Memorandum from the Islamic Human Rights
Commission (PVE 07)
SUMMARY
— The Prevent strategy is doomed to fail
in its objectives of preventing violent extremism unless and until
it solves a number of inherent flaws.
— Firstly, its entire premise is that all
Muslims are potential terrorists. Such an Islamophobic assumption
serves to legitimise and validate the views of the Far Right and
other Islamophobes.
— Secondly, the Prevent agenda unhelpfully
conflates the issues of community cohesion and community services
delivery with issues of intelligence gathering and counter-terrorism.
By doing so, the Government adopts a position that the British
Muslim community can only be viewed through the single prism of
counter-terrorism efforts.
— Thirdly, the Prevent strategy fails to
sufficiently engage with the primary motivations behind the actions
of terrorists—an unjust and oppressive foreign policy and
instead, it focuses on periphery, if not irrelevant, issues of
democratic participation, education, and the role of women in
the community.
— Fourthly, the Prevent strategy documents
fail to define emotive and loade(FIRE 33)d terms such as "violent
extremism", "extremism", and "radicalisation".
Such failures when coupled with intensive pressure on local authorities
to produce results of projects designed to have tackled these
concepts, have resulted in these concepts being defined at the
whim of individuals within councils, with their biases, prejudices
and lack of understanding. This has manifested itself in a McCarthyite
spying culture being implemented in councils, university campuses
and even primary schools, as part of the mainstreaming of Prevent.
— Fifthly, the terminology of "violent
extremism" completely ignores the very real and dangerous
threats and actions by Far Right groups and racist and Islamophobic
individuals, whose violent extremism is of rapidly growing concern
to all communities.
— Finally, the Government's efforts to
create an alternative narrative to the Al-Qaeda brand have in
essence been a cynical experiment in social engineering. Through
its creation, promotion and financing of new organisations, who
have no connection to the majority of Muslims and whose beliefs
and practices contradict core teachings of Islam itself, the Government
has further isolated the vast majority of Muslims in the UK, who
are clearly not taken in by such tactics.
BACKGROUND
1. On 5 April 2007, in a document entitled
"Preventing violent extremism—Winning hearts and minds",
Ruth Kelly, Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government
(CLG), announced a "new action plan to step-up work with
Muslim communities to isolate, prevent and defeat violent extremism".[1]
2. As part of this agenda, a Home Office
fund for community cohesion, in place since the Northern cities
disturbances of Summer 2001, was transformed into a Preventing
Violent Extremism "Pathfinder fund". The 2007-08 PVE
Pathfinder Fund delivered £6 million in funding to around
70 local authorities to work with partners and communities
to deliver a community-based response to violent extremism.
3. Eligibility for the fund was based on
concentrations of Muslim population with 5% or more and funding
was distributed according to an assessment carried out by CLG
of the need and ambition of the proposals brought foward.
4. In June 2008, the Home Office decided
to mainstream the Prevent agenda and announced the availability
of £45 million in new funding to "local authorities,
schools, community groups and police to tackle violent extremism."[2]
CRITIQUE
5. There are a number of problems with the
current Prevent strategy which, unless remedied, will ultimately
lead to its complete failure, counter-productive results, and
a waste of the taxpayer's money.
6. Firstly, the entire premise for the strategy
is the incorrect and Islamophobic assumption that every member
of the Muslim community is a potential terrorist who needs to
be reprogrammed to renounce terrorism and violent extremism. In
doing so, it legitimises and validates the negative stereotypes
propagated by Far Right and Islamophobic groups that Islam and
Muslims are synonymous with terrorism. This in turn can lead to
even further marginalisation and isolation of the Muslim community.
7. Secondly, the Prevent agenda unhelpfully
conflates the issues of community cohesion and community services
delivery with issues of intelligence gathering and counter-terrorism.
By doing so, the Government adopts a position that the British
Muslim community can only be viewed through the single prism of
counter-terrorism efforts.
8. There is no evidence to link areas that
have a high proportion of Muslim inhabitants with terrorism. In
their book "Sleepwalking to Segregation?" Challenging
Myths About Race and Migration (pp.107—8), Nissa Finney
and Ludi Simpson analyse the data for the districts of origin
of Muslims charged with terrorist offences. They write:
"If 'segregated areas', where there are
the largest concentrations of Muslims, were hotbeds of terrorism … then
one would expect more to be charged in these areas. Seventeen
of those charged in the period August 2004 to October 2006 were
residents of Bradford, Luton, Newham or Wandsworth, four of the
seven most Muslim districts where 18% of the population is Muslim.
But just as many lived in other areas; for example, 16 lived
in districts with on average only 1% Muslims, coming from Breckland
in Norfolk, Doncaster, Bournemouth, Reigate in Surrey, Bexley,
Brighton and Hove, Aylesbury Vale and Greenwich. The only set
of districts where more Muslims were charged than others was those
with the second-lowest concentrations, including Crawley, Lambeth,
Wycombe and Manchester. So, Muslims living in highest concentration
Muslim areas are not more likely to be terrorists than Muslims
living in any other type of area. There is no reason to link particular
levels of concentration with terrorism."
9. Thirdly, the Prevent strategy fails to
sufficiently engage with the primary motivations behind the actions
of terrorists—an unjust and oppressive foreign policy which
has caused and continues to cause immense suffering throughout
the Muslim world. Instead, it focuses on periphery, if not irrelevant,
issues of democratic participation, education, and the role of
women in the community.
10. Fourthly, the Prevent strategy documents
fail to define emotive and loaded terms such as "violent
extremism", "extremism", and "radicalisation".
When coupled with intensive pressure on local authorities to hit
targets, such failures to define have resulted in these concepts
being defined at the whim of individuals within councils, with
their biases, prejudices and lack of understanding.
11. The matter has been further complicated
by indications as to what is unacceptable behaviour but not definitively
"violent extremism". For example, in a speech at the
London School of Economics, former Secretary of State for CLG
Hazel Blears included the following behaviour as unacceptable
aspects of Islam:
"A belief in the supremacy of the Muslim
people, in a divine duty to bring the world under the control
of hegemonic Islam, in the establishment of a theocratic Caliphate,
and in the undemocratic imposition of theocratic law on whole
societies."[3]
12. In February 2009, a draft version of
Contest two leaked to the press proposed labeling as "extremist"
anyone who advocated a caliphate of Muslim nations, promoted Sharia'ah
law, believed in jihad or armed resistance anywhere in the world,
including Palestinian armed resistance against the Israeli military,
argued that Islam prohibits homosexuality and that it is a sin
against Allah, and failed to condemn the killing of British soldiers
in Iraq and Afghanistan.[4]
Although the final Contest two document did not include any such
specific definition, the hysteria created by the leaked report
was enough to flag up what local authorities should be looking
out for.
13. Essentially, in its efforts to "stop
people becoming terrorists", the Government has effectively
criminalised all forms of political opinion, expression and involvement
by Muslims. This has manifested itself in a McCarthyite spying
culture being implemented in councils, university campuses and
even primary schools, as part of the mainstreaming of Prevent.
14. One example of this is the Government's
toolkit for schools entitled "Learning together to be safe"
which provides guidelines to schools on preventing violent extremism,
by which teachers are expected to report any child they suspect
of harbouring extremist views. Within these guidelines are included
advice from the Quilliam Foundation about danger signs which teachers
should look out for including "Political ideology—use
of political propaganda that describes political systems and countries
as 'Kufr' or anti-Islamic, and expressing the need to replace
them with 'The Islamic system', or `Caliphate…' Suspended
morality…; Conspiratorial mindset and 'westophobia'…Ultra
conservative outlook…"[5]
As the An-Nisa Society has stated, such advice is highly simplistic
and subjective and raises a number of questions:
— "What are the 'appropriate mechanisms?'
— What will happen to a child identified
as a 'potential terrorist'?
— Where are the Muslim voluntary sector
agencies that will ensure that the child is dealt with appropriately?
— What safeguards are there to ensure that
a child or young person is not wrongly labelled for life?
— Who will make these agencies and schools
accountable?
— Where are the Muslim voluntary sector
support services that can help Muslim families placed in such
a situation with, for example, counselling, advocacy and legal
help and so on?"[6]
15. As part of its strategy, the Government
has used a quantitative measure of "resilience" to so-called
violent extremism—termed National Indicator 35 (NI
35). This is an assessment framework that evaluates the effectiveness
of Prevent related work programmes. Local authorities were asked
to sign up to these performance indicators which would assess
and measure how well they were tackling extremism. However there
was and continues to be much resistance and concern. Some local
authorities have resented this reporting requirement, because
it makes them an arm of the police or of the security.
16. According to the LGA Office Holders,
"The Home Office (HO), via the Office for Security and
Counter Terrorism (OSCT), have produced a 'heat map' which identifies
30 areas with a high risk of producing violent extremists
and are seeking a good take-up of NI: 35 across this group.
Around nineteen areas across the country have indicated that they
will pick up the indicator in their priority 35 set. The
HO believe that local authorities that do not select NI:35 are
not prioritising PVE and concluding that little or no PVE work
is being undertaken. To persuade local authorities to select NI:35,
the HO is applying pressure via the Police, and senior officials
during LAA (Local Area Agreements) negotiations which has had
only limited success… Local authorities are reluctant to
pick up the indicator because the term "violent extremism"
could alienate communities, undermining cohesion work and are
extremely cautious about making public statements around PVE.
There is also concern about the measurability of the indicator."[7]
17. The Chief Executive of Bradford Council
and leader of the Conservative Group Kris Hopkins too raised his
disquiet with the PVE campaign when responding to questions from
Channel 4 reporter Darsha Soni (10 September 2008) and
stated:
"What they said was that if we were
willing to go out and monitor the Muslim community and use the
resources of the local council to do that they would release an
amount of money to us. The local council should be there to promote
education, caring for elderly people, making sure they are in
a safe place and not become a wing of the security services."[8]
18. When asked what the Government's response
was to his statement that he was not prepared to sign up to NI35,
Hopkins replied that a whole procession of people, both officers
and politicians, had come to Bradford to tell them that they were
"soft on terrorism."
19. In June 2009, Reading Conservative councilor
Jamie Chowdhary said of NI 35: "If ever a document qualified
for the charge of inciting racial hatred, then this is it."
He said it would "isolate, stigmatise and alienate one community,
my community".
20. Fifthly, the terminology of "violent
extremism" completely ignores the very real and dangerous
threats and actions by Far Right groups and racist and Islamophobic
individuals, whose violent extremism is of rapidly growing concern
to all communities.
21. Since the election of BNP leader Nick
Griffin to the European Parliament and his comments to Channel
4 News describing Islam as a "cancer" that needed
to be removed from Europe by "chemotherapy",[9]
the threats and actions of Far Right extremists against Muslims
has rapidly escalated in both in frequency and severity. Numerous
mosques, Islamic centres and even the Glasgow office of the Islamic
Relief office have been subjected to arson attacks. In Loughton,
Essex, where the BNP has been advocating a "No Mosques in
Loughton" campaign, community leader Noor Ramjanally's home
was torched, his family threatened before he was abducted at knife-point.
In South London, there has been a spate of attacks against Muslims
outside mosques during Ramadan, one of which resulted in the murder
of a 65 year old man.
22. The last six months has seen a growing
number of virulently anti-Islam marches and demonstrations organised
by Far Right such as the English Defence League (EDL) and Casuals
United. The demonstrations, in which fascists have chanted "We
hate Muslims" and "No more mosques", have been
allowed proceed in areas with high Muslim populations such as
Luton and Birmingham. During a march in Luton, fascists attacked
and vandalized the homes, businesses and property of the Muslim
population in scenes reminiscent of Mosleys Brownshirts in the
1930s. Rather than crackdown on such blatant fascism, the attitude
of the government has been one of silent acquiescence.
23. Beyond demonstrations, Far Right extremists
are plotting deadlier attacks against Muslims. Numerous terrorist
plots have been foiled this year including one in July when an
international network of Far Right extremists with access to 300 weapons
and 80 bombs was uncovered by counter-terrorism detectives
in what was described as the "largest seizure of a suspected
terrorist arsenal since the IRA mainland bombings of the early
1990s." In another recent case not linked to those arrests,
detectives seized maps and plans of mosques from the homes of
suspected Far Right supporters.
24. Most recently, white supremacist Neil
Lewington was convicted of planning a terrorist bombing campaign
against those he considered non-British. In a raid on his home,
police discovered what was described as a "bomb-making factory"
as well as racist propaganda and videos of neo-Nazi terrorists.
25. Earlier in April, Neil MacGregor was
convicted after admitting to threatening to blow up Scotland's
biggest mosque and to behead one Muslim a week until every mosque
in Scotland was shut down. Curiously, MacGregor was never charged
under any anti-terrorism legislation or tried in the High Court
as would be expected. Instead, he was charged and tried with mere
breach of the peace in the Glasgow Sherriff Court where he was
sentenced to only three years' probation. One need not ask the
inevitable question, "what if he had been a Muslim?"
For several cases in recent years have answered that question—draconian
sentences of between eight and 40 years splashed on the front
pages of all print media with 24/7 coverage of the perpetrator's
background, his family, his community, and his religion.
26. 0This growing threat to Muslims and
other ethnic communities led to Commander Shaun Sawyer of Scotland
Yard's counterterrorism command telling a public meeting of Muslims
in July that the police feared a "spectacular" terrorist
attack by the Far Right extremists designed to kill and to stoke
racial tensions. Sawyer added that more of his officers needed
to be deployed to try to thwart neo-Nazi-inspired violence. Senior
counter terrorism sources also admitted that the Counter Terrorism
Unit in Leeds was currently investigating "just as many"
far right plots as al-Qaeda conspiracies.
27. If Prevent is sincere about dealing
with violent extremism, it must tackle this growing menace to
society.
28. Finally, the Government's efforts to
create an alternative narrative to the Al-Qaeda brand have in
essence been a cynical experiment in social engineering. Through
its creation, promotion and financing of new organisations, who
have no connection to the majority of Muslims and whose beliefs
and practices contradict core teachings of Islam itself, the Government
has further isolated the vast majority of Muslims in the UK, who
are clearly not taken in by such tactics.
29. In its document, "Preventing Violent
Extremism—Winning hearts and minds", it unequivocally
stated that
"It is not for Government to intervene
in theological debates. But there is a role for Government in
providing support where it is sought or needed. We will support
the development of strong faith institutions and leaders capable
of engaging effectively with all members of Muslim communities".
[10]
30. Since the launch of the Prevent strategy,
the exact opposite has been the case and the Government has made
every effort to intervene, directly or indirectly, in theological
debates and discussions central to the Islamic faith. It has in
particular sought to marginalise those Muslims who are vociferous
in their political beliefs and instead embarked on a mission to
create, promote and fund groups whose version of Islam is more
in tune with the Government's own beliefs. These groups hailed
as the true representatives of the Muslim communities include
the Sufi Muslim Council (who did not exist prior to their launch
by Ruth Kelly in the Houses of Parliament in July 2006), the British
Muslim Forum (BMF), and the Quilliam Foundation. All have received
and continue to receive the highest amount of funding[11]
to promote their version of Islam which advocate supporting the
Government's domestic and foreign policies without dissent.[12]
The Quilliam Foundation in particular fails to attract more than
a miniscule number of supporters and has been by and large condemned
by Muslims across the faith spectrum for their attempts to distort
the true teachings of Islam.
31. In its latest document in June 2008,
Preventing Violent Extremism: A Strategy for Delivery, the OSCT
lists certain key activities it seeks to achieve including supporting
the establishment of a board of leading Muslim scholars to articulate
an understanding of Islam in Britain.[13]
It is difficult to think of any clearer way to try and change
the teachings of a religion than by establishing a board of Government
appointed or approved scholars to teach the people their religion.
32. IHRC wishes to remind Prime Minister
Brown what the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or
Belief, Asma Jahangir, said in her report on the UK last year:
"The Special Rapporteur would like to
emphasize that it is not the Government's role to look for the
"true voices of Islam" or of any other religion or belief.
Since religions or communities of belief are not homogenous entities
it seems advisable to acknowledge and take into account the diversity
of voices. The Special Rapporteur reiterates that the contents
of a religion or belief should be defined by the worshippers themselves …"
33. Rather than deal with those creatures
of Government who will tell it what it wants to hear, the Government
should engage with those groups and individuals with whom they
may disagree but who will provide them with a more accurate and
realistic viewpoint of how it is actually perceived at the grassroots.
Over expensive and cosmetic projects may make good press but will
not "prevent violent extremism" in any community.
September 2009
1 "Preventing Violent Extremism-Winning hearts
and minds"; http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/communities/pdf/320752.pdf Back
2
Strategic issues-Preventing Violent Extremism; LGA Office Holders
Item 2a 16 April 2008 http://www.lga.gov.uk/lga/aio/480450 Back
3
Many Voices: understanding the debate about preventing violent
extremism, Hazel Blears speech at LSE, 25 February 2009. Available
at http://www.communities.gov.uk/speeches/corporate/manyvoices Back
4
Anti-terror code "would alienate most Muslims", The
Guardian, 17 February 2009 http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/feb/17/counterterrorism-strategy-muslims Back
5
http://www.teachernet.gov.uk/wholeschool/violentextremism/quilliam/ Back
6
"Preventing Violent Extremism (PVE) & PREVENT: A Response
from the Muslim Community", An-Nisa Society (Feb 2009) Back
7
Strategic issues-Preventing Violent Extremism; LGA Office Holders
Item 2a 16 April 2008 http://www.lga.gov.uk/lga/aio/480450 Back
8
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=vNYiVXAWnwI Back
9
"BNP's Griffin: Islam is a cancer", Channel 4 News,
9 July 2009 http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/politics/domestic_politics/bnpaposs+griffin+islam+is+a+cancer/3257872 Back
10
"Preventing Violent Extremism-Winning hearts and minds".
Ibid n1 Back
11
The SMC received £160,000 in Government funding in 2006-07,
over £80,000 the following year and £150,000 more was
awarded to it for 2008-09. 1. In 2006-07, the BMF received £115,000
in funding. In 2007-08, this rose to almost £195,000. Another
£125,000 has been budgeted for the next three years. Back
12
The SMC's spiritual leader Shaykh Hisham Kabbani has previously
thanked the British government for its role in the Middle East
and also has links with the Neocons in the US and the repressive
Karimov regime in Uzbekistan, positions at odds with those of
most British Muslims. The BMF have encouraged young British Muslims
to join the British army and supported proposals to raise the
maximum time limit for detention without charge from 28 days to
42 days. See Join the British Army and become a martyr, say Muslims,
The Sunday Times, 10 December 2006 http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article666527.ece
and UK's top Muslim backs "42 days", The Sun,
10 June 2008 http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1270796.ece Back
13
http://security.homeoffice.gov.uk/news-publications/publication-search/prevent-strategy/preventing-violent-extremism? Back
|
