Memorandum from NAMP (National Association
of Muslim Police) (PVE 71)
SUMMARY
The below is a brief outline of National Association
of Muslim Police (NAMP) submission for the Preventing Violent
Extremism enquiry.
Prior to beginning our summary, we take this
opportunity in explaining the reason for our delay in making this
submission. NAMP was given the opportunity at a late hour and
has made attempt to get a submission that will support the overall
investigation/enquiry into PREVENT.
It is first real opportunity for us to make
a real contribution to any such enquiry and we welcome this opportunity.
NAMP has been established since July 2007 and is a Police
Officer and Staff based support network, we have some 12 affiliated
forces and four in interim phase in England, Wales and Scotland,
with a membership of over 2000.
Our objectives include:
— Increase Trust/Confidence and improve
Community Cohesion.
— Recruitment/Retention and Progression.
— Raising Islamic Awareness and dealing
with Equality issues such as Islamophobia.
The PREVENT strategy has been with us for sufficient
time to enable a methodical review of its delivery and effectiveness.
Any such strategy must be subject to review and we welcome this
committee's enquiry.
From the outset a very sizeable section of the
Muslim Community has shown real concern at the main thrust and
inner drive being focused on Islam and Muslims. Whilst there is
a clear need to address some under lying concerns within the Muslim
Communities. Radicalisation and extremism are not confined to
the Muslim Community. Recent examples of acts of Terrorism in
Northern Ireland are a testament to this. We have seen a growth
of the threat posed by the right wing. This threat takes the form
of both political and direct action, direct action has seen the
rise of potential of the far right. Recent arrests and indeed
the Brixton nail bombings show that there are individuals in other
societies that are not in tune with main stream Britain.
The Muslim communities feel a sense of frustration
that the institutions that can protect them are not really listening
to their concerns. The consultation appears to be a simple tick
box exercise with no real interest in solving the real issues
affecting us all.
The strategies of PREVENT were historically
focused on so called Islamist extremism.
This has subjected the biggest Black and Minority
Ethnic community and second biggest faith group in an unprecedented
manner, stigitimatising them in the process. It has also arguably
isolated them and visibly made them the focus of all our anti
Terror actions for a substantial period. The net result may have
caused some serious damage to Community Cohesion.
Never before has a community been mapped in
a manner and nor will it be, it is frustrating to see this in
a country that is a real pillar and example of freedom of expression
and choice. Our British system is a model for the world to follow,
yet we have embarked on a journey that has put this very core
of British values under real threat. This has been echoed from
all areas of the globe, the UN in New York to Liberty based in
the UK.
The hatred towards Muslims has grown to a level
that defies all logic and is an affront to British values. The
climate is such that Muslim are subject to daily abuse in a manner
that would be ridiculed by Britain, were this to occur any where
else. An example of this was the recent BBC programme titled "hate
at your door step". This programme gave us an insight at
level of abuse faced by many Muslims in Britain on a daily basis.
We must not diminish our British values further
by continuing to allow such behavior and policies to continue
unchecked.
Institute Race Relations Report SPOOKED by Arun
Kundhani listed some key areas of real concern,
The report's key findings are that:
— Prevent-funded voluntary sector organisations
and workers in local authorities are becoming increasingly wary
of the expectations on them to provide the police with information
on young Muslims and their religious and political opinions.
— The atmosphere promoted by Prevent is
one in which to make radical criticisms of the government is to
risk losing funding and facing isolation as an "extremist",
while those organisations which support the government are rewarded.
— Local authorities have been pressured
to accept Prevent funding in direct proportion to the numbers
of Muslims in their area—in effect, constructing the Muslim
population as a "suspect community".
— Prevent decision-making lacks transparency
and local accountability.
— Prevent has undermined progressive elements
within the earlier community cohesion agenda and absorbed from
it those parts which are most problematic.
— The current emphasis of Prevent on depoliticising
young people and restricting radical dissent is actually counter-productive
because it strengthens the hands of those who say democracy is
pointless.
1. Is the Prevent programme the right way
of addressing the problem of violent extremism, or are there better
ways of doing it?
1.1 There has to be an alternative in dealing
with extremism, whether Islamic or Non Islamic. The present PREVENT
and CONTEST 2 in seen, perceived and based on so called Islamic
Extremist.
1.2 The initiative has been led from the
start by issues that included International matters namely Foreign
policy, yet this was largely ignored in strategic term's and was
only part acknowledged after all the strategies had been devised.
The impact of Foreign policy is still not really addressed neither
are grievances nor the sense of duplicity and double standards.
1.3 The term does not lend itself well to
public acceptability and apart from the negativity that has gained
momentum over time; the badge is in serious need of refreshment
and change.
1.4 If we are to tackle extremism, our strategy
needs to reflect this not just in word, actions but in spirit.
We need to be seen to doing and practicising what we preach, the
old adage of "do as I say and not as I do" needs to
disappear if we are to deal with these threats.
1.5 All forms Right Wing, Separatist, so
called Islamist, Green issues, Single entity……. need
to addressed as opposed to the current PREVENT focus on Islam.
1.6 We need to seriously consider the Prevent
agenda sitting within Cohesion and being more acceptable to general
Social Cohesion rather than its current Counter Terrorism base.
However there may need to be caution of the danger's of this being
too politicised if we adapt this format.
1.7 It appears that the whole of the Muslim
Communities some 2 million plus is being stigitimsed and
mapped from start to end, There has never been in any case in
history to such effective mapping apart from the Martian era in
America pre the second world war.
1.8 It can be argued that there is a connection
in the rise of islamophobia and our PREVENT programme as it feeds
on the stereo types that the media and some right wing parties
promote i.e all Muslims are evil and non trust worthy.
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?
2.1 The present PREVENT strategy is based
very narrowly in its analysis and root causes, there is no mention
of deprivation factors ie Report of TUC re deprivation in Pakistani
and Bengali Communities to name one source, discrimination ie
anecdotal evidence and EU human Rights report on Discrimination
in Europe, whilst this did not include the UK. There is anecdotal
evidence to show this is mirrored in the UK in the form of Islamophobia
ie Runnymede trust report a challenge for all of us in 1997 and
various other reports show this as a daily challenge. There appears
to be no strategy to acknowledge nor drive this by the use of
a problem solving approach
Our foreign policy appears to be based on established
pressure groups and some would say double standards ie Israel's
breach of countless United Nations resolutions along with its
possession of Nuclear Weapons shows a lack of honest brokering
by key players including the UK as all have failed to take any
action here but this is contrasted with similar occurrences elsewhere.
There appears to be in consistency in our approach to matters
such as the lack of any real actions in Gaza in comparison to
our rapid action in Iraq and Afghanistan.
2.2 There is concern as to who was consulted
and who formed part of the original group that devised our PREVENT
strategy. It appears that the usual suspects and those with whom
we appear to be comfortable with were part of the so called inner
circle.
2.3 All research including that by OSCT
from interviews with those convicted of Terrorism acts shows Islam
was not and is not a real driver but all our strategy seem to
focus on this unevidenced view of Islam being the driver. In fact
the research shows that firstly the so called Terrorist have little
if any knowledge of Islam and secondly were they to be more islamically
aware they may not be susceptable to such deviance or actions.
2.4 Foreign policy and an un even handed
approach to world affairs has caused major concern in our communities.
Modern society is more knowledgeable of current affairs and has
greater access to world news from a variety of sources, spin is
not a productive tool in long run ie Current Debate on Rendition,
The Iraq enquiry, Abu Garib, ... etc. Prevent does not really
tackle these root causes.
2.5 Terrorism is a complex area for us all
and a more thorough research should have been commissioned before
any consideration was given to the PREVENT strategy being formulated.
There needs to be a clear understanding of what drives people
and individuals to break away from so called normal behaviour
and take the deviant route to radical or criminal action that
we refer to.
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?
3.1 There is a perception that Government
is comfortable speaking with those who appear to foster and support
its own views rather than those that represent the communities,
ie Muslim Council of Britain has been politicized and marginalized
and is a main stream popular Muslim organisation.This approach
is hugely divisive and counter productive particularly when we
consider engagement with our communities has to be based on real
and not selective engagement.
3.2 The Quilliam Foundation and British
Muslim Forum appear to be flavor of the Month, whilst other main
stream are ignored and marginalized. There are echoes of what
was often said about the Racism problems of the 70's and 80's,
who do they really represent? We appear to have ignored the lessons
learnt from these dark days.
3.3 Arguable the programme has been restricted
in effectiveness although this cannot be truly gauged due to a
lack of an effective transparent review of the strategy. There
appears to be strong belief that we have not really engaged nor
reached the real targets of our objectives.
4. Is the necessary advice and expertise
available to local authorities on how to implement and evaluate
the programme?
4.1 There appears to be little in terms
of evaluation of all the projects and work carried out thus far.
Local authorities and partners all have management tools of evaluation;
the question is not whether they have the tools and support but
more whether there is any real evaluation of delivery based on
effectiveness and cost.
4.2 The lack of demographically and representative
Muslim perspectives in key areas is of concern and needs to addressed
ie lack of Muslims in key areas of decision making.
4.3 This can be evidenced from Local authority
to government as there is little visible representation. Clearly
if we all to be part of one community we need to be seen and reflecting
our communities demographics (Muslims make up some 3% and some
local authorities as high as 15-20%), yet the lack of Muslims
is puzzling.
5. Are the objectives of the "Prevent"
agenda being communicated effectively to those at whom it is aimed?
5.1 Whilst the projects such as Chanel
from Prevent appear to be showing success in terms of referrals
and recent take on of some right wing extremism. There is question
again about the targeting of the real needy. It is debatable whether
we are reaching the really hard to reach individuals who may be
effected by this thought process.
5.3 There seems too little transparency
or evaluations of projects of prevent, hence it is not easy to
measure or evidence success. Yet again it is all based around
Islam and Conjecture.
5.4 There is concern at the PREVENT agenda
and anecdotal evidence show's that sections of the Muslim Communities
and the wider community are realigning themselves away from this
programme due to the negativity and impact on communities especially
Muslim .
5.5 There is concern of the use of comforting
partners, organisations that we appear to like. We need to be
based more broadly in terms of the main stream Muslim communities,
organizations and not be entirely focused on new emerging organizations,
specifically those born out of political drive.
6. Is the Government seeking, and obtaining,
appropriate advice on how to achieve the goals of the "Prevent"
programme?
6.1 There appears to be greater consultation
from top down by better inclusion of Muslim's within the process
ie Acceptance at OSCT of Muslim Involvement and NAMP being finally
included in the ACPO Prevent Board.
6.2 Such attendance is still seen as tokenistic
as representatives are vastly outnumbered and hence out voted
on any real debate. We need to ensure that whilst the Muslim Communities
is not solely responsible for proactive work in reducing extremism,
it is effectively represented by the right individuals where the
need arises.
6.3 Counter Terrorism units are an example
of this disproportionate representation, NAMP in partnership with
National Prevent delivery Unit are undertaking a piece of research
to look at monitoring staff representation and hopefully work
with ACPO on any issues identified.
6.4 The impact and growth of the far right
and its ability to carry out Terror acts cannot and should not
be under estimated.
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?
7.1 As indicated above (4.1, 4.2, 4.3) there
is little in terms of critical evaluation of outcomes.
7.2 This need's careful consideration in
view of the economic constraints and in effective use of key financial
resources during these difficult times.
7.3 The opinion of the Muslim Communities
does not appear to be effectively gauged or taken into consideration
ie Start of prevent and serious concerns of the community, like
Muslim Council of Britain, Muslim Safety Forum on other matters
such as Gaza, Gazan Convoy, Protests outside the Israeli Embassy
re Gazan siege, Arrest of individual in Manchester in April 2009 and
also those most recently in Manchester. There is a perception
that the institutions appear to be paying lip service and any
concerns or opinion in not really acted upon or considered.
7.4 There is evidence to show that some
communities are no longer supportive of prevent and appear to
be walking away from the large financial gains due to the negative
impact and perceptions ie Most recent cases of arrest in the North.
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?
8.1 Reports from EU Policing show that the
threats faced by EU are predominately from far right and separatist
extremism some 70%. The reports also show that there is a real
need to re examine our terminology and strategies of prosecution.
Namely what is extremism and Terrorism?Evidence shows we deal
with so called Islamist extremists as Terrorist, whilst the right
wing and separatist are dealt with as extremist hence facing lesser
(charges)legal action.
8.2 The biggest haul of weaponry in the
UK was from Right Wing Sources.
8.3 We needs to ensure our Prevent and Cohesion
strategies are based on equality and impact assessed effectively
on all our communities, this includes our so called definitions.
REFERENCES
Reports
Islamophobia "a challenge for us all" Runneymeade
Trust 1997
IRR Spooked report by Arun Kundhani
TV Programmes
ITV "It shouldn't happen to a Muslim"
BBC "Hate at your doorstep".
Internet Links
Spooked Report
http://www.irr.org.uk/2009/october/ak000036.html
It shouldn't happen to a Muslim C4 P OBORNE
http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/dispatches/it+shouldnt+happen+to+a+muslim/2314592
Hate at your doorstep BBC
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00nfr2h/Panorama_Undercover_Hate_on_the_Doorstep/
Gazan Protest Guardian 10 Jan 2009
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00nfr2h/Panorama_Undercover_Hate_on_the_Doorstep/
Guardian Govt anti terror strategy spies on Muslims
V DODD 16 Oct 2009
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/oct/16/anti-terrorism-strategy-spies-innocents
Guardian Community fear project to counter extremism
is not is not what it seems 16 Oct 2009
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/oct/16/prevent-counter-islamic-extremism-intelligence
Guardian Muslim Group hit out at terror funding with
security strings attached 4 Oct 2009
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/oct/04/muslim-groups-community-funding-security
Islamist watch Anti-terror code "would alienate
most Muslims" 17 Feb 2009
http://www.islamist-watch.org/1338/anti-terror-code-would-alienate-most-muslims
Times Online Lord Carlile attacks Gordon Brown comment's
on April 2009 Terror Arrests 25 Nov 2009
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article6930709.ece
Asian News GMP slammed over botched terror arrests
25 Nov 2009
http://www.theasiannews.co.uk/news/s/1183770_gmp_slammed_over_botched_terror_arrests
TE STAT EU TERRORISM SITUATION TREND REPORT 2008
http://www.europol.europa.eu/publications/EU_Terrorism_Situation_and_Trend_Report_TE-SAT/TESAT2008.pdf
November 2009
| 
