|
Memorandum from the Federation of Muslim Organisations (FMO) (PVE 02)
Preventing Violent Extremism
The Federation of Muslim Organisations (FMO) is an elected umbrella body in existence for over 26 years. It is the effective voice of the Muslim community and currently holds an affiliate membership of 186 Mosques and Muslim bodies across the sectarian divide. I serve as the Public Relations Officer and as the co-ordinator/trainer on "Prevent".
My
own experience in
I know that the Muslim community has always fully supported the underlying principle that terrorism is something that is not to be tolerated and that Islam has no support for any act that brings about human suffering and is committed in supporting the fight against terrorism anywhere in the world.
I would like to reinforce my communities' commitment in contributing on this critical and important issue and to thank you for giving us an opportunity to comment.
1 Is the Prevent programme the right way of addressing the problem of violent extremism, or are there better ways of doing it? The label 'Prevent' has become a barrier in some parts of the country because of its connotations and links with one faith community (Muslims). The recent arrest and conviction of the far right terrorist did not receive the same attention yet far right activity is on the rise. There are also many comments made within other faith communities that Muslims are benefiting from the fund at the expense of others. 2 How robust is the Government's analysis of the factors which lead people to become involved in violent extremism? Is the 'Prevent' programme appropriately targeted to address the most important of those factors? There has previously been a neglect of foreign policy when assessing the
impact domestically. The last example being 3 How appropriate, and how effective, is the Government's strategy for engaging with communities? Has the Government been speaking to the right people? Has its programme reached those at whom it is-or should be-aimed? This is a highly problematic area for a number of reasons: Advisors to Government tend to come from one particular school of thought Organisations not rooted in local communities and which have not got a track record of local delivery, seem to be funded and contracts awarded without thorough assessment of outcomes and credibility. There is a tendency to only speak to those who are There is a fear that a change of Government will lead to a new direction for the strategy. 4 Is the necessary advice and expertise available to local authorities on how to implement and evaluate the programme? This would depend on the depth of knowledge of the local authorities.
We understand that this evaluated through National Indicator 35 (Building Resilience to Violent Extremism). 5 Are the objectives of the 'Prevent' agenda being communicated effectively to those at whom it is aimed? In our experience of training and advising prison officers, probation, police, government office and council staff, there is a lack of knowledge and grasping of the agenda. Policies are formulated for communities with whom they have little or no effective contact with. Understanding of Islam, Muslim schools of thought and the single narrative is very poor amongst statutory organisations. 6 Is the Government seeking, and obtaining, appropriate advice on how to achieve the goals of the 'Prevent' programme? In some cases yes but more work needed to identify key influencers and responsible voices. 7 How effectively has the Government evaluated the effectiveness of the programme and the value for money which is being obtained from it? Have reactions to the programme been adequately gauged? It would always be difficult to measure success due to the nature of the potential subject. Good value for money, concern on future funding/continuation. Reactions to the programme in our opinion not been sufficiently measured. 8 Is there adequate differentiation between what should be achieved through the Prevent programme and the priorities that concern related, but distinct, policy frameworks such as cohesion and integration? No, still a lot of confusion between the Prevent and Community Cohesion/Integration agenda, clear guidelines are needed to avoid tensions between faith communities that have surfaced. One issue that has always appeared prominence during our many conversation with the community is a belief that radicalisation is strongly linked with international events and foreign policy. Also in particular, the ways the media portray some events often trigger a line of enquiry that often germinates into a more radical political outlook. Extreme views become more attractive and young minds and will inevitably become more susceptible to extreme and radical opinions. This is of course does not mean that such people go on to commit atrocities. In June, I took part in a weekend residential titled 'Operation Nicole' I was really inspired by the concept and I deeply felt that it may be worth replicating something similar in more cities.
I know that we would have to extremely cautious and sensitive in the way that this is presented to the community. This event would have to be run independently because of the need to attract delegates from across the community. I want to make sure that we can create a "safe" place where people can ventilate their feelings and views. In order to achieve this I feel that we may need to present this programme as a mixed programme covering other issues such as:
· Public speaking · Presentation skills · Understanding the terrorism legislation · Citizenship · CONTEST/ PREVENT
I am also aware that the Act NOW! exercise exists and would be extremely useful for groups. This can be tailored for local audience instead of having consultants parachuted in from elsewhere. Based on the soundings that I have taken I am confident that a local programme created at a local level is more likely to succeed.
I am involved in this area of work and delivering training around the
PREVENT strategy in
September 2009 |