Listen to this piece read by the author


A colleague​ of mine at Oxford was asked to see an undergraduate who was falling behind in her work. The student – a Muslim – explained that she had been suffering from depression and was being treated for it by her GP. My colleague believed the student’s explanation placed her under an obligation to ask the student whether she was being radicalised.

A young colleague, an Arab, told me that when he tried to book a room for a seminar, he was informed that this was no longer permitted on security grounds: he had to get a ‘senior’ academic to confirm the real purpose of the meeting.

Another young colleague was told that she had to carry out a security ‘risk assessment’ for a feminist seminar she was convening; she refused, and was repeatedly pressured to comply.

A librarian was asked for a reference by another university: ‘Are you completely satisfied,’ they wanted to know, ‘that the applicant is not involved in “extremism” (being vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs)?’

Out of the blue, a college head refused the usual joint arrangements with a university centre for a lecture by a very distinguished European academic, whose work is on the politics of Islam. Special Branch had informed the college that a great deal of extra security would be required.

An undergraduate who wears the hijab went to book a room at her college for someone who was coming to speak as part of Islam Awareness Week. She had booked rooms many times before without any problem. This time she was sent to the college dean, who asked a number of questions, including one about the kind of Islam the event would be promoting. ‘It made me feel like an outsider in my own university,’ she said.

A Sikh student was apparently overheard by cleaning staff reading prayers in her room in Punjabi. When she went out her room was searched. ‘I was told that the scouts were given specific instructions on “signs to look out for”, in relation solely to my room,’ she wrote to the college authorities, ‘and that you did not enter any of the other rooms of the flat.’ Later, she wrote that she felt ‘unsafe in college but I am unable to speak up about what is happening’.

A student asked the domestic bursar to sign off on a screening of a Palestinian film about refugees returning home. The domestic bursar said that because of legislation concerning ‘extremism’, they would need to get the dean’s approval.

A student society set up decades ago to represent a well-established immigrant community in the UK wanted to hold welcome drinks for new undergraduates at the beginning of the academic year. The university told them to hand over the guest list 48 hours before the event. They explained that they had no way of knowing who would turn up, as the event was to welcome new members, but offered to check university IDs at the door, take names, or have a senior member in attendance – no, they couldn’t hold the event, it was against the new rules. One of the organisers was sent an explanatory email: ‘The event was impossible without a guest list because of our legal duty to abide by Prevent. All colleges across the university must screen guest lists before they offer an event, for security purposes … our hands are simply tied on this one.’

The British government’s Prevent programme, aimed at keeping people from being ‘drawn into terrorism’, was developed in 2003, after the invasion of Iraq, as part of the overarching counter-terrorism strategy known as Contest. Revised in 2008, 2011 and 2015, it consists of four ‘workstreams’: ‘Pursue: to stop terrorist attacks; Prevent: to stop people becoming terrorists or supporting terrorism; Protect: to strengthen protection against a terrorist attack; and Prepare: to mitigate the impact of a terrorist attack.’

Under the 2015 Counter-Terrorism and Security Act, the latest incarnation of the Prevent programme imposes a legal duty on public bodies, and the people who work for them, to spot the early warning signs of terrorist sympathy in individuals, and report them. There is ‘statutory guidance’ explaining what the signs could be. ‘Non-violent extremism’, said to be the gateway to ‘violent extremism’ and part of the ‘radicalisation process’, is defined as ‘vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty, and mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs. We also include in our definition of extremism calls for the death of members of our armed forces.’ According to the government’s counter-terrorism strategy, ‘extremist’ ideology is the core problem, and terrorism its outcome, even though substantial research on radicalisation and extremism suggests that a complex mix of social, psychological, political and strategic factors all have a role to play. Louise Richardson, Oxford’s vice-chancellor and an expert on terrorism, has publicly described the Prevent strategy as ‘wrong-headed’ – but the university is still legally bound to spend time hunting for proto-terrorists.

Prevent relies on two analogies to explain how individuals are drawn into ‘non-violent extremism’ and then ‘radicalised’ into terrorists. The first is the conveyor belt, or escalator hypothesis. Prevent aims to identify and catch people before they step onto the conveyor belt that will carry them from thinking bad thoughts to doing bad things – in other words, not only before any crime is committed, but before it is even dreamed up. The second is the iceberg hypothesis, first floated by Colonel Chuck Cardinal, the director of the US Army Pacific Command’s inter-agency co-ordination group for counter-terrorism, who suggested that ‘Islamic extremists’ are like icebergs, floating, and mostly submerged, in a sea of ‘moderate Muslims’. So how are we supposed to spot them?

There is no comprehensive list of possible indicators that someone is ‘vulnerable to terrorism’, but the government has come up with a partial list in the official guidance that accompanies the primary legislation:

Identity Crisis – Distance from cultural/ religious heritage and uncomfortable with their place in the society around them.

Personal Crisis – Family tensions; sense of isolation; adolescence; low self-esteem; disassociating from existing friendship group and becoming involved with a new and different group of friends; searching for answers to questions about identity, faith and belonging.

Personal Circumstances – Migration; local community tensions; events affecting country or region of origin; alienation from UK values; having a sense of grievance that is triggered by personal experience of racism or discrimination or aspects of government policy.

Unmet Aspirations – Perceptions of injustice; feeling of failure; rejection of civic life.

Criminality – Experiences of imprisonment; poor resettlement/reintegration; previous involvement with criminal groups.

‘However,’ it goes on, ‘this list is not exhaustive.’

If you are identified as ‘vulnerable to being drawn into terrorism’, you are reported – or ‘referred’ – to the police. Referrals can come from teachers, council workers, social workers, doctors, university lecturers, nurses, librarians or opticians. Thousands of mostly Muslim men and boys, along with a few right-wing extremists, have been flagged ‘at risk’, and sent on courses under the so-called Channel programme. It is ‘voluntary’, and offers a range of social and psychological processes intended to deradicalise young British Muslims.

The latest figures, obtained via a Freedom of Information request to the National Police Chiefs’ Council, show a sharp jump in referrals to Channel after the 2015 Act. Sixty children are referred to Prevent every week. In the year to June 2016, there were 2311 referrals of under-18s – an increase of 83 per cent on the previous year – of whom 352 were aged nine or under. Referrals from schools climbed to 1121 from 537 the previous year. In a report for the Institute of Race Relations, Frances Webber wrote that ‘the context for Prevent’ is an ‘increase in racist violence and extremely negative stereotypes of Muslims … Islamophobia and far right extremism have become more mainstream, with nearly one third of young children believing Muslims are taking over England and over a quarter believing that Islam encourages terrorism.’

One NGO website asks parents if their children have ‘become overly passionate in some of their viewpoints’ or ‘refuse to listen to those who don’t share their views’. But parents are often not told that their children are being investigated. Some are only told about the investigation after it ends, and many are suspects themselves. Last year a friend told me about a Syrian refugee family recently arrived in his town. He and his wife, who had met them at the mosque, helped them to settle in. At nursery, their son (who spoke almost no English) was constantly drawing pictures of planes dropping bombs. Rather than ensure the child received help to get over his traumatic experiences, the nursery staff called the police. The parents were visited by the local force, separated and questioned: ‘How many times a day do you pray? Do you support President Assad? Who do you support? What side are you on?’ The police just shouted louder when the parents didn’t answer immediately (they didn’t always understand what they were being asked).

The application of the legislation is cumbersome and detailed. Prison officers, childcare workers, staff in hospitals, doctors’ surgeries, welfare services and town councils, higher education administrators and teachers are now deeply immersed in the daily chores necessary to demonstrate compliance with ‘the Prevent duty’. We have to fill out ‘risk assessment’ templates that chart the measures to be taken. There are also lengthy ‘action’ templates, to demonstrate progress at each stage, with ‘benchmarks’, training manuals, guides and slides, workshops, seminars and online courses, accompanied by conflicting and copious literature, official and unofficial guidance, published at regular intervals, with updates, new suggestions and more forms – all of which come attached with dark warnings of the trouble ahead if you don’t (or won’t) fill in the forms or carry out the suggested activities.

Non-compliance carries the risk of your institution losing its funding. The authorities require material proof that you have been on your guard throughout the year. There are spaces on the action templates where you have to demonstrate, in writing, exactly how you (and everyone you line-manage) have been looking out for extremist behaviour and views. You must offer concrete examples of how and when you have done this.

There is also ‘training’ to help you spot extremists. By July 2016, more than half a million people working in the public sector had gone through Prevent training of some kind – lasting 45 minutes to an hour, on average – much of it provided by private companies. The Home Office training manual lists the firms they recommend. A session costs between £30 and £150 per person. One company’s variation on the conveyor belt theory is an online game of snakes and ladders that takes you on the path from extremism to radicalisation. These private firms also offer courses to schools on ‘British values’, which depict respect for market capitalism as the bedrock of parliamentary democracy. In one higher education training programme recommended by the Home Office, the British value of freedom is explained to students as ‘the freedom to choose your course’.

None of the training material bothers to explain how radicalisation actually occurs, or acknowledges the role that Western foreign policy might play. Drone strikes, airstrikes, missile strikes and military incursions across the Middle East, Asia and East Africa are factors that might well motivate rage. Prevent training defines them merely as ‘perceived grievances’, then claims that expressing concern about such ‘perceived’ problems is an indicator – indeed evidence – of extremism. York City Council included ‘anti-Israel/pro-Palestinian activity’ in a list of ‘key risks’. Teachers have reported that during Prevent training police officers warned them to ‘keep an eye’ on pupils who went to demonstrations against the Israeli bombing of Gaza in 2014. One of the slides in an HEFCE-backed Prevent training session for universities a few months ago was captioned: ‘Palestine: Extreme, but Legal?’

During the latter part of 2015 and through 2016, as the effects of the Prevent duty began to be felt, the National Union of Students was overwhelmed by the number of members phoning for help and advice. The National Union of Teachers passed a remarkably strong motion at its annual conference, calling on the government ‘to withdraw the Prevent strategy in regard to schools and colleges and to involve the profession in developing alternative strategies to safeguard children and identify risks posed to young people’.

Even​ on its own terms, Prevent is a failure, as well as being counterproductive. In early 2011, the Equality and Human Rights Commission reported that not only do the measures in many cases breach human rights law, but ‘counter-terrorism laws and policies are increasingly alienating Muslims, especially young people and students,’ and ‘counter-terrorism measures may themselves feed and sustain terrorism.’ MI5 rejected the conveyor belt theory in 2008, in a report leaked to the Guardian. In 2010, the incoming coalition cabinet received a briefing (leaked to the Sunday Telegraph) that warned them not ‘to regard radicalisation in this country as a linear “conveyor belt”, moving from grievance, through radicalisation, to violence … This thesis seems to both misread the radicalisation process, and to give undue weight to ideological factors.’ The ‘vulnerability assessment framework’ that the government relies on is based on a single study of a small number of people imprisoned for terrorist offences. That study is classified, but when the two authors explained their methodology in another, published article, a review by 19 other experts found it unsound.

In a position statement on ‘Counter-Terrorism and Psychiatry’ published last September, the Royal College of Psychiatrists warned that thousands of Muslim men and women were being referred to Channel on the basis of questionable science, and demanded that the Home Office allow ‘data on evaluations of Prevent’ to be made available for ‘peer review and scientific scrutiny’: ‘Public policy cannot be based on either no evidence or a lack of transparency about evidence.’ The doctors warned that identifying refugees with the terrorism from which they have fled ‘could add to their trauma’. They also noted that ‘any assumption that there is a generally identifiable “path to radicalisation”, to which some individuals will be psychologically vulnerable, needs to be treated with caution.’

Baroness Warsi, the former cabinet minister and co-chair of the Conservative Party who resigned in 2014 in protest at the government’s failure to condemn Israel’s attack on Gaza, has called on the government to rethink Prevent. In an interview with the Sunday Times, she described the strategy as a ‘broken brand’. In The Enemy Within: A Tale of Muslim Britain, she argues that Prevent has set back proper research into the causes of political violence, and will be remembered as ‘a textbook example of how to alienate absolutely everybody … A policy designed to spot terrorists and stop terrorism has become a policy which has put on ice genuine policy work to understand the varied and complex causes of terrorism.’* She also suggests that the UK is on its way to becoming a ‘paranoid state’, and that its ‘policy of disengagement’ has undermined relations with British Muslim communities.

As Baroness Lister and more than two hundred other academics and activists wrote to the Independent last year,

Prevent remains fixated on ideology as the primary driver of terrorism. Inevitably, this has meant a focus on religious interaction and Islamic symbolism to assess radicalisation. For example, growing a beard, wearing a hijab or mixing with those who believe Islam has a comprehensive political philosophy are key markers used to identify ‘potential’ terrorism. This serves to reinforce a prejudicial worldview that perceives Islam to be a retrograde and oppressive religion that threatens the West.

The UN special rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association, Maina Kiai, worried after a visit to the UK last April that ‘the lack of definitional clarity, combined with the encouragement of people to report suspicious activity, have created unease and uncertainty around what can legitimately be discussed in public.’ Prevent, he went on, ‘is having the opposite of its intended effect: by dividing, stigmatising and alienating segments of the population, Prevent could end up promoting extremism, rather than countering it.’

A Freedom​ of Information request to the police revealed that more than 80 per cent of the reports on individuals suspected of extremism were dismissed as unfounded. This ‘over-reporting’ by an army of officially empowered civilian informants, leading to the investigation of blameless British people by the police, has been defended as showing that Prevent is ‘working effectively’. What it really shows is how Prevent actually works: by encouraging, endorsing and institutionalising a set of conventions and values premised on fear, ignorance and suspicion of non-whites – immigrants, foreigners, racialised Muslims. Prevent has turned ordinary citizens and public sector workers into an auxiliary surveillance militia. Talking or texting in Arabic on a plane, speaking a foreign language in a doctor’s waiting room, wearing a hijab while walking down the street near your house, wearing a free Palestine badge at school – people doing all these things have been reported to police under the Prevent programme.

The legislation, clumsy and laughable on so many levels, is extraordinarily efficient on others. It divides Muslims (practising or not) from the rest of society; black or brown or immigrant or refugee from the white majority. Once you start seeing everyday behaviour as having the potential to draw people into terrorism, you’re inside the problem. A sizeable percentage of Britain’s population now live without freedoms enjoyed by the majority. But the majority don’t see this. They only see an individual black, brown or Muslim Brit – alone, bearded, on the Tube, taking his seat on a plane, waiting for the bus with bulky shopping between his feet. If he argues that there is a direct connection between Britain’s illegal war of aggression against Iraq and the increase in terrorism since 2003, or expresses views critical of British military conduct in Arab and Muslim countries, or criticises Israel for illegal and increasingly brutal practices that appear tied to its increasing impunity, he is suspect. These issues can no longer be discussed by him, because they are indicators of extremism.

The spaces where such matters can be talked about are disappearing. Local libraries (where they haven’t been closed), playgrounds and town halls are no longer democratic spaces, or even public spaces, for a British Arab, Sikh, Muslim or black Christian (like the man hauled off a plane for texting prayers to a WhatsApp group). One despondent man discussed the possible causes of his insomnia with his GP: ‘It makes me so angry what is happening in Iraq, and Syria, and it makes me so depressed.’ Instead of treatment, he got a visit from the police.

Many of us don’t speak of these things in public anymore. The situation of Palestinian refugees in Gaza or Syria or Jerusalem or Lebanon – a lively and daily topic of conversation in Muslim, Arab, ethnic minority and immigrant communities – is now discussed almost exclusively at home or in a friend’s house. Many parents have stopped talking about these matters in front of their children, worried what they might repeat in the classroom or school corridor. Children warn their parents not to call goodbye to them in Urdu at the school gate. Last July, Rights Watch UK reported:

Our research has found that Muslim children across the United Kingdom are self-censoring for fear of being reported under Prevent. Their fear is not unwarranted. We have uncovered a number of instances where children have been referred to Prevent for legitimately exercising their right to freedom of expression in situations where they pose no threat to society whatsoever.

Prevent is a highly effective method of suppressing unwanted democratic discussion, dissent and debate, though its role in the evisceration of our previous uneasy and unwritten social contract is still only tangible to those affected by it. It also draws on some of Britain’s other old, unspoken customs, and ways of maintaining order. The tradition of liberty for some – a classic ‘British value’ – can be traced most vividly outside Great Britain, in the extensive engagements of empire. We also keep up, but rarely discuss, the tradition of counter-insurgency policies designed to monitor, coerce and repress a suspect (and hostile) community, as developed over the centuries in Ireland, Scotland, India, Africa, China and the ‘Near East’, up to and including Yemen and Oman in the 1970s. The importing of colonial policing practices into domestic British security and intelligence work has been painstakingly traced by historians (‘The Muslims are Coming!’ Islamophobia, Extremism and the Domestic War on Terror by Arun Kundnani is an impressive recent example).

Britain’s seminal moment of foreign engagement outside this island is still widely believed to have been the Second World War. The relationship between the colonial past and present-day racism and prejudice remains largely concealed. University textbooks on globalisation refer to the enormous contribution the 18th-century shipping industry made to the ‘expansion of international society’, with no mention of the cargo. Nothing is taught in today’s schools about Britain’s role in regions that remain sites of colonial violence, or about how the past clings to our present. Under Prevent, everyone from Africa, Asia and the Middle East is lumped together and detached from their historical, political and national origins and relationships. As one British comedian, a second-generation immigrant, asked: ‘So we just go back to Muslimistan?’

The purpose of retrieving an erased and bloody colonial legacy is not to ‘diversify your curriculum’, or to tick a box to show compliance with the equality duty, but to change things. There are reasons why the Arab and Muslim worlds remain the most active site of Western – particularly British – imperial military activity and colonial adventurism, and reasons why people are angry. And it isn’t because they are ‘non-violent extremists’ on the conveyor belt to terrorism.

Send Letters To:

The Editor
London Review of Books,
28 Little Russell Street
London, WC1A 2HN

Please include name, address, and a telephone number.


Vol. 39 No. 12 · 15 June 2017

Karma Nabulsi’s critique of the Prevent strategy passes over one particular aspect of the programme: its potential extension beyond the ostensible focus on ‘violent extremism’ to the policing and suppression of undesirable political and ideological positions (LRB, 18 May). Nabulsi quotes the definition of extremism given by Prevent, but omits the final sentence: ‘In a more general sense, extremism may refer to political ideologies that are opposed to a society’s core (constitutional) values and principles.’

I was offered Prevent training as part of my role as a parent governor at a local primary school. I agreed to take the training in part because I was intrigued to see how the policy would be explained and presented. The session was certainly instructive. There was no discussion of the unspecified ‘political ideologies’; the session was pointedly introduced as ‘not a session on government policy’. However, we did talk about what sorts of group might be considered ‘extremists’ or terrorists. Greenpeace was mentioned; the course trainer even said that some Greenpeace tactics could be likened to terrorism. I am a member of Greenpeace, and I objected: surely Greenpeace wasn’t being likened to Isis, in the context of referring young people to counter-terrorism police? I was told that the session was not a discussion of government policy, and the issue was dropped.

Perhaps the trainer’s remarks about Greenpeace that day were merely ill-advised and off-the-cuff, but he did also express his regret that the government had been unable to fund a further development of Prevent, whose intended aim had apparently been to train school-age children to recognise the signs of extremism, so that they could report on each other.

Name and address supplied

send letters to

The Editor
London Review of Books
28 Little Russell Street
London, WC1A 2HN

Please include name, address and a telephone number

Read anywhere with the London Review of Books app, available now from the App Store for Apple devices, Google Play for Android devices and Amazon for your Kindle Fire.

Sign up to our newsletter

For highlights from the latest issue, our archive and the blog, as well as news, events and exclusive promotions.

Newsletter Preferences