In have not been void of concern and criticism

Topic: BusinessWorkforce
Sample donated:
Last updated: December 1, 2019

In the wakeof the September 11 attacks and the 7/7 bombings, western states have becomemuch more punitive and extreme in their fight against terrorism. Terrorism isnow considered the primary threat against western security; specifically in theUK, where preventing terrorism has become the duty of all members of society;from education sectors to CJ, to healthsectors (Norris, 2016). However, thesemeasures have not been void of concern and criticism for many. This essay willexamine UK’s Prevent strategy in countering terrorism during the labour government in 2005, as well as therevised reintroduction of this strategy in 2011 under the Tory government. By adopting a postcolonial approach, this essaywill examine the flaws within the definition of the strategy, to thenunderstand the implications and ineffectiveness of the program. Furthermore, using the securitisation thesis, it will explore how the implementationdomestic CT policies such as the ‘prevent strategy’ has unfairly targetedminority groups, in particular, theMuslim community.Following theLondon bombings in 2005, the labourgovernment introduced Prevent as part of UK’s CT strategy CONTEST which wasfirst introduced in 2003. During this time, in the UK Prevent was solely concernedwith preventing violent extremism linked with an Islamist ideology, as thebiggest threat to the UK at that time came from groups such as Al-Qaida andothers associated with Islam (Malik, 2008).

However, the EU commission attemptedto develop some consistency among different states by stating that Prevent strategies should not focus on particular religious beliefs, as ideologieswere varied and extremism came in various forms; violent and nonviolent (EUC, 2005). It was further emphasised that by focusing solely on one religion,the policy would create a division within society. As a result, Muslimcommunities were unfairly targeted, alienated and criminalised by the media (HM, 2008).

Don't use plagiarized sources.
Get Your Custom Essay on "In have not been void of concern and criticism..."
For You For Only $13.90/page!


Get custom paper

Similar to the Irishcommunity between 1968-1997, being subjected to increased scrutiny led manyMuslims to reject the legitimacy of this strategy and rather than effectivelydeterring people from being drawn to radicalisation and diminishing the threatof terrorism, the Prevent strategy created a division in the UK whichultimately led the Muslim community to be deemed the ‘enemy within’ (Qureshi, 2015).In recentyears, the government’s aim to prevent terrorism and radicalisation has become sharper through the reintroduction of thePrevent strategy in 2011. Prevent nowaims to stop people from supporting terrorism or becoming terrorists byobjectively challenging any ideologies which support or promote terrorism, supportinginstitutions fight and report signs of radicalisationand essentially protect people that may be vulnerable or considered at risk ofbecoming radicalised (HM GOV, 2011). Witha stricter focus, Prevent now makes it a legal obligation for institutions suchas schools and health sectors to engage with this agenda and report any signsof violent or non-violent extremism that may ‘createan atmosphere conducive to terrorism and popularise views which terroristsexploit’ (The Guardian, 2015). However, in the context of counter-terrorism, there is still a major flawin defining extremism and radicalisation. In 2010, when the coalitiongovernment revised the Prevent strategy,they defined extremism as ‘vocal or active opposition to fundamental Britishvalues including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutualrespect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs’ (Prevent Duty Guidance,2015). Furthermore, the government describes radicalisationas ‘the process by which a person comes to support terrorism and forms ofextremism leading to terrorism’ (HM Government, 2011).

According toLowe (2016), the phrases used to define extremism and radicalisation are rather subjective and therefore opaque. Heargues that there is great uncertainty asto what behaviour or talk is consideredextreme and should be reported. There is no clear guideline or understanding ofthese concepts, to then let relevant public bodies apply these definitions to aperson’s conduct. Furthermore, this difficulty in defining what is and is notconsidered extreme means that there is a real concern that the prevent duty notonly compromises ones freedom of expression but italso threatens academic freedom (Crammer, 2017). Arguably, this resultsin students not being able to communicate ideas which do not reflect mainstreamor western views and furthermore impacting open debates as well as politicaldissent.  Due to thesedefinitions being so abroad, it has allowed room for self-interpretation of theseterms for public bodies that are obliged to carry out Prevent, thus, resultingin unfair referrals of students as young as 4 years old. For instance, a recentexample includes the story of a 10-year-oldMuslim boy from Lancashire who misspelledthe word ‘terraced’ and instead wrote that he lived in a ‘terrorist’ house, forwhich he was reported to Prevent (BBC,2016). Similarly, a 4-year-old nursery boy was referred to the de-radicalisation programme aftermispronouncing the word ‘cucumber’ as ‘cooker bomb’ (BBC, 2016).

In both cases, the parents expressed their concern andclaimed that their children had been left scared to now use their imaginationand openly express themselves. Moreover, Macdonald (2016), argues that ‘thePrevent duty goes far beyond existing constraints’ for higher educationinstitutes, and whilst it is fair to ask these institutes to work with thegovernments agenda to ‘curb attempts to radicalise or recruit students’, it ishighly likely that this strategy could be abused by silencing legal debates(cited in The Guardian, 2016). Due to Prevent being a key strategy incountering terrorism in the UK, it is more so important that there is a preciseand clear definition of what extremist behaviouris, how it can be understood and the cause. Yet, there is a continued lack ofdefinition which has made it unable to set a benchmark that will guide all workand agents under this program. The JusticeInitiative report in 2016, released a statement claiming that the Preventstrategy was at a serious risk of breaching human rights.

This statement wasreleased after one of the most serious allegationsmade against the Prevent strategy claiming that, the government had been usingthe program to spy on certain groups and communities within society. Althoughthe Home Office dismissed any claims of Preventinvolving covert surveillance, according to Chakrabarti (2009), gatheringcovert data and spying on certain communities is not due to any real threat orcriminal risky behaviour, rather, it isbecause of religion being the primary target (cited in The Guardian, 2009).Hence why, many academics, youth workers, andvarious Islamic organisations have raisedconcerns over Muslims being unfairly targeted through Prevent. One of the manyexamples of covert surveillance of Muslim communities includes ‘operation champion’.

This project was created by thelocal police for the purpose of spying on two predominantly Muslim populatedareas in Birmingham, by installing over 200 CCTV cameras. Initially, the police claimed that the purposeof this project was to prevent crime, however, in 2010, The Guardian carriedout an investigation and uncovered thatthe project was not only funded by the Terrorism allied fund but was also CTinitiated (Awan, 2013). This agenda for spying was heavily criticised and therevised version of Prevent 2011 stated that it would not involve any sort ofcovert activity (HM, 2015). However, it could very well be argued that, bymaking teachers and health professionals report information about patients andstudents, it is causing the suspicion of spying to resurface within theseinstitutions. This has led the National Union of Students torelease a statement claiming that they ‘fundamentally believe that universitiesand colleges are places for education, not surveillance’ (NUS, 2016). In aninterview with Metro (2016), Stallabrass (professor at the Courtauld Instituteof Art) stated that Prevent obliges teachers to spy on their students thus,polluting the relationship they have. This demonstrates the extent to whichtrust is damaged within such institutions, resulting in a weakened relationshipbetween Muslim communities and various public bodies such as the police andteachers.  Further concerns have also beenraised regarding the Prevent strategy.

For instance, according to Kundnani (2010), the Preventstrategy is given much more funds in areas that have a larger Muslimpopulation. At least 30 areas in England and Wales were reported to havereceived unnecessary funding based on their Muslim population and wereconsidered priority areas which entitled them to get this funding (Quinn,2015). Spalek (2011) argues that thislink between funding based on population is a clear indication that thegovernments CT strategy continues to target Muslim communities and without a doubt, they are deemed the primary suspects inthe war of terror. Arguably,this could also be the reason for why the referral rate for Muslims ispredominantly higher compared to non-Muslims. Since Prevent was first launchedin 2005, figures show that 67% of people referred to prevent were Muslims and750 of them being children (Whitehead, 2013).

This being muchhigher compared to the 14% referrals made of far-rightsupporters, despite the fact that there is an increase in threat from thesegroups (Whitehead,2013). However, a report released by the Police (2014) stated that from all the referrals made only 20% ofthe people were actually believed to be a risk of committing violent extremistacts. Having an error rate of 80% surely indicates that there is an issue withthe government’s agenda on countering terrorism, further supporting theargument that Muslims are unfairly targeted by the government, creating adivide between Muslims and non-Muslims as well as an atmosphere of risk andthreat. Furthermore, The JusticeInitiative report (2016) pointed out that, the disproportionate targeting ofMuslims is raising questions about identity and belonging of Muslims in the UK.

This only fuels thestereotype that terrorism and extremism is an Islamic issue and therefore Muslimsshould be considered a risk; creating the notion of suspect community.The word’suspect community’ dates back to 1993 from the work of Paddy Hillyard. Hillyard’s(1993) explanation emerged after the Northern-Irish conflicts, where the Irishcommunities faced a violation of their civil liberties and human rights, aswell as an increase in anti-Irish racism. He argued that, when people are dealtwith under the CT legislation such as theprevention of terrorism act, they are not considered suspects due to any wrongdoing; rather, they are targeted becauseof their presumed belonging to a specific sub-group. According to Smyth (2014),the term can be used to understand how the Muslim community has come to be regarded as a suspect community.

She argues that a suspect community isconstructed and established through the various different state and nationalsecurity policies, which are then reproduced and strengthened through societalresponse and practice. This is not a result of only legal policies rather; itis constructed by this ‘securitisedimagination’ through a range of practices including CT legislation (Anderson,1991).By thiscriteria, examining the contemporary state of the Muslim communities in the UK,it can be argued that CT policies including the Preventstrategy have created a suspectcommunity. The contribution in the creation of a new suspect community can beevident through the various language training programs and courses that are rununder the prevent agenda 2011, within mosques all across Britain. The aim ofthese courses is to work with local imams and community leaders to tackleextremism by engaging the community. By extension, the focus is evidently onreaching out to communities and institutions which are considered to be at agreater risk of extremism. By primarily engaging with the Muslim communities,the issue of community relations and trust manifests into a much bigger issueby creating a climate of fear for Muslims and against Muslims (Awan, 2013). ThePrevent strategy then not only raises suspicion for CT policies but also overlooksdistinguishing between law-abiding Muslims that widely contribute to societyand ‘extremists’ who may also be actively engaged within the community (Awan,2013).

By trying to ‘engage’ the Muslim community and teach them to ‘value’ thewestern way of life, the government believes it will reduce the risk of home-grownextremism and terrorism. This is expressed through the definition of extremismwhich reverts to having fundamental British values. However, not only is termregarded as purely subjective but it also excludes Northern Ireland which makesup the United Kingdom. Lowe (2016) argues that what amounts to British valueswill differ based various factors such as socio-economic conditions and one’slocation. The diversity of the population in the UK is such that nearly every community will have their own Britishvalues because of the diversity of opinions. By emphasisingBritish values as something that is uniquely British will lead to thedisassociation of Britishness for some communities. The term itself is divisivewhere some views are not considered British enough; for instance, being criticalof the UK’s foreign policy (specifically towards the Middle-East) could beperceived as challenging these values that make us British.

  Sedgewick (2010) argues that this one phrase’has the potential to undo both the Prevent strategy’s and the Counter-ExtremismStrategy’s primary objective’ because even though the meaning remains unclear,it is deeply instilled within Counter-radicalisation policy such as the Preventprogram and education sectors (p.922).However, thisissue not only damages trust but also blurs the main aims of the strategy bydrawing links between CT and community cohesion and development. Pantazis andPemberton (2011) argue that, Prevent aids the process of constructing theMuslim community as a suspect by making them responsible for speaking up and taking action againstMuslim extremist. Failing to do so would imply acceptance and possibly evensupport for terrorism. Additionally, the process of responsibilisation of a whole community is understood to not onlylead to discrimination but also demonization of its members; thus, suspectifying them.Byconstituting the Muslim community as suspects, Prevent and various other CTpolicies have led to the securitisationof Muslims.

According to Hussain and Bagguley (2012), the securitisation framework ‘analyses the processby which an issue or group comes to be defined as a security threat so thatgovernmental and societal resources can be mobilized to counter it’ (p.716). Counter-terrorismpolicies and objectives similar to the Preventstrategy’s; can be considered as particular methods and approaches of reasoningbased on suspicion as well as prediction. Furthermore, according to Raggazi (2016), it is argued that social policy is securitised through a ‘racialised filter’ as counter-terrorism is exercised through thepolicing of minorities; the consequences of such securitisation results in ‘re-colonisationof social policy’ for minorities that are racialised,through security logic (p.170).

O’Donnell (2016) argues that vulnerability isperceived as ‘reminiscent of colonial discourses’ that serve the purpose ofothering certain populations (p.58). She explains that the concept ofvulnerability in CT is used as a synonym for individuals that are categorised as potentially dangerous, furthersuggesting that this is problematic to an individual’s identity and can beovercome through resilience.

This argumentis supported by the postcolonial thesis, where CT and national securitypractices and policies are highlycriticised. The postcolonial study focuses on ‘forces of oppression andcoercive domination that cooperate in the contemporary world: the politics ofanti-colonialism and neo-colonialism, race, gender, nationalism, class, and ethnicities define its terrain’; thereforeexpressing and emphasising the necessity to have equal rights regardless of thehistorical realities (Young, 2001. p.69). This perspective argues that by labeling people and communities as suspects,one is not able to prevent terrorism, extremism, and radicalisation; in orderto prevent terrorism is it important to understand the root causes that lead to these ideas.

Shilliam (2011) argues that it is crucial to understand and acknowledgeinternational relation and the influence of the western states in shapingviolence, as the oppression of many based on religion ethnicity and race by thewest cannot be denied. Taking intoaccount such oppression by the west, it is argued that CT legislations includingPrevent have created fear and otheredgroups in society, which has led to action ‘even though the results are adisplaced action tethered to present subjectivities’ (Sciullo, 2011. P.11). By linking terrorism and extremism withIslam, the Muslim community has come to be perceived as a threat and apotential enemy of the west.

  Byimplication, such a perception of the Muslims being the ‘other’ in a securityframework means that the lives ofordinary Muslims living in the UK are securitisedin every aspect; from education and employment to their family life and publicinteractions. This constructs an atmosphere of us and them through which theconcept of securitisation manifests. Sciullo(2011) argues that national security policies specifically those related to CThas portrayed and promoted this brown and black other ‘as an absent other,never present in immediacy, but omnipresent in doubt’ (p.11). Hence, viewingMuslims as a security threat results in negative repercussions, by legitimisingthe undermining of civil liberties for Muslims through the politics ofexception (Brown, 2008). This demonstrates thatdespite the revision and introduction of Preventin 2011, the government was not able to separate integration policies towardsMuslim communities regardless of their declaration to do so. To conclude,the UK government’s CT Prevent strategyhas attempted to prevent extremism and radicalisationat the early stages. However, since its inception in 2005 under the labor government, it has alienated and racialised the Muslim community, demonstratingthat despite the UK being a country that is understanding of citizenship; itcontinues to discriminate against its own citizens based on ideology.

Thereintroduction of prevent in 2011 by theTory government also maintained its focus on linking violent extremism to Islamdespite its claim to focus on all forms of extremism. This has been furtherevidenced by Prevent’s violation of humanrights, as allegations were made againstthe agenda claiming that it was used for spying on Muslim communities. The mainissue with the Prevent strategy is thelack of precision in its definition of extremism and radicalisation. It is vital that relevant public bodies are able todifferentiate between non-violent extremism and non-violent activism, as thiswill ensure that freedom of speech is not compromised especially in schools anduniversities and moreover, allow further acceptance for opposing beliefs andvalues in this liberal democracy. This essay has argued that the government’s Preventstrategy is ineffective as it has racialisedminority communities in the UK since its first introduction and continues to doso.

Furthermore, it has created a divide in society by securitising Muslims and constructing them as the enemy within,which has led many to question their identity and belonging in the UK. 

Choose your subject

x

Hi!
I'm Jessica!

Don't know how to start your paper? Worry no more! Get professional writing assistance from me.

Click here