PREVENT

In his Independent Review of Prevent (published in February 2023), William Shawcross urged the programme to cease treating those identified as susceptible to terrorism as being victims. He was critical of Prevent:

‘Prevent’s first objective – to tackle the causes of radicalisation and respond to the ideological challenge of terrorism – is not being sufficiently met. 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. 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.’

The supposedly Right-Wing people and organisations of concern included ‘books by mainstream British conservative commentators as “key cultural nationalist ideological texts”’ and a list of ‘“key texts” for white nationalists … including historic works of the Western philosophic and literary canon’. Further, ‘a cohort of social media users … termed “Actively Patriotic and Proud” … a prominent Conservative politician and former member of the government as being among figures “associated with far-right sympathetic audiences, and Brexit”’.

Shawcross urged that Prevent should be more discriminating as to its funding of civil society organisations (CSOs) and community projects as it he had been ‘unable’ to assess their success, and he had even ‘discovered that some CSOs have promoted extremist narratives, including statements that appear sympathetic to the Taliban’ and advocated that as ‘a core principle, the government must cease to engage with or fund those aligned with extremism’. He was also concerned at the ‘prevalence of antisemitism’ he found, observing that some individuals ‘tended to harbour violent and fanatical beliefs about Jews, often expressing an intent to kill, assault or blow-up members of the Jewish community’.

Shawcross gave an example:

‘One CSO claimed to focus primarily on tackling Islamist extremism for female Muslim students via an online magazine. However, much of the content was not relevant to Islamist related issues and none of it appeared to directly engage with countering Islamist ideology. While this approach could be said to provide young Muslim women with non-Islamist content that might interest them, this does not amount to “tackling Islamist extremism”. Of further concern, the social media accounts run as part of this project were found to have promoted individuals who have on other occasions espoused extreme and intolerant narratives.’

Far from countering Islamic extremism, Prevent was criticised for funding organisations that portrayed even extremist Muslims as victims and which promoted extremists. This problem was confined to Muslim groups only. There was no ‘partnering with Extreme Right-Wing-linked groups, either for delivering CSO counter-narrative projects, or for advisory purposes’.

Shawcross comented: ‘I share the view of several respected experts, that the Islamist threat is severely underrepresented … One senior national security official told me that Prevent is “out of kilter” with the rest of the national counterterrorism apparatus, and suggested that there is a need for a “recalibration” across the system’. One former counterterrorism police chief described the overrepresentation of Right-Wing entities as ‘a degree of appeasement to maintain some groups’ involvement with Prevent’. The aim being to ‘try and fend off accusations of stigmatising minority communities’.

Of concern, and importance, are two paragraphs:

‘3.113 While it has not been made clear what disruption activity – “an extensive toolkit of disruption options” – means in practice, it is clear that Prevent’s role is one of facilitation and co-ordination rather than actual delivery. The former includes gathering information from a range of partners on where they view risk of radicalisation, the promotion of extremist messages, or materials that could have a radicalising effect. This information is then assessed for the “potential harm it may cause” and the extent of its radicalising influence, before “being prioritised for action”.’

And:

‘3.119 It is important to caution that those implementing Disruptions must ensure that they uphold a consistent threshold across ideologies, and not allow Extreme Right-Wing, Extreme Left Wing, and Islamist groups to be held to different standards.’

This gives rise to the question as to what extent those who are deemed Right-Wing are subject to ‘disruptive options’ and how their free speech, especially on social media, has been affected.

Shawcross highlighted that the extremists targeted the universities and: ‘A study from 2017 demonstrated that over a quarter (26%) of those who committed “Islamism-related offences” in the UK had some form of higher education.’ He said there was no evidence that this had changed.

Given the government drive to boost foreign students then this drive presents an increased danger of terrorism.

Furthermore, Shawcross was alarmed by an ICM poll that ‘showed that 31% of British Muslims believed the US government was behind the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and that more British Muslims believed “Jews” were responsible (7%) than the actual perpetrators: al-Qa’ida (4%).’

Shawcross condemned police equivocation. For example: ‘As recently as November 2020, the Metropolitan Police branch in Lewisham have promoted Imam Shakeel Begg as part of their interfaith engagement work. In 2016, Begg was found to be “an extremist Islamic speaker who espouses extremist Islamic positions” in the High Court. Lewisham Police provided testimony to assist Begg’s case, highlighting his “principled” stance against Prevent.’

For example: ‘MEND [Muslim Engagement and Development], which has a well-established track record of working alongside extremists and campaigning against Prevent, lists the police as a “delivery partner”. The group has also provided “Islamophobia training” to local police.’

The Shawcross report highlighted the various failings of Prevent, which had, at best, lost its way and, at worst, had been comprehensively subverted. The government responded positively. However, it is now apparent that matters are more complicated. Prevent is not the only source of taxpayer funding flowing to Muslim extremists. The Jewish Chronicle (JC) reported in August 2023:

‘The Government has vowed to stop giving taxpayers’ money to mosques that host antisemitic hate preachers after a JC investigation revealed that at least four had received grants totalling millions of pounds. The largest grant was a £2.2 million award to a Birmingham mosque which has hosted a speaker who has described Jews as “people of envy” who “killed the prophets and the messengers”. In a viral video, its leading imam was filmed teaching how adulterous women should be stoned to death. The money has now been “paused” pending official inquiries. Three other Muslim centres with a history of offering pulpits to extremist speakers have also received large sums, the JC can reveal. Finsbury Park Mosque in north London, which hosted an Egyptian imam who pledged to “liberate” Al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem from the “filth of the Jews”, received almost £300,000 from the Labour-controlled Islington Council between 2017 and 2022. The mosque’s general secretary, Mohammed Kozbar, praised Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, the wheelchair-bound founder of Hamas who was killed by Israeli missiles in 2004, as a “martyr” on a visit to Gaza in 2015. Lewisham Islamic Centre in south London, whose chief imam Shakeel Begg once called on young Muslims to “go to Palestine and fight the Zionists”, was given £540,000 between 2015 and 2020, in what its accounts describe as “local authority grants”… Lewisham Council, which is Labour-controlled, claims to have no record of the £539,418 shown as being given to Begg’s mosque in its accounts.’

The government paused the grant of £2.2 million to the Birmingham mosque after a video of the preacher explaining the correct way to stone women went viral. The Birmingham Mail reported that the mosque was ‘battling to overturn the decision’ and that ‘Mosque leaders said the edited clip was out-of-context and misleading, and had triggered a deluge of hatemail and threats. Police had offered to step up patrols around the venue as a result, it said.’ The mosque further claimed that the government grant ‘has now become a risk and a threat to the mosque, we are receiving hate mail and threats, as well as jeopardising a desperately needed project’.

It is counterproductive for the government to be funding Prevent to fight Islamic extremism when it in fact is funding that extremism. It is also counterproductive to be funding Prevent to combat extremism when the extremists are getting taxpayer funding from other government and state sector agencies. There is no good reason why English taxpayers should be funding the spread of Islam in England.

All government and state sector funding of Islam should be banned.