The People’s Review of Prevent is an alternative review to the Government Shawcross Review.
This review provides a voice to the people most impacted by the Prevent Duty.
Prevent is described as ‘safeguarding’ children from harms. However, under Prevent, safeguarding is focused on protecting the wider public from children believed to be ‘risky’, rather than protecting children from harms.
Throughout our report we present case studies that show how real these harms can be and the distress they cause to children and their families and carers.
Home Secretary Suella Braverman has told the British parliament that a controversial commentator accused of a “record of hate” against Muslims holds “mainstream, insightful and perfectly decent political views”.
The UK is facing a “slide into dangerous authoritarianism” if the government proceeds with the recommendations of a contentious review of Prevent, critics of the strategy have warned. In a joint letter issued on Tuesday, a coalition of civil society organisations including Amnesty International, Liberty, and a wide range of Muslim community groups called for the withdrawal of the review, which Suella Braverman, the home secretary, has already pledged to implement in full. William Shawcross’s review, published last month after years of delays, called for Prevent to prioritise the threat from Islamist extremism over far-right extremism, and said that confronting Islamist narratives should be a “principal component of Prevent activity”. Shawcross accused some critics of Prevent of themselves being “radicalising influences”, and suggested there was a “concerted campaign… to undermine and delegitimise” the programme. They said: “Despite raising legitimate evidence-based concerns, critics of Prevent have been ignored and smeared. One
In the wake of the Knowsley riot, this article argues that the Shawcross review supported by Suella Braverman, has given permission to the far right.
The William Shawcross review of Prevent has prompted Muslim organisations to call for the controversial strategy to be scrapped.
No 10 has refused to say if its review of the Prevent strategy will be redacted, amid reports it has been delayed by a row between Michael Gove and the Home Office over whether to reveal the names of suspected “Islamist” extremists. The Prevent review was handed over to the Home Office by William Shawcross, a former head of the Charity Commission, in the summer. Draft extracts leaked to the Guardian in May revealed it controversially argued the government has been too focused on rightwing extremism and should now crack down on Islamist extremism. However, it has not been published yet. According to the Times, Whitehall sources said Gove was increasingly trying to get involved because of his joint responsibility for Prevent’s operation on the ground. Asked when the review would be published, Rishi Sunak’s spokesperson said it was “right to take time to prepare and deliver a considered response”.
Nearly four years have passed since the British government announced a review of the Prevent strategy. The review has turned into a shambles, writes Peter Oborne.
Authorities are quick to label terrorist attacks as such. But why did they take so long to call the bombing of an immigration processing building a terrorist attack when the perpetrators hateful views had been broadcast online? And why have the UK prime minister and home secretary so far not said a word about this when it is the role of the authorities to condemn terrorist attacks? An editorial in The Muslim News highlights how counter terrorism police delayed classifying the October firebombing of the Western Jet Foil immigration processing centre in Dover as a terrorist incident despite being called in to lead the investigation. Moreover, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak declined to comment, as did the newly reinstated Home Secretary, Suella Braverman. They have been deathly silent ever since. The terrorist attack targeting immigrants occurred at a time when Braverman had provocatively described illegal immigration as an out-of-control invasion. Braverman
Pro-Prevent lobby groups are currently arguing that the focus of Prevent should be redirected toward Islamism and away from the far-right, but is this just an excuse to play down their far-right agenda? The argument that Prevent is ‘failing’ and that it needs to refocus on so-called ‘Islamist extremism’ should be viewed in light of the ostensible justification of the ‘British values’ underlying Prevent. When ‘British values’ are linked to ‘national security’ The need to teach ‘British values’ as conceived by the government, frames the implementation of the Prevent pre-crime programme in schools. These values – on paper – are democracy, rule of law, individual liberty, mutual respect and tolerance of different religious faiths and beliefs. Their designation as ‘British’ is, of course, problematic. It implies that these ‘British values’ must be inculcated in ethnic minority citizens, yet we have seen that the claim is that most British Muslims share
Suella Braverman is under pressure to answer fresh questions about alleged “security breaches”, as a former head of parliament’s intelligence and security committee warned the row threatened to undermine officials’ confidence in sharing sensitive information with her. Government insiders and a senior Conservative MP have challenged the account given by the home secretary and backed up by the prime minister, Rishi Sunak, saying that Braverman only owned up to it when she was confronted with the evidence, and not the other way around, as claimed by Sunak. Source: Doubts arise over Braverman’s claim to have come forward about code breach | Suella Braverman | The Guardian
Home Secretary Suella Braverman says the new Public Order Bill being put to MPs this week will stop demonstrators holding the public “to ransom”. But activists said they would not be intimidated by law changes aimed at “silencing non-violent people”. More than 350 Just Stop Oil protesters – demanding halts to all new oil and gas licences and consents – have been arrested in London since the start of October, according to Home Office figures. The new legislation – which will be put to MPs next week – will also see jail sentences of up to six months or unlimited fines for protesters accused of “locking-on” to people, objects or buildings. It would create a new criminal offence of interfering with infrastructure, which would carry sentences of up to 12 months in prison. In addition, police will be given new powers to take a more “proactive” approach to some protests.
