An innocuous dip into current affairs might confirm that we indeed live in troubled times – the Syrian civil war, an ongoing catalyst of international turmoil; the election of Donald Trump in the US, which has reignited some political and racial tensions; and the rise of the far-right, for some typified by the recent conviction of Thomas Mair, who murdered Jo Cox MP in June.
Governments everywhere are pressured by sporadic terrorist attacks and calls for a crack-down on terrorist conspiracy. In Britain, a number of statutory measures have been introduced, most notably following the 9/11 attacks, which give greater scope to ministers in proscribing certain groups as ‘currently concerned in terrorism’. The most recent of which – the 2015 Counter-Terrorism and Security Act – gives legal provision, amongst other things, for the retention of travel documents when individuals are suspected of leaving the UK to conduct terrorist activity; and the issuing of ‘temporary exclusion orders’ which allow the secretary of state to exclude suspected terrorists from entry into the UK. For some, these are simply necessary measures, justified by the UK’s high-alert status. For others, they are far too broad, theoretically allowing the executive to exercise an unlimited prerogative, so long as their actions are deemed ‘reasonable’, by rather vague standards.
Recently, the Government has stepped up its efforts to focus on more preventative efforts which are designed to identify vulnerable individuals and reach out to them before they turn to radicalism.
At first glance, one might be rather hard-pressed to find fault with Prevent – the Government’s seemingly well-intentioned initiative to nip extremism in the bud. The programme is multifaceted, but at its core, Prevent encourages those who work with vulnerable people, such as teachers, lecturers and hospital staff, to refer activity deemed to be indicative of broader problems which may act as a driver towards extremism. It aims to work “with faith groups and institutions to assist them in providing support and guidance to people who may be vulnerable”. Such a programme seems to show a certain sensitivity to the argument that punitive, post-event measures can only ever be part of the solution.
But the reality has proved rather different. Since Prevent’s resurrection, it has met with a tidal wave of scorn from lawyers, students, and educators alike. And with hints that the current Government intends to ramp up the programme, following a Home Office Report issued by Theresa May, opposition has become more vocal. In a 2015 Act, the programme was given statutory footing, whilst high-profile institutions have since voiced their concerns. The National Union of Teachers, the University and College Union of Lecturers, the National Union of Students, Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, and the Muslim Council of Britain are all now among the swelling ranks of those who have denounced the programme and / or refuse to implement it. Maina Kiai, the UN’s special rapporteur on the right to freedom of assembly, on a recent visit to Britain claimed that the programme contributes towards a “spectre of Big Brother” and creates an “unease about what can be legitimately discussed in public”. Others, such as Yasser Louatti, a French human-rights activist, believe the programme to form part of a wider global narrative which has seen a worrying shift in the powers of the state, coupled with increasing political polarisation.
Many, particularly among minority groups, are concerned about the racial-profiling of young students. Those who oppose the programme argue that the minimal training staff receive, especially in schools and universities, means that Prevent has facilitated institutional racial and religious discrimination. At a ‘Challenging Prevent’ meeting held at UCL in November, speakers recounted stories of young children having innocently drawn pictures, or worn clothes displaying Arabic writing, and being referred as a result, sometimes without the knowledge of the parents. The outrage was palpable.
So, does the Prevent Programme signal the beginning of an Orwellian nightmare?
Even if Britain remains a fair distance from the pages of political-dystopian fiction, the programme has raised eyebrows, not just from a legal perspective – Prof. Nabulsi (Oxford University) claims it contravenes the European Convention on Human Rights – but on the grounds that the evidence for its effectiveness is shaky, if not totally redundant. The Open Society Justice Initiative this year published a report, based on nine months of research, which suggested that, far from helping vulnerable people, Prevent has disregarded the rights of young Muslims in particular and has proved largely counter-productive. In July, Rights Watch UK claimed the programme restricts freedom of speech and could have a chilling effect on open debate.
Anxiety has not been limited to the Muslim community. Figures from the National Police Chiefs Council show that the number of referrals based on claims of far-right extremism increased by 74% between 2014-2016, a figure which many suggest cannot be proportionate to the rise, if indeed the far-right has been on the move, in political radicalism. The UCL Prevent meeting rang with complaints of overzealous ‘Ofsted’ inspectors policing the programme, and a fear of a break-down in political dialogue, not helped by Prevent.
The Government denies that the programme has been poorly implemented, and seems intent on stepping up its efforts. In response to claims of human rights abuse, it argues: “We remain absolutely committed to protecting freedom of speech in this country. But preventing terrorism will mean challenging extremist (and non-violent) ideas that are also part of a terrorist ideology.” With 1400 Britons having left for Syria to fight for ‘Islamic State’ in the last 4 years, according to ex-Foreign Secretary Phillip Hammond in January 2016, Prevent’s supporters argue that people who may be susceptible to radicalisation should be put on the radar, so as to avoid future tension.
This debate goes far beyond that of state intervention versus right to privacy. Many fear the rise of ‘omniscient government’, pointing to the recently-passed Investigatory Powers Act (‘Snooper‘s Charter’) as evidence of growing state authority. Whether this is justified in an age of heightened terror alert remains highly controversial. But what seems strikingly problematic about Prevent, if its opponents are correct, is the apparently unprecedented level of state-sponsored discrimination and xenophobia that such a programme typifies.
A legal challenge has now been mounted against Prevent by Dr Salman Butt, and is currently being heard in the High Court. The first duty of any state should be the protection of its citizens, but the chorus calling for an end to Prevent, now brought to judicial attention, begs the question – ‘at what cost?’.
by Eamonn Lynch-Bowers, Co-President
If you would like to get in touch with the Division or any of the writers on the blog, please tweet @UCL_LWOB, emaillwobstudent.ucl@gmail.com or leave a comment below!
If you liked this post, keep an eye out for more great stuff from Lawyers Without Borders at UCL in the new year. Come back to our blog for a new article from one of our team published every Friday!
