How policies surrounding ‘Prevent Duty’ affected British Muslims

The UK’s Anti-Radicalisation Prevent Duty by David Barrett

https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/notnghmlj26&id=116&men_tab=srchresults

• Biggest threat faced by Western nations in the 21^st is terrorism
• London bombings in 2005, where 52 individuals were killed
• The domestic threat of terrorism, citizens of Western nations have headed overseas to Iraq and Syria to fight for so-called Islamic State
• Prevent is one of four pillars of the UK’s response to terrorism known as CONTEST
• Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 which creates a general duty that requires that: ‘A specified authority must, in the exercise of its functions, have due regard to the need to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism’
• It is understandable that the duty was not extended to non-public bodies, it is actually these excluded bodies who are likely to prove more effective than the specified authorities at noticing signs of radicalisation and taking action to de-radicalise them
• Critique : non-specified authorities are encouraged to work with public bodies to tackle radicalisation, , they are not required to do so, which potentially limits the effectiveness of the Prevent duty
• The Prevent duty requires specified authorities to focus upon the individual causes of radicalisation (such as feelings of alienation or humiliation, identity problems or interaction with similar individuals)
• Poverty levels of Muslims in Britain is an important factor when analysing an individual
• Critique : not clear what specified authorities have to do for individuals to not be drawn to terrorism
• Prevent Duty is very vague
• A hospital nurse was quizzed by senior managers and counterterrorism police after she started wearing a headscarf
• Focuses upon Muslims and not everyone
• Risk of right-wing terrorists, (57% of lone actor terrorist attacks in the UK have been committed by right-wing perpetrators compared to 35% that were religiously inspired)
• The public sector equality duty, where marginalised groups (e.g. the disabled, women etc.) have utilised judicial review to require public bodies to consider their needs, it is unlikely that individuals undergoing a process of radicalisation would bring judicial review proceedings arguing specified authorities should do more to prevent them being drawn into terrorism
• The duty has also targeted identifying individual causes of radicalisation and has ignored societal factors that contribute to radicalisation such as socio-economic inequality
• the introduction of Prevent as a legal duty has potentially provided a legitimate legal forum for far right groups to share their extreme Islamophobic views
• Solution = This would place specified authorities and non-specified authorities on an equal footing, recognising the potentially important role both have to play

Radicalisation and Counter-Radicalisation in Higher Education by Catherine McGlynn and Shaun McDaid

https://0-ebookcentral-proquest-com.catalogue.libraries.london.ac.uk/lib/ulondon/detail.action?docID=5573547#

• In February 2015, the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act (CTSA) was passed by the British Parliament (HM Government, 2015a) (1)
• The seizure of passports of terrorism suspects to transport security (1)
• To comply with the legislation, universities were required to develop systems to monitor the potential propagation of what are deemed to be extremist ideas, for instance having policies on external speakers and the acceptable use of Information Technology infrastructure
• The logic underpinning the duty was that individuals who commit acts of terrorism, or join terrorist groups, undergo a process of ‘ radicalisation ’ prior to such engagement, and that, in higher education, university staff are uniquely placed to spot the potential students who may be experiencing this
• Prevent strategy under the CONTEST initiative
• Rise of Islamic state from the Iraq War
• Furthermore, the UK Association of Chief Police (ACPO) warned in Prevent guidance documentation that more than 30 per cent of those convicted of Al-Qaeda related offences between 1999 and 2009 had been to university, and that extremist groups were targeting campuses (ACPO, 2012)
• The safeguarding route portrays counter-radicalisation initiatives, which are an intrinsic part of counter-terrorism policy, as a proactive intervention, designed to protect vulnerable people (Pathway of Safeguarding)
• From the beginning, the PREVENT element was connected to identifying and countering radicalisation because ‘ the principal current terrorist threat is from radicalised individuals who are using a distorted and unrepresentative version of the Islamic faith to justify violence
• 2007 Labour Party – It was introduced by a social democratic Labour Party who were committed to reducing social inequality and social exclusion which maximised the potential for the PREVENT strategy to utilise policies derived from both values-based and means-based explanations for the grievances that those identified as open to being radicalised experienced
• PREVENT was targeted at local authorities first with a minimum 5% Muslim population and then with at least 2,000 Muslim residents
• Multi agency CHANNEL Process – A key strand of activity for local partners and partnerships in this area is to emphasise the connection between familiar vulnerability and the often less familiar issue of radicalisation and to consider preventative action
• Critique : cost and the lack of independent evaluation for projects, producing islamophobia as it is anti-ethical
• Revised PREVENT plan in 2010
• Radicalisation according to the strategy ‘ refers to the process by which a person comes to support terrorism and forms of extremism leading to terrorism ’ and extremism itself meant: vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs. We also include in our definition of extremism calls for the death of members of our armed forces, whether in this country or overseas. (HM Government, 2011a, pp. 108 À 109)
• In May 2008, a Master ’ s student and a lecturer at the University of Nottingham were arrested on suspicion of involvement in Islamist terrorism, despite having no connections to extremism whatsoever. The student, Rizwaan Sabir, and lecturer, Hicham Yezza, were questioned over the discovery of an Al-Qaeda ‘ training manual ’ on a university computer, which was reported to police by the University authorities
• Farooqs case leads to Prevent Duty as inadequate
• Turning universities into something they were not designed for
• The role of surveillance and control is one that is entirely inimical to the purpose of a university as we have understood it, which is to analyse, to explain and to discover. In that sense, open debate is the lifeblood of an institution of higher learning. Of course, as noble Lords have recognised, universities do not have immunity in the face of the criminal law À and they should not be immune to it. Indeed, like everyone else and every other body, they have existing obligations under anti-terrorism legislation, including the obligation to disclose to the authorities information they have about terrorism activities. But no one is suggesting that they are failing to discharge those obligations, and this Bill neither defines nor seeks to address any such failing. That is because there is none

 

The Prevent Duty : A Step too Far? – Jim Snaith and Karen Stephenson

• Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre (JTAC) JTAC analyses and assesses all intelligence relating to international terrorism, at home and overseas, established in 2003
• The Prevent duty was introduced by s 26 of the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 (the 2015 Act) ‘to stop extremists radicalising students on campuses’ and came into force on 21 September 2015
• Accordingly, academics are now obliged to monitor their students for signs of radicalisation and a duty is imposed on relevant institutions to identify and report any student who may be ‘vulnerable to radicalisation’ and furthermore, there is a duty to ensure that behaviour associated with ‘non-violent extremism’ is curbed
• Pursue: to stop terrorist attack. Focusing on detecting, investigating and disrupting terrorist threats.
• Prevent: to stop people becoming terrorists or supporting terrorism, the aim of reducing vulnerability to terrorist attack, including aviation security.
• Protect: to strengthen our protection against a terrorist attack. With the aim of minimising, managing and swiftly recovering from any attack.
• Prepare: to mitigate the impact of a terrorist attack. With the aim of stopping people becoming terrorists or supporting terrorism
• The government also expects institutions to undertake a risk-based assessment as to whether an event should be held on campus or at any other affiliated locations. In addition, the guidance requires institutions to give regard to their existing responsibilities concerning gender segregation and refers institutions to the guidance produced in 2015 by the Equality and Human Right Commission
• Staff training
• Action plans
• Risk assessments
• IT Policies
• Freedom of Speech Section 43 of the Education (No 2) Act 1986 ensures that: ‘Every individual and body of persons concerned in the government of any [universities, polytechnics and colleges – now RFEBs and RHEBs] shall take such steps as are reasonably practicable to ensure that freedom of speech within the law is secured for members, students and employees of the establishment and for visiting speakers’
• Academic Freedom Section 202(2)(a) of the Education Reform Act 1988 ensures that ‘academic staff have freedom within the law to question and test received wisdom, and to put forward new ideas and controversial or unpopular opinions, without placing themselves in jeopardy of losing their jobs or privileges they may have at their institutions’. As with the duty to ensure freedom of speech, it is not the intention of the 2015 Act to undermine academic freedom. In taking any relevant decision, institutions should take account of the need to balance ‘ensuring academic freedom’ with ‘having regard to the need to prevent people being drawn into terrorism’.
• Equality Act 2010
• Data Protection Act 1998
• The Public Order Act 1986
• Crime and Disroder Act 1998
• BIS and Ofsted monitoring framework

 

Title [insert your title here]

 

A Research Project submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree of Bachelor of Arts (Honours) in Politics/ International Relations/ Politics and International Relations/ Politics with Business Management [delete as applicable]

 

Abstract

[Insert a brief summary of your dissertation, maximum 300 words. This does not count towards your final word limit. The abstract should specify the aims and objectives of the project; the methods employed; and the argument/ results/ conclusions reached. It should give a strong indication of the content and argument of the project.]

 

Table of Contents

Introduction                                                                                                               1

Chapter 1: Chapter Title                                                                                         x

Section 1.1: Section Title                                                                            x

Section 1.2: Section Title                                                                            x

Section 1.3: Section Title                                                                            x

Chapter 2: Chapter Title

Section 2.1: Section Title                                                                            x

Section 2.2: Section Title                                                                            x

Section 2.3: Section Title                                                                            x

Chapter 3: Chapter Title                                                                                         x

Section 3.1: Section Title                                                                            x

Section 3.2: Section Title                                                                            x

Section 3.3: Section Title                                                                            x

Chapter 4: Chapter Title                                                                                         x

Section 4.1: Section Title                                                                            x

Section 4.2: Section Title                                                                            x

Section 4.3: Section Title                                                                            x

Conclusion                                                                                                                x

Bibliography                                                                                                             x

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Introduction

 

 

 

 

Chapter 1: Chapter Title

 

Section 1.1: Section Title

 

Section 1.2: Section Title

Section 1.3: Section Title

 

 

Chapter 2: Chapter Title

 

Section 2.1: Section Title

 

Section 2.2: Section Title

 

Section 2.3: Section Title

 

 

Chapter 3: Chapter Title

 

Section 3.1: Section Title

 

Section 3.2: Section Title

 

Section 3.3: Section Title

 

 

Chapter 4: Chapter Title

 

Section 4.1: Section Title

 

Section 4.2: Section Title

 

Section 4.3: Section Title

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Conclusion

 

 

 

 

 

Bibliography