A People-Led Review of the United Kingdom's Prevent Captures Its Abuse of Children
The People's Review of Prevent sheds light on how nefarious the United Kingdom's "countering extremism" policy really is.
š Monthly Round-Up
Prevent: We Need to Listen to Those Harmed by UK Counter-Extremism Policy, Layla Aitlhadj ā I interviewed Aitlhadj for this article. So, it only seems fitting to highlight her op-ed about Prevent and its impact on children.
Five years on, itās time to push back against the damage caused by the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act, Suhaiymah Manzoor-Khan ā The Prevent Duty was passed as part of the Counterterrorism and Security Act. Read more on how it has impacted Muslim communities since 2015.
Muslims still bear the stigma of the āTrojan horseā scandal. Maybe thatās what was intended, Nesrine Malik ā This op-ed is a reflection on a The Trojan Horse Affair, a podcast on Operation Trojan Horse. Even if you donāt know about the Trojan Horse scandal, this is a good read.
In 2015, the United Kingdom passed the Prevent Duty as part of its Counterterrorism and Security Act. The policy puts a legal responsibility on those in the public sector, including schools and healthcare providers, āto prevent people from being drawn into terrorismā and ālook out for signs of radicalisationā. Since then, the Home Office claims Prevent has been āinstrumental in turning peopleās lives aroundā¦and keeping our communities safeā. But a new Peopleās Review of Prevent rejects narratives that Prevent is saving anybody by shedding light on how nefarious the program is.
Throughout its existence, Prevent, which can be traced to 2003, has surveilled Muslims in every aspect of life. Following rising criticisms over Preventās methodology, the Home Office announced a review of the program in Sept. 2019. Layla Aitlhadj, the Peopleās Review co-author and director of Prevent Watch, an organization supporting those directly impacted, told NAZAR by email, āThe Prevent policy is supposed to be independently reviewed by the government in order to ensure that overreach and abuse does not take place.ā
There were problems with the Home Officeās plan from the jump. Despite labeling it an āindependentā review, that couldnāt be further from the truth. The Home Office originally appointed Lord Carlile to head the effort. In Dec. 2019, Carlile was removed after Rights Watch UK launched legal action over his past support of Prevent. Then, many were dismayed when William Shawcross was appointed to lead the long-delayed report last year.
Aitlhadj described Shawcross as ādeeply invested in counter-extremism and connected to Islamophobia networks in the UK and the US.ā The Guardian reported that in 2012, while serving as director of the Henry Jackson Society, Shawcross said, āEurope and Islam is one of the greatest, most terrifying problems of our future.ā And per the Peopleās Review, Shawcross chaired the Charity Commission ābetween 2012 and 2018 when it carried out lengthy and discriminatory investigations of Muslim charitiesā.
Following Shawcrossās appointment, hundreds boycotted the review. In a signed statement, organizations, including the Association of Muslim Lawyers, Muslim Youth Network, and others, wrote, āNo serious, objective, critical review can be undertaken by someone with such a track record ā rather we should expect [Shawcross] to promote a hardening of policies towards Muslims. So, if Muslim organisations engage with this review, it strengthens its legitimacy and its power to recommend policies more harmful to the community.ā
Nobody expected the UK to facilitate a through review of its own policy from the start. But with Shawcrossās appointment, Aitlhadj said, āEveryone agreed that we needed a different process.ā Rather than wait for a report from the state, why couldnāt the people draft their own review of Prevent? And it seemed that Prevent Watch was perfect to help with the task.
āWe sit on the largest resource of documented Prevent cases and we felt that our contribution to an alternative review would have to focus on the people impacted by Prevent directly, especially young people,ā Aitlhadj told NAZAR. With these resources, Prevent Watch assisted in developing the Peopleās Review which āfinally had the voices of these people rather than the voices of the pro-Prevent practitioners who benefit financially.ā
Central to the Peopleās Review is an examination of Preventās surveillance of families as the government uses it to āforc[e] their version of what is āin the child's best interestsā,āĀ Aitlhadj wrote. The report honed in on Preventās targeting of youth, especially children, stating Prevent āundermines the proper safeguarding obligations of social workers, teachers and health professionalsā by ābringing children and young people under an extraordinarily extensive net of surveillance.ā
This is achieved through several ways. For example, before a child is formally referred to a local Prevent Panel, they are interviewed by counter-terrorism officers and social workers. Because the child hasnāt actually done anything and cannot be charged, the entire process operates in a nebulous pre-criminal space. It leaves children uniquely vulnerable as officers donāt have to follow normal safeguards about interacting with them ā like notifying a childās guardian before interrogations.
Take Adam, an eight-year-old in a Prevent Priority Area (PPA) with a large demographic of Muslims, whose interactions with Prevent officials is detailed in the report. During school, Adam was interrogated by two counter-terrorism officers and a social worker. Per the Peopleās Review, Adam was asked to recite the Qurāan and questioned on the verses meanings. His parents were unaware of the interrogation.
āChildren are facing questions from counter-terrorism officers with no adult present to protect them,ā Aitlhadj told NAZAR. These officers, she continued, āoften ask leading questions or take statements of belief out of context.ā The childrenās services workers present tend to ātake a back seat, thus abandoning their professional and moral judgements while counter terrorism officials take the lead.ā
In addition to funneling children into a pre-criminal space, Prevent operates as a form of data criminalization. The review notes that Prevent is āan abuse of individual rights to privacy and the protection of data and information held about them, especially in the case of children.ā The report cites eleven-year-old Amir, a South Asian student, as an example. His school made a Prevent referral without alerting his mother. While the official who vetted the referral didnāt take it any further, Amirās information was still stored in a police database. It took a year for Amirās mother to get his data removed.
Fundamentally, Prevent abuses children and so it has significant, lasting impacts on them. Young children, Aitlhadj said, āare fearful, mistrustful, and even traumatized by what they have been through.ā Prevent Watch has recorded incidents of ābed-wetting, the development of OCD, and also greater than average mistrust of authority.ā Among young adults, āstudents are certainly self-censoring in the classroom, and the unspoken pressure to only practice a certain āgoodā Islam poses troublesome questions around identity and belonging.ā
The above echoes past observations of surveillanceās mental health impacts in the United States. Kameelah Rashad, a psychologist and founder of the Muslim Wellness Foundation, once told me for Teen Vogue, āThe constant awareness (or even suspicion) of surveillance leads many to experience increased symptoms of anxiety, depression, hyper-vigilance, fear, difficulty concentrating, denial or dissociation, and an overall pervasive sense of looming danger.ā
The surveillance of children and their families by the UK ā or any state ā is far from new. But by invoking countering extremism, Prevent frames itself as both protecting vulnerable people and necessary for community safety. The question, of course, is which community is made safe by the traumatizing and violation of another. If, as Ayesha Siddiqi tweeted, āevery border implies the violence of its maintenanceā, that violence is directed at the children caught within, too.
Although Prevent is UK legislation, it reverberates throughout the world. āIt is likely that the counter extremism policies in your country are influenced by the UK model,ā Aitlhadj told NAZAR. āWe know that UK Prevent practitioners are actively traveling the globe to promote it as best practice.ā
If Shawcross actually produces a report, it will likely make half-concessions about Preventās flaws only to recommend reforms. But, as Aitlhadj reminded, āCE and [countering violent extremism] is a profitable industry, so it should be treated with skepticism.ā While the two are āoften touted as the best means of āpreventing terrorismāā, Aitlhadj continued, āthey are used at the expense of civil liberties, dissent and the rights of children.ā
Prevent doesnāt need a face-lift. Even if the independent review attempts to funnel more money into it, advocates are firm on their stance. As Azfar Shafi, head researcher at CAGE, an organization working to empower communities impacted by the War on Terror, stated in the reviewās forward: "[T]he programme must be abolished once and for all.ā