Memorandum from the Reading Council for
Racial Equality (PVE 72)
BACKGROUND
The Reading Council for Racial Equality has
been dealing with issues of discrimination & racial equality
for over forty years. In 2006, RCRE joined with Reading Muslim
Council to lead the Reading pathfinder Preventing Violent Extremism
project.
The project created the concept of Community
Ambassadors. This was based on the belief that the fight against
all forms of extremism should be lead by Reading people from all
sections of the community. People were recruited and briefed about
the subject and asked to lead debates in the local community.
Two unpaid co-ordinators, Mustafa Chaudhary
(Reading Muslim Council) and Rajinder Sohpal (Director, RCRE)
led the work with the pilot project working through a partnership
called Reading Forum Against Extremism.
In 2007-8, Reading Borough Council were awarded
the funding of £80,000. Mr Mustafa Chaudhary was employed
as the project co-ordinator, the main theme being to work with
Higher & Further Education establishments. At this stage,
the local branch of the Hzb-Ut-Tahrir began to openly oppose and
disrupt the work. This was done though the formation of the "Reading
PVE Crisis Group". The initiative has been strongly lead
by the Reading Muslim Council and Hizb-ut-Tahrir. Given that Project
Coordinator originated from the RMC, it was seems that the project
itself was effectively disrupted though a conflict of interests.
The RCRE published the results of its own work during the year
(funded largely by the EHRC and some supplementary support from
the PVE programme), but no final report seems to have been published
for the main project.
When the funding for 2008-11 was announced
by the Government, the Council continued to consult and invite
ideas for future work. RCRE submitted formal proposals and it
is stated that the RMC submitted informal proposals for taking
the lead on implementing NI35. As the latter has never been documented,
it is difficult to presume what the actual proposed idea consisted
of.
The Council adopted an approach of encouraging
communities to put forward project ideas. Many organisations have
put forward projects and some have been funded. Even at the time
of writing, the available budget has not been fully allocated
and further ideas are being developed in the community.
However, the PVE Crisis group and RMC adopted
a strong position against Contest 2 and the NI35 indicator.
This reached a height when questions were submitted to a council
meeting held on the 23 June 2009. There is evidence of bullying
and intimidation by these opponents, against Muslim organisations
and individuals who have shown interest in engaging. People have
been told that the PVE funding money is "haraam" and
should not be used by Muslims.
The RCRE assessment of the rather confused situation
is as follows. The Hzb-Ut-Tahrir seem to hold a position of fundamental
opposition to PVE work. The RMC, on the other hand, seem to have
adopted their position of opposition on grounds of their failure
to secure control over the whole of the budget.
CURRENT POSITION
To date the Hzb-Ut-Tahrir in partnership with
Reading Muslim Council lead a prominent and successfully campaign
to run a smear the PVE work in Reading. This smear has included
scare-stories that the PVE work will mean Muslim children will
be interrogated by the police, Mosques will be spied upon, Islam
is under threat of being distorted etc. A further summary of the
objections mainly with the national PVE policy can be found in
a letter dated 27 October 2008 on the PVE crisis group.
The Group seems happy to use the names of organisations without
their permission to convey an image of respectability. For example,
the Pakistan Community Centre and the BASIAN organisations are
reported as signatories to oppose PVE work, but are in fact running
PVE projects.
The recent so-called study funded by the Rowntree
Trust was supposed to consult with people working on PVE projects
but in fact managed to speak to known opponents in RMC.
RCRE PROJECTS
RCRE are running two main projects, Community
Awareness and Women against extremism network. we also have an
active interest in the Faith project with the local Pakistan Community
Centre. We welcome debate. All three of these projects are cross-community
and not specifically one community. Our view is that the problems
we face in Reading are especially from the far right extremism.
We are also concerned that there is inadequate engagement in decision
making from some sections of the community, notably women. Our
work aims to positively address these by working with all sections
of the community. None of the projects "stigmatise"
or alienate the Muslim community, but this is a regular criticism
from opponents.
QA. Is the Prevent programme the right way
of addressing the problem of violent extremism, or are there better
ways of doing it?
No.
The problem lies with the way in which the programme
has been rolled out. There are three big concerns but lots of
small ones.
Firstly, early inflammatory speeches from the
then Prime Minister, Mr Blair and former President Bush linking
Islam with terrorism have been the founding blocks for these programmes.
Whilst Government now has changed its approach, for many, the
links to those anti-Muslim sentiments will always make this work
wrong. The way the money was allocated on the basis of the numbers
of Muslims living in a Council area. This tends to reinforce the
racist ideology from the two former leaders.
Second, the fact that there is a problem of
extremism from the far right was largely ignored in the early
days of this work.
The two point combined have caused three major
problems on the ground:
— The approach has focussed the attention
of many on just Muslim communities, both causing a feeling of
injustice for ordinary peace-loving Muslims.
— It has given legitimacy to and a "free-run"
to racists.
— It the approach has given reason for
extremists, like the Hzb-Ut-Tahrir material to persuade ordinary
Muslims that the world is against them.
Thirdly, the link with what the Police are doing
with their PVE work has been unhelpful. Whilst only a few challenge
the role of the police in PVE work, no one is happy to see community
projects linked to the work of the police. The creation of Prevent
Officers working in the police service does nothing but confuse
our work. Some (deliberately) see not distinction between the
Police PVE work and community work. This leads to community projects
being accused of being police spies. Some in Reading have promoted
the idea that Prevent is actually Pursue.
Locally in Reading, we have not followed the
national restricted approach, we have been more inclusive. However,
the critics have used the above to undermine our work.
1. We would welcome Prevent being separated
from the PVE agenda of the Police so as to save confusion on whose
role is that of engaging, enforcing, community cohesion and so
forth.
2. Prevent should be a functional part of
the overall policy but the views of the Muslim community and opposition
to NI35 and Contest 2 should be addressed in order to
move forward with the Muslim community and make Preventing Violent
Extremism the responsibility of all races, faiths and cultures
not just one community.
3. A fundamental change to the national
policy is required as we have suffered with significant progress
and do not know the long term affects of rebuilding important
community relations because of the current national policy.
4. We would like Prevent funding to explicitly
include far right groups who have recently had an increasing influence
locally and nationally.
5. The wider cohesion and engagement work
should be sustainable.
6. We would support independent research
analysis in looking for additional or alternative approaches to
tackle extremism among all communities rather than focusing on
one community.
QB. 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?
Not robust at all
The origins of the programme are locked into
misguided and racist ideology from some former world leaders,
rather than on analysis.
1. We have found many arguments such as
foreign policy, social deprivation, lack of belonging, etc. There
is no evidence that these lead people to violent extremism in
themselves. What seems important is that decision makers are listening
and sensitive to concerns.
2. Our local, albeit anecdotal work in the
community suggest that there is a real fear of causing offence
by airing views and feelings. To such an extent that people who
might think they have extremist ideas will only talk amongst people
with similar ideas. This makes impossible any correction and tend
to reinforce stereotypes. More needs to be done to encourage open
constructive dialogue.
3. Part of our work has involved capacity
building, networking and empowerment to local women so they actively
get involved within the community. Women play a vital role in
the community and in families and perhaps there needs to be more
investment in education, women being placed in work and having
platforms to speak openly.
QC. 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?
At the national level, we feel that there has
been a knee-jerk reaction to bring in so-called leaders, almost
to a point of desperation. In many cases, there has been a willingness
to take high risks with unknown quantities rather than to call
on long-established structures of "representation".
The idea of "representation" itself is flawed. The focus
has been on the Muslim community and there is little track record
of recognised representation at the national level because there
are no such structures within the faith. We feel that the emphasis
should be on what people can offer and their commitment.
In Reading,
1. In Reading there are many different complex
tensions between community organisations and statutory bodies.
Owing to the well organised disruption and smear campaigns it
has been difficult to reach all sections of the community.
2. We have found it easy adopting engaging
with a cross-section of the community. Disruption has been made
difficult but not impossible to connect with Muslims.
QD. Is the necessary advice and expertise
available to local authorities on how to implement and evaluate
the programme?
Not sure.
1. This work has been a challenge and it
is fair to say that we have all been learning together and even
the formal structures (Regional Government offices, Police etc)
have not always had answers to difficult questions.
2. Discussions are held with the local authority
at Management meetings but advice ought to be taken on board from
our organisation as we have experience and an unparalleled expertise
in a rapidly changing Prevent environment from a community perspective.
3. The most important resource has been
local knowledge and connections.
QE. Are the objectives of the "Prevent"
agenda being communicated effectively to those at whom it is aimed?
1. The communication has been a key weakness.
Nationally, the message that the current threat is from AlQaeeda
has been swamped with statements about the Muslim community.
2. Locally, this has caused confusion and
sent out wrong messages to the community and helped opponents.
This would be appropriately addressed from central government
with clear guidelines on what should be communicated.
3. Concerns regarding spying, possible detention
of young people etc have not been addressed adequately. Instead,
close association of the community projects with the Thames Valley
Police, Prevent Engagement has further such allegations.
4. The correct values of transparency, honesty,
integrity etc have not been respected by those who wish to disrupt.
Under these circumstances, the Uniting Reading will always be
on the back-foot.
QF. Is the Government seeking and obtaining,
appropriate advice on how to achieve the goals of the "Prevent"
programme?
We support the idea that the Government and
local authorities should listen to as many voices as possible
and especially including those who are not funded. At the same
time, there needs to be awareness of the fact that some should
very loud and are not necessarily a representative voice.
QG. 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?
1. At present it would be difficult to evaluate
the effectiveness of a programme like this. It requires more time
to evaluate any true results as this is a long term effort as
well as the programmes objectives being changed since its inception
in Reading.
2. Reactions in our local authority have
not been adequately gauged, which may or may not have contributed
to those who had been supportive or willing to discuss the project
having a perception that they are not being consulted with regarding
their issues towards the programme.
3. This work has lead to tensions and divisions
within the Reading community as was evident in the run up to the
recent elections of the local Pakistan Community Centre. Prevent
was made a key issue against the existing committee Part of the
election campaign included references to the PVE agenda accusing
the present committee of signing up Prevent without consulting
the community. One of the statements read "They have shockingly
inferred in their own election campaign publicity that they will
be monitoring our community! On whose orders are they spying on
us, the community? At what price have they sold us, the community
they are supposed to represent? Do they even understand what PVE
is all about? Have they (can they!) even read the policy documents
NI35 and Contest 2 and realise the implications. (The
Opposition Pakistan Community Centre Election Team, 2009)
QH. 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?
1. No, and in our view, the desire to have
such a distinction is erroneous and based on funding audits rather
than the business end. A good quality community cohesion must
be key to success, and would have more support in the community.
It is a pity that better ways cannot be found to increase accountability.
2. The national strategy has harmed our
local work and provided groups such as Hizb-ut-Tahrir with a cause.
Currently such organisations are getting a good foothold in the
community with scare-stories about "stigmatising", "spying"
etc. A wider community cohesion approach would enable communities
to come together more easilly.
| 
