Prevent referral stats were released by the Home Office for 2016 and 2017. These stats demonstrated a number of issues:
- Statistics were long overdue and demonstrate the lack of transparency with Prevent
- Over 7,500 people were referred to Prevent between 2015-2016
- 95% of the referrals did not require any intervention and were therefore false referrals
- Over 65% of the referrals were Muslims
- Over 1,500 of the 65% referrals were children under the age of 15,
majority of whom did not require Channel intervention
Recent statistics show that majority of those individuals referred to Prevent are Muslim, and specifically children. It is clearly not another ‘anti-Prevent myth’ but a fact. In light of these statistics, how do you account for the clearly disproportionate focus on Muslims, and especially Muslim children?
A significant portion of the Prevent funding has gone to Muslim majority areas also referred to as ‘priority areas’.
Recent statistics show that over 95% of the referrals to Prevent were false referrals, after being referred to Prevent they did not require any ‘deradicalisation’ intervention. How do you account for such a large margin of error?
Research has shown that Prevent is based on flawed science, the ERG22+.
Prevent is falsely being masked around the language of ‘safeguarding’:
- Safeguarding experts and social workers have criticised the Prevent duty stating it is not the role of social workers to do the police’s work, and that the 2-hour Prevent training is inadequate and flawed.
- We know social workers have become involved in families due to alleged ‘radicalisation’ concerns, but have based assessments mainly on families religiosity and Islamophobic judgments rather than any genuine concerns over children’s welfare.
- Existing safeguarding policies adequate to deal with genuine safeguarding concerns
- Prevent is not safeguarding but an abuse of existing safeguarding policies and children’s welfare
- Criticism has been made by professionals in the field of safeguarding, including social workers, about blurring the lines between social work and that of counter terrorism and policing, what is your response to this?
- Why are existing (safeguarding) policies not adequate to deal with any genuine concerns?
- Through out the course of assessments made by social workers, families are viewed through a securitised lens. How would you respond to criticism that social workers basing their assessments on families religiosity rather than any genuine concerns around welfare of children?
Prevent is described as being voluntary yet evidence shows that coercive tactics are being used in implementing Prevent
- Individuals are often not informed that Prevent is voluntary and feel that they have no choice but to engage with Prevent
- Simon Cole has said that Prevent is ‘voluntary’ but if individuals do not cooperate with Prevent, this will make the police suspicious and they may initiate the Pursue strand of Contest (UK’s counter terrorism strategy).
Prevent criticism is consistently dismissed by Prevent leads and practitioners as ‘myths’, even with a number of cases showing that the policy is flawed and Islamophobic. Two cases they often highlight are ‘Terrorist House‘ case and ‘Cucumber‘ case – both are detailed on our website and we recommend you read and judge for yourself.
Prevent Watch for example has documented over 400 cases of individuals impacted by Prevent, with the youngest cases being 3 years old.
Many people have spoken out against Prevent:
- National Union of Teachers are among those highly critical of Prevent citing impact Prevent has had on free and open debates in schools and impact on teacher –student relationships, and causing Muslim students to fear expressing their opinions and openly practicing their religion
- Maina Kiai, former UN special rapporteur on freedom of assembly, has stated that ‘’by targeting and alienating segments of population, Prevent could end up promoting extremism’’