A PREVENT “Community” Event
Much to Britain’s, and in particular, the Conservatives’ shame, the UK fell in global rankings for child rights within a year, from 11th to 156th. The UK’s current position makes it sit among the ten worst countries including regions like CAR, Afghanistan and Sierra Leone. The KidsRights report notes that the UK could “do more to improve the enabling environment they have built for children’s rights” (p.5). The Independent reporting this appalling situation noted,
“Serious concerns have been raised about structural discrimination in the UK, including Muslim children facing increased discrimination following recent anti-terrorism measures, and a rise in discrimination against gypsy and refugee children in recent years.”
What has happened in the last year? Apart from increased prejudice and hate unlocked by a neocon/white supremacist-orchestrated Trump and Brexit campaigns, it has been a full of year Britain – and in particular the Muslim minority – has experienced the PREVENT Duty. The founder and chairman of KidsRights, Marc Dullaert, explicitly called for PREVENT to be “re-assessed” in light of the “increased discrimination” Muslim children face:
“…Muslim children in the UK face increased discrimination following recent anti-terrorism measures. Accordingly, the Index advises that counter-extremism measures such as the Prevent Strategy be re-assessed to ensure that they do not have a discriminatory or stigmatizing impact on any group of children.”
Birmingham. The geographic centre of the “Trojan Horse” fabrications unlocked varying manifestations of hatred. Among other things, it empowered racist, anti-Muslim teachers to bully and intimidate Muslim teachers and attack Islamic practices; it legitimised political Islamophobia through the entrenchment the discriminatory PREVENT Strategy; and it led to state-sanctioned psychological child abuse within schools thanks to PREVENT. The fickleness of the bevy of allegations, which I challenged and exposed throughout 2014 and 2015, are being found to be groundless even by the inquisition panels specifically set up by the Department of Education to try Muslims. However, the PREVENT implementation has rapidly permeated the public structures of society and continues to do so whilst remaining toxically anti-Muslim, yielding damaging results.
“Extremism” Hierarchy based on Mosques
How ironic. When doing some background reading on emotional and psychological child abuse for an earlier article on PREVENT, one of the websites I visited was that of NSPCC’s. It provided definitions for signs of psychological child abuse. Those signs were based on the Home Office’s guidelines on safeguarding, which I then used to demonstrate how PREVENT was in fact resulting in children suffering from abuse.
Earlier today, it was revealed that the charity NSPCC had implemented the counter-extremism screed on “extremism”. Chief executive Peter Wanless said:
“The fact that a young person might hold extreme or radical views is not a safeguarding issue in itself. But when young people are groomed for extremist purposes and encouraged to commit acts that could hurt themselves or others, then it becomes abuse.”
Parents can now ring the charity to obtain information from “trained” counsellors to determine whether their child is becoming an extremist as adjudged through “signs”.
These reports on NSPCC raise deep concerns.
Report: Preventing Education? Human Rights and UK Counter-Terrorism Policy in Schools
Further Reading: Muslim Children Through PREVENT: Victims of the War on Terror
The neoconservative social engineering programme of hate that is the PREVENT counter-extremism policy last week suffered a further set back.
Over the past year I have endeavoured to raise the impact on the rights as well as the psychology of children resulting from the application of PREVENT. In January, the Institute of Race Relations issued a report looking at the impact on children from the context of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
The NUS have taken action which represents yet another rebounding ripple caused by the impact of the totalitarian measures that are Britain’s spurious endeavours to tackle the ever obscure “extremism”.
As the government continues to spin its brainwashing, public surveillance programme as “child protection”, those implementing the PREVENT Strategy are seeing it for it really is. Teachers at the National Union of Teachers conference voted unanimously to reject the PREVENT Strategy.
“We could favour the birth of a new Islam, more inclined towards compromise and tolerance of Europe; to encourage the young generation of ulama who are working in that direction…” ~ French Colonialist, Edmond Douttee,  1901
“It is the modernists whose vision matches our own. Of all the groups, this one is the most congenial to the values and the spirit of modern democratic society.” ~ (Former) wife of US neocon Zalmay Khalilzad, Cheryl Bernard, 2003
“We’re now going to actively encourage the reforming and moderate Muslim voices.” ~ British PM David Cameron, Speech on Extremism, 2015
Slogans based within particular parlance and values often provide the veil for an agenda of a different kind. During the 1970s, the human rights industry was used as official US imperial policy. Prior to this, the enlightened liberalism of the west was driving colonisation of the world to bring it out of “darkness” – a psychological projection of its own “dark” past. Today, neoconservatives have taken much of the above, tweaked the rhetoric and driven a strategic policy which has now begun to gain international traction. Today, the “cure” for “backward” and “violent” Muslims remains one grounded in the European, supremacist experience. However, this prescription is administered through the now pressing lens of security and specifically the counter-extremism agenda. In other words, neocons have successfully managed to securitise human rights, allowing them to foster closed societies domestically whilst pursing their doctrine of pre-emption objectives on a global scale through war – both physical and ideological. The vehicle which provides the language set and values for this culturalist war is the Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) agenda.
In a previous article, I noted how the underlying neoconservative “clash of civilisations” assumptions about Islam have premised the counter-extremism discourse. In the British context, we now a have state-coerced effort to deconstruct Islam piece by piece in order to assimilate, as opposed to integrate, Muslims. When we understand that Britain through its neocon “think-tanks” and pseudo-liberal “reformers” are at the centre of defining the counter-extremism ideology transnationally, we can appreciate, or rather, be perturbed by the extent of the influence of this dangerous thinking.
Crosspost: Shohana Khan
This weekend a very important seminar on the Prevent programme was held, by voluntary community organisation PreventWatch. A diverse amount of people came together to listen to an array of speakers from Gareth Peirce, the solicitor who represented the detainees of Guantanamo Bay, Imran Khan, the solicitor for the Stephen Lawrence case, to people who had been personally impacted by Prevent.
Amongst the 130 cases Preventwatch have received since 2014, one particular case was of Rahmaan Mohammadi – A now 17 year old boy, who at the age of 15 was flagged up as a ‘Prevent’ case in school due to his interest and commitment towards the Palestinian cause. Incidents as small as wearing the Palestinian badge or wanting to talk about Palestine to his friends, resulted in Rahmaan being pulled up by school staff who became concerned about his potential radicalisation.
Having volunteered to speak on the day, he spoke eloquently and intelligently about how he and his friends lived under a ‘paranoia’ of being watched and listened to. He clearly stated it created a ‘them and us’ feeling with the school, and made him and his group of friends incredibly alienated. He was visited by the police, which reinforced the feeling of being seen as a criminal just because he was expressive about his political views. In short, the process of Prevent enabled a Muslim teenager’s political views to be not only deemed suspicious, but warrant actual interaction with the police.