In the recent past, we have seen catastrophic events that extremist Islam groups devise. While this requires measures employed by the government, there are limits that even the government should cross. This literature review examines how PREVENT program has affected the image and quality of the Muslim community.

Spread of Islamophobia

According to Qurashi (2018), the PREVENT strategy employed by the UK government has defined how the era unfolds for Muslims. It is seen in any aspect of a Muslim’s life from birth to death.  It can be in the form of seven stops at the UK ports, police checks while driving, and the general feeling of being unsafe in public spaces. Qurashi (2018) emphasizes that PREVENT program has only strengthened Islamophobia among individuals from non-Islam communities. PREVENT targets even the Muslim who has not undertaken any suspicious activity. This is echoed by Cohen and Tufail (2017), who states that PREVENT program has targeted Muslims in general despite saying that they are only interested in Muslim terrorists. Versi (2017), in an article in the Guardian, claims that the PREVENT strategy has been a direct cause of grievance to Muslim students, academicians, and the entire community at large because it allows the fast spread of mistrust.

The findings of Cohen and Tufail (2017), Qurashi (2018) and Versi (2017) are further confirmed by the study carried by Abbas (2015). The researcher compares the creation of Muslims as suspect communities to the case of the Irish community after the Birmingham pub bombing. While the general British population within the UK feels that all the strategies applied by the PREVENT program are necessary to counterterrorism, most Muslims believe that the program has huge shortcomings. Abbas argues that the Muslim community living within the UK is very diverse, comprising of different cultures. While employing the Counterterrorism action, the government has led to the division of the Muslim community into two; the moderate Muslim and the extreme Muslim. The implication made here is that a moderate Muslim can be quickly radicalized into terror. It does not help the image of an average Muslim trying to live a normal life.

The study carried out by Cohen and Tufail (2017) shows that Muslims, in general, are targeted by the PREVENT program. In the study, some Muslim students fell at the cross with authorities for simply picking and reading a particular book in the University Library. While a Muslim may be released after wrongful accusation and arrest, the trauma of having to go through that experience when they are innocent remains with them. According to Cohen and Tufail (2017), PREVENT strategies have equally impacted students’ right to free speech. Toole et al. (2016) carried out a study that looked into Muslim civil society response to PREVENT. The study found out that some Muslim organizations did not want to participate in the program due to the active surveillance in their communities. As a result, they rejected funds given to them by PREVENT to avoid further division within the Muslim community.

Choudhury and Fernwick (2015) carried out a study to determine the effect of PREVENT strategy on the Muslim community. The study showed that when the lives of Muslims and non –Muslims within the UK were compared, it was like they lived in a parallel universe. The study focused on different aspects; diverse experience of Muslims, the threat to international security, ports and airports and checks, police stop quality of life in the communities, quality of life in schools and mosques. Choudhury and Fernwick (2011) focused on four significant locations; Birmingham, Glasgow, Leister, and East London. The study found out that the Muslim community is very diverse in terms of culture and traditions. The study found that about 60% of the total population is 34 years and below, which meant that policing activities disproportionately felt on the Muslim community. The study by Choudhury (2015) reports that while the country is exposed to terror threats, the government is not open to which proportion are Muslim extremists responsible for.  

Choudhury and Fernwick (2011) point out that the stops in ports and airports are purely on the grounds of religious profiling. This finding is similar to that of Cohen and Tufali (2017). Young Muslims are held for extensive hours, even days, based on religion only. This is also seen in the streets. There are certain places Muslims may avoid walking because they automatically know they might be stopped and may be held up in custody. The study also found that about three-quarters of those arrested for suspicion of terrorist activity were released without any charge. Many Muslims felt that since it did not matter whether one was guilty or not at the point of arrest, anyone could easily fall on the hands of the police. In other words, nobody was safe. Choudhury and Fernwick (2011) conclude that Individuals from Muslim communities feel separated from the rest of Europe. The alienation and isolation are made worse when encountering or witnessing a person they know being handled by the authority.

Policies used by PREVENT

According to Qurashi (2018), the PREVENT strategy has normalized Islamophobia among the citizens and the operations of employees. While individual people perpetrate terror, the threat is regarded formally as the Islamic threat.  The institution’s perception of the whole community being accessory to terror activities was effectively demonstrated in the Department for Community and Local Government document in 2007. In the report, participants refer to Muslims in general rather than individual perpetrators of the crime. Abbas (2015) agrees that institutionalized Islamophobia is propagated by PREVENT making policies that target the Muslim community compared to any other religious group within the UK.  He further reports that Muslims implicated in the government process are mostly from neighbourhoods that have been greatly affected by structural disadvantages and racial discrimination.  Abbas (2015) argues that the enactment of PREVENT has led to a progressive radicalization of the Muslim community.

Kundnani (2009) argues that the UK government has spent a lot of money on the Muslim community at large, showing how their system is prejudistic towards Muslims in general. In 2008, the Foreign and Common Wealth office intentionally 520,000 Euros to an international organization to popularize the ‘I am West show’ that featured prominent British Muslims. Areas having the largest Muslim population receive the most significant cut from the PREVENT budget. The argument that follows is a specific group of individuals within the British community that has been radicalized and has some degree of negative emotions towards the rest of the group (Kundnani, 2009). As a result, PREVENT strategies focus on three different groups in a hierarchy; the General Muslim population, the sympathizers, and the extremists. PREVENT strategies aims to mobilize the Muslim community to fight terrorism. This, for a start, places the community as a suspect. In addition to that, individuals who fail to comply due to the feeling that the process is prejudistic are automatically seen as terror suspects. Kundnani (2009) explains that the program breeds tension because Muslims feel targeted and are battling whether or not to participate. Instead of only rooting out terror, the program has created great division in the Muslim community.

MCB shows that there are three different aspects that PREVENT has to address to be much more effective. These include transparency and accountability, reduced notion of suspect community, curtailing Muslim freedom of speech, and using an evidence-based approach in profiling and surveillance. MCB terms the PREVENT strategy is outlined flawed. Conservative religions such as Islam are categorized as non-violent extremists without any evidence. The MCB report shows that some politicians within the UK have been in the front line in promoting Islamophobia, but the government has done very little to prevent this. In 2017 BBC covered a story on how PREVENT has led to the build-up of Islamophobia. The BBC REPORT was based on an interview carried on 36 participants. Tufail, who authored the report, termed PREVENT as counterproductive. This he further explained by saying that the strategy lacked accountability and transparency.

Surveillance

Surveillance is an essential strategy employed by the PREVENT program. It is fundamental in trying to stop terrorism within the UK. In the past, it has been discovered that there exists widespread surveillance specifically targeting the Muslim community, their businesses, and organizations. In a study carried by Abbas (2015), he points out that PREVENT has led to increased surveillance on specific Muslims within the UK. Many Muslims, especially the male population, find themselves being questioned by the police without charge. In addition, the police hold them for extensive periods while interrogating them. 

In the study carried by Choudhury and Fernwick (2011), it was reported that camera surveillance in Birmingham had gone overboard. The cameras were placed all over the Muslim community, which left them feeling that the government was intentionally targeting them based on their religion. The Muslims in the community argued that the responsible community had failed to consult them before installing the surveillance camera.

Effects of PREVENT on students

Studies show that the PREVENT strategy has greatly limited the freedom of speech for Muslim students on Campus (Cheruvallil 2020). Cheruvallil (2020) highlights the experience of two students: Muslim and non-Muslim roommates. One came into the school with a discriminatory position about the other. However, on staying with the roommate, he realized that all the stereotypes ideas he had held were all wrong. The study reaffirmed that PREVENT strategy only reinforced negative stereotypes on Muslims. The study recommended that the best way to deal with the already negative picture is promoting a positive relationship between students and teachers within the campus.  Cheruvallil (2020) states that Muslim students’ freedom of speech is significantly curtailed because they feel pressure always to say the right thing. The study showed that students who support the government approaches in dealing with counter-terrorism were four times more likely to view the Muslim students negatively.

The curtailing of freedom of speech leads to self-censoring among most Muslim students and teachers. They feel they have to do this to avoid going under scrutiny. The findings of Cheruvallil (2020) mirrors that of Cohen and Tufail (2017) and Martin (2015). Martin (2015) states that PREVENT has propagated the idea among non-Muslims that Muslim extremists preach hate speech on campus. According to Cohen and Tufail (2017), even though PREVENT has actively been involved in stopping events that promote Islamophobia, they have in equal measure infringed the right of Muslims’ freedom of speech. The findings of Cheruvallil mirror those of Busher et al. (2017). In the study, one of the social workers in London said that things had changed for the Muslim students. Muslim students confessed that they are afraid to speak their minds because they fear they would be reported. Another senior school leader in the same institution said Muslim students are very conscious about what they say, how they behave, and their activities. It is a luxury for them to say just anything as it could land them in trouble much faster than their non-Muslim counterpart. A teacher from W.Yorks school confessed that it was not easy to strike a balance between not limiting student freedom of speech and correcting something genuinely wrong. One action always seems to sabotage the other, making it a difficult task to strike a balance. Part of the reason most Muslims withhold much information is that they know that the teacher must report anything that sounds suspicious.

Reed (2016) argues that the PREVENT program has created an ethical dilemma for teacher and psychiatrist. PREVENT strategies demands that they should report students who they feel may be a security threat. The study shows that in some schools, the program had become a joke. The PREVENT education informs teachers that depression and other mental health issues can make students much more vulnerable to attending extremist groups. Reed (2016) argues that encouraging teachers to look out for and treat Muslim mental problems differently only strengthens Islamophobia. Reed (2016) concludes that education is good, but it should not involve turning teachers into corporate spies. Instead, they should focus on encouraging free speech and exchange of ideas.

An article written by Busby (2018) confirms that the PREVENT strategy has limited the texts and topics students can access. Busby reports that PREVENT has flagged at least four articles in universities in response to Counterterrorism measures. Students are required to report in advance if they are to use sensitive material. In one case at Glasgow, the artwork was flagged because it featured Geopolitics in the Middle East. Busby (2018) reports that some Academicians have been limited in terms of materials they can use when teaching about Islam. In one extreme incident, a Lecturer fearing to get at odds with authority, ran his entire course content by the police force. According to Busby (2018), Muslim students actively avoid course modules that are terror-related. In addition to that, they avoid books that expressly cover Al-Qaeda content. Fear such as this does not develop outside the blue. Muslim students develop this fear because they have seen some of their peers questioned after taking particular material.

A good example occurred in 2015, where a student from East Anglia University was detained and questioned by the police after reading pro-Isis material. Busby (2018) concludes that PREVENT has created a culture of fear and confusion in Muslim students and academicians. He argues that there is little to no evidence that Muslim interacting with such material for academic purpose will lead to them going to the extreme. In addition, lectures have become more and more involved in following PREVENT orders that they are damaging the quality of education afforded to Muslim students in higher learning institutions.

Conclusion

Studies have shown that PREVENT has fuelled Islamophobia in the UK (BBC 2017; Choudhury & Fernwick 2011; Cohen & Tufail 2017; Qurashi 2018. The image of Muslims in the eyes of the public is generally affected. The program has been tailored to target even non-Muslim who have had no previous record of suspicious activity. Studies equally show that as a result, the quality of life of an average Muslim is reduced.  Muslims cannot practice their freedom of speech because they fear that they could come under government scrutiny (Cheruvallil 2020; Cohen & Tufail 2017). Studies have shown that Muslims are more likely to be arrested and detained in port entries; they experience much more police stops and are likely to be detained (Abbas 2015; Choudhury 2011). This equally speaks on the need for transparency. Individuals arrested end up being clear of suspicion, and the government is not held accountable for the unlawful detention.

The studies have shown that PREVENT has been building up a negative image of Muslims. These should come up with strategies that do not affect the quality of life of a Muslim. The policing resource should also be accountable for unlawful arrests and lengthy detention without probable cause.  There are still many improvements that need to be done, which in no way includes relenting on the fight against terrorism. The strategies employed by PREVENT in schools must not cast fear and isolation for Muslim students. Instead, they should encourage open talk within the school to deal with the most challenging questions on terror.

Reference List

Abbas, T. and Awan, I., 2015. Limits of UK counterterrorism policy and its implications for Islamophobia and far-right extremism. International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy, 4(3), pp.16-29.

BBC, 2017. Prevent scheme ‘built on Islamophobia and should be axed.  https://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/prevent-programme-counterterrorism-extremism-radicalism-muslim-students-uk-universities-a8650111.html https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-41082086

Busby, Eleanor. (2018). The government’s counterterrorism is limiting texts and topics students can access, experts, say. The Independent. Retrieved from: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/prevent-programme-counterterrorism-extremism-radicalism-muslim-students-uk-universities-a8650111.html

Busher, J., Choudhury, T., Thomas, P. & Harris, J. (2017). What the Prevent duty means for schools and colleges in England: An analysis of educationalists’ experiences

Cheruvallil, S., 2020. Government policy has left Muslim students feeling unable to speak up on campus. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/government-policy-has-left-muslim-students-feeling-unable-to-speak-up-on-campus-142610

Choudhury, T. and Fenwick, H., 2015. The impact of counter-terrorism measures on Muslim communities. International Review of Law, Computers & Technology, 25(3), pp.151-181.

Cohen, B. and Tufail, W., 2017. Prevent and the normalization of Islamophobia.

Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG)., 2007. Preventing violent extremism pathfinder fund: guidance note for government offices and local authorities in England. Department of Communities and Local Government, London

MCB. The Impact of Prevent on Muslim Communities.

O’Toole, T., Meer, N., DeHanas, D.N., Jones, S.H. and Modood, T., 2016. Governing through prevent? Regulation and contested practice in State–Muslim engagement. Sociology, 50(1), pp.160-177.

Qurashi, F., 2018. The Prevent strategy and the UK ‘war on terror’: embedding infrastructures of surveillance in Muslim communities. Palgrave Communications, 4(1), pp.1-13.

Reed S. (2016). The Prevent programme: an ethical dilemma for teachers as well as psychiatrists. BJPsych Bulletin, 40(2), 85–86. https://doi.org/10.1192/pb.bp.116.053611

Versi, M., 2017. The latest Prevent figures show why the strategy needs an independent review. The Guardian, 10.