Policy Exchange: David Cameron warns delegitimising counter terrorism is ‘enabling terrorism’

A new report from think tank Policy Exchange warns that the Prevent review being conducted by William Shawcross risks ‘suffering death by a thousand cuts’, unless government raises its game dramatically to make a far more robust defence of the Prevent Programme than it has managed to date.  Government has struggled to address anti-Prevent narratives, because it has failed to deal with the challenge posed by non-violent Islamists.

Even more concerning than this, is that the state has in fact ‘made bedfellows’ of some of the very organisations that reject its core principles around countering extremism and countering terrorism.  This must be stopped.  The report recommends the implementation of robust criteria for engagement with community organisations; and ending funding and partnering with organisations that encourage non-cooperation with Prevent.  

In his Foreword to the report, former Prime Minister David Cameron starkly warns “So just as we need to counter the Islamist extremist narrative, we need to counter the anti-Prevent narrative.  We need to show that delegitimising counter terrorism is, in essence, enabling terrorism.” 

The report goes on to lay bare how Prevent is being undermined by numerous and overlapping campaigns by Islamist campaigners and their allies – groups such as MEND, CAGE, the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) and the Federation of Student Islamic Societies.  Some activists actively encourage people not to cooperate with the authorities and the police.

Unopposed, activists have been feeding the national media, and targeting Muslim communities themselves,creating a grievance culture that argues they are victims of Prevent, which they claim is an “Islamophobic” social engineering project.  The pernicious, wholly false tropes about Prevent include claims that:

·         The policy is comparable to the treatment of the Uyghurs in China

·         Prevent is a vehicle for the Government to spy on Muslim communities

·         Prevent officers can arbitrarily take away Muslim children

·          ‘Religiously conservative’ Muslims are criminalised by Prevent

The report recommends establishing a Centre for the Study of Extremism, to furnish Ministers with the information necessary to understand all types of extremism, including non-violent Islamists campaigning against Prevent.  A new rebuttal unit would address conspiracy theory and disinformation about counter-terrorism policies. Many major European countries take non-violent extremism far more seriously than the British state generally does, conducting publicly accessible analysis – this anomaly needs to end.

There is no evidence the opposition to Prevent from activists is shared by a majority of British Muslims, or indeed the public generally. But as things stand, the authorities risk losing the debate to the loudest voices in the room. 

This report details numerous examples of ways in which Prevent is being serially undermined.   They include Rizwana Hamid, Director of the MCB’s Centre for Media Monitoring (CfMM).   The MCB has been doggedly critical of successive Governments’ counter-extremism and counter-terrorism strategies.  Governments of all parties have had a policy of non-engagement towards the MCB since 2009. In a little-watched video from last year, Ms Hamid seems to suggest that even if someone is ‘going to do something’, she would not necessarily report them to the police, as she didn’t ‘think there is a level of trust to do that’.  A failure to inform the police or security services about a potential or planned act of terrorism is a criminal offence. 

Elsewhere, the report discusses the appointment in January 2021 of Zara Mohammed as the first female secretary general of the MCB, which some have interpreted as the MCB moving in a new, more liberal direction, with which government and its departments could do business.  However, this does not appear to be borne out in reality.  In a recent MCB-organised discussion, Ms Mohammed made the following unsubstantiated claim: 

We’ve had this Prevent duty and, I agree, I think 7/7 was, especially for British Muslim students, that it was a complete lockdown in terms of speakers you could have, because I remember we weren’t allowed to host any speakers; people infiltrating the prayer room, looking at our literature … 

In the Foreword to the report David Cameron argues: 

“In a country where everyone feels at home, there is no place for extremism.  It sows division and hatred and threatens our very way of life. 

“I don’t just mean violent extremism.  No one becomes a terrorist from a standing start.  The warped narratives are what draw people in and pave the way for many to support or even commit terrible acts.”   

Mr Cameron goes on to say: 

“I believe those who refuse to challenge the falsehood surrounding Prevent are guilty of a form of ‘passive tolerance’, whereby society fails to interfere in minority communities for fear of appearing racist. 

“So just as we need to counter the Islamist extremist narrative, we need to counter the anti-Prevent narrative.  We need to show that delegitimising counter terrorism is, in essence, enabling terrorism.” 

Sir John Jenkins, one of the report’s authors, a Senior Fellow at Policy Exchange, former ambassador to Saudi Arabia and appointed by the Government to review the Muslim Brotherhood in 2014, said: 

“There are significant dangers with actively encouraging people not to cooperate with the authorities and with the statutory duty that is Prevent.  Let’s be really clear – the consequences are potentially deadly, even where anti-Prevent activism lies within the law. 

“One of the key challenges for counter-extremism and counter-extremism efforts in the UK is the dissemination of disinformation, saying that efforts like Prevent are inherently and unreformably Islamophobic.  The Government has singularly failed effectively to push back on those narratives.  In fact at worst it looks like the authorities are not even attempting to make the case for Prevent.  That has to change as a matter of urgency.   

“These issues must be addressed with confidence and transparency.” 

The report recommends: 

Developing criteria for engagement with community organisations at the national and local levels. Non-violent extremists have become ‘dug in’ as partners in sections of the public sector, most notably the policing family. Just as in the past the authorities refused to work with those who supported attacks on British troops, today those who campaign against Prevent, and counter-terrorism policies, should be denied the benefits of official patronage.

Applying these criteria will stop the funding of or partnering with organisations that encourage non-cooperation with the police and security services, campaign against counter-extremism policies, promote religious sectarianism or blasphemy codes, or those that disseminate false narratives and conspiracy theories about Prevent or counter-extremism efforts.

 MEND is a case in point. Nationally, MEND resolutely opposes Prevent, and actively encourages its boycott and termination. It disseminates a narrative that through Prevent and counter-extremism measures, the Government is engaged in an “Islamophobic” witch-hunt of Muslims, outlawing free speech and merely “conservative” Islamic beliefs and practices. MEND co-founded the Islamophobia Awareness Month (IAM) campaign.  A listed partner is the NHS, which has a legal obligation to assist with the delivery of Prevent! 

To ensure Ministers have the tools to properly address extremist narratives, establish a Centre for the Study of Extremism, reporting to the Home Secretary. This would be dedicated to the research and diagnosis of Islamist and other forms of extremism. There should also be a new communications unit focused more on rebutting disinformation about the Government’s counter-terrorism and counter-extremism strategies.  At present, government officials at both national and local level have too little reliable, up-to-date information about Prevent or counter-extremism programmes to push back effectively at anti-Prevent narratives.  Existing structures within the Home Office such as the Research, Information and Communications Unit are too opaque, and its work combatting the ideological narratives of violent (as opposed to non-violent) extremism is predominantly conducted in the digital space. 

Supportive quotes have been supplied by Khalid Mahmood, Labour MP for Birmingham Perry Barr and Fiyaz Mughal, Founder of Faith Matters and Tell MAMA.

ENDS 

Notes to Editors 

1.       Prevent is one of the four aspects of the UK’s counter-terrorism strategy, known as Contest.  See p16. 

2.       See pages 33-34 of the report for the ‘tropes’ detailed above.

3.       An ICM poll from 2019 found that on the whole, most people hold a positive view towards Prevent. Almost three in five (58%) of the general public said that their overall opinion or impression was favourable, four times the proportion who described it as unfavourable (8%).196 Significantly, the poll found favourability to Prevent identical at 58% when the sample was limited to British Muslims. Almost twice as many Muslims view Prevent unfavourably at 15%, which shows there are still issues to address, but the figure is still relatively low. 

4.       For details of Rizwana Hamid, see p51. 

5.       For details of the election of Zara Mohammed, see p20. 

6.       On March 18, 2022, Matt Jukes, the National Lead for Counter Terrorism Policing, told the media that in the 12 months to December 31, 2021, there were 186 counter-terrorism related arrests, 50% of which were related to suspected Islamist terrorism, and 41% of which related to suspected extreme right wing terrorism.  He said that since the start of 2017 there have been 11 Islamist extremist attacks and 18 late-stage terror plots linked to Islamist extremism, compared with 12 plots related to right-wing extremism. 

7.       In the same speech on Mr Jukes said there were currently about 800 live counterterrorism investigations in the UK, with about 80% of these linked to Islamist extremism, “which remains the predominant ideological threat. 

8.       According to the latest Home Office figures, as at December 31, 2021, there were 229 persons in custody for terrorism-connected offences in Britain, and “the vast majority (67%) were categorised as holding Islamist-extremist views. A further 23% were categorised as holding Extreme Right-Wing ideologies and 10% were categorised as holding Other ideologies”. 

9.       On December 31, 2019, 77% of those in custody on terrorism-related offences were categorised as having Islamist-extremist views.