OSCE Human Dimension Implementation Meeting 2017, Warsaw

United Kingdom. Submitted by Defend the Right to Protest

An Introduction to Prevent

The Context in which Prevent Operates in

The Rise in Islamophobia

It is important to recognise the role that Prevent has played in UK institutions since 2006 and the impact
this has had on Muslim communities across the UK, particularly in a context of wars in Afghanistan and
Iraq which have been waged and justified on the false dichotomy of Islam v West and/or us v them.

Since 2006 Prevent has further institutionalized a division in our health care and education providers,
fuelled by Islamophobia where upon every Muslim is a potential suspect somebody whose opinions,
conduct and ideas should be scrutinized and reported to state authorities, even in an environment such
as a place of learning; where everybody should be encouraged to share ideas and analysis of the world
around them.

We also need to be clear about the context in which Prevent will continue to operate in. Hate crimes
against Muslims in London rose by 70% in 20151, that was just according to Met Police statistics of just
reported crimes. Tell MAMA reported a 326% increase in incidents in 2015 and warned that the
atmosphere post Brexit could make it worse. We already know that anti-Muslim hate crime in London has
increased five-fold since June 2017, according to statistics released by Sadiq Khan, the citys mayor.

Research has previously been published that Muslim men are 76% less likely to be employed than their
Christian counterparts2.

On 7 September 2017 the government commissioned a report by the Social Mobility Commission which
confirmed that Muslim men and women in the UK are less likely to succeed in the labour market due to
rampant Islamophobia, discrimination and racism. The research, said that young Muslims living in Britain
face an enormous social mobility challenge and are being held back from reaching their full potential at
every stage of their lives.

The Prevent agenda directly fuels and further entrenches the stigma that Muslims already feel in our
public spaces, especially education. Many people also feel that the Prevent Agenda benefits from the
rise of Islamophobia and growing hostility to Islam.

Prevent relies on ordinary workers within schools, colleges, universities, health services and youth
charities, noticing the actions and conduct of Muslims beyond anybody else and then reporting on them.

It is clear Prevent has unfairly targeted Muslims in our communities on the basis of their religious
practices. However the implications for all of us, including Muslims, who engage in political activity or
express an opinion on domestic or foreign policies, are significant because Prevent facilitates an
obsession with so called domestic extremists, and is very much part of the mass surveillance of political
dissent and protest, particularly within our universities and student unions.

Historic Examples of Prevent in Action pre Statutory Duty Imposed

Concerns have been repeatedly raised over the running and practical impact Prevent has had on Muslim
communities, particularly since 2009. Instead of the government acknowledging these, it created a
statutory obligation to force public bodies to comply with Prevent.

1 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-34138127
2 http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/11/30/muslims-job-descrimination-christians_n_6243802.html
In 2009, before the creation of this statutory duty, The Guardian obtained documents which evidenced
the Prevent programme was being used to gather intelligence about innocent people who were not even
suspected of involvement in terrorism or criminal offences 3. Documents provided the information that
authorities were trying to find out and it included: political and religious views, information on mental
health, sexual activity and associates, as well as other sensitive information. It also became clear that
information could be stored until the people concerned reach the age of 100.

The biggest knock to Prevent was in 2010 when it emerged that CCTV cameras in deemed Muslim areas
of Birmingham 72 of them hidden were partly funded by Home Office counter-terrorism money. The
loss of trust and confidence as a consequence was enormous4.

Prevent Now What is it?

Prevent is part of the broader UK counter-terrorism strategy known as Contest. Contest has four
elements Pursue (to stop terrorist attacks); Prevent (to stop people becoming terrorist or
supporting terrorism); Protect (to strengthen our protection against a terrorist attack; Prepare
(to mitigate the impact of a terrorist attack)

As of July 2015, all staff working in local authorities, educational institutions including youth services
and mentoring, health care providers GP practices and counselling, in addition to the police and
prisons, have a legal duty to, when exercising functions, have due regard to the need to prevent people
from being drawn into terrorism. This statutory legal duty is in contained in Section 26(1) Counter-
Terrorism and Security Act 2015. A full list of all public authorities that must comply can be found in
Schedule 6 of the act.

Prevents strategy since 2011 has been to deal with all forms of terrorism and non violent
extremism, which can create an atmosphere conducive to terrorism and can popularise views which
terrorists then exploit.

The government has defined extremism as: Vocal or active opposition to fundamental British
Values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance
of different faiths and beliefs.

What has the rule of law meant to millions of Muslims in the UK over the last decade or more? The rule
of law is meant to prevent arbitrary decision-making such as states placing restrictions on alleged
terror suspects movements, finances and living arrangements without producing any evidence of why
such restrictions can be imposed. Yet recent governments have, when it has suited, totally disregarded
this concept. We have also seen the use of pre-emptive policing tactics against protesters, including the
use of mass arrest and pre-charge bail conditions, whereby police impose restrictions of peoples right to
protest without ever charging them with an offence.

Democracy also means many different things and is open to interpretation. The British tabloid, Daily
Mail, accused protesters who took to Londons streets in May 2015 as enemies of democracy for
rejecting the democratic voice of those who voted in the general election. Yet, to many, the current
electoral system and means by which decisions are made at a political level, which impact upon millions
of ordinary people, are undemocratic.

Prevent and Freedom of Assembly and Expression

If we vocally oppose the governments selective interpretations of the rule of law and democracy, are
we all to be deemed extremists? We have now had just over two years of the Prevent Duty in our
schools, universities and health care system. What has this meant in practice? Who and what has been

3http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/oct/18/prevent-extremism-muslims-information-allegations
4http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10888985 and
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/libertycentral/2010/jul/06/birmingham-cctv-unlawful-liberty
perceived extremist, or at risk of being drawn into terrorism? What do teachers, medical staff, university
administrators think they should be challenging and/or reporting? .

Case Study One

University student referred to PREVENT by the universitys head of security, following the
students participation in a sit in protest. He was visited by a PREVENT officer.

Case Study Two: Environmentalists and anti-capitalists referred to as extremist

In late 2015 more than 100 teachers from several schools were given advice during a
Prevent training session in West Yorkshire, where they were warned by a police officer
about extreme anti-capitalist groups.

The Prevent officer, leading the training, went on to refer to the behaviour of Green Party
MP Caroline Lucas, who was arrested for her part in blocking a road at an anti-fracking
demonstration in 2013, as an example of extremism.

Case Study: Three School student visited by police after campaigning around Palestine

School student, Rahmaan Mohammadi, campaigned around Palestine and fundraised.

Campaigning included distributing leaflets published by Friends of Al-Asqsa, wearing a
Palestinian badge and scarf with the Palestinian flag on one side with Free Palestine
written on it.

This resulted in a visit by two police officers to Rahmaans home, one officer was from
Bedfordshire PREVENT Task Force, the other was from Channel. Rahmaan was aggressively
interrogated in his home. It was clear police had been provided with intelligence from
Rahmaans school through teachers and/or the schools PREVENT officer. Rahmaan was
informed the police held a record of him and that it would be held by them and re-
opened every time Rahmaan was accused of similar conduct.

Case Study: Four 14 year old boy questioned after French Class

A 14-year old boy was attending a French class at the Central Foundation School in London
and taking part in a discussion, conducted mostly in French, about the environment. 5 The

5
http://www.theguardian.com/education/2015/sep/22/school-questioned-muslim-pupil-about-isis-after-discussion-on-eco-
activism; see also http://wordpress-14729-31957-79243.cloudwaysapps.com/incident-the-eco-warrior/
teacher and pupils were said to have discussed those who use violence to protect the
planet. The teenager mentioned that some people use the term ecoterrorist to
describe those who take action such as spiking trees with nails to prevent chainsaws from
chopping them down. A few days later he was pulled out of class and taken to an
inclusion centre elsewhere in the school. During this meeting the schoolboy said one
adult sat behind him, and another in front of him, whom he had not seen before. That
person was a child protection officer, who had been called in to establish if concerns
about terrorism were legitimate. The boy who wishes not to be named, told the Guardian:
I didnt know what was going on. They said there had been safety concerns raised. If you
are taken out of French class and asked about Isis, it is quite scary. My heart skipped a
beat. He said he was baffled how mentioning the phrases Lecoterrorisme, which he
had learned from an earlier session of the school debating society, led to him being asked
whether he supported Isis.

Case Study Five: Birmingham Free Education activist targeted

The parents of Birmingham university student Pat Grady received a letter inviting them
into the local police station to discuss concerns that their son (might) be involved
with domestic extremism.

Pat was a member of Defend Education Birmingham (DEB), at the time which opposes
tuition fees and supports a living wage for all university staff. He was amongst 13
students arrested earlier in the year during a protest

In the letter West Mercia Police officer, Detective Constable Jemma Greenow, who stated
she was working within the PREVENT agenda and had been asked to get in contact by
West Midlands Police who have received some concerns about your son.

Case Study Six: Anti Fracking campaigners targeted

The mother of an anti-fracking activist had PREVENT officers and police twice turn up un-
announced at her home asking questions about her son and his involvement in anti-
fracking protests.

A letter she received stated: I am aware that this may be of concern to you and would
like to invite you into the local police station to discuss the concerns.

Just to reassure you, PREVENT is about supporting individuals who may be involved in
Domestic Extremism, not about criminalising them. Your son is not in any trouble,
however as concerns have been raised we would just like to discuss them with yourselves,
before speaking to as the concerns have been raised whilst he has been at
University.
We are deeply concerned about the continued use of Prevent and its growing expansion of focus,
especially in our places of learning, which prior to it even carrying a legal duty has resulted in young
people placed on deradicalisation programmes simply for attending a demonstration, political meeting
or expressing political opinions or facts. These measures clearly have long term impacts on individuals
freedom of association and assembly.

Education and Prevent

The latest figures obtained via a Freedom of Information request to the National Chiefs Council, show a
sharp jump in referrals after the 2015 statutory duty was introduced. Sixty children are referred to
Prevent every week. Referrals climbed to 1121 in 2016 from 537 referrals the year before.

We think our schools, colleges and universities must be maintained as places of open learning where
students can raise ideas and analysis of how they may wish to change the world around them.

Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 s 31 provides that further and higher education bodies must
have particular regard to the duty to ensure freedom of speech and the importance of academic
freedom when carrying out their s 26(1) duty. The Secretary of State must, in turn, have particular
regard to the duty to ensure freedom of speech and the importance of academic freedom when
issuing guidance under s 29 (see s 31(3)) and making directions under s 30 (see s 31(4)). The duty to
ensure freedom of speech means the duty imposed by Education (no 2) Act 1986 s 43(1) and
academic freedom has the same meaning as in the Education Reform Act 1988 s 202(2)(a). There is a
real issue as to whether the Prevent duty, as set out in the applicable guidance, is consistent with this
duty to ensure freedom of speech.

The principle of academic freedom, enshrined in the Education (No 2) Act 1986, places a duty on
universities and colleges to ensure that freedom of speech within the law is secured for members,
students and employees of the establishment and for visiting speakers. It remains unaccepted that the
prevent legal duty can properly exist alongside requirements to ensure freedom of speech is maintained.

Ultimately what the Prevent Programme does is similar to the impact of section 28 (which was the
prohibition of promoting homosexuality by teaching): Teachers will steer clear of discussing important
topics which particularly affect their students, in case they compromise themselves or worse, their
students. This is very authoritarian and is one way in which political activity in education is being
significantly shut down.

Case Study One: Politics student at UEA questioned by counter terror police about
course reading

A third-year politics student at the University of East Anglia (UEA) was questioned by
counter-terrorism police after reportedly undertaking pro-Isis reading as part of a course. 6
The questioning came after students on a module entitled Clash of Fundamentalisms were
instructed to read passages from Dabiq, an online magazine published by Isis which is said
to promote jihadism and recruit new members from the West. A UEA spokesperson
confirmed a politics student taking the module was questioned after clicking on a link to a
website, and added: However, this particular link has now been removed from the
course materials, reported the universitys student newspaper, Concrete.
Speaking with Concrete, a student on the module described how a lecturer said a student
had been visited at their home by Special Branch for having done the course reading,
including material associated with Isis, and another with Al-Qaeda. The student explained:
The point of the reading was to understand how jihadism is promoted by these groups
and how they try to influence peoples opinions.7

6
http://www.independent.co.uk/student/news/university-of-east-anglia-student-questioned-by-counter-terrorism-police-for-
reading-pro-isis-a6774196.html
7
Case Study Two: Conference on Institutional Islamophobia, venue cancelled

On 1 April 2014 Birkbeck college withdrew go-ahead for the conference on its premises
citing its in ability to arrange sufficient security after threats on social media by far right
group Britain First. Organisers Islamic Human Rights Commission (IHRC) reports staff who
were on a routine site visit were dragged by college officials into an impromptu meeting
to discuss the far right calls of protest in which they were surprised to find local council
PREVENT officer already in attendance. Birkbeck rejected offers by IHRC to organise its
own security and it had to be moved to another venue.

Case Study Three: Understanding Conflict Conference, Bath University 2015, subject
to interference

Organisers of a conference on Understanding conflict in the modern world held at Bath

University in 2015 experience police and security interference in the event.

I got a call from the University security department saying that the police had flagged
up an issue with someone at our conference and could they check with me. I asked for
the name of the person and they reluctantly gave it. I checked the list of paper givers
and told them that that person was not speaking at the conference. They said that they
meant a person attending the conference and I checked and found that persons
name. They asked for the list of attendees. I said no. The odd thing about it was that if
they already had the list of attendees, then they would not have bothered to ask for it,
so it seems that they had got the information by some other means, perhaps by direct
surveillance.

Professor David Miller, one of the organisers says: The experience raises the question: is
it possible to undertake independent research or discuss issues such as terrorism at
British universities, without the state or groups with influential agendas poking their
noses in?

Case Study Four: Teaching Islam through a prism of extremism.

During a religious studies class, the teacher introduced the topic of multiculturalism in
society; in particular what has taken place in the schools locale. The children were shown a
video but only watched about a minute and a half of the full 5 minutes.

The clip introduced statistics on the number of residents in the locality and the percentage
that was Muslim. The clip continued with a text, which states following series of high
profile cases related to Islamic extremism, [the] Council formulated a new strategy to
tackle religious supremacism within their local Muslim community. There were a series of
mini clips highlighting the reason behind the new initiative. The clips were followed by this
text the idea was to show the rest of the country that if non-Muslims danced and sang
and performed enough, the following passages would disappear from the holy Quran.

The remainder of the clip provided ayahs from the Quran. Some of these ayahs were
misrepresented from the mainstream translations while others were taken out of context.
One 11 year old pupil, AB, and a number of her classmates objected to the representations,
which the video made. When she said, Miss I think you have got it mixed up the teacher
replied, No, this is true. You can check it in the Quran.
AB was extremely offended by the video. She felt extremely distressed and upset as she
felt Islam was being attacked. A number of the students approached their form tutor and
informed her of the video which they said was offensive to Islam.

Her mother sent a letter of complaint to the school highlighting ABs distress. She also
wanted to know why this issue was not addressed with the parents and whether it had been
necessary to show the video in the first place. While the school apologised for its oversight
in the matter, ABs mother felt that the response was half hearted as the school failed to
answer a number of questions.

They failed to answer whether the school was teaching Islam through the prism of
extremism and whether this was their attempt to adhere to the spiritual, moral, social
and cultural (SMSC) guidelines. The SMSC guidelines seek to promote fundamental British
values in accordance with Prevent.

Case Study Five: Cucumber case

AQ was 4 years old and attended a nursery part time. As part of the class work AQ had
drawn a number of pictures which were of concern to the teachers. Two of the pictures
were not discernible and amounted to nothing more than shapes scribbles. These pictures
were drawn in Autumn 2015. Another picture was a stick man holding a large knife alongside
a scribble which was drawn in early 2016. When asked about this picture, the child said it
was his father cutting a cucumber, which the child had mispronounced as cooker bum.
However, the nursery staff wrongly asserted that he said cooker bomb. At no point did AQ
use the word bomb, and it was the nursery staff who introduced this word to the
conversation.

As a result of this picture the nursery manager started the process to refer AQ to the
Channel Programme. The manager completed the Early Help Assessment form and
responded to Is this a referral to the CHANNEL panel? with Yes and a statement under
needs/worries: Concerns AQ drawings have previously had violent tendencies.

AQs mother explained how AQ enjoys watching power rangers, spider man and ninja turtles
on the TV and this might explain some of this.

AQs mother refused to sign the form, she was concerned that questions about home life
including questions about siblings meant her children would be taken away.

Case Study Six: British Values Discussion

A was in her form class in which a discussion was initiated concerning the notion of British
Values. Her form tutor posed a number of questions to the class on issues such as
democracy, governance, the law in the United Kingdom and Parliament. He wanted the
class to evaluate whether such political structures were positive or negative. He then asked
SA and her fellow students to fill out the associated questionnaire.

SA wanted to know why they were being asked such questions, as this was form time and
not in the context of a politics class. Her form tutor replied that they are discussing a
number of different types of laws such as Hindu and Christian law. He then refereed to
Shariah law in a derogatory manner, calling it brutal. He referred to Islams penal code
and marriage laws.

There have been a number of cases in which questionnaires concerning Islam are given to
students. These questions it would appear seem to try and categorise a students
theological background to ascertain whether they are considered extremist or not. What
is alarming about these types of questionnaires is that it seeks to vilify normative Islamic
opinions. Furthermore, the questions posed are generally not age appropriate since
students of the age of SA may not have the capacity to discuss such subjects. This is
especially compounded by the fact that education is becoming more securitised, and
schools are implementing the Prevent duty under the guise of safeguarding.

Prevent, the Charity Commission and Student Unions Political Activities

Its not just the university imposing Prevent Guidance from the Home Office that is hindering student
political activity. The Charity Commission also has guidance which is frequently used to compel our
Student Unions to comply with a lot of things in line with Prevent. SUs are being regulated and coerced
not to pass certain motions, host certain events, meetings or speakers. This is because a majority of our
SUs are now listed as charities and therefore are subject to regulation by the Charity Commission.

Student Unions are coming under increasing pressure to cancel events, not host particular speakers
deemed extremist or change the line up of speakers in the name of balance.

Case Study One: Kings College Student Union, Students Not Suspects Meeting

In late 2015, three days prior to a Students Not Suspects event on Prevent, the Student Union was
informed that one of the key note speaker Moazzam Begg, a former Guantanmo Bay prisoner, would
not be allowed to speak due to a proper risk assessment not being completed by the university. The
SU had a choice of going ahead without the speaker or cancelling it altogether. The background to
this was pressure from the government on the NUS, student unions and universities in relation to
CAGE and so called extremist speakers. KCL had been previously named in relation to hosting
extremist speakers by Jo Johnson and David Cameron.

In the event, the SU persisted and the event went ahead after the college principle met with
Moazzam Begg in advance of the meeting. Various conditions were initially proposed such handing
over the list of all attendees and having security vet those coming into the meeting and changing
the chair of the meeting, but these were not agreed by the SU.

Nevertheless there was a heavy security presence, including senior security staff, before and during
the event which student union officers felt made the atmosphere unnecessarily tense.

Nadine Almanasfi, KCL SU President: In the wake of the prevent agenda the whole
university have got a lot stricter in regulating political activity on campus. No one has
been rejected from campus events, but the hoops you have to jump through are
ridiculous and have created heightened sense of fear amongst students coming into
political organising or BME organising that they are being treated with suspicion. The
result is that Muslims and BME students dont feel like airing their views in the
university. At a recent meeting on the BME attainment gap, for example, issues of
Prevent came up and people said didnt feel comfortable at university because they
didnt feel what the university is doing is transparent. In another instance organisers of a
meeting on faith and sexuality didnt attend because of the insistence that safe space
marshals be present. For students and student societies who want to host events, its
stopping people from feeling they can organise events, asking themselves is it really
worth it? That climate of fear and disincentive to organise or express views is the most
insidious impact of Prevent.8

Case Study Two: Cardiff University Student Union, Students Not Suspects Meeting

In 2015 a planned meeting on Prevent called Students Not Suspects was prevented from
happening because the SU Trustee Board decided it could cause too much reputational
damage.

One of the organisers Nadine Dahan, Cardiff University student and Chair of the Federation
Of Student Islamic Societies (FOSIS) Wales and West had sought to organise a joint Cardiff
University ISOC Student Union meeting. Whilst initially supportive, the SU was then
advised by a full time SU member of staff, who also sits on the South Wales
Prevent Forum, it wouldnt be allowed in order to protect the unions reputation.
Nadine was also informed that even if the ISOC tried to host the meeting alone, they
would be refused use of Student Union buildings. Given that student society bookings of
events in any part of the university have to be done via SU, this meant that the meeting
couldnt go ahead.

Nadine Dahan, Cardiff University Student: It makes me very angry, and makes me feel
helpless, like I cant do anything, almost. People are afraid to take part in days of action,
people dont want to rock the boat so its impossible to even find spaces to discuss the
issue. No other student society is scrutinized as much as ISOC - weve been called in to
justify events or had booking forms rejected, so ISOC tends to hold things off campus
now

Case Study Three: Student Union Officer

An elected SU officer who was due to chair an event on Prevent, was challenged by
university staff on the basis he was biased and questioned about his own political
affiliations and his personal protest history (which included his attendance cops of campus
protest). His impression was that records of his political activity were being referred to.

Student Unions have a long history in the UK, they play an important role in organising social and
political activities which benefit its members, providing support on a range of academic and welfare
issues and representing students both individually and collectively campaigning on local and national
issues.

How has and will this impact on our Student Unions organising activities and academic debates?

The Charity Commission Guidance explains if anyone has concerns that a charity (SU) is promoting
extremist views they should report it to the Commission. The Commission will then raise this with the
trustees and may consider taking regulatory action.
Regulatory action may include:
Restricting transactions/funding of the SU, appointing trustees, freezing bank accounts, removing or
suspending trustees (in some circumstances this could include democratically elected sabbatical officers
who are listed as trustees within the SU) and appointing an interim manager.

8http://www.kclsu.org/blogs/blog/Student%20Officers%20Blog/2015/10/16/Students-not-Suspects-
event/
Conclusion

Prevent and the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act has narrowed the space for political dissent in many
forms. Anti-fracking and other environmental activists, those campaigning for Palestinian rights, and
even those opposing cuts and austerity have been monitored under what Liberty 9 has referred to as the
biggest spying operation of all times10.

It is perfectly legitimate to criticise government foreign policy; to criticise wars in the Middle East and
Afghanistan and to express support for Palestinian rights.

It is essential that legitimate political opinions expressed by students are not in any way regarded as
extreme or legitimising extremism.

Prevent is not making anyone safer. Instead it damages the fabric of trust in our society, silences Muslims
and political dissent, and institutionalises Islamophobia at a time when the far-right is gaining influence
in many parts of Europe.

9 https://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/
10 http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/oct/16/anti-terrorism-strategy-spies-innocents