Right wing terror wrongly prioritised over Islamic extremism

I might be banging on about this a bit these last few days; the expected findings of the report, discussion of the expected findings, more points expected to be made…etc. But it’s something I feel strongly about and I don’t feel I can make the point strongly enough that, as Mr Shawcross said officially today

“Prevent takes an expansive approach to the extreme Right-wing, capturing a variety of influences that, at times, has been so broad it has included mildly controversial or provocative forms of mainstream, Right-wing leaning commentary that have no meaningful connection to terrorism or radicalisation.”

One document prepared by Prevent’s research unit listed a prominent Conservative politician and former member of the Government as being among figures “associated with far-Right sympathetic audiences and Brexit”.

This approach has pushed me into a form of English taqiyya; having to click yes in agreement to something I would not do, and consider to be wrong. Thankfully just a tick box on-line course. Had there been a human with whom I could argue, persuade, make listen to nuance maybe I could have done differently.

Britain’s “politically correct” deradicalisation programme focused on Right-wing extremism while failing to tackle Islamist terror, the Home Secretary has said. I was disappointed in Priti Patel but maybe Suella Braverman is braver. 

Announcing “major reform” of the programme, Suella Braverman told MPs that Prevent had shown “cultural timidity and an institutional hesitancy to tackle Islamism, for fear of the charge of Islamophobia”. She said the Government would accept all 34 of the review’s recommendations to refocus it on its “core mission” of protecting the public. “Prevents focus must solely be on security, not political correctness,” she said.

“Prevent is a security service, not a social service. Too often, the role of ideology in terrorism is minimised with violence attributed instead to vulnerabilities such as mental health or poverty.”

“Prevent has a double standard when dealing with the extreme Right-wing and Islamism,” said Mr Shawcross, a former chairman of the Charity Commission.

By contrast, Mr Shawcross said: “With Islamism, Prevent tends to take a much narrower approach centred around proscribed organisations, ignoring the contribution of non-violent Islamist narratives and networks to terrorism.”

It meant Prevent was “out of kilter” with the rest of the counter-terrorism system where 80 per cent of live police investigations involved Islamist plots …

“The failure by frontline Prevent practitioners to understand fully the nature of ideology as the primary driver in Islamist radicalisation risks several potentially serious consequences,” he said. “Recent attacks, inquests and inquiries have highlighted the dreadful dangers of underestimating the motivating force of ideology. Treating terrorism as a mental illness, or a social deficiency that can be placated by social services, might make acts of extreme violence seem more intelligible to some – yet ultimately this approach fails to grasp the inherently ideological nature of radicalisation and terrorism.

Mr Shawcross blamed the low number of Islamist referrals to Prevent on officials’ “fear of being accused of being racist, anti-Muslim or culturally-insensitive” and “anti-Prevent advocacy” by domestic Islamist groups. “There is a concerted campaign by some, including a number of Islamist groups, to undermine and delegitimise Prevent through the spread of disinformation, misinformation and half-truths,”

Seven of the 13 terror attacks in the past six years, including the murder of MP David Amess, the stabbing of three friends in a Reading park, and the bombing of Liverpool women’s hospital have been carried out by Islamist extremists who had been referred to Prevent.

He said there was still “unambiguous evidence” that extremist organisations targeted universities and colleges for the purpose of radicalisation and recruitment. He also recommended a major revamp of Prevent training which he said was “insufficient” in delivery and content.