These are the main points of the Prevent Watch submission to the UN to withdraw Prevent from education and health, via the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD).
You can download our full final submission to the UN CERD here.
The Prevent Duty has been explicitly criticised by the UN CERD since 2016. The Committee has called for its “reassessment”.
In addition, several UN Special Rapporteurs have raised concerns about the discriminatory nature of Prevent.
Despite these clear concerns and recommendations, the UK has failed to commit to the CERD’s guidance or any UN recommendations on Prevent, and the strategy continues to violate several Articles.
Article 2: State Obligations to Eliminate Racial Discrimination
Under Article 2(1), state parties undertake to engage in no act or practice of racial discrimination and to ensure that all public authorities and institutions do likewise.
Prevent’s existence as a legal duty in the education and health sectors mean that all public authority staff must undergo Prevent training.
Prevent Watch has documented more than ten cases where public authority employees have raised concerns about undergoing Prevent training due to its discriminatory action.
In each case, their employer has indicated that failure to perform the Prevent training would lead to disciplinary action.
Prevent obliges public authorities to participate in activities that perpetuate racial and religious discrimination, in direct violation of Article 2(1).
Read our case: Youth worker reveals Prevent training that links immigrants, neuro-diverse people, BLM and PSC activists and Muslims as “extremism risks”.
Article 5: Rights to Equality and Non-Discrimination
Article 5(d)(vii) guarantees the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion, while Article 5(e) addresses economic, social, and cultural rights.
Prevent casts a wide variety of expressions of thought and conscience as “extreme”. When these are expressed by Muslims, people of other religion, or people of colour, it is much more likely that will be referred to Prevent because indicators of extremism include religious beliefs.
In a diverse society, the result of this is what we call the “Prevent environment”, a wider space of general fear and self-censorship, which includes the inhibition of religious practice and expression, and the fostering of feelings of “otherness” and alienation among targeted groups and cultures.
The systematic targeting and suppression of religious and political beliefs directly contravene the fundamental freedoms protected under Article 5(d)(vii). The current primary tool of this targeting in the UK is the Prevent duty.
Article 5(e) addresses economic, social, and cultural rights
Since it is lodged within public services, Prevent has impacted targeted groups’ access to these services, most notably to education and healthcare where it is actively disrupting the treatment and care that are their core function.
At the same time as being counter terrorism, Prevent is also categorised as safeguarding – where for both to be effective, safeguarding and security should never be combined.
In education, Prevent’s data collection and retention practices have led to individuals being barred from attending college, even when their Prevent referral was deemed unnecessary.
In healthcare, the conflation of mental health issues with potential “extremism” not only stigmatises those seeking mental health support, but it destroys trust necessary for care.
In 2021, MedAct exposed the existence of counterterrorism mental health projects in the NHS called Vulnerability Support Hubs. These have evolved into the Counter Terrorism Consultancy Services.
The fear of being referred to Prevent has led some individuals to avoid seeking timely healthcare, so Prevent is exacerbating existing health disparities.
Article 6: Protection and Remedies Against Racial Discrimination
Article 6 mandates State Parties to assure effective protection and remedies against any acts of racial discrimination.
The lack of transparency and accountability in the implementation of Prevent means that those who are unfairly targeted have little recourse to challenge the assumptions facing them.
This is because Prevent is not regulated by any laws pertaining to it directly. It also has no accountability mechanism.
There is a new Statutory Compliance Unit (SCU), but this is to take complaints regarding those who do not implement Prevent, not complaints by those who are unjustly targeted.
This leaves targeted individuals vulnerable, especially in cases of families in a context where Prevent is used and invoked by social services within the threat of child removal.
As a result of recent recommendations by the independent reviewer of Prevent, there is also insufficient public oversight of Prevent.
And although Prevent is part of the UK Counter Terrorism Strategy, it is uniquely outside of the Independent Reviewer for Counter Terrorism legislation’s remit.
Instead, Prevent is currently administered by the Home Office, in consultation with a single unelected individual, Robin Simcox, who is known for his anti-Muslim prejudice and links to “far-right” groups.
Prevent uses multiple agencies who all work in a “pre-criminal” space. The existence of punishments and threats via Prevent has widened this space, eroding due process.
The most serious example of this is that when implementing Prevent, police may circumvent safeguards which would otherwise protect children from abuse and rights breaches.
Article 7: Measures in Education to Combat Prejudices
Article 7 calls for State Parties to adopt measures in education to combat prejudices leading to racial discrimination.
Within educational institutions, Prevent directly contradicts Article 7 of the ICERD as it promotes a culture of surveillance, whereby educators are expected to monitor students.
The emphasis on data collection and thus surveillance undermines the principles of understanding, tolerance, and friendship that Article 7 seeks to promote.
Instead Prevent fosters suspicion among students and between students and teachers. This is counterproductive to the educational goals of combating prejudice and promoting harmony.
Schools and nurseries are evaluated, and thus publicly ranked, by the Office for Standards in Education (Ofsted). Ofsted assesses their adherence to the Prevent duty, and schools have been downgraded for not doing so, as “failures” in safeguarding – this is alarming for parents.
Children who are neurodivergent are also viewed as a “risk” under Prevent. There is thus a clear discrimination against disabilities.
Conclusion and Recommendations
In sum, the Prevent strategy, through its disproportionate targeting, lack of effective remedies, and promotion of a prejudiced surveillance culture, violates Articles 2, 5, 6, and 7 of ICERD.
It fails to:
- eliminate racial discrimination
- protect individuals’ rights
- provide effective remedies, and
- promote educational measures to combat prejudice.
We urge the Committee to recommend the UK government:
- withdraw the Prevent strategy from the sectors of education and health
- repair the damage caused to individuals over the past ten years in these sectors as a direct result of the exercise of Prevent.
Read our full submission here.
