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.
This forward-looking report by the Transnational Institute offers an account of the failures of current counter-terrorism policies, an analysis of the reasons why they fail, and “a progressive alternative”.
This article is a response to Muslim students reporting that they had been silenced by fear of the PREVENT Counter-Terrorism Strategy. By adopting a Critical Realist stance, real generative mechanisms of this actual phenomenon are investigated and theorised. Recognition of changing definitions of both ‘radicalisation’ and ‘extremism’ in different versions of PREVENT results in the discursive aspect of these real generative mechanisms being investigated using critical discourse analysis (CDA). This analysis identifies the emergence of a violent discourse of ‘radicalisation’ and ‘extremism’ (RadEx) that it is theorised has the capacity to promote rather than prevent violence. Finally, a process by which this production of violence in the classroom might have been avoided is explored and this indicates that critique of government efforts to counter ‘radicalisation’ and ‘extremism’ is a vital aspect of pedagogy in the context of PREVENT and the War on Terror. Read more
The rise of the far-right and white supremacy pre-dates the War on Terror. The lack of focus on this threat stems from an inherent legal-architectural design flaw, which has been in place since 9/11. Consequently, the global response to political violence perpetrated by non-Muslims is not handled through the legal framework of the “War of Terror.” The reason has been clear for nearly two decades: Terrorism was not seen as a white problem. The rationale for such a position lays in the adoption and dissemination of orientalist ideology by power structures in Western countries. This ideology cascaded down to the masses worldwide via the mobilisation of media bias, which demonised certain ethnic groups and played upon fears of the ‘other’. The attacks in Christchurch, New Zealand, demonstrate that white supremacy terrorism is here to stay. Read more
Hours after the horrific terror attacks in New Zealand, which killed 50 people and left many others in critical condition, Muslim commentators were providing their analysis of what led to such a brutal massacre against Muslim men, women, and children, in what was supposed to be a place of sanctuary. A vast majority did not mention the War on Terror. Unfortunately, much of what has been said has been half-baked, playing into existing liberal tendencies to solely focus on the dangers of “far-right extremism”, “white supremacy”, neo-Nazis, and Islamophobic rhetoric by politicians. Read more
London – CAGE is wary of attempts to define Islamophobia that stop short of facing up to the real issues. Discussions around defining Islamophobia have so far failed to acknowledge the significant role of policies like PREVENT and Schedule 7 which are primarily targeted at Muslims and have resulted in institutionalised Islamophobia – and the crucial need to do away with these policies if we are to move forward. Read more
