'Prevent' - UK government anti-terrorism strategy 'spies' on innocent Muslims

[Al-khiyal]

Stronger together:
A new approach to preventing violent extremism

August 10, 2009 -- The Government’s flagship scheme on tackling extremism is alienating Muslim communities and should be scrapped according to a new report. The New Local Government Network (NLGN) think tank is calling for the £45 million scheme to focus on tackling all extremism – including far-right extremists – rather than just focusing on Islamic extremism. The Government set up the Prevent scheme in 2006 to help local councils to tackle violent extremism at a local level. Currently 94 local authorities receive funding from the scheme. NLGN’s independent report argues that whilst the scheme has helped in some areas, overall it risks alienating some local communities and particularly Muslim communities. The report calls for the Government to allocate resources to tackle all extremist ideologies, arguing that the recent increase in far-right extremism is as much of as a challenge for local communities as Islamic extremism. In July this year Scotland Yard warned that far-right extremists are planning a “spectacular” terrorist attack in Britain to try to stoke racial tensions and that more resources need to be targeted to tackle this form of extremism. It also calls for reform of the Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC) to allow an expert on ‘home-grown’ terrorism to sit on the Committee. It suggests that the Communities and Local Government department should have a permanent seat on the JIC alongside the seven other government departments on the Committee and that experienced local authority Chief Executives should be consulted when assessing potential security risks. Author of the report, Anna Turley argues that reform of Prevent is vital to rebuilding confidence within local communities:

“While Islamist extremism remains a very serious threat to our security, this kind of extremism is not the only threat to the stability and security of our communities. Prevent is too prescriptive from the centre, undermines broader community cohesion objectives and lacks sufficient integration with police and security services at local and national level. Concern has also been acknowledged over the agenda’s impact on relations with Muslim communities and whether it unfairly stigmatises an entire community. While it is too early to assess the success of the Prevent agenda in terms of outcomes, the lack of support from within the Muslim community, as well as the changing threat of wider extremist voices mean that it is time to review whether the separation of the Preventing Violent Extremism approach from wider community cohesion approaches is still relevant.”

***



Stronger together:
A new approach to preventing violent extremism

(.pdf file)

[Al-khiyal]

Prevent strategy structurally flawed

August 28, 2009 -- Any acknowledgement of the Government’s ill-conceived Prevent strategy being fatally flawed is to be welcomed. Recognition is the first pre-requisite to scrap the flagship programme that effectively stereotypes the whole of the Muslim community as potential terrorists. New Communities Secretary, John Denham, said he wanted a fresh start in the Government’s relationship with Muslims. He said that it had “never been” any intention to define relations with Muslims through the prism of terrorism. But Denham’s pledge seems to be limited to addressing all forms of extremism rather than the current policy of singling out only Muslims. It coincides with the publication of a report by the New Local Government Network (NLGN), calling for the Prevent strategy to be reassessed because it was alienating the country’s two million Muslims. The NLGN, an independent think-tank founded by senior local government figures in 1996, warned that the multi-million pound programme undermined broader community cohesion objectives by focusing only on Muslims. “Prevent is too prescriptive from the centre, undermines broader community cohesion objectives and lacks sufficient integration with police and security services at local and national level,” said the report’s author, Anna Turley.

A reassessment to include the rising threat from extreme right-wing groups is long overdue but it misses the essential point in that it fails to tackle the underlying causes. In addition, NLGN supports the general Government policy of targeting the whole Muslim community rather that just violent extremists as it suggest for white extremists. The issue that NLGN does not understand is that one cannot consider the whole community as a group of potential terrorists. Furthermore, it fails to specifically highlight our misguided foreign policy, which is radicalising many young people. Some £90 million is being spent in creating and funding new and unrepresentative Muslim groups of the Government’s liking. No change is being made in the structurally-flawed strategy, which only generates more divisions by ignoring grassroots organisations. The Muslim Council of Britain, an umbrella organisation of over 500 organisations, has warned that the policy placed Muslims “at the mercy of a handful of cynical ideologues that have appeared out of nowhere, but are now the benefactors of a massive stimulus package to the ‘Prevent economy’.” The dangerous result has been to stigmatise all Muslims through the narrow focus of security. Prevent has been one of the Government’s key pillars in counter-terrorism strategy since 2006, but like other misguided initiatives, it needs to be dismantled not just changed in tone. Pledges have been made to adjust the singling out of Muslims in police stops and searches, but even children under the age of 10 are being targeted. With time running out before the next general election, the Government unfortunately appears to be missing another opportunity to redress many of the mistakes in its counter-terrorism strategy that have wreaked so much damage on community relations.

[Al-khiyal]

Government anti-terrorism strategy 'spies' on innocent

October 16, 2009 -- The government programme aimed at preventing Muslims from being lured into violent extremism is being used to gather intelligence about innocent people who are not suspected of involvement in terrorism, the Guardian has learned. The information the authorities are trying to find out includes political and religious views, information on mental health, sexual activity and associates, and other sensitive information, according to documents seen by the Guardian. Other documents reveal that the intelligence and information can be stored until the people concerned reach the age of 100.

Tonight Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty, branded it the biggest spying programme in Britain in modern times and an affront to civil liberties. The intelligence is being gathered as part of the strategy Preventing Violent Extremism – Prevent for short. It was launched three years ago to stop people being lured to al-Qaida ideology and committing acts of terrorism. The government and police have repeatedly denied that the £140 million programme is a cover for spying on Muslims in Britain. But sources directly involved in running Prevent schemes say it involves gathering intelligence about the thoughts and beliefs of Muslims who are not involved in criminal activity.

Instances around the country include:

• In the Midlands, funding for a mental health project to help Muslims was linked to information about individuals being passed to the authorities.

• In a college in northern England, a student who attended a meeting about Gaza was reported by one lecturer as a potential extremist. He was found not to be.

• A nine-year-old schoolboy in east London, who was referred to the authorities after allegedly showing signs of extremism – the youngest case known in Britain. He was "deprogrammed" according to a source with knowledge of the case.

• Within the last month, one new youth project in London alleged it was being pressured by the Metropolitan police to provide names and details of Muslim youngsters, as a condition of funding. None of the young Muslims have any known terrorist history.

• In one London borough, those working with youngsters were told to add information to databases they hold to highlight which youths were Muslim. They were also asked to provide information, to be shared with the police, about which streets and areas Muslim youngsters could be found on.

• In Birmingham the programme manager for Prevent is in fact a senior counter- terrorism police officer. Paul Marriott has been seconded to work in the equalities division of Britain's biggest council.

• In Blackburn, at least 80 people were reported to the authorities for showing signs of extremism. They were referred to the Channel project, part of Prevent.

• A youth project manager alleges his refusal to provide intelligence led to the police spreading false rumours and trying to smear him and his organisation.

• One manager of a project in London said : "I think part of the point of the [Prevent] programme is to spy and intelligence gather. I won't do that." In another London borough wardens on council estates were told to inform on people not whom they suspected of crimes, but whom they suspected could be susceptible to radicalisation. One source, who has been involved in Whitehall discussions on counter-terrorism, said: "There is no doubt Prevent is in part about gathering intelligence on people's thoughts and beliefs. No doubt." He added that the authorities feared "they'd be lynched" if they admitted Prevent included spying.

Ed Husain, of the Quilliam Foundation, who has advised both Labour and the Conservatives on extremism, said: "It is gathering intelligence on people not committing terrorist offences." Husain, whose group receives £700,000 in Prevent funding, believes it is morally right to give law enforcement agencies the best chance of stopping terrorists before they strike.

Serious concerns that the Prevent programme is being used at least in part to "spy" on Muslims have been voiced not just by Islamic groups, but youth workers, teachers and others. Some involved in the programme have told the Guardian of their fears that they are being co-opted into spying. They did not want to be named, fearing they would lose their job. Some groups have refused its funding. In several areas the provision of funding is explicitly linked to agreeing to sharing of information, or intelligence, with agencies including law enforcement.

Traditionally in Britain intelligence is gathered by the police and security services. Prevent is trying to turn community, religious and voluntary groups into information or intelligence providers. Prevent is run by the Office for Security and Counter Terrorism, part of the Home Office. It is widely regarded in Whitehall as being an intelligence agency. The OSCT is headed up by Charles Farr, a former senior intelligence officer, with expertise in covert work. Also senior in the OSCT is another former senior intelligence officer. The Guardian has been asked not to name him for security reasons.

Chakrabarti said she was horrified by the revelations. "It is the biggest domestic spying programme targeting the thoughts and beliefs of the innocent in Britain in modern times," she said. "It is information-gathering directed at the innocent and the spying is directed at people because of their religion, and not because of their behaviour."

The Home Office said: "Any suggestion that Prevent is about spying is simply wrong. Prevent is about working with communities to protect vulnerable individuals and address the root causes of radicalisation."

[Al-khiyal]

Communities fear project to counter extremism is not what it seems

October 16, 2009 -- The public face of the Prevent programme has included a talking lion teaching schoolchildren how to spot a terrorist and even puppets taking to the streets to push the message about countering extremism. The official publicity talks of building community resilience against terrorist extremism, and other phrases few would disagree with. But there has been a growing suspicion among British Muslim communities that Prevent was not all that it seemed. The programme saw money going to councils with the largest Muslim populations, with the aim of defeating Islamist violent extremism. The government and police wanted information from teachers and lecturers and others including those in the voluntary sector about terrorist activity. Few would argue with passing on suspicions about terrorist activity. As one imam who receives funding from Prevent for a project said: "It would be a religious duty to inform." Youth workers who are being asked to inform on youngsters they work with also said they were under an existing legal and ethical duty to report any suspicions that their clients are involved in terrorism.

The issue with Prevent is the gathering of highly sensitive information about named individuals when they are not suspected of involvement in crime. As part of Prevent, councils have drawn up information sharing agreements (ISA) which state what data about individuals the groups they fund will share with police. The Guardian has obtained the agreement drawn up by Islington council in north London and the Metropolitan police. The ISA from Waltham Forest in east London was released under freedom of information legislation. Both reveal that the data or intelligence that can be shared is of the most sensitive kind and about named individuals. The ISA from Islington is the most explicit about the information to be shared: "Personal data; data which relates to a living individual who can be identified from that data …" It goes on: "Sensitive personal data; personal data which consists of information concerning racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious or other similar beliefs, physical/mental health or conditions, sexual life, alleged or committed offences, proceedings …" The types of information to be gathered are repeated later, but this time it is spelt out that they include whether the youth suffered abuse, and "lifestyle, family and associates". In case that is not enough, it says: "Any other information as required." The document states this information will be shared "without the explicit consent" of the individual. It does state it must be secured and marked as "restricted". It can also be shared across the European Union. Those supposed to sign up are the police, youth services and community groups working with Arab and Muslim groups in the borough, as well as a local mosque.

The ISA for Waltham Forest, again drawn up with the Met, states the information must be held until the person is aged 100. According to the document: "If a community intervention is required to prevent a crime then personal information processed in this regard is done so as a matter of public protection … information relating to public protection must be retained until such time as the subject is deemed to have reached 100 years of age … the minimum review period for this information is every 10 years." Waltham Forest's Prevent action plan for 2009-10, prepared after government advice, states all young people should have their behaviour screened. They and those deemed to be vulnerable to radicalisation are deemed to be suitable for a "targeted approach" and "an assessment of behaviour changes".

One source with close knowledge of British counter-terrorism said the programme was mixed: "There is good Prevent and there is bad Prevent." A government document prepared in the summer for an international conference in Finland about combating terrorism explicitly states that the security services are involved in the programme. Listing those involved in Prevent, it lists the Department for Communities and Local Government, the Home Office, the Foreign Office, and the intelligence agencies. Those it wants involved in providing information include local crime reduction partnerships, councils, schools, further education, universities, the UK Border Agency, youth offending teams, the probation service, the health sector, the third or voluntary sector, and the community sector. Prevent currently operates in 82 local councils, rising to 94 by next year.

A report out this weekend from the Institute for Race Relations also alleges Prevent is being used in part to gather intelligence. In its research it held talks in Bradford with managers of Muslim voluntary sector organisations and workers in local authorities. Arun Kundnani, from the IRR, said there was widespread distrust of the Prevent programme, and said: "Many were concerned the programme provided an opportunity for the police to embed intelligence gathering into the delivery of local services, such as youth work. Many spoke about the difficulties they had faced when they raised their concerns – some had found they became the target of smear campaigns. A significant number of participants, who had previously worked on the Prevent programme, had decided that they no longer wanted anything to do with it – even if it meant substantial loss of funding for their organisation."

The details about Prevent revealed today will stoke the worst fears in Britain's Muslim communities that they are suspects merely because of the God to whom they pray. Sharhabeel Lone, a community worker in Camden, north London, and a member of the borough's community safety partnership, said: "This is not based on suspicious criminal activity but on religious affiliation." One source with knowledge of Prevent, who is broadly a supporter, told of how certain Muslim groups were informing on other groups they dislike. The source told how one northern council was repeatedly told that one sect was extremist and eventually withdrew its funding.

Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty, said: "The worst aspect of this scandalous policy is the attempt to turn teacher against pupil, and neighbour against neighbour. As other European countries learned in the last century, when the state destroys relationships of trust between ordinary people the result is the very opposite of the democratic values that this agenda claims to promote. It's a recipe for denunciation by one group or neighbour against another and a great deal of injustice."

[Al-khiyal]

Video:
Reactions to Prevent programme spying on British Muslims

[Al-khiyal]

Spying morally right, says thinktank

October 16, 2009 --The government should be spying on Muslims even if they are not suspected of committing crimes, in order to hunt down terrorists before they strike, the head of an anti-extremist thinktank has said. Ed Husain, of the Quilliam Foundation, said it was the morally right thing to do, and that waiting until people had fallen prey to extremism and were drawn into terrorism was too late. The foundation received £700,000 from the government for its counterterrorism work as part of a strategy called Prevent. That included £400,000 from the Office for Security and Counterterrorism, which finances projects trying to counter extremism on UK campuses and monitoring websites that appear to endorse Islamist violence. Husain said of Prevent: "It is gathering intelligence on people not committing terrorist offences. If it is to prevent people getting killed and committing terrorism, it is good and it is right." Prevent was created to increase the security services' knowledge of extremism in Britain, he said. "If those thoughts and beliefs are linked to killing people in a democracy, the state is the only actor in a democracy that can prevent violence. "It would be morally wrong of a taxpayer-funded programme designed to prevent terrorism if it was not designed to gather intelligence in order to stop that terrorism from happening. The alternative is to let the buggers do what they wish, until they appear on the violence radar, which is too late. If you are in the business of counterterrorism, you must want your intelligence services to know what is going on." The balance between liberty and security is an issue Britain has grappled with since London was bombed by al-Qaida-inspired terrorists on 7 July 2005, resulting in the deaths of 52 people and 750 injuries. Husain said gathering intelligence outweighed civil liberty concerns that prying into the political and religious beliefs of people was a dangerous move towards a police state: "That's the name of the game. It's not about doing the right thing by Islamists or by liberal do-gooders, it's about creating a society where liberal do-gooders survive freely."

The government has made repeated attempts to get people who are not police or intelligence officers to inform on those they feel are suspicious. Ministers wanted lecturers and university staff to inform on suspect students, fearing that campuses had become fertile recruiting grounds for extremists. Their plans were leaked to the Guardian in 2006, creating a backlash that forced the government to back down. Today's revelations about Prevent comes amid a debate about how to tackle terrorism. After the July 2005 attacks on London, there was little intelligence about threats posed by al-Qaida-inspired terrorists or about British Muslim communities. The MI5 security service had never really believed that an attack by British-born suicide bombers was likely. The focus turned to hunting down terrorists, but now the debate focuses on whether any Islamist extremism, even behaviour falling well short of advocating violence, must be tackled. The Conservatives are seriously considering adopting a new policy called Preventing Extremism. Among those who would be considered extreme under those plans are those who advocate a caliphate, a pan-Islamic state encompassing many countries; those promoting Sharia law; and those who believe in jihad, or armed resistance, anywhere in the world. This would include armed resistance by Palestinians against the Israeli military and those who fail to condemn the killing of British soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan.

[Al-khiyal]

Surveillance of Muslims:
The lives of the other

October 17, 2009 -- The implementation of the Prevent strategy might make perfect sense from the perspective of a Whitehall desk. Properly mindful of the small but real band of would-be Islamist terrorists, bureaucrats feel obliged to do whatever it takes to reach into a community with which they have precious little connection. Officials may be dimly aware that British Muslims are poorer, sicker and less well-housed than their compatriots, but the pressing need to avoid blood on the streets in a repeat of 7/7 always seems rather more urgent than worrying about any of that. Our revelations today – concerning, among other things, the "deprogramming" of a nine-year-old boy and the bankrolling of community projects where staff agree to snoop – might thus be met in SW1 by a world-weary shrug of the shoulders. Surveillance, it will be said, is nasty but necessary, an essentially shady business which is never going to look attractive when thrust into the cold light of day.

Recall, however, that colonialism also once made perfect sense from the vantage point of Whitehall. Dividing, ruling and all the rest of it seemed the most effective way to rescue non-western minds from barbarism. It hardly needs saying that it would be incredibly dangerous if innocent Muslims were to come to believe that comparable tricks were now being deployed against them, whether through the recruitment of agents or overt spying operations. Yet when, as we report, the authorities are actively seeking information on sexual activities, this must surely be a risk. What use could such data have apart from blackmail? How is news of its collection to be explained, other than in terms of a desire to dominate?

The government is not made up of Islamophobes or swivel-eyed imperialists. The instructions to youth workers to pry, and the reporting of students concerned about Gaza, is the dirty water that results when the pure mountain spring of concern for public safety flows into the grimy town of real life. Distant, ignorant and understandably anxious about terror, the authorities make a panicked grab for information without stopping to think about whether the tactical advantage is outweighed by the strategic damage done by garnering it so sneakily. But that damage is likely to prove very important indeed. When, for instance, word gets out – as it inevitably will in the end – that a social project is providing surveillance, many of its users will walk away, undermining its ability to strengthen community ties and eroding its power to address poverty. Likewise, blundering attempts to identify potential jihadis by placing peaceable Muslims on an ideological spectrum – on the basis of daydreams about caliphates, enthusiasm for sharia law or hostility to Britain's foreign entanglements – not only requires unacceptable snooping but also emphasises the manifold differences that divide the Islamic and secular mainstreams.

In recent years general concerns about privacy in Britain have been greatly inflamed by the disappearance of personal data and great rows over planned mega-databases. The public increasingly perceives information collected for official convenience as a malign intrusion. And fears of recreating The Lives of Others are all the greater when the others in question are also "the other" in cultural terms. Muslims read every day about western fighting in Muslim lands. This week they heard MI5's director trot out a less-than-reassuring reassurance on torture of mostly-Muslim terror suspects, and this morning they read that the foreign secretary has been covering up what the government knew in one such case. Already angered by the sense that the ordinary rules no longer protect them as they do everyone else, many more followers of Islam may be tempted to succumb to militant rage if they feel they have been singled out for special snooping. Surveillance aimed at gauging the extent of a problem could end up making it very much worse.