The government’s controversial counter-extremism strategy – Prevent – should focus more on “Islamism” than far-right extremism, a new government report has recommended.
The long-awaited review of Prevent, by the right-wing William Shawcross, was released earlier today and its recommendations will be accepted in full by the government.
In his forward to the report, Shawcross says: “Prevent must return to its core mission – countering all those ideologies that can lead people to committing or supporting acts of terrorism. This can only be done if Prevent properly understands the nature of these ideologies and how they attract and suborn individuals.
“It is correct for Prevent to be increasingly concerned about the growing threat from the Extreme Right. But the facts clearly demonstrate that the most lethal threat in the last 20 years has come from Islamism, and this threat continues…
“Prevent must address all extremist ideologies proportionately according to the threat each represents. However, my research shows that the present boundaries around what is termed by Prevent as extremist Islamist ideology are drawn too narrowly while the boundaries around the ideology of the Extreme Right-Wing are too broad. This does not allow Prevent to reflect accurately, and deal effectively with, the lethal risks we actually face.”
Shawcross went onto say that the authorities must tackle “non-violent Islamist extremism” that produces an environment that is conducive to terrorism.
“Prevent is not doing enough to counter non-violent Islamist extremism. Challenging extremist ideology should not be limited to proscribed organisations but should also cover domestic extremists operating below the terrorism threshold who can create an environment conducive to terrorism.
Subscribe to our newsletter and stay updated on the latest news and updates from around the Muslim world!
“Prevent has a double standard when dealing with the Extreme Right-Wing and Islamism. Prevent takes an expansive approach to the Extreme Right-Wing, capturing a variety of influences that, at times, has been so broad it has included mildly controversial or provocative forms of mainstream, right-wing leaning commentary that have no meaningful connection to terrorism or radicalisation.
“However, with Islamism, Prevent tends to take a much narrower approach centred around proscribed organisations, ignoring the contribution of non-violent Islamist narratives and networks to terrorism. Prevent must ensure a consistent and evidence-based approach to setting its threshold and criteria, and ensure it does not overlook key non-violent radicalising influences.”
He also takes aims at the critics of Prevent.
“Other democracies have programmes similar to Prevent. But rarely are these subjected to the same critical attack as is Prevent in Britain. One of the most constant and strident accusations is that Prevent unfairly targets Muslims living here. This is simply not the case.
“Islamism as an ideology is not the same as Islam as a faith. In many parts of the world, Muslims are the principal victims of Islamist extremism – in both its non-violent and violent manifestations. Millions have been killed or had their lives ruined by the attacks of terrorist groups like al-Qa’ida, Islamic State, Boko Haram, and others. It is not anti-Muslim to try to prevent the spread of that brutal ideology in Britain or to stop our country’s Muslim children being lured online into the hell of Islamist wars in Syria and elsewhere.
“In conducting this Review, I have seen at first hand the essential work carried out every day by police, health workers, local authority and social services staff, teachers and prison officers across the country. It is they who take the onerous responsibility of raising concerns when they fear that individuals are at risk of being radicalised by dangerous ideologies – and then undertake the difficult work of supporting their withdrawal from extremist paths.
“This is unsung and often dangerous work which should be praised. Instead, these men and women are too often abused by some bad faith actors who seek to undermine Prevent through distortions and disinformation. Such harassment is wholly unacceptable.
“Prevent’s frontline professionals must be much more clearly supported and empowered. Government, and other institutions, ought at the highest levels to express pride in Prevent, while always seeking to improve it.”
Muslim reaction
On the other hand, advocacy group CAGE, which was negatively mentioned several times in the report, said the Shawcross review proposes a renewed hardline approach to bolster an infrastructure of authoritarian laws; an approach underpinned by exploiting anti-Muslim prejudices.
“The ‘reset’ of the Prevent Strategy is an admission of its failure; a vindication of CAGE and other critics at the forefront of highlighting the policy’s inherently flawed and bigoted nature,” CAGE said.
“The Shawcross Review is the work of right-wing Islamophobic lobbies within the state. Such interest groups espouse a well-documented commentary of anti-Muslim prejudice, pro-torture and the securitisation of Muslim communities across the UK. Consequently the Review fails to meet basic standards of impartiality, balance and fairness. The Review avoids any analysis of lessons learned, but instead focuses on the artificial case for more surveillance and policing. It is no surprise therefore that critics are labelled as ‘extreme’, in order to blacklist them to deflect attention from valid criticism.
“William Shawcross is now targeting groups he failed to disrupt during his tenure at the Charity Commission… His Islamophobic views and links to right-wing think tanks Henry Jackson Society and Policy Exchange are well known as is his personal vendetta against CAGE…
“There must be an immediate withdrawal of Prevent from the public sector, as it is now clear that an intrusive surveillance role is for MI5 and the police, and should never have been imposed on mainstream public officials.”
Anas Mustapha, CAGE’s Head of Public Advocacy added: “CAGE has worked tirelessly to reveal the acute dangers of the Prevent Strategy and how it is used by the government as a tool to securitise Britain’s communities, stoke a climate of suspicion and fear, and expand the surveillance state. In light of this, CAGE calls for the abolishment of the Prevent strategy in its entirety…
“CAGE has produced an eight-step framework towards building a healthy, safe society without Prevent. This is only possible with the repeal of counter-terrorism laws, an ethical overhaul of British foreign policy, an end to austerity and the decoupling of public service from counter-terrorism entirely.”
