There have been numerous reports in the press lately suggesting that the delays to the publication of the Prevent Review by Sir William Shawcross hinges on whether groups and individuals should be named who have tried to undermine Prevent, taken monies and then been supportive of extremist groups or who have been quietly obstructive of the counter-extremism community based programme.

Whatever the reasons, the delay to the publication of the report gives the impression to those working in this area and to the wider public that the Government is not wholly focused on this area of work, is willing to play politics with such a key part of our collective safety and also somehow scared of calling out individuals and groups.

We are not interested in the debate about whether groups should be called out or not. If individuals or groups do support extremist groups and have received public monies, it is the job of the Government to seek redress or to seek to recoup the public monies in the public interest. That is the job of Government and one would hope that these actions would have been taken quickly.

What is of concern to us, is that a report is being withheld that has national significance, gives some direction to this programme of work and which also provides the public with a sense that the review has been thoroughly intense and looked at all areas of Prevent.

This is why we firmly believe that the Government must publish the review now. It has been delayed for over 4 months and delays simply make the review redundant over time. The time for politicking is over, publish the review.

Environmental campaigners have been referred to the Home Office’s anti-terror Prevent programme amid fears they may become radicalised, it has emerged.

Data obtained by The Times newspaper under Freedom of Information laws found at least 45 activists were referred to Prevent over alleged environmental extremism between April 2016 and March last year.

The figures come at a time of increased global focus on climate change and environmental issues, with activists such as Extinction Rebellion orchestrating synchronised mass protests around the world.

The prominence of teenage campaigner Greta Thunberg has also helped raised the profile of green causes.

The data does not contain information on whether any of those referred to Prevent were aligned to any particular cause or organisation, and the Home Office said the “vast majority” of cases were closed with no further action.

A Home Office spokesman said: “Prevent is about safeguarding people at risk from being drawn into all forms of terrorism, rather than targeting a particular ideology.

“Activists engaged in peaceful protest for environmental or other causes are not extremists.

“All referrals to Prevent are carefully assessed – if an individual does not meet the threshold, the case is immediately closed.”

The strategy, launched in 2003, is one strand of the Government’s multi-pronged national counter-terrorism programme.

It relies on tip-offs from members of the public, schools and other organisations in identifying those who may be at risk of becoming radicalised to commit acts of terrorism.

In the vast majority of cases, the person identified will either leave the process requiring no further action, or will be signposted to other services.

When authorities conclude there is a risk that the person could be drawn into terrorism, they can be supported through another scheme known as Channel.

Prevent has also been criticised for its impact on free speech, placing an additional burden on teaching staff, and has been described as being heavy-handed in its approach.

Allan Hogarth, head of advocacy and programmes at charity Amnesty UK, said the referral of environmental activists was “deeply concerning”.

He said: “The Government must respect the rights of those peacefully protesting and ensure that the voices of those demanding action on tackling the climate crisis can be heard without fear of being labelled ‘extremists’.

“Under the guise of Prevent and the incredibly vague definition of ‘extremism’ the Government has been able to profile, use surveillance, compile data and infringe on the personal freedoms of many individuals and minority communities.

“This cannot go on.”

Green Party peer Baroness Jenny Jones said: “The use of Prevent to deal with social campaigners and environmentalists shows that the Home Office and politicians need to urgently define domestic extremism and give the police a tight legal definition that they have to stick to.

“I want the police to be focused on dealing with serious crimes, rather than chasing round after people who are peacefully taking part in the democratic process.”

Last summer the Government ordered a review into the programme, which is due to report back to Parliament later this year.

The number of suspect terrorists arrested by police has dropped 20% in the last year, figures show.

There were 259 people detained for terrorism-related activity in the year ending September 30, compared with the 325 arrests in the same period in 2018, according to the Home Office.

Of these, 96 (37%) were released on bail or released under investigation – meaning they were not subjected to any restrictions while enquiries into the offences continued.

There were 88 (34%) charged and 62 of these were for terrorism-related offences.

A further 14 (5%) received a caution, were recalled to prison or handed over to immigration authorities and 60 suspects (23%) were released without charge.

During the same period 53 terrorists were released from prison, the data report showed.

The news comes less than a week after the London Bridge terror attack which claimed the lives of Saskia Jones and Jack Merritt.

Convicted terrorist Usman Khan embarked on a killing spree while attending a prisoner rehabilitation programme at Fishmongers’ Hall last Friday afternoon.

The 28-year-old, armed with two knives and wearing a fake suicide vest, was tackled by members of the public, including ex-offenders from the conference, before he was shot dead by police.

We have previously written about Janusz Korwin-Mikke, someone who has previously stated that Hitler knew nothing about the Holocaust. His comments have previously targeted Jews, Muslims and Black communities.

Faith Matters highlighted his impending arrival in late May 2018, about a week before he arrived. Having informed the Home Office about his visit to speak in the UK, no action was taken and Korwin-Mikke was allowed in the country. According to this flyer, he is supposed to be speaking in London on Sunday the 8th of July.

Sharing a Platform

Korwin-Mikke spoke at the far-right ‘free speech’ rally in London on May 27th alongside Anne-Marie Waters,(ex-UKIP), and now with the ‘For Britain’ party. The speech was also highlighted by Independent anti-Islam councillor, Ryan MacPherson and was streamed through the ”Pro Great Britain’ Facebook page. Macpherson is a councillor in Ashford, Kent, and has previously called Islam ‘Earth’s most lethal killing machine’.

A day later after the event, MacPherson wrote:

“With Janusz Korwin-Mikke in London yesterday talking about democracy and why the United Kingdom desperately needs electoral reform in order to break the two-party state.”

Visible at the time of Mikke’s speech in May is a person flying a ‘Kekistan’ flag. The ‘Kekistan’ flag is modelled on the Nazi’s Reichskriegsflagge.

The question we therefore pose to the Home Office and the UK Border Agency is, will Korwin-Mikke be allowed in again?

In September 2015, the Home Office released data on terrorism statistics, allowing us to review the use of terrorism-related powers on ethnic and religious minority communities. What we have found is that there is a significant level of racial profiling across counter-terrorism powers in Britain. All minority ethnic communities are affected by disproportionality but we see that people belonging to the category ‘Asian’ and ‘Chinese and Other’—which includes Arabs—are the most likely to be affected by terrorism powers.

Panel 1

We found that stops and searches in London under Section 43 of the Terrorism Act 2000 are more than twice as likely to be used on Black, Asian, and Chinese and Other people than White individuals.

Methodology

We have calculated this using the same methodology as the Equalities and Human Rights Commission’s (EHRC) report, Stop and Think. First, we take the proportion of each ethnic group to the total number of arrests. Then we compare that proportion with the proportion of that ethnic group in the population in London (available from the Office of National Statistics). We then compare the ratio of individuals stopped and searched by ethnic group as a proportion of the total number of stops and searches with the ratio of each ethnic group as a proportion of London’s total population. Finally, the product of this comparison is measured against the ratio calculated for White individuals, providing us with a number that tells us how many times more likely a person from a given ethnicity is to be stopped and searched by the police. This operation would also tell us if a member of an ethnic minority group is less likely to be stopped than a White person, but it appears that in almost all cases, ethnic minorities are more likely to be stopped and searched.

Panel 2

Whites and Asians are convicted of terrorism at almost the same rate from 2001 to 2015. Where there are far more Asians arrested than Whites under terrorism powers despite being a much smaller proportion of the population, the conviction rate for terrorist offences are virtually the same for Asians and Whites. This suggests that they offend at the same rate and racial profiling against Asians is ineffective in countering terrorist activity.

Methodology

In order to ascertain that Whites and Asians are convicted at a rate of 17 per cent, we divided the number of convictions by the number of total arrests for each ethnic group. This provides us with a conviction rate.

Panel 3

Anecdotal evidence makes abundantly clear that Asians are profiled at airports. What is surprising is that almost all ethnic minorities are at least twelve times more likely to be searched at a port or airport in the United Kingdom. Non-whites are at least 37 times as likely as a White person to be detained at a port or airport. Asians are almost 80 times as likely as a White person to be detained at an airport or port. This is a significant level of profiling that demands urgent action to ensure that British citizens and non-UK nationals visiting Britain are treated equally rather than profiled because of their ethnicity.

Methodology

In order to determine the level of disproportionality in Schedule 7 stops, we took the ratio of each ethnic group as a proportion of all those that were searched or detained. We then took the ratio of each ethnic group as a proportion of all travelers in UK airports (provided by the Civil Aviation Authority in 2010, available in an EHRC report which uses the same method as we deploy here). It is possible that these numbers have changed slightly since 2010 but we were unable to obtain free data on this from the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) in time. Please note that the CAA provides estimates, not absolute figures on the proportion of each ethnic group as its members pass through airports. As in Panel 1, these ratios (ethnic group to search/detention, and ethnic group to the population of travelers) are compared, the product of which is then used to examine whether or not ethnic minorities are more likely than Whites to be searched or detained under Schedule 7 powers. The numbers that we found are disturbing. While there may be some margin of error based on the changing patterns of ethnicity in airports, it does provide weight to the anecdotal evidence provided by so many people who have been stopped, searched, and even detained when trying to ‘fly while brown’.

Panel 4

In our final panel, we examine the disproportionality of Channel referrals. We find that Muslims are more likely than any other group by an overwhelming proportion to be referred to the programme. Fewer than one in five of these referrals actually lead to the provision of deradicalisation services. This suggests that those responsible for making referrals to Channel are hypersensitive to Muslim differences and unable to accurately detect when a deradicalisation referral is actually appropriate.

It is worth noting that Sikhs, Jews, and Buddhists are also more likely than Christians to be referred to Channel as a proportion of the population (though these numbers are rather small and may not be statistically significant, representing anomalies rather than patterns) it is important to note that Hindus and Atheists are less likely than Christians to be referred to Channel.

Methodology

This is calculated using the same method as Panel 1 and Panel 3. The ratio of Muslims and each other religious group referred to Channel as a proportion of total referrals is calculated, then compared with each religious group as a proportion of the population in England and Wales per the 2011 census. We then used Christian as a reference point to ascertain whether non-Christian groups are being disproportionately affected by Channel.

The reader should note that these numbers are provisional. The information is collected from a Freedom of Information Response and there is a significant proportion of referrals where the religion of the individual is unknown. This could reduce the disproportionality observed towards Muslim but not enough to bring it anywhere close to the other religions. Given that there are more Muslims referred to the programme than any other religion combined and ‘unknown’ or ‘not stated’ religious categories, it is certain that Muslims will remain the single highest religious category even after controlling for these problems – and as better data becomes available.

This report argues that the current strategy’s centralised and top-down deployment markedly reduces local capacity to find tailored solutions that make sense for a given community. The Prevent strategy’s move away [As Prevent Centralises, Community Engagement and Local Capacity To Implement Local Tailored Solutions Falls] from community engagement to a centralised approach is not likely to assemble necessary resources, partners and stakeholders to address the issue of extremism that has changed so significantly given social media platforms and the use of the Internet. However, it should also be stressed that calls by some community groups to scrap Prevent are naïve and politically immature given the continuing and sustained terrorist threat to our country which has so violently taken so many lives.

The 2011 Prevent strategy fixates on ideology and religiosity at the expense of understanding propensity for violence. It excludes and isolates groups that do not fit into its narrow definition of ‘British values’. By operating through a highly centralised approach to disrupting extremists, the Prevent strategy runs the risk of deteriorating the healthy liberal public sphere deemed necessary to opening counter-speech and debate that can challenge the intellectual basis of genuinely violent extremist opinions.

The strategy’s current fixation on ideology runs the risk of alienating and excluding potential partners that have the penetration and information needed to actively challenge extremism. Local actors pushing to incorporate Muslim voices in the process and review of Prevent can mitigate these problems to an extent. While making Prevent leaner and more focused is a positive approach, it should be done in conversation with communities rather than through centralised decision-making structures. In essence, the move in the strategy is one away from addressing radicalisation through communities, securitising them instead of treating them as partners and leaders.

Further, the fixation on ‘ideology’ and ‘non-violent extremism’ will alienate members of the Muslim community who under the previous Prevent agenda were able to access spaces to express dissenting voices. The danger today is that these spaces will be suffocated, along with space for dissenting voices. Whilst we may not agree with some groups and individuals who fall foul of the ‘British values’ espoused by the Home Secretary, it is important to acknowledge that some groups who do not believe in democracy need to be challenged openly and through debate and discussion. Pushing them to the margins and using pressure to cancel venues simply will drive these views underground and could further alienate individuals who may feel that they have no stake in the social life of our communities.

Where Prevent training was previously conducted in partnership with the local Muslim community, the new strategy clearly sees Muslim organisations and institutions as targets and recipients of training without any capacity on their own to challenge extremist views, rather than equal stakeholders in countering-terrorism.

As Prevent Centralises, Community Engagement and Local Capacity To Implement Local Tailored Solutions Falls

• Encourage the Metropolitan Police Service to focus Channel referrals on clear cases of illegal, violent speech and use alternative measures such as working with families for cases of ‘non-violent extremism’ or deviation from ‘British values’.
• During the commissioning process for the CTLP, ensure that the Local Authority representative has consulted with various community groups from all faith groups and is able to represent their voice and ensure that the CTLP commissioning process benefits from a balanced approach.
• Encourage the Metropolitan Police Service to engage with and be aware of the dynamics of Muslim communities and work with communities to tackle anti-Muslim hate and intra-Muslim tensions, viewing them as real partners and not through a simple securitisation agenda.
• Local authorities should engage with groups critical of Prevent without funding them. Their views should be taken seriously when planning Prevent projects alongside a diversity of other voices.
• Ensure that safe spaces for young people to voice their opinions are available without fear of referral to Channel.
• Universities must have clear policies about speakers but also err on the side of freedom to debate and challenge, teaching students how to challenge views in a nuanced and critical manner. The starting point for universities should be to encourage debate and free speech, though also acknowledge that student societies need support, monitoring and clear frameworks around respect for core human and civil rights for all. This means tackling to gender prejudice and enforced segregation within student societies, for example.
• The pool of authorised Prevent providers must be widened to more diverse voices to produce local solutions. Local authorities should be able to work with a variety of partners to provide balanced and effective training to any individuals tasked with exercising the Prevent duty