The UK’s terrorism prevention programme is focusing too much on the perceived “mental illness” of would-be perpetrators rather than the dangerous ideology they hold, an official report on the project’s performance will say today.
An examination into the UK’s “Prevent” anti-terrorism programme will accuse it of putting too much emphasis on treating the “mental illness” of extremists, rather than tackling the effects of dangerous ideologies when it is published today, previews in the UK establishment press claim.
As the name suggests, the CONTEST programme — of which Prevent is part — set up by the government in the wake of the 9/11 attacks aims at preventing attacks largely by deradicalising would-be extremists before they act on their beliefs.
However, Prevent has already been accused of being ineffective at stopping the growth of extremism in Britain, with it even being alleged that the programme has been funding the very Islamist organisations it was set up to tackle.
According to an article by The Telegraph, the report due to be published today is set to criticise Prevent for focusing on the “personal vulnerabilities” of would-be terrorists, with it largely failing to address the extreme beliefs behind the likes of Islamic extremism in particular.
The report’s author, William Shawcross is to slam this blindspot as having “potentially serious consequences”, with the publication noting that seven of the thirteen terror attacks that have taken place in Britain since 2016 were carried out by individuals who had been referred to the programme, clearly implying it failed to de-escalate those individuals.
“Prevent is a crucial pillar of the UK’s counter-terrorism architecture, yet it has increasingly come to be seen as synonymous with safeguarding (ie an emphasis on protecting those referred into Prevent from harm and addressing their personal vulnerabilities),” a draft report seen by The Telegraph reads.
“Whilst safeguarding rightly sits as an element of Prevent work, the programme’s core focus must shift to protecting the public from those inclined to pose a security threat,” it continues. “Prevent too often bestows a status of victimhood on all who come into contact with it, confusing practitioners and officials as to Prevent’s fundamental purpose.”
The report will also criticise Prevent for focusing too much on alleged right-wing extremism to the point it jeopardises its work tackling radical Islamism, which for the 21st century has proven a far more deadly ideology.
Such an “out of kilter” focus, the report will say, is partly out of fear that the programme will be accused of “being racist, anti-Muslim or culturally-insensitive”.
This claim is largely in keeping with the shortfalls of Prevent previously detailed within the British press, with the organisation even being accused of providing funds to the very Islamist organisation it was set up to defang.
According to details from the same report leaked late last year, Prevent distributed sums of money to a number of radical organisations, a number of which are described as having “promoted extremist narratives”.
“During the course of the review, I became aware that some Prevent-funded groups promote extremism or have links with extremists,” Shawcross wrote. “I found unacceptable examples of some of these organisations promoting Islamist extremist sentiments, or of validating and associating with Islamist extremists.”
The idea that the programme could also have acted in an overly lenient way towards Islamic extremism out of a fear of being labelled racist is, sadly, in keeping with other activity of the British state, with a number of police forces in the country infamously said to have ignored the activities of child rape gangs for similar reasons.
According to one inquiry published last year, police allowed over 1,000 girls to be groomed by an “Asian” rape gang in Telford, with law enforcement failing to intervene for fear of acting contrary to political correctness.
Despite the fact that if the local police force had “done its most basic job” it would have prevented the grooming, officers are said to have ignored the plight of girls in the area for fear of igniting “racial tensions” in the area.