Criticisms of Prevent Violent Extremism
The government has, you should all know by now, a Prevent Violent Extremism (PVE) agenda, which focuses on soft counter-terrorism. This is not your intelligence gathering (overtly) and swooping down on people sort of thing. It’s mostly the let’s win hearts and minds approach.
There have been critics on PVE on all sides. I’ve been forwarded a report by a organisation (which I won’t mention) that has made these criticisms against this govt agenda.
• It has led to the disproportionate criminalisation of BME and particularly Muslim communities
• It locates the burden for fighting terrorism on the Muslim community despite the fact that the majority are peace-loving citizens of the UK.
• The current usage of the terminology of violent extremism is discriminatory as it ignores the very real threats from far-right and other forms of extremism.
• It has drawn statutory bodies into the ‘securitisation’ agenda thereby dismantling the traditional relationships of trust and confidence between public bodies and service users.
• It has led to the abandonment of funding for traditional community development, capacity building and empowerment work with BME communities, replacing it instead with community cohesion, anti-extremism and anti-terrorism approaches which have put Muslim communities under the intense spotlight of the far right and the press and media.
• It reinforces negative stereotypes and associations of Islam with terrorism and views the British Muslim community through the single issue of terrorism
Most sound about right, though it occurs to me that the trick isn’t necessarily to get rid of PVE entirely, but hone it much more tightly. And make it much more accountable of course to taxpayers.
Much of this discussion may also be redundant soon enough because the Tories are planning to kill off the PVE spending splurge anyway. I’m not surprised – it’s still unclear what benefits have been yielded.
| Post to del.icio.us |
Filed in: Race politics,Religion,Terrorism
“I’m not surprised – it’s still unclear what benefits have been yielded.”
There’s the rub: you can’t prove something’s working if its based on absence, ie of a terror attack. One can hardly do a would-be jihadi before and after poll – do you feel more or less likely to blow yourself up, on a scale of 1 to 10….
Somehow I doubt the Tories will do better.
I think a lot of PVE spending is either just thrown down a hole or else it’s just ‘jobs for the boys’.
http://www.thestar.co.uk/rotherham/Is-this-39politicallycorrect-pussyfooting39-JOIN.5545087.jp
A HALF million pound ‘community involvement’ project to tackle violent extremism in Sheffield was condemned today – after it emerged much of the cash is paying for focus groups and council officials’ wages. Just £200,000 of the £505,000 budget – to be spent over the next two years – has been allocated to community work, only £50,000 of which will go to voluntary organisations at grass roots. But £140,000 is being spent on two highly-paid staff, and £85,000 is paying for “action research” including focus groups.
Andrew
Whilst I don’t know the details of that scheme specifically, it would be difficult to address VE if one doesn’t know what, who, when, why etc.
Just possibly your derided ‘action research’ may help find that out?????
eRM..sorry you’re going to have to mention which organisation came up with those points..
some of you don’t seem to realise that what was funded under ‘community development’ can also be funded under community cohesion. these are all buzzy buzz words.
billericaydicky – do you know something in particular about Tower Hamlets council?
I agree with TCH, the common media criticism of spending on “highly paid consultants” etc is quite silly – why spend more on possibly shoe-string voluntary orgs for a year when a one-off investment in policy development might garner longer term results.
why not mention the organization? a muslim one of course …
one-sided. self-defending… a muslim one, of course
so, according to this secret organization, it is enough to stop even think of the possibility of existance of extremists in a muslims community … and the бгыдшь extremism will disappear
1. “The current usage of the terminology of violent extremism is discriminatory as it ignores the very real threats from far-right and other forms of extremism.”
muslim extremists threats are not VERY REAL?
not very real for muslims?
2. “disproportionate criminalisation of BME and particularly Muslim communities”
3. “It reinforces negative stereotypes and associations of Islam with terrorism and views the British Muslim community through the single issue of terrorism”
oh, how typical, it is everybody around to blame – but nor muslims!
It is not muslim hate preachers who reinforce, it is not muslim – so-called “peaceful” – organization – which do not show appopriate reaction to this or sign petition supporting terrorists, – it is people who notice such behaviour – they reinforce the negative association…
the X-organisation is another organisation which do n’t really want to fight extremism or racism or whatever… because it really needs it to justify its existance
everytime I hear of “disproportion” in criminalization, in arrests or the representatives of some race or community, I wonder if the person, stating this, consider that this disproportion is based on racism or on the fact that members of some community commit more crime than the members of another community…
who is to blame for this disproportion?
If it is pure racism – it should be proven at first, and if it is not?
and how this “disproportion” should be abolished? arresting more non-muslims (even obviously innocent), just not to offend muslims?
I have read about some “european appearance” people arrests In UK – just for racial balance…
I see bill is back to making potentially libellous comments on my blog again
why not answer a question Sunny? you are kind of close to this society (or you are the society) – tell me where the “disproportion” comes from?
balance arrests aren’t lies
and I am not bill whatever it means
what libellous in my comments exactly?
i wouldn’t mind smoking some of what camilla’s having…
What does it mean to be ”criminalised”?
I know that the police have been using some stupid prevention of terror order as the excuse to be stopping and searching young people. Is that it?
To the second point that ”It locates the burden for fighting terrorism on the Muslim community”, I’d ask, does it?
On the third point about it being discriminatory for also not talking about the far right, I was looking through this website and it seems that this government sponsored quango would not be so well suited to trying to prevent violent extremism of the far right kind.
http://www.idea.gov.uk/idk/core/page.do?pageId=7890410
Most far right people would just stick two fingers up at any initiatives of this kind that were directed towards them.
‘It’s mostly the let’s win hearts and minds approach.’
And surely that is the problem. The people that really need to be targetted have a poisoned mind and no heart. The problem with PVE is that, despite what the press may want us to believe, much of the hearts and minds guff is pushing at an open door.
Sure, I see nothing wrong with working with particular communities – but that does not mean we should indulge piss-takers.
Sunny? Are you taking your meds properly?
The benefits yielded have been as follows:
-a- Guardianistas have been put on the payroll
-b- Collaborationist anti-jihadist ‘Good Muslims’ have been put on the payroll and enjoyed some camera time
Surely that’s enough!
Quilliam perchance? but didnt they basically ghostwrite contest 2?
i miss ODPM, their model for cohesion came before CLG and co dumped the extremism thing onto it.
anyway , these conclusions, and denham, and the birt article seem to point the same way.
onwards.
PVE is coming in for much flak from every side.
I’ve heard that some KCL researchers argue that PVE isn’t wide enough, and should just be “Prevent Extremism”.
Thought that Londonstani sums it best though: