Criticisms from a former top police officer who helped found the National Association of Muslim Police that many Muslims did not trust the government’s anti-terror strategy known as Prevent and even saw it as a form of spying, have reignited a long-running row.
Dal Babu, who was a chief superintendent with the Metropolitan police before he retired two years ago, told the BBC that Prevent has become a toxic brand.
Prevent and its sister strategy Channel – which was set up to spot signs of radicalisation – were effectively mechanisms for mass surveillance of Muslims, he suggested. Such claims were first rebutted by Charles Farr of the Home Office’s office for security and counter terrorism in 2010. That row led the coalition to commit to “redraw” the measures a few months later.
Theresa May, the home secretary, also pushed through a big reduction in the annual budget of Prevent, while claiming to have improved it. However, for many Muslim groups, the changes have been largely cosmetic, with the cuts focused on aspects of the programme that dealt with “integrating communities”. Babu’s criticism is partly centred on the fact that Prevent is seen as being led by white officers who have no roots in the communities they police.
Other critics claim that the schemes have become ever more intrusive in Muslim communities. Doctors have been reported as possible “Islamic radicalisers”, as have teachers drawn into the row over the Trojan Horse scandal in Birmingham, while the charity commission is scrutinising aid convoys to Syria.
One of the main issues is that Prevent, and Channel, lack transparency. Using freedom of information requests last year in an effort analyse the spread of the measures, the Guardian was rebutted by police forces which argued that “publication of specific data would provide information to those who seek to challenge the process, which would not be in the public interest”.
They added: “Allegations of ‘spying in the community’ and ‘targeting Muslims’ misrepresent and undermine the intention of Channel and ultimately the Prevent programme, which seeks to support those individuals vulnerable to being drawn into violent extremism.”
On 29 August last year, ministers raised the threat level from “substantial” to “severe” – meaning a terrorist attack was “highly likely” – amid fears that 500 people had travelled to Syria and a number had joined proscribed organisations. At least half have returned home and, in some cases, presented a clear and present threat, the government says.
Prevent and Channel have been expanded in response – a mission creep that has become clear with proposals tabled under the counter terrorism and security bill currently going through parliament. At present, Prevent is focused on 30 “priority areas”, but the government’s proposals would see it go nationwide and encompass all public services – from nurseries to universities, and the NHS to probation services.
Some in Muslim communities feel that Prevent has been delivered in a ham-fisted manner, with police officers asking school children to identify Osama bin Laden in pictures and warning them that militant organisations radicalise students via online video games.
Prisons are a particular concern, with the Muslim prisoner population doubling to 12,000 in a decade. Farr warned MPs in 2009 of the dangers of radicalisation among inmates, admitting that CIA agents were operating in the UK because of the perceived threat.
Despite the drumbeat of austerity, money will be found. Over the next 10 years, the extra cost to expand the anti-terror programmes is £120m, up by about a third from today’s budgets.
The implications for policing are dramatic. Sir Peter Fahy, from the Association of Chief Police Officers, has already warned that he does not want to be “policing thought” on university campuses.
For some, this is already happening. The Federation of Student Islamic Societies (Fosis) had organised a conference last weekend on Palestine and invited speakers from “around the world”. However, Imperial College London suddenly cancelled the booking and told Fosis that it was not concerned about what the invited speakers had said but what they “might say”. The conference was moved to a nearby hotel.
A spokesman for Fosis said: “We hope that other universities will not allow themselves to shut down discussions which in principle are the reason their institutions are in place. The question remains, if not at university then where else will these discussions be held?”