I was pleased to be invited to attend the UCU event to show my support of the Prevent-Prevent on campus campaign. I took the opportunity to share some of the findings from a four year multi phased research project I have been engaged in....
moreI was pleased to be invited to attend the UCU event to show my support of the Prevent-Prevent on campus campaign. I took the opportunity to share some of the findings from a four year multi phased research project I have been engaged in. The research addressed the opinions of both Muslims and non-Muslim groups in Liverpool in regards to the effect of Prevent. One of the key findings of the study was that there was a 'common sense' perception within both the Muslim and non-Muslims BME communities that as a faith, Islam had been racialised. The experiences of both the Muslim and BME respondents indicated that skin colour was being used as an identifier with regards to Islamophobic discrimination. This meant that both Muslims and non-Muslim respondent's had been subject to Islamophobic discrimination based on their skin colour. The findings also suggested that racist terminology had seen a subtle shift since 9/11 within these communities as many of the BME respondents questioned during the research suggested they faced Islamophobic language rather than racial language more often now. In addition to this I suggested that with regards racist discourse, Prevent (2011) was fuelling a top down negative representation of minorities by outlining them alongside other sections of British society for suspicion and targeting. The Vulnerabilities identified in section five of the Prevent (2011) document suggest that " Violent extremism is more prevalent not only among the young but among lower socioeconomic and income groups. It has also shown that people who distrust Parliament, who believe that ethnic and faith groups should not mix, and who see a conflict between being British and their own cultural identity are all likely to be more supportive of violent extremism. Support for extremism is significantly associated with a perception of discrimination and the experience of racial or religious harassment. It is also associated with a negative view of policing ". As a member of the UCU I asked anyone in the audience who felt they didn't meet the identified vulnerability criteria, if they would please identify themselves, of course none did. Arguably the groups identified in Prevent (2011) are some of those same groups which have been problematized in policy before, the young, the poor, minority groups or people who challenge government. The inclusion in 2011 of non-violent radicalisation within Prevent has given the government the ability to censor language and expression (although the government highlighted their commitment to free speech in Prevent), the facts are simply not adding up. Free speech it seems is now considered radical by an intolerant government and an example of this is Prevent on Campus. Minority groups and Muslims have borne the brunt of counter terrorism/radicalisation policy targeting, however the net of suspicion is set to widen in an attempt to monitor student's behaviour on campus. It seems as if policy now being used to stifle the voice of discontent under the guise of security and to monitor groups such as students. Students have often led the way in challenging the disparity between the powerful and powerless within British society. Alongside the trade unions students have fought austerity as well as the slow and steady removal of civil liberties in this country. Under the remit of counter terrorism and security concerns we are now being asked to monitor students who historically, have been encouraged to be free thinking, radical innovators. As such I pledged not to engage with the Prevent agenda and encouraged others to reject what I believe is, at its core, a class based racist policy. E.J Peatfield
