2

Editor Acknowledgements Yusuf Hassan, FOSIS VP Student Affairs Shelly Asquith, NUS VP Welfare Piers Telemacque, NUS VP Society & Citizenship Ibrahim Abdille, NUS Black Students’ Campaign Abdullah Geelah, NUS Black Students’ Campaign Aadam Siciid-Muuse, NUS Black Malia Bouattia, Students’ Campaign Zarah Sultana, NUS Black NUS Black Students’ Students’ Campaign Shabina Raja, NUS National Officer Executive Council

Assistant editors

Hajera Begum, Samayya Afzal, NUS London Black Students’ NUS NEC, Society & Citizenship Officer Rep

Whilst every effort has been made to ensure the contents of the handbook are accurate, changes may occur which dates some of the information, in addition to the possibility of human error.

The contents may not necessarily reflect the policy of NUS or the NUS Black Students’ Campaign. No part of this publication may be reproduced without express permission of the editor. Please note: None of the information contained within should be taken as legal advice.

www.nusconnect.org.uk/winning-for-students/black

© Malia Bouattia 2015 NUS HQ, Macadam House, 275 Gray's Inn Road, London WC1X

8QB [email protected]

2

“For too long, we have been a Those on our campuses suffering from the passively tolerant society, saying to sharpest forms of state repression will find our citizens: as long as you obey the their oppression further institutionalised. law, we will leave you alone. The already suffocating restrictions on … This Government will conclusively international students will be multiplied, turn the page on this failed approach” while for Muslim students there truly will be David Cameron, May 2015 no respite from the storm of Islamophobia that greets them in every other Since its introduction in 2006, the section of society. shadow of the PREVENT ‘counter-extremism’ strategy In the face of mounting and has grown wider and darker. widespread condemnation of the strategy – including a wave The government claims that of discontent from the student PREVENT is key to defending the movement – the government has UK public against terrorism by only pressed on and increased its monitoring for potential ‘radicalisation’. In backing for PREVENT, and this can only be reality, PREVENT has only consigned more taken as a sign of desperation. and more actions, thoughts and beliefs to It’s clear that now, the only option left is to the murky realm of ‘extremism’, legitimised build on this momentum to carry on the racist and Islamophobic profiling, and been fight and finally dismantle PREVENT. used to outlaw and suppress dissent against The issue facing us is not new: PREVENT has the government’s domestic and foreign haunted our communities for nearly a policy decisions. decade now. What we need now are new ways of voicing Colleges and universities, which should be this opposition, and new tactics of dissent. grounds for challenging the status quo and envisioning a better society, have found With this handbook we can equip you with themselves enveloped by the same climate an understanding of the history of PREVENT of censorship and suspicion that PREVENT and with the tools to challenge and has brought to every other sphere in which deconstruct the failed strategy. The national it is active. campaign against PREVENT will, however, only develop from campaigns at the local The Counter-Terrorism and Security Act level - inspiring cases of agitation by 2015 placed PREVENT on a statutory basis students, teachers and communities alike. for the first time, meaning that specified We hope to see many campuses resist - it’s institutions including nurseries, colleges and time to strike back against PREVENT, and universities must implement and integrate affirm that we are Students, not Suspects! the strategy as a legal requirement. In unity Malia Bouattia NUS Black Students’ Officer 3

Contents Page What has the response been to the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act? Page 36 Timeline of Counter-terrorism in the CTS Act on campuses Page 41 UK Page 4 Further Education Page 41 Higher Education Page 43  Section: The PREVENT agenda What Is PREVENT? Page 7  Section: Preventing PREVENT The history of PREVENT Page 8 on our campuses PREVENT 2006 Page 9 What does the Prevent duty look like in PREVENT 2009 Page 10 practice? Page 45 PREVENT 2011 Page 11 How could speaker events be affected? Key terminology of PREVENT Page 13 Page 47 10 reasons to oppose PREVENT Page 14 Student Unions: What are your Channel Page 15 obligations? Page 48 What is Islamophobia? Page 17 Charity Commission Page 49 How is PREVENT Islamophobic? Page How can NUS support you? Page 50 18 Preventing PREVENT: the counter- PREVENT: A Cold War against Muslims? campaign Page 51 Page 19 Gaining the support of the student PREVENT case studies Page 20 population Page 52 What has PREVENT actually achieved? Gaining the support of SUs Page 53 Page 22 Gaining the support of teachers Page Evaluating PREVENT Page 24 54 Challenging the PREVENT narrative Lobbying the institution Page 55 Page 25 Dealing with the Prevent duty as an Why does the government continue officer Page 55 with PREVENT? Page 26 Campaign planning Page 58 What’s in a word? The language of Charity Law and Trustee Boards Page PREVENT Page 27 61 What’s the threat from PREVENT? Page 28  Section: Resources Why are Universities and Colleges a Boycott PREVENT – model motion Page focus for PREVENT? Page 29 63 Where does the Charity Commission fit Model letter to your institution’s in? Page 31 Registrar/Chief Operating Officer – Page 65  Section: Counter-Terrorism Contacts Page 66 and Security Act Frequently Asked Questions Page 68 Counter-Terrorism and Security Act Recommended reading Page 69 2015 Page 33 4 Timeline of Counter- terrorism in the UK

February 2001: Terrorism Act 2000 UK's first permanent, globally-focused counter-terrorism legislation (previous legislation mostly concerned with Northern Ireland situation) Introduces powers of proscription (government bans) of organisations Expands legal definition of Terrorism to actions which may include ‘religious or ideological motivations’ as well as political ones.

September 2011: 9/11 Co-ordinated attacks by Al-Qaida operatives on the United States; December 2001: Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act passenger planes hijacked and flown into 2001 landmarks including World Trade Centre, Wide-ranging expansion of counter-terrorism measures; Pentagon increases police powers, regulation of communications providers to retain data, indefinite detention of non- British terrorist suspects and more. Replaced by the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 Early 2003: CONTEST launched First version of the UK government’s CONTEST (COuNter TErrorism STrategy) strategy released as a confidential government document (never March 2003: Invasion of Iraq publicly released) Invasion launched by coalition including US and UK military forces to depose Saddam Hussein. 21 days of combat operations give way to a protracted occupation by Western forces.

March 2005: Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 Allows 'Control Orders' to be imposed on individuals: can include house arrest, restrictions on movement and on whom they can meet and communicate with. ‘Derogating control orders’ permits Home Secretary to impose restrictions violating ECHR Human Rights Act. Replaced by Terrorism Prevention and Investigation July 2005: 7/7 London attacks Measures Act 2011 Four co-ordinated suicide bombing attacks on London public transport system, targeting the underground train system and a bus. First suicide bombing attack in UK. August 2005: Prime Minister’s 12-point plan Speech by Tony Blair outlines 12 new measures to counter terrorism, announcing that “the rules of the game are changing”. Points include new powers to shut down mosques, biometric immigration measures, August 2005: Unacceptable Behaviours list extending the duration of detention-without-trial Outlines non-criminal activities for which of terrorism suspects and new citizenship- Home Secretary can deport/exclude non- stripping powers. British citizens from UK. Includes writing or A number of the points fail to come to fruition or distributing material expressing views which are struck down as illegal in court. seek to “provoke others to serious criminal acts; or foster hatred which might lead to inter-community violence in the UK.”

March 2006: Terrorism Act 2006 Criminalises more activities relating to terrorism, including new ‘glorification crimes’ of praising terrorist March 2006: Identity Cards Act 2006 acts and indirectly encouraging them, as well as the Introduces National Identity Cards scheme linked to dissemination of texts that could be used in preparation National Identity Register, an extensive database of terrorist acts. Extends state powers to ban groups. including biometric data and residency information for registered individuals Repealed with Identity Documents Act 2010 5

July 2006: CONTEST 2006 launched/PREVENT introduced Update of CONTEST released, first semi-public version. Introduces PREVENT as part of the strategy, focusing solely on ‘Islamist terrorism’ and ‘building resilience to extremism’ within Muslim communities.

November 2008: Counter-terrorism Act 2008 Greater police powers for data collection, February 2009: CONTEST 2 leaked permits use of secret ‘intercept evidence’ in Leaked version of updated CONTEST terrorism trials. Longer terrorism sentences. strategy and updated PREVENT, would Amends definition of ‘terrorism’ to include have drastically expanded definition of those acts with a racial cause (e.g. white ‘extremism’. New definition dropped supremacist terrorism). following heavy backlash.

March 2009: CONTEST 2/PREVENT update December 2010: Terrorist Asset Freezing Act 2010 New PREVENT strategy released, builds Gives Treasury the power to freeze the financial upon groundwork of previous strategy and assets of any person reasonably believed/suspected including some amendments in response to be/have been involved in terrorist activity, even to past criticism. Focus remains solely on before having been convicted, charged or arrested "Al-Qaida inspired terrorism". for an offence. February 2011: Prime Minister’s Munich speech David Cameron speaks on new ‘hardline’ July 2011: CONTEST 3/PREVENT update approach to ‘Islamist extremism’ at security launched conference in Munich, announcing that New version of PREVENT and CONTEST “multiculturalism has failed” in allowing released, first under Conservative/Liberal extremism to flourish, and would be replaced by Democrat coalition. Strategy takes new ‘muscular liberalism’. approach and is expanded to briefly cover Speech coincides with hitherto largest English non-Muslim extremism. Defence League (EDL) demonstration against Targets universities as new key sites of Islam. counter-terrorism, and funds NUS work on PREVENT through Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. December 2011: Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011 Replaces Control Orders with slightly less- May 2013: Lee Rigby murder restrictive TPIMs, which involve electronic British soldier Lee Rigby hacked to death tagging and monitoring alongside other by 2 men in attack in South East London restrictions imposed by Home Secretary. as ‘revenge’ for British military intervention in Muslim lands December 2013: Anti-extremism Task Force report released July 2014: Data Retention and Investigatory Government Task Force on tackling Powers Act 2014 Radicalisation and Extremism convened Permitted the security services to retain and after Lee Rigby killing releases report share communications data (for e.g. phone and internet records) for investigatory purposes. which recommends placing PREVENT on Key sections of the Act ruled unlawful in July a legal basis 2015. Summer 2015: Counter-extremism Bill announced February 2015: Counter-Terrorism & Security Act Announced following Conservative Party’s 2015 Places PREVENT on statutory basis for first time General Election win. Proposals include granting for ‘specified authorities’ including colleges and the government powers to ban non-terrorist universities, with severe legal/financial penalties groups and shut down venues used by extremists, for non-compliance. expanding the counter-extremism strategy In New focus on “non-violent extremism”. universities, a strengthened role for broadcasting Allows for temporary exile of British nationals, regulators to take action against ‘extremist seizure of passports, and interception of postal material’ being broadcast, and powers to 'purge' mail. charity trustee boards of 'extremists’.

6

7

What is PREVENT?

‘PREVENT’ is one strand of the British Government’s Counter-Terrorism Strategy (CONTEST) which was introduced by the Labour Party during the 2000s.

CONTEST consists of the ‘4 Ps’:

PURSUE Stopping terrorist attacks “in this country and against our interests overseas” through co-ordinating security services to gather intelligence and disrupt terrorist plans. PREVENT Responding to “the ideological challenge of terrorism” and preventing people being radicalised towards terrorism. ‘Defuse’ terrorism at its apparent root. Channel: Part of PREVENT, those identified as ‘vulnerable’ to being drawn towards terrorism referred to panels to be ‘supported’ through a de- radicalisation plan

PROTECT To “strengthen [the UK’s] protection against a terrorist attack” by fortifying its infrastructure, borders and transport system.

PREPARE To “mitigate the impact of a terrorist attack where that attack cannot be stopped”. Damage control and recovery from an attack.

It is the PREVENT strand of CONTEST most controversial. which has received the most attention, On campuses, it has manifested in staff given that it most directly affects being trained to spot and report on everyday life in Britain – being ‘vulnerable’ students to the police, the integrated into education, healthcare, cancellation of student-organised administrative, immigration systems speaker events, and Muslim students and more – as well as being the being approached to be informants on their peers. 8

The history of PREVENT

Whilst CONTEST on the whole The PREVENT strategy has gone preceded the 7/7 bombing attacks in through a number of changes since its London (being first developed in 2003, introduction, ostensibly in response to two years before the attacks), it the many criticisms it has received, as became ‘mainstreamed’ and the well as to reflect the shifting focuses of PREVENT strand was introduced whichever government was in power. following the attacks, with the 2006 Earlier versions dealt exclusively with version setting the framework of so-called 'Islamist extremism' but were today’s counter-terrorism strategy. accused of targeting Muslims communities and forcing individuals to PREVENT claims to offset the risk of spy and inform on fellow Muslims. terrorism by challenging the apparent root of terrorism/political violence – The latest iteration of PREVENT (2011) which the government claims is an addressed these concerns in part, but it ‘extremist ideology’. also came with a whole new set of By challenging this ideology, and issues, and the strategy continues to preventing the process by which people focus disproportionately on Muslims. come to adopt this ideology and Later versions have focused more become progressively ‘radicalised’ explicitly on combatting ‘ideology’ of towards violence, the government terrorism, including later "non-violent claims it can defeat the threat of extremism", as well as making token ‘homegrown’ terrorism. references to right wing extremism.

This model of understanding Public funding was also poorly spent in extremism – known as the ‘conveyor the early strategies, and the allocation belt theory’ – has been roundly for PREVENT project funding was based discredited by a wide range of figures on the proportion of Muslims within a and experts in the field (see page 25 for particular region. more critiques) and the strategy on the PREVENT continues to be heavily whole has been slammed as a failed funded by the government, but they are exercise in counter-terrorism. more selective over who receives funds. The issue remains that Despite this, successive governments PREVENT is fundamentally have ignored the criticisms and only flawed, repressive and reinforced the strategy further and racist, for reasons that will further. be covered here. 9

PREVENT 2006 Criticisms: (as outlined in CONTEST 2006) • Concerned itself solely with the • The singular and disproportionate threat of “Islamist terrorism” from focus on Muslim communities as the “radicalised individuals” main threat for (no other form of ‘extremism’ is radicalisation/extremism constructed considered as part of the strategy) them as a suspect community

• Aimed to tackle ‘radicalisation’ • Completely ignored the real threat through “engaging in the battle of posed by groups such far right-wing and ideas” and challenging the ideologies of white-extremist groups extremists • Established the flawed principle that • Muslim communities were to lead on ‘ideology’ is the key factor motivating this battle of ideas, with government violence – terrorism is a methodology, funds made available through the not an ideology ‘Preventing Violent Extremism (PVE) Pathfinder Fund’, being used by local • Conflated countering social community projects with the aim of deprivation with countering countering extremism and/or building extremism, blurring the lines between ‘community cohesion’ two government functions

• Identified a need to address • ‘Dirty money’ – projects funded grievances within Muslim communities, through PVE Pathfinder Fund were including through tackling social often expected to inform on and relay disadvantage intelligence on users identified as being at risk of radicalisation; this remained a • Expressed a desire to counter secretive objective negative perceptions of UK foreign policy • The role of UK foreign policy in fuelling violence both in the UK and • Outlined the framework within abroad is vastly underplayed and which PREVENT would henceforth quickly dismissed – the strategy operate: an intelligence-exchange engaged with these grievances to system spanning the public and private improve perceptions of foreign policy. sectors (It mentions a need to communicate the

‘positive’ and ‘altruistic’ decisions to invade Iraq and Afghanistan.)

10

PREVENT 2009 (as outlined in CONTEST 2009 aka CONTEST 2) • Continued to deal solely with Criticisms: ‘Islamist extremism’, namely Al-Qaida and Al-Qaida-related/inspired • Did too little to address the criticism movements and individuals. of previous PREVENT model ‘Domestic extremism’ (for e.g. animal • Retained singular, discriminatory rights extremism, Northern Ireland- focus on Muslims despite this being related extremism) is explicitly controversial excluded from this programme. • Retained misguided focus on so- • First version of PREVENT to called ‘ideology of extremism’ acknowledge that UK foreign policy

contributes towards grievances that • Recognition of the role of foreign motivate violence in the UK policy in radicalisation, whilst a ‘step • Focus of PREVENT remained, forward’ remained a lesser focus; a however, on tackling ‘ideology’ of secondary objective to tackling ideology violent extremism and radicalisation • The proposals in the leaked CONTEST • Continued to expand PREVENT wider 2 indicated the direction that PREVENT - increased funding and cross-sector was to take in moving the goalposts of integration of PREVENT what is considered ‘extremism’. They would have effectively branded • A leaked draft of CONTEST 2 almost every Muslim an extremist for proposed (although later dropped holding Islamically-sanctioned (and following heavy backlash) expanding the entirely legal) opinions. definition of ‘extremist’ to cover those Although these were dropped, it still who for example ‘promote Sharia law’, showed the government’s appetite for ‘fail to condemn the killing of British abusing the definition. soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan’ or ‘believe in jihad, or armed resistance, anywhere in the world’

11

PREVENT 2011 (The Charity Commission is explicitly mentioned here and will go on to be a • First version of PREVENT developed key player in PREVENT over the next under a non-Labour government few years.)

• First version to concern itself with • “Safeguarding” – strategy referred to non-Muslim terrorism, with a few the closer co-operation between the references to extreme right-wing welfare function of safeguarding (used terrorism in healthcare and education sectors in (priority remained, however, “Al-Qa’ida, particular) and operation of PREVENT its affiliates and like-minded •The strategy reflected some of the organisations.”) internal conflicts within the •The focus remained on combatting Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition the “ideology” of terrorism government, with some dissonant and at times contradictory strands of • Seen as a move to a more ‘top- thought. down’, sector-driven implementation For example whilst it is acknowledged of PREVENT, as opposed to one based that the attention on “violent in communities as before extremism” used in past PREVENT versions was unhelpfully vague and • Responded to some of the concerns broad, and that this should be replaced of previous versions of PREVENT: in in favour of a focus solely on ‘terrorism’, particular the merging of the cohesion the report later shifts its attention to agenda with counter-terrorism (which clamping down on “non-violent is dropped), the targeting of Muslim extremists” and “apologists” and communities in funding allocation for “propagandists” for terrorism. PREVENT projects (although in practice the funding priority areas remain those • The strategy also reflected a more with high Muslim populations) hardline stance on what/who and the secretive nature of past constitutes ‘extremists’ – groups who PREVENT projects had previously received funding and support under PVE were now labelled • “No ungoverned spaces” – strategy extremist by this strategy. identified mosques, universities and other such spaces as in need of • Adhering to “British values” now infiltration by PREVENT seen as the litmus test in deciding which groups were ‘acceptable’ to • Mentioned potential of using other, engage with. non-ministerial and regulatory bodies for PREVENT purposes. 12

cohesion’ with the policy; Criticisms: i.e. hijacking a welfare-oriented role

• The inclusion of non-Muslim and turning it into a soft entry-point extremism is generally accepted as for national security measures being mostly tokenistic; in practice • Despite accepting in the report that it PREVENT has continued to focus was not the place of the government to overwhelmingly and intervene in theological debates within disproportionately on Muslims Islam, it then goes on to, indirectly, do • Retained the fundamentally flawed just that by committing to supporting approach of “ideology” being the cause and promoting certain ideological of terrorism, and stubbornly refused to strands of Islam. reconsider this • The manipulation of the Charity • There is almost no mention of the Commission and such bodies role of UK foreign policy in radicalising securitised other sectors outside the individuals; traditional governmental departments a step back from the 2009 strategy • In bringing the battleground to • The secretive nature of past universities, mosques and so on, the PREVENT projects was replaced with a government brought the climate of more open approach – but also a more suspicion and surveillance further than confrontational approach, demanding before compliance from a wider range of actors and stakeholders, not least Muslim communities

• The widened scope of the strategy (alluding to non-violent extremism, branding past government associates as now ‘extremist’) reflected the more intolerant, extreme neoconservative approach of the new government and foreshadowed them casting the net of PREVENT even wider (as is the case today)

• Conflating ‘safeguarding’ with counter-terrorism policy repeated the issues of conflating ‘community 13

Key terminology of PREVENT

Except the definition of ‘Terrorism’, which is defined in the Terrorism Act 2000, none of the terms below which have been adopted by PREVENT have a ‘Radicaliser’ legal definition, and these are “An individual who encourages others to ‘government definitions’, not legal ones. develop or adopt beliefs and views Placing PREVENT on a statutory footing supportive of terrorism and forms of has the effect of making these legally extremism leading to terrorism.” operable (to an extent) however. ‘British values’ ‘Extremism’ “Democracy, the rule of law, individual “Extremism is vocal or active opposition liberty and mutual respect and to fundamental British values. We also tolerance of different faiths and beliefs” include in our definition of extremism ‘Terrorism’ calls for the death of members of our “An action that endangers or causes armed forces, whether in this country or serious violence to a person/people; overseas.” causes serious damage to property; or seriously interferes or disrupts an ‘Non-violent extremism’ electronic system. The use or threat “Extremism which isn’t accompanied must be designed to influence the by violence and which can create an government or to intimidate the public atmosphere conducive to terrorism and and is made for the purpose of can popularise views which terrorists advancing a political, religious, racial or then exploit.” ideological cause.”

‘Radicalisation’ “Refers to the process by which a person comes to support terrorism and forms of extremism leading to terrorism.”

14

10 reasons to oppose 6) In conflating and mixing issues such PREVENT as safeguarding, education and 1) The definitions of key terms of the healthcare with ‘counter-terrorism’, strategy remain vague and open to PREVENT has blurred the line between abuse for political ends. welfare provision and national security In controlling the language around ‘extremism’ the government effectively 7) The intelligence-gathering aspect of controls the terms of the whole debate, PREVENT has bred deep, lingering and can classify more and more suspicion and distrust both within behaviours as being ‘extremist’. Muslim communities, and between them and the state. 2) PREVENT cannot be taken in isolation from the Islamophobia rising 8) PREVENT training for frontline staff in British society and globally: the (teachers, lecturers, GPs) in spotting massively disproportionate focus on ‘radicalised individuals’ fundamentally Muslims/Muslim communities feeds alters the relationship between them Islamophobia against Muslims. and their students/patients to one based on suspicion: 3) It has steadily scaled back civil we are students, not suspects. liberties for all in society – successive laws passed alongside CONTEST have 9) PREVENT has consistently diverted afforded ever-greater powers to the focus away from the government’s state to ban and outlaw new actions own deep complicity in nurturing and thoughts, and criminalise more political violence - due to its recent activities. foreign policy decisions as well its long history of colonialism. 4) By integrating PREVENT across Instead it redirects attention to the departments and sectors it has consequences of its actions and sets embedded its monitoring system Muslims up to blame. everywhere, effectively creating a surveillance state. 10) The model of radicalisation/extremism used by 5) PREVENT has had the effect of PREVENT lacks empirical support and is further securitising all sectors of British reductionist (see pages 25/26) in that it society, adding a layer of Islamophobic inherently cannot reliably determine profiling to already-racialised sectors what factors radicalise and how to stop like immigration control and policing. this happening.

15

Channel What’s the problem with The Channel programme was Channel? introduced in 2007 and is one aspect of PREVENT – its ‘early detection system’. This list of indicators (see the next page) is very loose and broad, and It is often the main path through which open to (mis)-interpretation. students come in to direct contact with PREVENT, and generally deals with This, coupled with the pressure to young people aged around 15-24. report ‘problematic’ behaviours, a false sense of expertise instilled in them by Channel involves multi-agency panels PREVENT training and the climate of (spanning police, youth workers, fear and heightened biases whipped up healthcare and education providers) to surrounding ‘extremism’, has led to which those who are identified as massive over-referrals to Channel – being ‘vulnerable to being drawn into 80% of referrals are deemed unworthy terrorism’ are referred. of any follow-up.

If referred individuals are deemed ‘at- Certain indicators, for example risk’ by the screening process, Channel ‘relevant mental health issues’ or ‘a panels provide voluntary* ‘support desire for political or moral change’ can plans’ to ‘deradicalise’ them, be used to problematise those suffering possibly involving behavioural plans and from mental health issues, or politically “ideological/theological support”. active individuals.

Channel has been made statutory for Channel is presented as the ‘friendly specified authorities to set up under face’ of PREVENT, and as being a the CTS Act, as well. natural extension of ‘safeguarding’ duties that must be taken by authorities The government has issued Channel towards children anyway. guidance including a set of indicators But safeguarding is meant to concern and behaviours that frontline staff itself with the welfare of the child, not (teachers, lecturers etc.) are expected mark them out as security threats to to look out for when dealing with the state! students – the ‘Vulnerability Assessment Framework’ – which has 3 The ‘voluntary’/consensual basis of interlinking categories of indicators. Channel plans ignores the significant psychological pressure put on the *Channel is ostensibly voluntary, but many individuals and their families when cases have been reported of youths being referred, and the coercive influence of essentially forced to comply and their the police/authority. Cases have spoken families harassed into consent by police. of living in constant anxiety.

16

Channel 'Vulnerability Assessment Framework' indicators 1) Engagement - With a group cause or ideology 2) Intent - 3) To cause • Feelings of grievance and Capability - injustice harm To cause • Feeling under threat harm • A need for identity, meaning and belonging • Over-identifi • A desire for status cation with a group • A desire for excitement and or ideology • Individual adventure knowledge, skills • A need to dominate and • ‘Them and Us’ control others thinking and • Susceptibility to indoctrination • Dehumanisation competencies

• A desire for political or moral of the enemy change • Access to • Opportunistic involvement • Attitudes that networks, • Family or friend’s involvement justify offending funding or in extremism • Harmful means to equipment • Being at a transitional time of an end life • Criminal

• Being influenced or controlled • Harmful Capability by a group objectives • Relevant mental health issues

Channel in numbers Referrals by religion (April 2012 - March 2014) Referrals in 2014 Year Referrals Total 1681 (2007) 5 Not known Aged 18+ 675 2007-08 75 33% Aged < 18 1006 2008-09 179 Aged < 16 429 Muslim 2009-10 467 56% Aged < 10 47 2010-11 599 Other religion 2011-12 580 11% Annual breakdown of Channel 2012-13 748 referral figures are available via 2013-14 1281 the National Police Chiefs’ Council (2014) 1681 (NPCC) 17

What is Islamophobia? Islamophobia is experiencing a resurgence and is on the rise across Islamophobia is a form of racism Europe, across all spheres. directed against Muslims and those perceived to be of a ‘Muslim It is manifested at background’. the individual level - through bigotry and violence directed against Muslim Under Islamophobia, people; Muslims are racialised as a the institutional level - with the media group and are marked out as thriving off scapegoating and moral being culturally, morally panics around the apparent ‘growing and/or intellectually inferior. threat’ of Islam/Muslims; the state level - with an increasing Muslim individuals and communities amount of laws discriminating against are also subject to dehumanising and Muslims such as Muslim women’s right homogenising stereotyping - often to wear the veil, or eroding the civil based off the idea that Muslims are liberties of Muslims under the guise of uniquely and especially predisposed to ‘counter-terror’ measures; and violence, terrorism or misogyny, or the global level - with Islamophobic that they represent a ‘fifth column’ in beliefs feeding and sustaining wars and society and should be regarded as a military interventions throughout the suspect community, or that Islam is a Middle East and beyond. ‘backward’ or otherwise threatening religion incompatible with life in the Contrary to some beliefs, West. Islamophobia is not a ‘new’ phenomenon, but a systemic Islamophobia can be expressed in a one, deeply rooted in number of ways: European racism and · Widespread negative depiction of Orientalist perceptions of Muslims and Islam in the media the ‘non-Western’ world. · Attacks, abuse and violence against Muslims on the street The propaganda of the ‘Clash of · Desecration of mosques and Civilisations’; that Muslim civilisation, cemeteries society and values are static and · Discrimination in employment fundamentally irreconcilable with · Lack of provision, recognition and European Judeo-Christian society; has respect for Muslims’ needs in public sustained the Vatican’s crusades against institutions the Muslim ‘Orient’ as well as modern- day wars by ‘the West’ in the Middle East.

18

How is PREVENT Islamophobic?

• Most plainly, PREVENT’s challenge it, mirrors these demands. overwhelming focus on Muslims is The introduction of ‘British values’ to blatantly discriminatory. gauge ‘extremism’ also reflects this; above all they are a test of obedience. • The total number of Muslims in the UK involved in actual terrorist activities • PREVENT is rooted in a hard right- is a tiny fraction of the population here, wing/neoconservative perception of and the disproportionate attention the world and Islam. This recycles old, cannot be justified – we couldn’t damaging Orientalist ideas about expect, nor accept, a government Muslims: as inherently violent, illogical programme to monitor the white and dangerous. working class population because a small proportion of them join far-right • It falsely conflates the scale of fascist movements. conservative:non conservative Islam with the likelihood of extremism. • It strengthens the deeply Islamophobic notion that Muslims are • This also perpetuates the ‘Clash of a suspect community in Britain; ‘among Civilisations’ thesis: Muslims and us but not of us’ – the same ideology of Muslim cultural values are seen to be the EDL and other such groups inherently incompatible with and antithetical to values and life in • This notion includes constant ‘superior’ Western civilisation, and an demands for Muslim communities to inevitable cause of conflict here. condemn or apologise for acts of terrorism by certain Muslims – as if • PREVENT is an exercise in policing they are collectively responsible. Muslim and Islamic expression. It constructs the divisive notion of a so- • It also includes demands to called good, ‘moderate Muslim’ (which assimilate and prove loyalty to Britain is contrasted with and played off to demonstrate they aren’t secretly against the ‘bad Muslim’); one who is ‘enemies within’. willing to compromise their faith and The government condemning Muslim assimilate to appease the state. communities for “quietly condoning extremism”, or not doing enough to PREVENT essentially presents Muslims as hardwired for violence, and in need of intervention to save them from themselves. 19

PREVENT: A Cold War against Muslims? There is a real danger that the hysteria against Communism that marked that PREVENT, alongside the ‘War on Terror’ Cold War era could manifest itself and the ‘counter-terrorism; agenda at against Muslims and Islam, with the large have been labelled a new ‘Cold same devastating consequences for War’ against Islam and Muslims, taking society. the place of Communism during the Cold War between the West and Soviet It was this hysteria and hypervigilance Russia during the 20th Century. that gave rise to the McCarthyist witch- hunts in the USA – named after a This is a view that has been expressed Republican senator who falsely smeared by a number of Muslim groups, politicians and other figures of being organisations and even MPs. Communists and infiltrating the US government, with zero evidence. This similarities can be seen in the way that the government approaches its Throughout US society workers, counter-terrorism agenda. unionists, teachers and government Similar to how Communism was for workers were accused of sharing Western capitalist powers an ideology Communist sympathies or being Soviet that had to be crushed during the Cold agents and dismissed and blacklisted War, ‘Islamist extremism’ is now seen from work, ruining their reputations and as the new frontier which PREVENT livelihoods and dividing communities. aims to combat, ideologically. The loose accusations of ‘extremism’ The language and imagery used by the levelled against Muslims and the effect government harkens back to Cold War this has had on them and communities era rhetoric – the battle against already resembles the McCarthy era, ‘Islamist extremism’ is often described and PREVENT institutionalises this. as “the battle of our generation”, a “battle for hearts and minds” and actually directly compared to the fight against Communism.

This grand ‘generation-defining’ rhetoric, alongside the new emphasis on ‘British values’ is a way to manufacture nationalism and popular support for the government, uniting citizens around a common enemy.

20

PREVENT case studies A postgraduate student, Mohammed There are many, many stories and Umar Farooq, at Staffordshire anecdotes to be shared about PREVENT University studying Terrorism, Crime and its victims – but many more remain and Global Security was questioned by unspoken. library security about his views on Below are just a select few cases studies homosexuality, ISIS and Al-Qaida after to illustrate the reality of life under reading a textbook on terrorism. PREVENT. Library staff told security that “there is a man, who is Asian and with a beard, The website PREVENTwatch who is not a student and is reading (www.preventwatch.org) documents book on terrorism” and to “check him case studies of PREVENT in practice and out”. is a useful resource and advice centre The student found the incident deeply affecting and he withdrew from his for individuals affected by it. course as a consequence of the experience. Parents of schoolchildren were Staffordshire University said that the questioned because their children were Prevent duty guidance issued by the using ‘inappropriate language’ in government “contains insufficient school, such as the Arabic word detail to provide clear practical Alhamdulillah – ‘Praise be to God’ direction in an environment such as the university’s” and was to blame.

A 10 year old boy from Birmingham A student was hounded by PREVENT was referred to PREVENT after his officers and his institution for his teachers raised concerns when he activism around the Palestinian cause – began complaining about not having a police officers told him that by wearing prayer room facility whilst on a school a ‘Free Palestine’ badge he was trip, and told female Muslims pupils expressing extremist views, and when that they should wear a headscarf. organising a charity fundraiser for Palestinians was questioned by his principal on whether the money raised The President of a college Student would be going to ISIS, before being Union was asked to pass on the names told that publicity for the fundraiser of all members of the college Islamic could not include quotes from Muslim Society to the police – and no other figures, but Christians were acceptable. society on campus. (The President refused)

21

A young anti-fracking activist’s home A 14 year-old boy at a London school was visited by counter-terrorism police was referred to child protection officer after he took part in a demonstration in an ‘inclusion centre’ of the school at a shale gas well. and questioned about affiliations with ISIS after using the term L’ecoterrorisme (‘eco-terrorism’) in a PREVENT officers arrived unannounced French class discussion about the use at the activist’s family home and asked of violence in eco-activism. to speak with his mum about his The experience left the boy “scared involvement with the protests – she and nervous” and “visibly distressed”, refused and asked them not to return. and reluctant to engage in future school discussions. Later, officers again turned up without notice asking the mother when she had last seen her son. When asked why Teachers from schools in Yorkshire they wanted to see him they said that received PREVENT training where they they “just wanted to make sure he were warned by a policeman about knew what kind of people he was environmental ‘extremists’ – where involved with as they are extremists.” Green Party MP Caroline Lucas was used as an example for her arrest at an anti-fracking demo. A schoolchild was referred to PREVENT after he stopped participating in Music lessons at school. We know that there are His parents were neither informed nor many stories of experiences was their consent sought by the school when referring him to a PREVENT with PREVENT out there that officer and when questioned by them, aren’t publicised – from students referred to Channel his teachers evaded the issue. to events being cancelled following pressure from An 8 year old pupil at a Muslim primary PREVENT officers. school was referred to Channel Documenting these cases following a homework they submitted can help in combatting which referenced guns and violence. PREVENT and exposing the The parents of the child did not programme for what it is. consent to their child going through If you have any anecdotes to the programme and were continually share please get in touch at contacted and visited by social services [email protected] to persuade them. 22

What has PREVENT This has all shattered the idea of the actually achieved? community as a ‘safe space’, and led to self-censorship even within the most • Muslim communities private domain, of the family home.

Community relations Movements within communities PREVENT has broken down trust both In the case of for example, women’s within Muslim communities, and and minority empowerment projects between Muslim communities and the and organisations funded by state. PREVENT/PVE this has had the effect of undermining, stalling and rolling back Initially, many Muslim organisations important efforts within their accepted PREVENT/PVE funding for respective communities, who remain projects in good faith and the true wary of the agenda and nature of nature of the strategy was not similar projects when they emerge. immediately clear – once it emerged On the other hand, independent or anti- that PVE-funded projects were being PREVENT Muslim organisations have used to collect data on Muslims, been attacked and scrutinised under monitor communities and bolster counter-terrorism law which has counter-terrorism efforts, trust clamped down on Muslim self- between Muslim communities and organisation and silenced politically those organisations collapsed. active Muslims. Infiltration State-sponsored Islam PREVENT/counter-terrorism forces The government’s insistence on pushing generally have infiltrated Muslim a particular ‘British Muslim’ identity and communities in a number of ways. expression, whilst selectively listening Sometimes non-Muslim counter- to an increasingly-small circle of Muslim terrorism police have gone undercover organisations/spokespeople (all of posing as Muslims in mosques, or whom align with the government’s pretended to be new converts to Islam political goals) has also been perceived to gain access to individuals. as the government seeking to create a Parents (usually mothers) have been ‘state-sponsored version of Islam’, and pressured to monitor/report their children for signs of extremism, and stepping far beyond their remit. children are also used to monitor In short, the effect of parents for any signs that they are PREVENT on Muslim radicalising them – essentially pitting communities has been family members against each other! disastrous. 23

• The far-right British society and from the democratic process. The inflammatory rhetoric from the government has bolstered the far-right In reality, by doing so the government narrative that Muslims, and often by has probably contributed to the extension Black people, are threats radicalisation of many more than it has that should be treated with suspicion. prevented.

The demands for Muslims to ‘do more’ • Civil liberties to integrate within British society, and In manipulating global issues of the day to challenge extremism, feeds the and using fear to justify increasingly perception that there is an endemic intrusive counter-terrorism measures, problem with Muslim communities that the government has steadily eroded they need to confront, and this people’s freedoms and civil liberties in necessity to ‘prove loyalty’ to Britain is the name of ‘security’. Othering and discriminatory. Through the expansion and embedding In short, by sustaining this narrative of of PREVENT in all sectors, the all Muslims being potential risks to government has also effectively Britain the government is whipping up developed a surveillance apparatus Islamophobia and stoking far-right able to collect information and spy on sentiments, legitimising their arguments of Muslims being ‘the enemy within’, everybody in society. and of being among us, but not of us. Taking the fight against ideology to ‘non-violent extremism’ has effectively • Tackling ‘extremism’ criminalised anyone who disagrees with PREVENT fails to address the issue of the government or expresses dissent – so-called ‘radicalisation’, ‘extremism’ whilst PREVENT started by targeting and political violence, because it Muslims, the net has now been cast fundamentally ignores the issues that wide enough for everyone to be at risk. cause these. Instead of addressing the material What PREVENT has done is conditions from which terrorism occurs cast the net of surveillance the government has continued on with across society, maybe catching the rare genuine an ill-conceived attack on ‘ideology’. case, but criminalising The finger-pointing at Muslim everyone else in the process communities has alienated and and destroying the concept stigmatised them further, both from of ‘innocent until proven guilty’. 24

Evaluating PREVENT racist, pervasive and in the words of a former Metropolitan police chief In terms of evaluating PREVENT, it is superintendent, has become a ‘toxic difficult to actually measure or brand’ among Muslims. quantify its effectiveness. Under the guise of ‘counter-terrorism’ This is because it essentially deals with PREVENT has (further) legitimised something that has not happened yet – racial profiling and Islamophobia, and dealing with ‘extremism’ before it allowed the state to construct an develops into something more – and intrusive, wide-ranging system of because it concerns itself, basically, with surveillance to monitor people in the managing the thoughts of people. UK, whilst operating a fundamentally flawed model of understanding How can we then calculate terrorism. the success rate of PREVENT – by how many people stop It has long lost the trust of Muslim thinking ‘extremist things’, communities and served to isolate by how many people were these communities from engaging with deterred from doing the state, and other communities. something they didn’t yet know they were going to do? As this handbook was being written, the Conservative government announced Trying to associate any increase or its new counter-extremism strategy as decrease in incidences of terrorism as involving putting aside £5million of some indicator of success (or failure) of funds to fund so-called ‘moderate PREVENT would also be a organisations’ in combatting extremism false indicator, as these are not reliable – a direct throwback to the Labour predictors of one another. government strategy that this government had long-criticised. These two can only be correlated. And correlation ≠ causation! So we are now looking at a confused government policy that offers us the Yet despite PREVENT being unproven worst of both worlds. in practice and toxically controversial in implementation, the Government As such, PREVENT is not fit decided that the only viable and for purpose and cannot be sensible option left was to place it on a reformed - it must be statutory basis! dismantled and/or replaced.

Irrespective of the revisions made to PREVENT over the last near-decade it remains deeply discriminatory and 25

Challenging the phenomenon, but certainly not one that PREVENT narrative can be reduced to ‘extremist beliefs’.

Much of the literature instead points to Conveyor Belt Theory: PREVENT relies on a causal model, that an interplay between: 1) individual beliefs and motivations, the progression to violent extremism or 2) the perceived strategic ‘value’ of terrorist political violence is linear – the so-called methods and, most importantly, ‘conveyor belt theory’ of radicalisation. 3) the political context within which terrorists operate. The conveyor belt theory proposes that individuals who adopt ‘extremist’ Essentially it is not the belief that beliefs (even if initially non-violent) are motivates them towards violence, but vulnerable to becoming ‘radicalised’ the perceived usefulness of terrorism in through contact with ‘radicalisers’ – for relation to the political situation at hand e.g. listening to incendiary speakers, or accessing ‘extremist material’ online – “Will adopting violence bring us any closer to achieving our goals and some move towards than non-violence?” supporting/committing violence. “Is our opponent likely to use violence to achieve their goals?“ Essentially, ‘extremist’ beliefs in any “Does that make our use of form are made out to be a gateway violence legitimate?” drug to terrorism (PREVENT strategy makes explicit comparisons between This more functional approach to radicalisation and drug addiction). understanding terrorism/political violence is also more useful in The problem is, the conveyor belt addressing it, because it leads the theory has enjoyed very-little-to-no discussion towards addressing the empirical support (and even less that material conditions from which stands up to critical scrutiny) and has violence arises, rather than towards the been widely discredited as misguided nebulous realm of ‘extremist thoughts’. and reductionist. This also helps link so-called ‘Islamist- The model is highly unreliable: inspired terrorism’ to other forms of there is a strong disassociation political violence, because it is grounded between ‘extreme beliefs’ and in material, political motivations. violence; the former cannot reliably predict the latter. Thus ‘modern’ terrorism resembles ‘old’ terrorism (whether secular, Experts in the field generally agree that sectarian, racially or otherwise inspired) terrorism/political violence, and why just with updated methods and new people come to support it, is a complex ‘branding’. 26

Why does the government shares ideology. government continue Those groups who stray from this with PREVENT? neoconservative line are rejected, or even branded as ‘extremists’ (or PREVENT has lost the confidence of apologists for extremism) themselves. even those who once supported it and has become a toxic initiative. So the government only listens to those who agree with/validate them. The decision by the government then to double down, and place it on a statutory basis in the face of mounting criticism should be seen as a last-ditch attempt by them to ‘save’ the programme.

So clearly, the government is very precious about PREVENT.

As a counter-terrorism programme, PREVENT is a failure. But as a political project, PREVENT has served the government well: it can easily clampdown on dissent, and in this climate of fear and Islamophobia it can go unchallenged. Years of engagement with PREVENT Opposition to PREVENT has thus far have legitimised it: especially by those been too fragmented – often being left who want to work with it to ‘reform’ it, to Muslims to challenge it alone. or those who think it’s a way to ‘use bad money to do good things’. It should be reiterated that PREVENT is not just ‘a Muslim problem’, but one We can no longer afford to that threatens everyone’s civil buy into PREVENT or pretend liberties; it will take a unified effort to that we can ‘change it from defeat it. the inside’ – what we need now is to radically oppose it The only supporters of conveyor belt and boycott it. theory remaining today are the neoconservatives with whom the 27

What’s in a word? This leaves the foundation of it The language of PREVENT intact but allows the government As discussed on page 13, the key to make superficial changes to terms used by the PREVENT improve the image of PREVENT. strategy – ‘extremist’, What we need now is a new way of ‘radicalisation’ - are government articulating opposition to PREVENT. definitions, and deliberately broad. These terms are Allowing the government embedded in the national to control the language consciousness, but highly around this topic is emotive. incredibly dangerous, Labelling someone ‘extremist’ can because they can be used provoke a frenzied response as political tools to (especially when relating to further their agenda Muslims) and shut down any For example, the government debate the government dislikes. themselves could easily be designated as ‘extremists’, even by Similarly, PREVENT-related terms their own definition – David such as ‘Islamist’ are highly Cameron’s decision to bomb Syria, problematic. going against Parliament’s decision, As the strategy admits, there is no could be seen as violating the single definition of ‘Islamist’. ‘British value’ of democracy. It is however used often as an Their virulent institutionalised attack on any politically active Islamophobia is in opposition to the Muslim or anyone whose faith value of ‘mutual respect and influences their political activity, as tolerance of different faiths’ if one must separate their ‘Muslim-ness’ from their politics. These labels will only ever be used, however, This repulsion towards any against those that the politicised expression of Islam government disagrees forms a fundamental tenet of with. modern Islamophobia, recalling colonial fears of Islam and a Part of the reason PREVENT has paternalistic policing of Muslims’ prevailed is because whilst right to political expression. opposing it, some sections have And it is hard to disassociate the adopted, and legitimised, the same term from these ultimately racist language used by the government. foundations. 28

What’s the threat from PREVENT?

PREVENT has thus far targeted mostly PREVENT polices expression Muslims, but should be seen as a wider – colleges/universities attack by the government against should be a place to discuss dissent, which threatens everyone. and debate new and subversive ideas, not mark PREVENT agents have also them out as ‘extremist’. targeted individuals involved in Boycott, Divestment & As the definition of ‘extremism’ grows Sanctions (BDS) against the wider the state can target more forms Israeli occupation of of dissent, and PREVENT has laid the Palestine, and PREVENT foundations to police and monitor us all training sessions have highlighted environmental The move towards confronting ‘non- activists as potential violent extremism’ in the CTS Act is the ‘extremists’ biggest move in this direction yet from the government; effectively creating a If PREVENT isn’t confronted and category of ‘thought crimes’ – ideas that dismantled, the government is free to we aren’t allowed to have. criminalise anyone who challenges their domestic or foreign policy line.

.

29

• Why are Universities and Colleges a focus for PREVENT? • How many of our campaigns challenging the government can be The targeting of universities and branded ‘extremist’ – is fighting for colleges was introduced in PREVENT free education, opposing police 2011 as part of the government’s move brutality or racist immigration laws to ensure that there were “no ‘extremist’? ungoverned spaces” for extremism to flourish, and where PREVENT wasn’t • Is criticising British foreign military active – a move which can also be intervention, or state Islamophobia, an interpreted as the turning point of example of ‘non-violent extremism’ PREVENT into a totalitarian because this can be exploited to programme. ‘popularise views which terrorists’ can then use? Education institutions were targeted partly due to the high contact of young • What effect will this have on the people – identified as an apparent student movement as a place for higher risk demographic for personal development and for radicalisation – with these institutions, championing social justice? as well as the claim mentioned in the report that: Ideas on the fringe of society have regularly become accepted as ‘More than 30% of people convicted of mainstream – for example even the Al Qa’ida associated terrorist offences idea of universal suffrage. in the UK between 1999 and 2009 are known to have attended university or a Having new and subversive higher education institution. Another ideas branded as extremist will only have a censorious and 15% studied or achieved a vocational stifling effect on democracy. or further education qualification.’

International students, facing the brunt This in itself is clearly a non-point: of xenophobic and racist laws by the according to figures by HEFCE (Higher government, face an even greater risk Education Funding Council of England), by speaking out against their in 2011-12 nearly 40% of the population oppression, because PREVENT is bound attended universities in the UK, so up with immigration control services statistically this puts universities as a that threaten to detain, deport and lower-risk environment if anything. exclude them for ‘extremism’. 30

Even besides this, the logic that some Unfortunately, universities and people convicted of terrorism had colleges have over the years taken it attended university makes them targets upon themselves to implement for counter-terrorism is no more well PREVENT as a matter of standard thought-out than the idea that: practice in the sector – the CTS Act 99% of terrorists buy groceries from places extra legal duties to do so which supermarkets, therefore Tesco must be will be expanded upon in the next a radicalising hotspot. section, but for many institutions PREVENT is embedded within their day Through the Department of Business, to day running already. Innovation and Skills (BIS), the government engaged Universities with So the challenge we are facing PREVENT through: isn’t entirely new - instead what we need now are new tactics, • Issuing guidance on external speakers new ways of articulating our to universities and SUs (many SU opposition, and renewed energy speaker request processes now reflect in fighting PREVENT! this; forms and requests are vetted by university staff before approval) Key aspects of how education institutions operate and manage • Supporting local police forces to work PREVENT with ‘high risk’ institutions, and linking HE institutions to regional PREVENT co- • Partnership with local/regional ordinators (often campus police officers PREVENT co-ordinators and police were ‘installed’ for primarily this • Staff training in PREVENT awareness function) • Risk assessments on the risk of ‘radicalisation’ within their institution • Working with the Charity • Welfare support/safeguarding – Commission and HEFCE to enact Welfare services often a key point in PREVENT and regulate across the sector identifying Channel referrals • IT policies – The use of filtering • Funding a (former) staff position at and/or monitoring software on NUS to “build a better knowledge base institution computers/networks and to develop training materials for • Student Unions and Societies – staff working within student unions” Agreements usually established with (this was in violation of NUS policy SUs and institutions over procedures for passed by earlier National Conferences managing external speakers and events opposing PREVENT) held by societies

31

Where does the Charity the (significant) reputational damage Commission fit in? this causes, including the freezing of The Charity Commission is a non- bank accounts without any conviction ministerial government department or proof of wrongdoing. which regulates charities in England and The Commission’s move to a more Wales – thus including most SUs. ‘executive’ and politicised body has Its role is supposed to be ensuring that been noted with concern by charities are being run efficiently and organisations throughout the charity that trustees are being responsible and sector, including the National Council law-abiding – so, a ‘supportive’ body. for Voluntary Organisations.

However in recent years the Charity Student Union officers have reported Commission has taken on a more encountering lengthy, intimidating aggressive position, actively scrutinising meetings from the Commission who and investigating charities, including asked probing questions about the SUs undertaking political activity. Islamic society as well as Palestine societies and ‘Save our NHS’ societies. Under the Coalition government the Commission came to reflect the Student Unions are political government’s political agenda and organisations, fighting to defend our especially their obsession with members is a ‘political’ activity – so in ‘extremism’, with millions of pounds attacking SUs for this, the Commission is being allocated to them to counter smothering the student movement. ‘extremism’ in charities. In October 2015, in a Its Chair, William Shawcross landmark decision it was has said that judged that the Charity “Europe and Islam is one of the Commission had greatest most terrifying “overstepped its remit” in problems of our future I think, pressuring two charities to all European countries have withdraw funding from the vastly…growing Islamic civil rights group CAGE. populations” According to a Claystone report in 2014, Hopefully this will make the over a quarter of charities investigated Commission more careful in for ‘extremism’ were Muslim charities. the way it exercises its powers – but this remains to Under PREVENT this has many be seen. implications for those charities beyond 32

33

Counter-Terrorism and Schedule 6 of the Act outlines these Security Act 2015 specified authorities as including local government councils The Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill (County/District/Borough), Prison was introduced to Parliament in governors, NHS Trusts and Foundations, November 2014, ostensibly to increase and proprietors/governing boards of the government’s counter- educational bodies – from nurseries, to terrorism/counter-extremism capacity schools, to FE colleges and Higher in response to the issue of a small Education Institutions. number of individuals in Britain leaving The Secretary of State (SoS) also has for Syria, some to join ISIS, and also the the power to amend or extend the list threat that might be presented by such of specified authorities. individuals returning to Britain. A summary of the provisions The Bill was fast-tracked through that the Schedules of the Act Parliament following a very short include into law: consultation process, and being broadly supported by Labour, Conservative and • Duty for specified authorities to Liberal Democrat MPs the Bill passed its prevent people being drawn into readings and into law, achieving royal th terrorism: assent on February 12 2015. PREVENT strategy made a legal requirement for bodies including Most prominently the Act placed schools, nurseries, universities and NHS. PREVENT on a statutory footing for the first time, placing a legal duty on • Local Channel panels for people ‘specified authorities’ to exercise the vulnerable of being drawn into ‘Prevent duty’: i.e. to implement terrorism: PREVENT according to the Local councils required to set up government’s guidance. Channel deradicalisation panels for people referred by a chief officer of “A specified authority must, in the police as being vulnerable. exercise of its functions, have due regard to • The seizure of passports and travel the need to prevent people from being documents drawn into terrorism.” from persons ‘suspected of involvement (Section 26 (1), Counter-Terrorism and in terrorism’, barring them from leaving Security Act) the UK

34

• Temporary exclusion orders; details on passenger/crew to the SoS exiling an individual from returning to prior to travel. the UK for up to 2 years and invalidating their British passports, when they are • Power to examine good: reasonably suspected of being/having Expands power of officers to board been ‘involved in terrorism-related vehicles, ships, aircraft and designated activity’ abroad premises to examine goods for transport to determine ‘whether they • TPIMs (Terrorism Prevention and have been used in the commission, Investigation Measures): preparation or instigation of acts of Placing individuals under electronic terrorism’. tagging and tight restrictions on Officers can exercise these powers where/when they can travel and who without any basis of suspicion that this they can meet, and requiring them to is the case. report regularly with the police. Officers can enter also intercept and TPIMs have been in force since 2012, examine goods being transported within and are amended by this Act. the UK for this purpose, including intercepting postal mail. • Data Retention: Requiring communications service providers (for example internet service providers – ISPs) to retain information which can identify the person using their service at any given time. Also could include data required to identify the sender/recipient of a communication, and the type/method/pattern/location of a communication.

• Authority-to-carry schemes: Carriers (aircraft, ships, trains) taking passengers to/from the UK must seek permission from the government to the type of people ‘classes’ that it can carry, and the SoS can bar certain classes (for example, whole nationalities of people) from authority to be carried. Carriers can be required to pass on 35

England/Wales and Scotland The ‘PREVENT Professional Concerns differences process’ (PPC) is the Scottish equivalent of Channel, where Separate guidance for the Prevent duty vulnerable’ individuals are referred has been issued for specified authorities PREVENT in Scotland also extends to in England & Wales, and Scotland. cover incidences relating to the Northern Ireland situation; dissident The duties of the Act remain almost republic and loyalist activity, and the same in all regions, the key sectarian violence, is explicitly difference with the Scotland guidance mentioned in only the Scottish is that it reflects the different guidance. governance structures for PREVENT in Scotland, and the powers devolved to The explicit mentions of exemplifying Scottish authorities to implement the ‘British values’ for FE institutions are Act. absent from the Scottish guidance.

As such, advice on the legal and The legal duty on colleges/universities practical aspects of the Prevent duty are to secure Freedom of Speech under the best served by legal advisors trained in Education Act 2 (1986) doesn’t apply to Scottish law. Scottish institutions but the CTS Act still specifies the duty for Scottish PREVENT activity in Scotland is overseen institutions to ensure this, so practically by the PREVENT sub-group of the Multi- this has no effect. Agency Strategic CONTEST Board (MASCB) for Scotland, with local multi-agency CONTEST groups overseeing the implementation of PREVENT.

Before exercising their powers to issue directions (force) to specified authorities in Scotland to properly implement the Prevent duty, the SoS would be expected to be recommended by the PREVENT sub-group

36

What has the response reputation of UK further and higher been to the Counter- education around the world and a Terrorism and Security reduction in the attractiveness of this Act? country to international staff and students.”

“Any expectation by the state for academic staff to be involved in monitoring their students is deeply worrying, and could have a chilling “Based on the track record of existing effect on relations between staff and counter terrorism legislation, namely students. the PREVENT strategy which has led We fundamentally believe that Muslim students to feel ‘under siege’; universities and colleges are places for FOSIS fears that these laws will education, not surveillance.” disproportionately target Muslim students, leading only to further stigmatisation and alienation, perhaps

most ironically doing little to prevent the

appeal of extremist narratives.”

“UCU has major concerns both about the intent and the unintended consequences of [the Prevent duty] which we believe will: “Sadly [the CTS Act] ignores reforms • have a chilling effect upon debate that could improve the effectiveness of and academic freedom within UK investigations and continues the universities and colleges discredited trend of unnecessary and • create an atmosphere of mistrust unjust blank cheque powers that have within institutions and between staff the potential to undermine long term and students which is at odds with security” academic values

• add a significant administrative burden to staff and their institutions • create a legal duty upon institutions and staff which is vague and not achievable • lead to a deterioration in the 37

encourages acts of discrimination, abuse and violence. ... It is patently clear that recent anti-

“The [CTS Act] is an extremely terrorism legislation is more concerned dangerous development in counter- with protecting the state from dissent terrorism policy in the UK. than protecting the public from It provides no clarity in the law, but terrorism." rather, establishes a statutory framework that is unclear and will required by law to be implemented.

The abuses that will stem from such a process are all too clear to evident, and Defend the Right to Protest it is extremely disconcerting that communities will be able to do very “The new Prevent duty under the little to challenge the assumptions that Counter-Terrorism and Security Act are made against them, as the entire represents a dangerous escalation in system of decision making is left in the government attacks on Muslim hands of individuals with no publicly communities and the right to political consulted guidance on what is dissent and criticism under the guise of considered to be a potential risk.” counter-terror legislation.

The mounting number of cases involving young people being reported as at risk of “extremism” for participating in political campaigning over Palestine or ‘IHRC views the new legislation as yet raising concerns about Islamophobia are another attempt by the government to indicative of the way this legislation is being used to clamp down on freedom erode our civil liberties which further of organisation and debate whilst marginalises Muslim communities. legitimising suspicion and discrimination Each time there is a criminal act against Muslim students. committed by a Muslim the moment is cynically exploited by politicians to It is vital that we stand in solidarity widen the powers of the security against the racist stigmatisation of services and introduce new laws that Muslims as a suspect community and are disproportionately used against recognise that this blurring of the lines Muslims. between political criticism, criminality This targeting and scapegoating of and ‘extremism’ is a threat to us all that Muslims demonises them and creates a we must unite to defeat.” climate of hostility towards them and 38

Effect on education We need to defend FE students, through sharing knowledge, and good “The perverse practice to empower them to go back PREVENT on their campuses to tackle PREVENT” agenda not only Shakira Martin, NUS VP Further endangers Education academic freedom but Effect on international also changes students the dynamic between staff and students by “Black obstructing the process of learning via International critical engagement. Universities are students, spaces where different perspectives especially those and ideas are explored and the status who are (or quo is challenged: Higher Education is appear to be) about changing society for the better, Muslim will bear not conforming to a particular mindset the brunt of this of the government. policy, being the first to be targeted, An atmosphere of suspicion, monitoring with no support and significantly less and not to mention profiling rights than their British counterparts. undermines the possibility of such a Most insidiously, it will further strip space that allows research to flourish them from the ability to challenge the and learners to develop.” discriminatory status quo and hold the Sorana Vieru, NUS VP Higher Education government to account - because doing

so can too easily get them branded “Our FE sector 'extremist' and expose their precarious is under attacks status as migrants in the UK. left, right and The new focus on loose, so-called centre from 'British values' is also xenophobic and cuts to our exclusionary - in this case, International courses to our students come from countries with students feeling completely different political norms and in fear because boundaries. For these students, and of the discriminatory PREVENT agenda. other migrants, to be judged, Students from FE are often those who questioned and scrutinised, when they are at the backlash of the government have come here to learn, question and attacks, and with most FE colleges not explore, is not only unacceptable, but having active, strong student unions is clearly unworkable and unfair.” this is going to be another way for the Mostafa Rajaai, NUS International government to try and push through Students’ Officer the PREVENT agenda there first. 39

Effect on student “The cases we welfare have seen in just a short few “The PREVENT weeks of agenda’s PREVENT being infiltration into mandatory counselling and evidence our mental health concerns. Hysteria and racial profiling services is is driving a policy which is worsening highly discrimination on campuses, not concerning. solving it. ‘Relevant mental health issues’ being Many students have reported feeling considered a warning sign for extremist anxious, isolated and unwelcome as a tendencies, can only increase the stigma result of PREVENT. Students involved in attached to feeling mentally unwell and political activism have been targeted, seeking help. but the vast majority of cases of It is deeply problematic that when this referrals have affected Muslim attitude is combined with matters of students. race and religion, an atmosphere is This is having a profound impact on created where mental health students' welfare, and with counsellors practitioners are encouraged to and advisors now mandated to report pathologise (make an illness of) signs of 'withdrawal' to PREVENT different cultures and identities. officers, there are limited places for Along with duties to report or refer people to turn. patients presenting ‘signs of We must be ready to oppose, de- radicalisation’, this greatly distorts the legitimise and refuse to comply with patient doctor/counsellor relationship. PREVENT. The two most worrying outcomes of this Our movement has a proud history of are that people do not seek help when standing up to discrimination. I am they are struggling with their mental confident that we can put up a big, health (making them more unwell), or collective fight; that those who do seek help are made send a message to the government that vulnerable to surveillance and we are students, not suspects; punishment.” and force this malicious policy off our Maddy Kirkman, NUS Disabled campuses.” Students’ Officer Shelly Asquith, NUS VP Welfare

40

Effect on campaigning Effect on religious expression “Students have historically “Religious driven change expression is key in society, and to students of colleges and faith and universities inhibiting this is and especially detrimental to student unions the development of young have been breeding grounds for some minds. Islamic Societies have pretty revolutionary ideas over time. historically provided much-needed The PREVENT agenda, alongside the spaces of support that are otherwise government and the Charity lacking in institutions. Commission is clamping down heavily They have in the process also produced on the 3rd sector – including SUs – and among the most active members of stifling our ability to challenge the campus society by channelling the government and hold it to account on energy of Muslim students into various its damaging policies. campaigns and causes, and the climate It is incredibly dangerous to neutralise of suspicion created by PREVENT is and exclude such a big part of the building the real fear among Muslim democratic process, especially given students that they will soon lose such how important the 3rd sector is for vital spaces . affecting change for certain groups, like Targeting young Muslims for their views Black people and Muslims, who have simply alienates them and reinforces already been excluded and the narrative that government policies disenfranchised from that system in are against their beliefs and religion. many other ways. The current strategy by the government Student Unions are by nature political, aims to silence all voices of dissent with and we can’t allow the government to any detractors being labelled as cut us out of the picture – so in "radical", this will only lead to us challenging PREVENT, we have to fight pacifying the next generation who will for the right to fight.” be too afraid to express themselves and Piers Telemacque, NUS VP Society & speak out against oppression.“ Citizenship Yusuf Hassan, FOSIS VP Student Affairs

41

CTS Act on campuses Further Education

The statutory guidance on (Including FE Colleges, Sixth Form implementing the Prevent duty within colleges and Independent training colleges and universities received providers) Parliamentary approval in September The Prevent duty for FE stipulates: 2015. • Co-operation with PREVENT As of the writing of this handbook, structures specific advice on external speakers Clear engagement by senior under the Act has not been published. management with police and BIS (or

appropriate PREVENT sub-group in The new scale and scope of PREVENT Scotland) for purposes of supporting on our campuses in light of the Act is PREVENT. Often a single person in the yet to be seen – but given that it is part of a concerted political agenda by the college will serve as primary contact. state we can expect a lot of pressure • Risk Assessments coming our way in challenging it. Carry out risk assessment into where and how students and staff may be at This is also why it is risk of being drawn in terrorism – necessary to stay united as a including this into college policies on movement against this equality & diversity, safety and welfare agenda! of staff/students, and physical If you need any advice or encounter management of the campus estate. any issues with PREVENT at your institution please don’t hesitate to • Faith facilities/prayer rooms contact Develop and publish plans for management of prayer room facilities Malia Bouattia, NUS Black Students’ (e.g. establishing oversight committees) Officer at • Staff Training [email protected] Ensure staff are trained to understand and PREVENT, the terms used by the Shelly Asquith, NUS VP Welfare at strategy, and how to identify those at [email protected] risk of radicalisation.

Would usually involve WRAP (Workshop For specialist advice we would to Raise Awareness of PREVENT) or BIS recommend contacting Bindmans training of staff. solicitors at: In the case of FE, British values are [email protected] 42 expected to be integrated into training • Student Unions and subsequent delivery of teaching. Unlike the guidance for HE institutions, the role of FE Student Unions are not • Information sharing explicitly outlined in the FE guidance. To establish processes to share SUs in HE institutions are generally information within the college (and autonomous bodies independent of outside) on ‘at-risk individuals’ their institution (as registered • IT policies charities). Develop policies on use of IT In FE, Unions may be facilities/networks. May include constituent parts of their filtration software to block ‘terrorist- colleges (existing as a related’ material on the internet. ‘department’ or division of • Monitoring the college) and in this case, OFSTED* will be used to monitor the Prevent duty may apply sufficient compliance with the Prevent to them. duty, and institutions face having Examples of PREVENT in funding pulled/being shut down for not practice in FE complying satisfactorily. (*In Wales this function is served by ‘Vulnerable learners’ – identified as Estyn, in Scotland it is Education ESOL (English for Speaker of Other Scotland alongside local multi-agency Languages) and Learning Difficulty PREVENT boards) and Disability (LDD) – targeted for • Channel observation Lecturers and staff will be expected to Youth workers in SUs trained in identify students who are ‘vulnerable’ PREVENT – serving as ‘informal to radicalisation and refer them to engagement with learners’, build Channel de-radicalisation panels (or to up relationships with students and utilise the PREVENT Professional monitor, report them to Channel Concerns process for Scotland) when deemed ‘at-risk’

Key differences from HE Online safety – Software programs • Academic Freedom exist that flag up students who The duties to maintain Academic search online for ‘extremism’- Freedom placed upon HE institutions, related keywords when using and to balance this with the Prevent college IT facilities. duty, do not apply to FE.

43

Higher Education • External speakers (Including public universities, and Universities should create systems to privately funded higher education assess and manage the risk of hosting institutions - HEIs) external speakers for events (through the SU or a student society). The guidance for HEIs generally It proposes a hardline approach to reiterates that issued for FE institutions. potentially controversial speakers/those who may express The main differences are an explicit ‘extremist views’: mention of HEIs’ need to balance the demands of academic freedom, “[Universities] should consider carefully alongside the Prevent duty (this was whether the views being expressed, or likely added as an amendment to the CTS Act to be expressed, constitute extremist views in Parliament following concerns over that risk drawing people into terrorism or the impact the Prevent duty would have are shared by terrorist groups. on academic freedom, which In these circumstances the event should not universities are already legally obliged be allowed to proceed except where to protect); [Universities] are entirely convinced that and specific mentions of the role of such risk can be fully mitigated without external speakers and Student cancellation of the event. Unions/societies. This includes ensuring that, where any event is being allowed to proceed, speakers with Guidance for HE is considered slightly extremist views that could draw people into more ‘soft-touch’ than that for FE. terrorism are challenged with opposing views as part of that same event, rather than • Student Unions in a separate forum. Institutions are expected to develop Where [Universities] are in any doubt that agreements with SUs with regards to the risk cannot be fully mitigated they their activities and those of student should exercise caution and not allow the societies, and which activities are event to proceed.” acceptable (these include on-campus, online activity related to the university, • Monitoring and off-campus activity done under the HEFCE will be used to monitor sufficient name/affiliation of the university). compliance with the Prevent duty It is also suggested that SU officers and amongst Higher Education Institutions staff undertake PREVENT awareness (in England); continued failed training, but this is not made out as compliance may result in court orders. compulsory in the guidance. 44

45

What does the Prevent duty look like in practice? Inadequate academic support • Stricter guidance and procedure for Due to the racialised nature of the inviting external speakers. agenda, Black and Muslims students may come to distrust their personal • Prayer room oversight, possibly tutors or academics. including monitoring of prayer rooms This will affect their contribution in and vetting of prayer sermons. class, the topics and subjects they • PREVENT training for academics engage in or even asking for help. (WRAP training) to become more Research has shown Black students are widespread, creating an ‘army’ of already more likely to drop-out of informants within the sector. courses due to inadequate support and this will only aggravate problems. • Altering academic, welfare and social services away from their intended Inadequate mental health function and towards ‘preventing provisions students being drawn into terrorism’. PREVENT undermines the relationship between patients and practitioners, taking it from one based on trust and What does all this mean for confidentiality to one of suspicion. students on campus? Students with poor mental health may not seek help or be willing to disclose Overreporting mental health issues, especially with Putting Channel on a statutory basis “relevant mental health issues” being means academics are likely to [continue interpreted as a risk factor for to] overreport students as being at-risk radicalisation of radicalisation for fear of being sanctioned themselves, or due to a false Self censorship sense of being ‘experts’. Ultimately PREVENT will suppress It is through this environment that critical inquiry and free expression on unconscious bias against Black and campus, no matter what small Muslim people is heightened. safeguards the government puts in place to balance this. Students, who as a group have (Please note: This guide reflects our historically challenged oppression and interpretation of the guidance and should wrongs from the government, will NOT be considered legal advice.) either be scared into silence or

harassed into staying quiet. 46

Cancellation of speaker education experience - it may be the events first time they are introduced to a Institutions will likely become a lot whole host of activities, including more risk averse when dealing with religious and political ones, and these external speakers on campus, and in are often organised by the union. line with the Prevent duty guidance will Students that are part of certain clubs become more ‘trigger-happy’ with or societies - such as Islamic Societies cancellations or impose stifling or Palestinian Societies or Free conditions on events – such as vetting Education groups - face a particularly speeches and rigidly maintaining event high risk of being monitored or tracked formats. since much of their political activism Many university speaker events have from Fossil Free Campaigns to BDS already been cancelled after private campaigns stems from a dissatisfaction lobbying by Islamophobic organisations, with governmental policies: “desire for and the new guidance will likely political or moral change”. exacerbate this. All in all, many students will be cut out Race to the bottom from student union activities. Ultimately, the Prevent duty guidance is very loose and unhelpful – even for Reducing diversity within institutions who want to enact it. leadership roles Certain students may not go for It sets some impossibly high standards leadership positions within the union (how can risks from speakers, or for fear of looking like they have “a anything, ever be fully mitigated?) and desire for status”, or that once in these also sets no upper limit to how far roles they will come under attack and institutions should go in implementing it. scrutiny. Some institutions, eager to either SUs under pressure protect themselves or to ‘prove’ their Whilst in most cases the Prevent duty compliance to the government, may go does not apply to Student Unions, their above and beyond in implementing the parent institutions will most likely put duty and set some dangerous new pressure on them to comply with or precedents in the process. facilitate it – or at least to stop campaigning against it. For the sake of your members and to Reduced engagement with preserve the political nature of SUs, the SU Sabbatical Officers must resist this Students often ‘find themselves’ through the further and higher pressure! 47

How could speaker Below is a (non-exhaustive) list of ways events be affected? that universities could possibly try to implement the Prevent duty via One of the main ways that ‘day-to-day’ external speaker events. life as a student will be affected by the Prevent duty is through rules around • Approving a request on the condition external speaker events and mitigating that a particular individual chairs the ‘extremist speakers’. event, or in a particular format (e.g. a debate) Hosting speaker events is a key way that students (through their departments, or • Making the event ticketed/for ID card student societies) can critically engage holders only with topics and share knowledge. • Opening the event to the general As mentioned earlier, the HE Prevent public (and not allowing private duty guidance singles out external meetings) speaker events with the demand that for events where speakers may • Imposing conditions on how the possibly express ‘extremist views’ event is advertised (e.g. promotional “… the event should not be allowed to material to contain translations if in a proceed except where [Universities] are language not understood by university entirely convinced that such risk can be staff) fully mitigated without cancellation” • Placing restrictions on the numbers In reality this sets an impossible able to attend or restricting the event to standard – how can any speaker risk university staff and students only ever be fully mitigated? It is more likely that universities will • Requesting a script or summary from become a lot less welcoming of external the speaker outlining what they intend speaker events, and more likely to to say and forcing to adhere to this cancel/deny permission to events. • Restricting what materials are It is here where the guidance is on the shakiest grounds and can available at the event (e.g. CDs, DVDs, most likely be legally challenged, leaflets, memory sticks) as the potential effect on freedom of speech is high. • Host a speaker with a countering If you encounter any examples of viewpoint to challenge the speaker new or complicated external (for example for a pro-choice talk there speaker regulations at your institution please contact: must be an anti-abortion speaker; [email protected] for an anti-war event there must be a pro-war speaker!) 48

Student Unions: Remember: What are your obligations? There is no correlation between extra regulations and ‘prevention of Although institutions are legally ‘terrorism’’, and PREVENT is a required to comply and implement discredited strategy with mainstream PREVENT, most Student Unions are opposition both academic and charities and are therefore not anecdotal. compelled to do so (except in the case Student Unions and institutions of some FE Student Unions who do not already have comprehensive policies in exist as autonomous bodies and may come under their college’s remit for the place to ensure students are not Prevent duty). subjected to hate speech and are safeguarded from harm – including ‘No This will not stop external Platform’ policies against fascists. pressure to comply such as Having separate “extremism” protocols those from the Charity – especially ones issued ‘top-down’ by Commission and perhaps the government is problematic and has from your own institutions. been highly criticised academically and by advocacy groups. These may include pressures to accept How might your institution funds to implement “interfaith try to impose their Prevent activities”, extra monitoring of certain duty with regards to the SU? clubs and societies and changes to your unions’ external speaker approval Whilst in most cases the Prevent duty system, as well as the threat of does not apply to Student Unions, investigation by the Charity parent institutions will most likely put Commission. try to ‘pass on’ the Prevent duty to SUs via some of the following means: Those campaigning against PREVENT agree that accepting such funding If your institution tries to legitimises the whole agenda. impose the Prevent duty on Therefore, NUS, along with many other you, or tells you this is unions who have a non-compliance compulsory, or threatens policy, have committed to stop you please contact accepting these funding completely. [email protected] and [email protected]

49

• Provisions in the Student Union’s Charity Commission constitution requiring the trustees of The Charity Commission regulates the union to comply with university charities including most Student Unions. ordinances and governance frameworks, including its Freedom of As mentioned earlier, the Charity Speech code of practice Commission has moved away from its (and thus, complying with whatever intended regulatory role to a more PREVENT measures are imposed heavy-handed investigatory body and through those). has launched investigations into charities including some SUs on • Agreements between the parent questionable grounds. institution and student union, such as a Memorandum of Understanding, or conditions attaching to the unions block As charities, SUs are bound by Charity funding grant or conditions in any lease Law and regulated by the Charity or licence agreement for the use of Commission. premises by the union. They are subject to existing laws concerning terrorism, such as the • Employment contracts and related Terrorism Acts 2000 and 2006; and the employment policies and procedures Charity Commission has also issued a applying to any staff employed both by ‘compliance toolkit’ with guidance for the parent institution and the student charities relating to their obligations union (or employed by the parent around preventing terrorism which can institution and seconded to the union). be found online. • Indirectly, via regulations and The majority of this guidance concerns ordinances governing the conduct of preventing the abuse of charity students, which may regulate the funds/assets/activities to support conduct of student union members. terrorist groups. • Where student union staff are employed both by the parent institution Whilst the Prevent duty does not apply and the students’ union (or employed directly to most SUs, this may not stop by the parent institution and seconded the Charity Commission intervening. to the union) they may be required under the terms of their employment contract to assist the institution in implementing the Prevent duty.

(Source: Bates Wells Braithwaite solicitors) 50

It is also possible that the Charity How can NUS support you? Commission could take regulatory action if a college or university were to • Host a stop of the Students not argue that their student union had Suspects tour, or provide speakers to failed to comply with the PREVENT speak on PREVENT • Help with motions to pass through guidance. your union’s council/executive/general This may be viewed by the Commission meeting (there is a model motion in the as indicative of non-compliance with Resources section of this handbook) the Commission’s guidance on • Deliver a Students Not Suspects extremism and demonstrative of resource pack including badges and posters unlawful activity • Deliver workshops on PREVENT and (which would also comprise a breach of resisting PREVENT trust for charity law purposes). • Discuss any issues you might be Seeking regulatory action by the having with PREVENT at your institution Charity Commission is likely to be a last (but we’re not qualified to provide legal resort for a university or college advice) But most importantly – we want to If you are concerned about hear from you! your legal obligations or Any cases you have of experiences with following contact with the PREVENT, or your ideas on building Charity Commission please resistance against PREVENT, or success contact stories of students organising alongside [email protected] academics - the fight on each individual and campus is just as important at the [email protected] national one, and we can learn from and activists on the ground. [email protected] For support please contact [email protected]

51

Preventing PREVENT: The So what are these local Counter-Campaign aims?

The government policing thought, Broadly speaking, our core aims can be opinions and expression is a very broken down into two strands: slippery trajectory that students should firmly oppose. Educate, Educate, Educate Every campaign and every campus is Educating the student and academic different, but this section should give body of the PREVENT agenda, their you some ideas to get you started. rights, and how they can counter- This will be a long-term campaign but campaign against it. one that must be started now. Organise, Organise, Organise What are we up Challenge and counter the changes your against? institution is implementing in compliance with the Prevent duty, and Our aims are, essentially, to challenge ultimately to try and make PREVENT and repeal a law issued by the ‘unworkable’. government on a national level – and (An example: ensuring all training this is no small feat! provided to staff are organised externally in alliance with the students But we also have local union and not by PREVENT officials.) objectives and the national campaign will draw its strength from local The levels of local campaigns showing united campaigning include and vibrant resistance against PREVENT. Gaining the support of the student The campaign against PREVENT can and population should be carried out on multiple fronts - from challenging it on every campus to Gaining the support of Student Unions lobbying it nationally to legal action. Gaining support of teachers

The student-led campaign to Prevent Lobbying the institution PREVENT thus forms one important strand of a wider strategy.

52

Gaining the support of the and that any campaign is inclusive of student population them. Make sure to stay in contact with Educating students on the ground about Islamic Societies and Black students’ what PREVENT and the Counter- groups, and take lead from Terrorism and Security Act is all about, representatives accordingly. and why to oppose it.

Awareness-raising can take the form of speaker events and workshops on the dangers of PREVENT, videos, infographics and social media campaigns.

To invite someone from NUS or the Black Students’ Campaign to your campus to speak on PREVENT or for a #StudentsNotSuspects event, or for speaker suggestions please contact [email protected]

Make sure to make your message relatable to different types of students – PREVENT affects everyone, so make sure this resonates with them, whether they are a campaigning society who may come under more scrutiny, a debating society who may be more restricted with regards to topics of discussion, or a liberation group.

Write articles for your student newspaper.

It is important to ensure that those most affected by PREVENT remain involved in campaigns against it, 53

Gaining the support of SUs

Pass motions/policy through your Student Union’s democratic forum (Councils, General Meetings) for opposing PREVENT/mandating non- compliance for the SU.

When challenging your institution on their Prevent duty implementation, it’s important to have SU policy to back you up and support your stance.

The clearer the policy, the more useful it will be for you – a model motion can be found in the Resources section.

Passing a motion can be a campaign in itself, if it takes convincing Officers/Councillors/Students to support the policy against PREVENT.

Make use of grassroots student support you have built up from the student population. Make sure to get student societies to speak out on how PREVENT affects them and their members too!

Use eye-catching designs, badges, posters as well as social media: tweet out #StudentsNotSuspects

Remember: Passing motions can be a useful part of a campaign but shouldn’t be considered an end-objective.

But once you do pass the motion, make sure to make some noise about it! 54

Gaining support of teachers

Institutions need to feel under pressure from a broad base of opposition against PREVENT from students alongside lecturers.

Lecturers/teachers will also benefit from knowing that they are being supported by the student body in speaking out against PREVENT, given the higher risk they face from doing so.

The first point of contact is the UCU (University and College Union – the lecturers’ union) and/or other union Once you have support of students and representatives on campus. academics, hold organising meetings to draw in new people and draw up new Getting union branches to support local plans for building a local campaign. policy against PREVENT, or even just adopting UCU’s national policy against Warning the CTS Act, sends a powerful message. For campaigns of this nature there will inevitably be some elements who get Building up support with individual involved to undermine them. lecturers is also important – not every one maybe be in UCU, but they might Undercover police or even ‘undercover’ still have strong feelings on PREVENT. university staff may try and ‘infiltrate’ meetings to gather information on Lecturers could for example pledge to your plans. not pass on any names of students to Channel. Be careful with what is discussed, how For UCU, find your institution rep here: any sensitive/contact data is www.ucu.org.uk/yourcontacts stored/protected about individuals involved and make sure not to openly For a list of UK-wide academics who’ve discuss unlawful activity – challenging signed an open letter against PREVENT PREVENT is not in itself an illegal see: activity, but inciting people to break www.protectingthought.com the law is, even if justified. 55

Lobbying the institution Dealing with the Prevent duty as an officer One of the main long-terms aims with local campaigning is to pressure our Given the natural variations between institutions to move to a position of institutions - their size, their population public opposition against PREVENT. and histories – the guidance provided to them on how they should Whilst institutions cannot boycott implement the Prevent duty will not be PREVENT or the Prevent duty, legally, a individualised or uniformly applicable. public statement opposing the Prevent Therefore, institutions will duty from a Vice Chancellor or the vary with the changes they institution on the whole sends a implement. powerful message to the government that enough is enough. Some institutions for example may This will also be the most difficult aim already monitor IT systems whilst to achieve! others may already have an ID card system for entering prayer facilities. For steps on how to build a campaign to pressure the university to come out in Questions to ask: • What is your institution already doing opposition to PREVENT see the section to comply with PREVENT? on Campaign Planning from page 58. (And who can you ask to find out?)

What can I really do? • Has your institution or union provided We believe the best way to combat PREVENT training or worked with PREVENT on campuses is to boycott it, PREVENT officers prior to the CTS Act? and disengage from it completely – (You can send a Freedom of Information which we strongly believe is an option request to find out) for most Student Unions/officers. For those who cannot legally boycott it • Has your institution had any specific (i.e. where the legal Prevent duty incidents that may mean they will be extends to the Union as with some FE more diligent or likely to comply heavily unions, or for staff of the institution) with the Prevent duty? individuals can still work together to • Is your student population make PREVENT ‘unworkable’ there and proportionally higher in Black, Muslim undermine it – by engaging at the bare and/or International students, making it minimum level, and by refusing to refer more likely the college will heavily names to Channel for example. police activities? 56

Many institutions have already Note: organised PREVENT working groups, By sitting in on these often chaired by the Student Registry or meetings you can gain Student Welfare team. crucial insight into how the Prevent duty is being This can be a good opportunity to implemented by your represent students’ interests and institution, and ensuring you are well informed of communicate across changes being implemented. your/the SU’s opposition to PREVENT on the As democratically elected whole. representatives, SU officers are in the best position to inform the institution of how These can help inform their policies will affect your critique and activism students. and put you in a better position to support your • Has someone from your members. sabbatical officer team been invited to these meetings? We would however NEVER encourage officers • If not, you can approach them to to help facilitate ask your Provost/Vice PREVENT or the Prevent Chancellor/Senior Management to duty whilst in this role, or do so. to sacrifice a stance of opposition merely for a

‘seat at the table’! • Explain how it would not be appropriate for such working The tone of these meetings will vary groups to be initiated without the across institutions. student unions’ involvement given

the impact it will have on their Some appear to be very inviting of activities. student unions, others have asked officers “keep their politics at the door”.

Officers may be pressured into justifying your SUs speaker approval 57 system or the discussion may focus on What to look out for certain student groups or activities. It should be remembered that the The focus of these meetings should be Prevent duty makes statutory and on the institution itself and not about extends something which most, if not the union, clubs and societies or all, colleges and universities are already student officers. engaged with.

College/University staff may agree In some cases, under the new duty with you on a point or say something some institutions may do little more that matches the Union’s stance, and it than clarify and codify their current is important to identify possible points existing PREVENT processes. of dissatisfaction amongst staff and exploit them. The following changes are the most likely to be where institutions differ in For example the Student Welfare Team their implementation of the duty. may say “this will make it difficult for students suffering from poor mental If the institution proposes any health to trust our team and therefore significant changes such as these we can’t provide adequate support” examples, concerns should raised: or the IT department may say “we don’t have External Speakers the capacity to monitor all students’ More stringent external speaker activities and [once asked whether they requests, especially if these involve will choose certain students, and how including questions surrounding they will make that choice] won’t single speakers’ faith or religious affiliation. out certain students”. External Speaker Events It is important to check meeting Proposing longer deadlines for minutes/notes are being taken and submitting external speaker event made available to ensure these points notifications, vetting speeches or trying are recorded - especially the wins and to impose certain formats for events. your rebuttals. Prayer room monitoring Proposing installation of a new monitoring system for faith spaces/prayer rooms (e.g. ID card access, CCTV in prayer rooms, a sign-in system). 58

Campaign planning don’t try to do everything at once.

Once you know what your institution is Get out a calendar or diary and work planning, you can shape your campaign out the best time to launch the to lobby your institution. campaign and to hold key events and actions such as when to launch and Strategy when to hand in our petition or when pass a motion through your student Your overall approach to achieving your union. aim, it should be possible to describe it in a couple of sentences. A campaign timeline can be a working Remember, your campaign strategy document that can be reviewed at each should be flexible and may need to meeting to check on progress, making change over time depending on how alterations if needed. things develop. Coalition building Campaign message You need to work out who makes the We need to be clear about what it is we key decisions that you are trying to are asking the group or students to do influence and who has influence over and how people can get involved and them. support the campaign. The campaign to counter PREVENT on Remember, this is likely to be a long- our campuses will also necessarily term campaign overall. involve students, staff and academics So, when prioritising, break down the working side-by-side, both to increase various aims you may have for your pressure on the institution and to show campaign and create a timeline. that there is a broad base of opposition.

Some of the aims will overlap and some Start by power mapping the various of the aims will need to be handed people invited by your institution to over to your successors – be they attend the PREVENT working group. future SU officers or new committees or This is likely to include: activists.  IT services  Security services It is recommended to try and have  Student welfare services regular events or actions throughout  Chaplaincy the year and planning in advance can  Union reps help us to do that while making sure we 59

Groups to watch out for membership and their former role as Also consider the activities of groups secretariat of two All Party who operate on campus who may Parliamentary Groups (APPGs) actively organise against this • HJS established Student Rights as a campaign: project to expose ‘extremism’ on campuses, but for many years denied Student Rights their relationship with the group • An organisation claiming to protect • Former policy members have students from the threat of ‘extremism’ described it as a “right-wing forum with on campus —which according to their an anti-Muslim tinge, churning out literature applies almost solely to polemic and superficial pieces” Muslim speakers • Their Associate Director Douglas • They disproportionately target Muslim Murray has said that “conditions for speakers and those invited by Isocs — Muslims in Europe must be made harder to the point of being described as a across the board” ‘witch-hunt’ by Muslim students • William Shawcross, Chair of the • They have bypassed SUs, to privately Charity Commission, was on the board lobby Universities to cancel speaker of the HJS prior to his appointment events hosted by students • Their work has been used by far-right Quilliam Foundation groups to target Muslim/Muslim- • A ‘counter-extremism’ thinktank run student events which have led to by self-proclaimed ‘ex-Islamists’ reported threats of violence and events • Are major proponents of the widely- subsequently being cancelled by discredited conveyor belt theory Universities • Have received heavy PREVENT funding • Are a project of the ‘Henry Jackson • Are frequently described as having Society’ right-wing thinktank. “no grassroots support” and being •Have been condemned in motions “loathed” by Muslim communities passed by over 10 SUs, the NUS Black • Despite being heavily criticised by Students’ Campaign and NUS NEC. Muslim communities, the government has continued to seek guidance on Henry Jackson Society (HJS) issues affecting Muslims from them. • HJS are a neoconservative, pro- • Controversially sent a secret list to a capitalist and pro-military-expansion British security official smearing a wide thinktank whose membership includes a range of Muslim organisations as number of MPs sharing ‘extremist ideology’, which was • HJS have had a significant influence on branded ‘McCarthyist’. the government’s counter-extremism • Have recently begun trying to start up position through their political student societies at universities 60

Example of strategies It’s important that targets are ambitious but realistic for the number Visibility of signatures that you want to get A coherent campaign design including before we hand it in. stickers, posters and leaflets can help Events to make our campaign really visible These are a great way of informing and create a sense of support and audiences. Collaborate with various momentum, whilst also educating groups - clubs and societies or trade people in the process. union reps or external organisations to

match the aims. Media Be careful not to just “preach to the It’s often useful to get to work with student media to publish news and choir”, using effective and catchy opinion pieces about campaign. advertisement, offering snacks if This can be used for both educational possible and perhaps ‘big’ speakers. and organisational purposes. Stunts Using the #StudentsNotSuspects Creative stunts such as protests (both hashtag on social media can be useful. loud and silent), banner drops and flash mobs can be a fun and powerful way to Petitions spread the message about our A petition can be a great way to build campaign and put pressure on and highlight support for your demands. management. A good petition is one that is short and For example, stunts that focus on how simple and makes our demands clear. PREVENT will silence student Using a paper petition or an online form like Google Forms can help build a expression could involve a group of petition that can only be signed by people with tape over their mouths. students and staff and not just anybody, so that management don’t use that as an excuse to ignore your petition.

61

Charity Law and Trustee If you are having issues with Boards your Trustee Board in campaigning against The CTS Act places a duty on ‘specified PREVENT please contact authorities’ to implement PREVENT; [email protected] Student Unions are not among those and specified. [email protected]

Trustee boards are the body responsible for making sure that student unions Remember: adhere to the law. Most Student Unions and/or They are usually made up largely of SU Officers do not have any unelected non-students. legal obligations to comply Several unions have already passed with the CTS Act or PREVENT #StudentsNotSuspects motions and not faced any issues from their Trustee Usually, Student Union Boards, despite some staff being charitable aims will include apprehensive. aims relating to representing the student voice, advancing Student Unions can campaign on issues education and defending the relating to the CTS Act and PREVENT right to education. that fall within their stated charitable The role of student unions is objectives – which usually relate to the to represent and defend education and welfare of students. students, NOT monitor them

or act as an extension of the Due to the adverse effect PREVENT will state! have on students’ education and welfare, it is perfectly legitimate for an SU to campaign against it locally, as well as join with the national campaign against PREVENT.

Your Trustee Board may choose (or be pressured to) follow recommendations by the Charity Commission to implement changes and comply but you should be able to argue otherwise.

62

63

Boycott PREVENT - model This Union Believes motion 1. Islamophobia is massively on the rise This Union Notes across Europe, is state-sponsored and legitimised by the mainstream media. 1. The government’s Counter-Terrorism and Security Act (CTS Act) 2015 places a 2. The government’s identified ‘warning statutory requirement on ‘specified signs’ of “radicalisation” problematise and authorities’ – including universities and renders suspect those with mental health colleges – to ’prevent people being drawn difficulties. into terrorism’ and to implement the ‘PREVENT’ strategy. 3. That the Act could serve to isolate many students who already feel that the only 2. The PREVENT strategy, as part of the avenue through which the Government Government’s ‘counter-extremism’ will engage them is ‘anti-radicalisation’ agenda has been used to create an initiatives, resulting in further alienation expansive surveillance architecture to spy and disaffection. on the public and to police dissent, The Act discourages free expression and systematically targeting analysis of ideas. Black people and Muslims. 4. Academics, as well as anyone in a public 3. Under PREVENT, lecturers have been sector job, should not have to be part of known to report students as being ‘at risk this surveillance. of radicalisation’ for merely taking an We fundamentally believe that interest in political affairs in class, or for universities and colleges are places for observing their religion more closely, education, not surveillance whilst politically active students have found themselves visited by counter- 5. The implementation of the PREVENT terrorism officers. strategy on campus will not only isolate Muslim students but undermine the civil 4. The Government’s counter- liberties of other groups such as terrorism/security policy is fundamentally environmental, political and humanitarian flawed in its approach; its operant activists. concepts of ‘extremism’ and ‘radicalism’ are ill-defined and open to abuse for 6. That the National Union of Students political ends. (NUS) and the University and College Union (UCU) have both passed motions at 5. The Act further criminalises Muslims their national conferences opposing the and Black people, and comes amidst a Act and PREVENT. campaign of fear and demonisation from the government. 7. As a Charity, we as a Union are not legally bound to engage with PREVENT and should seek to boycott it as far as legally possible. 64

This Union Resolves 6. To lobby the college/university to publicly condemn PREVENT and the CTS 1. To mandate the Officers of this Union Act and to call for its repeal. to not engage with the PREVENT strategy or implement any of the proposals of the Act to which they are not legally bound, and to boycott it as far as legally possible.

2. To release a statement expressing our opposition to PREVENT and the CTS Act for being racist and a threat to academic freedom and civil liberties.

3. To work with campus trade unions including UCU on combating the PREVENT strategy and its implementation on campus.

4. To educate students on the dangers of the CTS Act and the PREVENT strategy.

5. To lobby the college/university to be more open and transparent about how they are engaging with PREVENT and other similar initiatives. This involves: Demanding publications of how the policy is operating within the university and Students' Union.

This includes access to materials used to train staff and students.

Holding consultations with the student body regarding how this affects students.

65

Model letter to your students’ rights and freedom of institution’s Registrar/Chief expression are protected. Operating Officer (or equivalent) I look forward to you hearing from you and arranging a meeting. The best way INSERT UNION LOGO to contact me is DD/MM/YY [INSERT EMAIL ADDRESS] RE: Working on PREVENT or [INSERT PHONE NUMBER]. Dear XXX, Following the passing of the Counter Regards/Best Wishes/In unity, Terrorism and Security Act in February [DELETE AS APPROPRIATE, OR INSERT 2015 the government has been working YOUR OWN] with the higher and further education sectors to develop guidance – [INSERT NAME & JOB TITLE] particularly in relation to the “Prevent duty” outlined in Section 26 of the Act.

As the [INSERT JOB TITLE] at [INSERT UNION], the PREVENT strategy falls under my remit, and I believe it would be very useful for us both to meet soon to discuss how the College/University [DELETE AS APPROPRIATE] is planning to respond to PREVENT and the Counter Terrorism and Security Act locally and engage with the discussions and developments nationally.

It would be helpful for our students to understand how, if at all, PREVENT is being used here; and if there is any information you could send ahead of us meeting it would be gratefully received.

The Act, and specifically the PREVENT duty, is of particular concern to me - especially with regards to how we, as an academic community, will ensure that 66

Contacts

NUS Black Students’ Campaign www.nusconnect.org.uk/winning-for- Educators not Informants students/black www.educatorsnotinformants.wordpress.com @nusbsc @notinformants Representing students of African, Asian, A group of academics who believe the Arab, Caribbean and South American Counter-Terrorism and Security Act descent in Further and Higher Education jeopardises the relationship of trust between educators and students NUS Black Students’ Officer 2015-16: Malia Bouattia [email protected] @maliabouattia

UCU (University & College Union) Together Against Prevent www.ucu.org.uk www.togetheragainstprevent.org @UCU Join initiative between campaigning UK trade union & professional groups including Netpol (Network for association for academics, lecturers, Police Monitoring), Campaign Against trainers, researchers & academic- the Arms Trade and the Islamic Human related staff in FE & HE Rights Commission, opposing PREVENT

NUT (National Union of Teachers) Prevent Watch www.teachers.org.uk www.preventwatch.org @NUTonline @PREVENTwatchUK Largest teachers’ union in the UK. A community led initiative which Campaigning on behalf of teachers, documents and supports people education, children & young people. impacted by PREVENT through casework. 67

discrimination, with an Islamic perspective. It also operates an incident reporting CAGE (formerly Cageprisoners) system for hate crime as well as free www.cageuk.org weekly Information and Advice @UK_CAGE Surgeries and a legal advice and CAGE is a UK-based human-rights NGO, representation service, IHRC Legal. that campaigns against the attacks made against civil liberties as a consequence of the ‘War on Terror’ and in the name of ‘anti-terrorism’, with a particular focus on the effect it has had on Muslims, due process and their freedoms in the UK. FOSIS (Federation of Student Islamic Societies) www.fosis.org.uk MEND (formerly iEngage) @fosischannel www.mend.org.uk FOSIS is the premier representative @mendcommunity body for Muslim students in colleges MEND (Muslim ENgagement & and universities across the UK and Development) is a not-for-profit, non- Ireland, organised and run by Muslim partisan company that works to students. improvement civic participation by Muslims in Britain in order to tackle Islamophobia and anti-Muslim prejudice, and empower communities to highlight and defend their interests. Muslim Student Council www.absoc.co.uk The Muslim Student Council (MSC) is a forum specifically catering for Ahlul Bayt University Societies across the UK, Islamic Human Rights Commission providing a unifying platform and a www.ihrc.org.uk national-level steering committee that @ihrc functions to provide Ahlul Bayt Societies The Islamic Human Rights Commission at UK universities with the ethical, (IHRC) is a campaign, research and intellectual and managerial framework advocacy organisation that works to to perform their crucial roles. counter human rights abuses and 68

Frequently Asked Questions understanding ‘extremism’ is reductionist, un- nuanced and misleading. What is PREVENT? ‘PREVENT’ is one strand of the government’s What do you think should be done with counter-terrorism strategy. PREVENT is supposed PREVENT? to prevent individuals from getting ‘radicalised’ We believe that PREVENT needs to be dismantled towards violence, which it claims can be done by and/or replaced entirely, and that the Prevent defusing the ‘ideology of extremism’. duty needs to be repealed.

What is Channel? Can you not just reform it? Channel is the ‘early-detection system’ of We believe that the racist and discriminatory PREVENT, and consists of local multi-agency foundations of PREVENT are fundamentally panels which individuals (usually youngers) are wrong, and beyond reform. PREVENT also is referred to if they exhibit signs of apparent bound up with many other laws and policies vulnerability to ‘extremism’ and where they can affecting immigration, policing and so on which be ‘de-radicalised’. also threaten our civil liberties. As such, PREVENT is but one key strand in a ‘web’ of repressive What is the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act? measures which need to be tackled from the root. The CTS Act was counter-terrorism legislation voted in to law by Parliament in early 2015, which Don’t you think safeguarding is important? among other things, placed PREVENT and Channel Of course, but we believe that safeguarding on a statutory basis for the first time, meaning should be primarily concerned with an individual’s that ‘specified authorities’ (including universities, welfare, not looking at them as potential threats colleges and the NHS) legally had to implement to national security. PREVENT has co-opted the them – this is known as the ‘Prevent duty’ language of safeguarding and blurred the line.

When did PREVENT start? Surely you should only fear PREVENT if you’re PREVENT was first introduced in the 2006 version guilty of something though? of CONTEST. Channel was introduced in 2007. Well, no – by definition PREVENT seeks to deal with things that aren’t crimes. Laws already exist Why does NUS oppose PREVENT? to deal with crimes of violence, but PREVENT We recognise that PREVENT is racist and extends the hand of the government further into Islamophobic and targets Muslim people, and that what has been termed the ‘pre-criminal space’; it it is effective not in combatting terrorism, but makes people guilty of a ‘pre-crime’ even if they ultimately in stifling dissent to the government’s haven’t done anything illegal yet. policies, and in curtailing our civil liberties under the guise of ‘security’. We are joined in our But what about ‘No Platform’ – isn’t that as bad? opposition by a wide range of organisations, ‘No platform’ was a tactic developed to combat including UCU, Liberty, FOSIS, Defend the Right to fascists from organising, by denying them the Protest, and many Muslim groups and civil rights ‘oxygen’ they need to spread and normalise their organisations. views. There is a critical difference between ‘bottom-up’ approaches like No Platform, which How is PREVENT Islamophobic? should be democratically-led by communities, vs. PREVENT is explicitly targeted at Muslims, is ‘top-down’ approaches like PREVENT, imposed by blatantly discriminatory in its approach and paints the government against the public for dissent. them all out to be imminent threats to security. It also falsely conflates increased religiosity with a Who can I turn to if i’ve been affected by greater likelihood towards ‘extremism’ PREVENT? Bindmans LLP: [email protected] But what about terrorism? PREVENTwatch: www.preventwatch.org There is no evidence that PREVENT can or has Islamic Human Rights Commission: actually prevented any terrorist acts. Its model of www.ihrc.org.uk 69

Recommended reading

A Decade Lost: Rethinking Spooked! How not to prevent violent Radicalisation and Extremism – Arun extremism – Arun Kundnani, Institute of Kundnani, Claystone, 2015 Race Relations, 2009

British Muslims – ‘The Suspect Tackling Extremism in the UK: An Community’? - Louise de Menthon, ideological attack on Muslim Islamic Human Rights Commission, 2013 communities – CAGE UK, 2013

Compliance Toolkit: Protecting The Henry Jackson Society and the Charities from Harm - Charity degeneration of British Commission, 2011 neoconservatism: liberal interventionism, Islamophobia and the CONTEST: The United Kingdom’s 'war on terror' – Tom Griffin, Hilary Strategy for Countering Terrorism Aked, David Miller, Sarah Marusek, (a.k.a. CONTEST 2011) – HM Spinwatch, 2015 Government, 2011 The impact of counter-terrorism Countering International Terrorism: measures on Muslim communities – The United Kingdom’s Strategy (a.k.a. Tufyal Choudhury and Helen Fenwick, CONTEST 2006) – HM Government 2006 Equality & Human Rights Commission, 2011 Good Muslim, Bad Muslim: A response to the revised Prevent strategy – CAGE The PREVENT Strategy: A cradle to UK/Cageprisoners, 2012 grave police-state – CAGE UK, 2014

Prevent duty guidance: For England and Wales – HM Government, 2015

Prevent duty guidance: for Scotland – HM Government, 2015

Prevent Strategy (a.k.a. PREVENT 2011) – HM Government, 2011

Pursue Prevent Protect Prepare: The United Kingdom’s Strategy for Countering International Terrorism (a.k.a. CONTEST 2009) - HM Government, 2009 2

2