Are you familiar with these deradicalization efforts with children in the UK?

[Search]

:bism: (In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)

Source

August 4, 2016
Prevent gives people permission to hate Muslims – it has no place in schools
Fahid Qurashi
Teachers are right to reject a counter-radicalisation strategy that frames terrorism as a Muslim problem and demonises an entire communi
The National Union of Teachers (NUT) has recently backed a motion to reject the government’s counter-radicalisation Prevent strategy at its annual conference. This motion follows the National Union of Students (NUS) motion to boycott the Prevent strategy and its subsequent activism under the banner of “students not suspects”.

The NUT claims that the Prevent strategy is targeting Muslim students, and indeed, the available referral data disclosed under freedom of information shows that between 2007 and 2010 67% of the referrals involved Muslims, and between 2012 and 2013, that figure was 57.4%. This is despite the fact that, according to the 2011 national census, Muslims made up only 5% of the national population.

When one reads the Prevent strategy and the broader UK counter-terrorism strategy (Contest), the gross disproportionality starts to make sense. While the government claims that its counter-terrorism strategies target all forms of extremism, and do not target specific individuals or groups, it is clear that the Prevent strategy centres on Muslims in the way that it frames the threat of extremism and terrorism. Added to this, the allocation of Prevent funding, which was based on the number of Muslims in a local authority. This explicit targeting demonstrates that Islamophobia is central in shaping how the government (and wider society) define and construct extremism and terrorism as solely Islamic problems.

The definition becomes instrumental in targeting specific groups and communities. For example, if as a lawmaker I understand and define crime as a white problem, then I shouldn’t be surprised if most of the suspects in police custody are white. Since the Prevent duty came into force in the education sector in 2015, the guidance offered to those working in schools, colleges, and universities has in many cases served to reinforce the relationship between being Muslim and vulnerability to extremism and terrorism.

This kind of treatment sends a strong signal to wider society about the nature of Muslims in Britain

Given this, the NUT is right to suggest that the Prevent strategy makes Muslim students more vulnerable to being attacked. Already, there have been numerous cases of Islamophobic attacks against Muslims on the streets of Britain, including those who have been murdered. The academic research suggests that attacks such as these, often called hate crimes, flourish in environments where they are enabled. The practices, policies and rhetoric of the state question the loyalty of Muslims to Britain, cast them as an ever-present security threat, and treat whole Muslim communities as suspect and suspicious. This not only institutionalises, legitimises and reinforces Islamophobia, but also provides the framework in which Islamophobia emerges.

This kind of treatment sends a strong signal to wider society about the nature of Muslims in Britain, and is influential in shaping people’s assumptions about Muslims and Islam– forming the basis of Islamophobia. It sets the tone for how ordinary people interact with Muslims and can be seen to provide permission to hate. The dogwhistle nature of politics also means that politicians disseminate messages that tap into the basest fears, insecurities, and stereotypes to attract new voters – finally, think about the message that the disproportionate levels ofstop and search of Muslims sends to wider society about guilt by association and racial and religious profiling.

Right now, the Prevent strategy is securitising and criminalising the most banal of behaviours and ideas, and encouraging an environment of vigilance in ever wider areas of society. In this environment, mainstream Islamic ideas and practices, legitimate political discussions and dissent have been the basis for many Prevent interventions and referrals.

Although in many cases there have been no further actions taken, we cannot underestimate the mental health implications for young students who will have their views affected on the purpose of education, the nature of their relationship with their teachers and lecturers, and about the school and campus space as arenas for open and free discussions.

Prevent is an exercise in Islamophobia that continues to undermine democracy, equality, and justice. The state is complicit in undermining “British values” rather than upholding them.

 

[kritikvernunft]

Critics have dismissed the proposals as being unnecessarily draconian and turning staff, who are meant to be caring for youngsters, into spies.

Trust us and tell us everything that is on your mind because we are your educators. Oh no, do not trust us and do not tell us what is on your mind, because we may denounce you to the police.

Fantastic. Miraculous. A beautiful contradiction. Ex falso quodlibet. That situation is trivialist. Every possible statement is now true, and its opposite too. From there on, we can use it to prove anything. We can use it to prove that Santa Claus exists, but also, that Santa Claus does not exist. This is an open invitation for Murphy's Law to kick in and to take care of things!

Anything that can go wrong, will go wrong.

 

[Karl]

Left is a good place, in this particular sense of the word. Secular liberalism has led to a more well-developed civilization that is actually, demonstrably, materially better than it used to be. Western civilization is far from perfect, but overall it is currently the best thing going by any reasonable measure.

That is merely a matter of opinion, and clearly yours, but most certainly it is not mine. Give me a time machine to go back in history any day! Secular liberals are my sworn enemy and I despise them with every fibre of my being.

It can be for Islam, and it obviously is for Christianity and has been for quite some time. What would make you think it's not compatible with Christianity, the pre-Reformation statements and practices of the Catholic Church? I'm a Christian, of the Protestant variety, a descendant of English Protestantism more so than Germanic and more distinctly American than anything else..

I have actually met various English Protestants who have had religious and political discussions with me. All of them expressed a dislike for liberalism and secularism. No offence, but if you had not have told me that you were a Christian and I was asked to guess I could have easily mistaken you for a progressivist left winger rather than a Christian.

Why would my particular strand of Christianity be incompatible with secular liberalism?

I am unaware what your own particular strand of Christianity is, but I am sure that you are well aware that various Christian strands/sects are at conflict with atheistic/secular mentality. As an American you will no doubt be well aware of the persecution the Mormons of Utah have been put through by their godless oppressors in Washington.

Even with Islam, at best you could say that Hanafi Islam (as one example) in its present form, that's so important to say in its present form, is incompatible with secular liberalism. But who says a Muslim must necessarily align with a certain school of jurisprudence in order to be properly acknowledged as a Muslim?

Agreed, so long as they don't actually defy or attempt to "reform" any passages stated in the Quran, and they do not aid and abet any oppressors who through the enactment of laws would forbid practices not explicitly condemned in the Quran.

Actually, now that I think about it, there probably are some people who say that. The point is, they're wrong, and there are plenty of Muslims who aren't tied to anything more specific than that which also happens to explicitly oppose secular liberalism. And when it comes to those more-specific things that do such a thing, it's possible for such things to change.

A state like Afghanistan, or Iran, or KSA, or Egypt, or Indonesia, or....just the UK? Only the West?

Nothing specific. Unfortunately most governments these days don't have any respect for this old principle including even most Muslim countries due to them being no more than puppet governments either influenced or directly set up by the West by means of arm twisting, bribes, invasion etc.

So I'm just asserting this principle as something that I myself would be willing to fiercely defend, to the death if necessary. No outsider has any inherent right to meddle in my domestic affairs, period. I will say to anyone wishing to challenge me on that not to bother arguing with me on the internet because I am simply not going to listen. They ARE however most welcome to trespass on my private property and lecture me in my face that I am "wrong"...but they won't of course leave alive!

I would argue that religious freedom ought to be guaranteed by the state, but that the state also has responsibilities when it comes to the health and safety of its citizens, and to some extent their morality.

Again that's your opinion, not mine. As far as I'M concerned, no government or any outsider whatsoever has any "responsibilities" to "protect" my health and safety, nor to "protect" my morality. Not only do they have no inherent right, I don't even ask them for that. They shall keep AWAY from me OR ELSE.

I can point to examples of religious sectarianism under Islamist rule so easily it's basically pointless. Kindly point me in the direction of actual, real-world examples where secular liberalism has clearly led to conflict and hate between religious groups, and please indicate how I can be sure secular liberalism is the reason why these very bad things happened.

Not so much between different religious groups, but more so between various religious groups and secular liberals themselves. Secular liberalism, not so much in the UK in particular but more broadly throughout Europe has lead to friction with various religious groups, most notably Muslims (e.g. the arrogant banning of burquas, persecuting polygamists and husbands of women brides under 16, trying to shove feminism (which is really nothing more than carefully disguised female supremacy) down everyone's throats, etc). The West's matriarchalist fanaticism of foisting these mentalities upon immigrants (and most especially Muslims) has resulted in various terrorist acts in Europe. No reasonable person could possibly deny this.

Still? Really? You're serious. Not all of Islam, I hope. Under which school of jurisprudence are all of these things considered acceptable? All four of the Sunni and both of the Shia?

Yes, really, under both Sunni and Shia. Islam permits everything which is not explicitly prohibited in the Quran. I've read the Quran and the Hadiths and have not on one occasion encountered proscriptions of those practices you "hope" are not permitted. The only "forms" of "Islam" that might prohibit any of these things that you yourself detest are merely adulterated modern forms which if you peel away the many layers lies the Western and Jewish instigators at the core. I believe they refer to it as "reformed Islam". There is of course no such thing to a true Muslim. You either have genuine Islam in it's pure uncorrupted form, or it is not Islam at all.

Well, you can't expect to ignore the law and just get away with it. Oh, and these are not atheistic collectives. That's only a little bit accurate in France.

Not really true. The modern western world in general is dominated by atheistic mind-set and atheistic left-dominated legal systems -- legal systems which largely are dominated by the United Nations -- a globalist organization whose pioneers included many communist Jews. Christianity has been quickly going down the gurgler for quite a long time now. These days it exists merely as a subsumed relic from the past, and in a century will probably become nothing more than an obscure religion with extremely few adherents. Not all perhaps, but already there are certainly large portions of atheistic liberals/progressives/Marxists who share mutual animosity with Christians. This will most certainly be something that you will see right there in the United States, demographically the progressivist atheistic minded being predominantly to the north and the Christian-inclined towards the south in the bible belt. One doesn't need to spend long observing internet discussions between these two groups that tension, friction and even outright animosity is something commonly seen.

 

[Snel]

... straw-man ... intellectual dishonesty.

I was discussing a broader issue, I have yet to give an answer regarding this topic specifically. But as I am a little late with my reply; I can now notice that you've got some very good answers, that are specifically related to this topic.

 

[Serinity]

Perhaps making teaching Islam to EVERYONE obligatory in schools and universities, would dispel a lot of doubts? Having a knowledgable scholar disseminate knowledge in school?