslim Integration, 172
• Professors can publicly stigmatize Muslim students without fear of challenge #expands (0.75)
• Official discourse systematically downplays Prevent’s harms as isolated errors. #expands (0.72) — A. Hussain, N. Meer, Framing Muslim Integration, 438