Shawcross’s recommendation to apply to Prevent in immigration relies upon one flawed assumption among many that he makes in his review, and will further divide and destabilise UK society.
The foundations of the Prevent duty are pre-crime in nature; it rests on an assumption that it is possible to ‘predict’ an individual’s susceptibility to be violent, even when that individual is a child.
The latest Prevent statistics direct us to an answer that lies in following long-held practices that preserve trust and will allow better access to public services while restoring it to its rightful role.
This blog is about three main concerns about the Prevent strategy that are linked to civil liberties and human rights. It forms a summary of Prevent Watch’s recent presentation at Portcullis House.
Increasing assaults on community security in the UK include the use of Prevent on Muslims, providing interesting common ground with the new Policing Act and its impact on Gypsy communities.
When global counter extremism means you can be an ‘extremist’ for political activity in another country, having to confront Prevent while fleeing for safety in the UK will ratchet up its injustice. But an unintended outcome persists.
Shawcross’s recommendation on Prevent and immigration urges that the policy be extended into the immigration system and into job centres. But increasing their hostility is not the answer to a safe UK.
William Shawcross has attempted to smear Muslim civil society organisations in a report that seeks to position Muslims – especially those who work for positive change in communities at home and abroad – as suspects.
The Prevent strategy of the UK’s counter-extremism policy is out of step with the realities of British society, and its placing of religious communities of belonging under suspicion is counter-productive to genuine, long-term social stability.
Recently, Prevent Watch spoke about Prevent to parents who had gathered to discuss changes in the school curriculum with regards RSE.