Sector: Education and childcare Date: July 2016 Gender: Female Location: North West BE is 10 years old. While she was at Hajj with her family, she decided to start wearing the hijab. On her return to school the head teacher requested the family attend a meeting to discuss an alleged 'uniform violation'. BE's mother was advised during the meeting to stop BE from wearing the hijab and that BE would be better suited to wearing it when she was at high school where nobody knew her. BE's mother was shocked and overwhelmed by this. The school sent the following in a letter to the parents: BE’s mother made formal complaints against the school. BE’s mother was then asked to attend a meeting regarding the complaint. BE’s mother was informed that BE was the ‘’ringleader’’ of negative activities during religious lessons. It transpired that BE had asked if she could be excused from drawing Jesus as he is one of the Prophets. BE’s mother explained that in Islam, Muslims are not allowed to draw Prophets. BE’s mother learned that BE was not the only student who asked to be exempt from this and had completed other activities which met the criteria in the syllabus. BE’s mother later learned that during a private conversation with BE, the head teacher had informed BE that another student who wears the hijab removes it at the school gates and puts it back on the way to the school. BE’s mother was concerned that the head teacher was trying to encourage her daughter to not wear the hijab. The head teacher had told BE’s family that BE wearing the hijab is displaying ‘’anti Christian values’. The head teacher further told the family that BE had a ‘extreme change in her behavior’ and maybe was better suited at another school, which was ‘geared up to her needs’. BE’s mother was deeply offended by this and felt BE had suddenly gone from being a star pupil to a liability. BE’s mother was told that if BE chose to arrive in a scarf she would not be turned away. A Counter Terrorism officer then came to the family home. He told the family he had received a report regarding concerns about BE wearing the hijab and the incident during religious studies. He said there had been an allegation of ‘radicalisation’. The family was later informed that the head teacher had referred the matter to the police. BE’s mother told the officer that they were shocked and surprised that a referral had been made as neither BE nor the family have engaged in any criminality. The police officer wanted to have a ‘quick discussion’ with BE and asked her about her trip to Mekkah. BE’s family then received a response from the school. The school denied there being any discrimination with regards to uniform policy. The school stated that teachers had been struck by the ‘strength’ of BE’s views and also the influence on other pupils to follow her example. The school did not see any issues with asking BE to draw Jesus. The school would not comment on the visit by the Counter Terrorism officer as a matter of policy. BE’s family contacted numerous relevant bodies and individuals, such as Ofsted and MP’s, to highlight the matter but received little support. The Counter Terrorism officer did not respond to the family’s letter and made no further contact. The family then sought legal advice but eventually did not pursue the matter further. Prevent Watch supported the family and provided assistance in managing the matter with the school and the decision to refer BE to the police. This case demonstrates that interrogating Muslims girls on wearing the hijab and linking it to issues of ‘radicalisation’ has been the norm in schools and grounds for referring to Prevent. The recent Ofsted recommendations to question young girls on their choice to wear the hijab legitimises the experiences of children like BE who required counselling as a result.

Sector: Education and childcare Date: December 2016 Gender: Male Location: East of England JT is 16 years old. He was at school on the playground with his friends when the fire alarm went off. One of JT’s friends sarcastically said to him ‘’why did you blow up the school again?’’ JT responded in a similar way that ‘’Shush don’t let them know’’. JT’s teacher then asked whether this was an appropriate thing to say but JT did not hear her properly as the other children were laughing and joking around him. The next day, JT and his friend were called into the office. There were three teachers in the room, one of whom had a written a statement about what had happened during the fire alarm. The teacher stated that someone had said ‘’Insha’Allah, Allahuakbar Brother Omar’’ which was a quote from the film Four Lions. JT’s friend was asked if he had said ‘’Shush, don’t let them know’’ and ‘’I blew up the school’’. The teacher stressed the importance of the matter. JT’s friend said he had said the former. The teacher then said that if they would report this to the police they would send a ‘’anti-terror squad’’ to his house. JT’s friend felt like he was being interrogated and was made to feel like a terrorist. JT’s friend was asked about his views on terrorism during the meeting to which he responded that it is someone who commits an act of terror and that he does not like their actions. JT’s father contacted Prevent Watch for assistance. The family was deeply distressed and sought an explanation from the school. The school was not forthcoming or transparent about the matter. Eventually, the school accepted their wrongdoing and formally apologised to JT and his family. This case demonstrates the effects of a two-tier system applied to students of different races and religion. Similarly, the lack of transparency is largely a result of imposing national security policies on schools, which then implement such policies by viewing students through a securitised lens providing little accountability and causing distress to families in the process.

Sector: Education (t-shirt) Date: February 2016 Gender: Male Location: Greater London MK was 8 years old in year 4 at a primary school in London. MK had worn a t-shirt which read “ when I grow up I want to be like… ” on the front and “ Abu Bakr as-Siddique 1 ” on the back. He had worn this t-shirt on a number of occasions before. MK happened to have worn this t-shirt on the anniversary of the 7/7 bombings while on a school trip to the Princess Diana Memorial Park in central London. The Deputy Head Teacher was quoted as saying the t-shirt was “inappropriate” to wear and MK was requested to take the t-shirt off and wore his hoody throughout the day. The mother of MK recalls how the incident was realised: Later that afternoon after school I had noticed my son in this hooded cardigan and told him to take it off as it was so hot. I then noticed he only had his vest underneath and asked him why he didn’t have his t-shirt on [as it would make sense to have his t-shirt on and not the hooded cardigan]. He then explained what had happened and then to my shock I realised what had happened. I had no idea that it was the anniversary day nor did I realize the t-shirt he had worn which to be honest had nothing controversial about it unless you chose to make something out of nothing. The mother went to the school on the same day to talk to his teacher about the t-shirt. She explained that the t-shirt was not supposed to be provocative. MK chooses his own clothing and it was a coincidence that he had worn this t-shirt on the anniversary of 7/7. MK’s questioning under the PREVENT duty by his teacher led to a referral to social services. In mid-February 2016, a person from the local authority’s child protection unit visited MK at his home and asked the following questions: • “What is [your] goal” • “What do you have to do to go to paradise?” • “What about people of other religions, do they go to paradise?” • “What about Christians do they go to hell fire?” MK’s parents did not understand the value of these questions. She felt it was inappropriate to ask such questions to a primary school student. What was more alarming was that social services reported to MK's mother that the reporting school teacher had asked MK about the t shirt ‘Who is Abu Bakr?’ and MK allegedly replied “Abu Bakr was the Prophet (saw) friend; he had won lots of battles and is the leader of Isis.” The mother said her “jaws dropped” as she could not and would not believe nor accept that her son would make such a statement. Upon further investigation, the school's head teacher confirmed to MK's mother that such a conversation regarding ISIS was not included in their referral. Social services later confirmed that this was an error on their part. However, they would not reveal any details concerning how an allegation such as this occurred. This case displays a number of worrying concerns. Firstly, neither teachers nor social services were able to differentiate between Abu Bakr As-Siddique, a well known figure accepted within Islam and Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi, the leader of ISIS. Front line personnel are supposed to be able to ascertain the difference between a normative Islamic view and religious extremism based on the training they are given. Secondly, MK’s parents were asked about their political and theological philosophy. If social services and the school could not understand who Abu Bakr As-Siddique is, then how could they possibly understand Islamic theology? This goes to the inherent flaw with PREVENT, there is a focus on ideology. What relevance was there to ask MK’s parents about issues of heaven and hell? Thirdly, the school and social services were asked which extremism risk factors MK had fulfilled in order for a referral to be considered. Both the school and social services did not provide MK’s parents with an answer to this question. They are still unsure as to why their family has been treated as suspect. https://www.buzzfeed.com/sirajdatoo/prevent-strategy-is-violating-childrens-human-rights-report?utm_term=.rskDnjd96#.neJrkqzoj https://www.rt.com/uk/350917-prevent-terrorism-human-rights/ http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2016/07/prevent-uk-anti-terror-plan-harms-children-rights-160712201558721.html http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/uk-counter-extremism-policies-violating-childrens-rights-241293686

Date: January 2015 Gender: Male Location: Central London ZX (NHS Administrator) was put in touch with Prevent Watch as he was concerned about PREVENT training he received whilst working as an Administrator at the NHS. ZX is a British national, 28 years of age and currently working as an Administrator for the NHS. ZX has been working there for the past two years and thoroughly enjoys the work. However, whilst receiving adult-vulnerability training on safeguarding, ZX said he was trained on a section directly on Prevent and signs of radicalisation. He had concerns about this, and wanted to know whether this was lawful or unlawful in relation to implementation of the policy. ZX made clear that it was a small section, but found it absurd that radicalisation would be trained for all NHS staff. ZX explained that “out of nowhere, we were all trained on a small section of PREVENT”. This included referring patients to PREVENT if there was evident signs of radicalisation. ZX noted " there were no criteria for extremism or radicalisation in the training", and was concerned at the risk if he did not refer anyone. ZX mentioned that he was the only Muslim staff at the hospital being trained, and found it uncomfortable, as the rest of the work force was non-Muslim, and didn't have any problems with receiving the training on PREVENT. ZX was concerned and questioned why an NHS Administrator would be trained on PREVENT and signs of radicalisation.

Cases Archives - Page 2 of 4

Q: The Community Organisation

Date : November 2014 Location : Greater London IE is a grassroots community organisation which seeks social and spiritual renewal. Through the Islamic ethos enshrined within the organisation, members of IE are obliged to be full and active participants in society in order to benefit their local community. The organisation has affiliates throughout the United Kingdom. IE has been negatively impacted through the application of the PREVENT duty by the local authority. This has caused number problems for IE when they have organised events. A number of their events have been cancelled or revised because of the pressure applied by PREVENT officers to venue operators. During an event at a university in Greater London, IE were due to host a number of speakers. The university cancelled the event on the grounds that they were “Islamists” after pressure from the local authority. However, IE were not provided any reasonable reasons as to why the university felt it necessary to cancel the event. They did not provide IE any grounds or evidence to support the assertion that IE was an “Islamist” organisation or how they contravened any laws or policies of the university. The cancellation of IE’s event displays a number of concerns regarding the operational application of PREVENT by local authorities. It is unfortunate that a university complied with the pressure applied by the local authority, even though an evidentiary threshold for illegality was never provided. The use of the term “Islamist” was enough to cause anxiety and apprehension on the part of the venue holders. Although IE went through the relevant checks and balances to book a lecture theatre at the university and acted in accordance with the requirements of the university, this was not enough.