On January 22, Britain’s security minister, Ben Wallace, announced there was to be an of the government’s Prevent strategy. The review was launched to further demonstrate the work done by the program in stopping people from becoming engaged in terrorism. Prevent is one of the four strands of the UK’s counterterrorism strategy, CONTEST. Created in 2003, CONTEST sought to revolutionize the way terrorism was addressed — through preventing, pursuing, protecting and preparing the country and its citizens against attack.

It was first published as a in 2006 before being put under the control of the Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism, which was established in 2007, and updated to as part of the United Kingdom’s Strategy for Countering International Terrorism. The third version of CONTEST emerged in and explicitly placed Prevent at the forefront of its focus, resulting in the that sought to disrupt the processes of radicalization to stop people from becoming engaged in terrorism.

The (CTSA) cemented this governmental focus on Prevent through the creation of the so-called Prevent duty — a statutory obligation, particularly on public sector workers, to stop people from engaging in terrorism or extremism through the referral mechanism of the Channel program and the upholding and promotion of British values. Throughout its development, Prevent has faced severe criticism but has remained protected by the armor of national security. Thus, academics and commentators have been left to gather data and personal insights in order to understand its impacts and effects, with no publically available and independent oversight conducted — until now.

(Un)Intended Consequences

Post 9/11, Islamic extremism replaced years of IRA-related violence as the biggest terrorist threat the UK faced, and thus international terrorism — largely in connection with al-Qaeda — became the focus of counterterrorism programs. This attitude became further entrenched after the 7/7 London bombings, which were carried out by terrorists inspired by groups affiliated with al-Qaeda. However, whereas previous international terrorism had been carried out by foreign individuals, 7/7 was a stark for counterterrorism forces demonstrating the transient nature of ideology and the capacity for British-born, “” individuals to become engaged in terrorism — to become .

Thus, disabling this “enemy within” became a key focus of British counterterrorism strategy. The Prevent program sought to identify those most likely to succumb to terrorist ideology, pre-empt their actions and obstruct them from engaging in acts of terrorism. In doing so, however, the government problematically made the focus on Islamist-inspired terrorism synonymous with a focus on Muslims, them as a group most likely to become engaged in terrorism activity. Numerous studies explore the ways in which Prevent’s conception of threat can be read as resting on Orientalist, imperialist, racist and gendered narratives that ultimately Muslims as the Other.

These studies include funding allocations for areas with over 5% (particularly around integration into programs), statistics, the utilization of as inroads for community reporting, the and the presentations of Muslims as a single . This has been by government officials who claim there is no deliberate attempt to target any one group, but academics have in many cases found evidence where indeed this has been the result of Prevent-affiliated programs, leading to subsequent calls for the of the strategy.

Moving forward to the 2015 and the CTSA, the Prevent duty shifted its focus to all forms of extremism and terrorism, broadening the scope for the strategy and moving away from its explicit focus on international terrorism. This remained the biggest threat, at least in writing. While studies are continuing to come to light around the effects and experiences of the Prevent duty, the picture remains complex and raises concerns for the (un)intended consequences of such a far-reaching and entrenched program of countering terrorism.

British Values

Reports and research undertaken by academics, media outlets and human rights organizations have shone a on a policy that puts teachers, doctors, social workers and housing agents, amongst many others, at the foot of a legal obligation to report signs of vulnerability to radicalization, or those who reject and challenge of democracy, rule of law, mutual tolerance and respect, and individual liberty. There have been claims of 4-year-olds being reported to anti-terror hotlines for misspelling “” (instead writing “terrorist house”), doctors caught between their as a health professional and a legal obligation to spot signs of radicalization, of undermined and Muslim at universities having their freedom of speech impinged upon.

For many researchers, their data and analysis are evidence of a highly problematic strategy that further entrenches division and suspicion, and must be scrapped. These that are claimed to have occurred as a result of the duty are, however, . For some, Prevent, particularly in relation to the duty clause, is not quite as destructive as has been made out, and for others it is a highly successful strategy that saves lives. Prevent officers have shared their positive experiences of the duty, noting its value and significance in both against the spread of terrorist ideology and safeguarding people from engaging in dangerous and potentially life-threatening spaces.

These critiques have been labeled “” by some who claim Prevent does not limit, but broadens the scope for . Further, the annual release of Prevent referral statistics has been welcomed as a response to some critics. They have signaled the government’s desire to be as transparent as possible around the implementation of the duty, it is . Challenges have also been made to the claims that Prevent disproportionately targets Muslims, with government saying this criticism is outdated and in relation to of the strategy.

Some practitioners are also actively engaging with far-right narratives in seeking to avoid discrimination and respond to the rise in visibility of radical right-wing organizations and ideologies. However, the capacity of the most recent Channel referral statistics in demonstrating this has been .

These debates outline one key element: Prevent is by no means perfect. The vast scope of views on the program, from the critiques to the success stories, demonstrate the contestable and complex nature of the scheme. Thus, given its statutory standing and normalization through the everyday enactment of Prevent duty across the public sector, it is high time an independent review is announced. across the opinion divides, the review now has to engage with a spectrum of voices and the vast amount of quantitative and qualitative data that reveal a multitude of experiences — and do so in a truly independent manner.

*[The  is a partner institution of 51�Թ�.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post How Controversial Is Britain’s Counterterrorism Strategy? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The so-called yellow vests, or the gilets jaunes — the original name given to the protesters adorned in high-visibility jackets who have been marching and rioting across France since November 2018 — have now taken center stage outside the UK Parliament in London. What started as a visible marker of economic disapproval in France, the yellow vests have now become symbolic of radical-right rhetoric as the protests have become hijacked by far-right groups on both sides of the Channel. While the gilets jaunes were the catalyst for the emergence of their British counterparts, there is a certain irony of anti-European far-right groups in the UK utilizing and reproducing the promotion of French nationalism through the symbolic yellow vests — a transnational nationalism.

At the beginning of January, I was in the center of Paris for a long weekend. Saturday afternoon arrived, and with it came the thousands of protesters taking to the streets to demonstrate their rejection of, predominantly, President Emmanuel Macron’s economic policy. The protesters ranged from young adults to families to older generations with walking aids. Vehicles sounded their horns in support of the marchers. A local man told us of the harsh realities of living in Paris: With the average rent at around €1,500 ($1,700) in the city, he claimed, “No wonder they are protesting — they are desperate!”

This anecdote demonstrates the spectrum of support for those who now march every Saturday across the country. But the also tells of violence, aggression and nationalist chanting, with the role of immigration playing center stage as factions of the protest become rioters. This has been compounded by of anti-Semitism surfacing this weekend, following a reported 74% spike in anti-Semitic hate crimes across the country over the past year — the since World War II, according to Macron.

The Yellow Label

The label gilets jaunes has emerged from the protesters wearing high-visibility jackets but has a metaphorical national significance. In France, there is a legal requirement for motorists to carry one in their vehicles when traveling, and it was the rising fuel costs that sparked an that led to the demonstrations. The petition, which has now gained over a million signatures, called for the blockading of roads and fuel stations as a means of protest and encouraged the wearing of the yellow vests to attract attention to the cause. Having gained traction, the protests were further being utilized as a means to express anger toward other , such as the rising costs of living, the low minimum wage and the tax burden on the working and middle classes.

As the protests gained in numbers and drew greater publicity, the complaints directed at Macron’s government increased. These now saw an emergence of anti-immigration rhetoric, with groups mobilizing in the form of as night fell on the peaceful protests. And so, with chants against inequality came chants about prioritizing hard-working French people and a rejection of a system that they feel supports and protects “others.”

While the French government has in the form of tax breaks and a promised rise in the minimum wage, the intensity of violence appears to be on the increase. This might suggest that the voices now being heard from the movement are of those with nationalist pursuits over the protesters with predominantly economic grievances. The gilets jaunes have so far demonstrated that a violent anti-state movement can succeed in gaining political concessions and continuing to hold the gaze of the international media.

Across the Channel

What has become a symbol of this French struggle has somehow permeated the UK’s Brexit debate, as though the internal anti-state sentiments on both sides of the Channel are united in their struggle for nationalist aims through their wearing of the high-visibility vests. Indeed, the yellow vests label has been self-imposed by pro-Brexit groups that are utilizing nationalistic rhetoric to promote anti-Europeanism and self-determinism. Though violence has not been documented, aggression and intimidation have been demonstrated in the publicized on MPs as they enter and leave Parliament.

One of the leading members of the yellow vests, James Goddard, a well-known far-right activist, was recently for his involvement in the threats and abuse toward Anna Soubry MP, since declaring a calling on supporters to attend mass protests in support of Brexit, bringing with them their “.” In a video of one of the protests outside Westminster, Goddard was overheard threatening someone:  “You’re fair game. You ain’t even f***ing British.” This links to his previous support for the English Defence League and its former leader Tommy Robinson, as well as vocalized Islamophobic rages in which he suggests those who are not British — or not perceived to be (looking or acting) British — are anti-British.

As appears to have happened in France, protests around single issues have been hijacked by nationalist rhetoric through an entanglement of complex issues related to equality, autonomy and patriotic nationalism. Subsequently, the two struggles, drawing on notions of independence and protection of their own — Brexit for the UK and socio-economic inequality for France — are now permanently enmeshed by their embellishment of the yellow vest as symbolic of their national fights.

We may view the emergence of yellow vests in the UK as an opportunistic hijacking of a highly publicized resistance to the state through the symbolism of the gilets jaunes for media attention. Or, perhaps, as many commentators and academics are exploring, we might view their emergence as an example of the rise in the visibility of far-right rhetoric and organizational action across Europe. Either way, we might, momentarily, take off our analytical hats and smile at the irony not only of a transnational nationalism, but one which has emerged through the symbolism of, quite literally, high-visibility jackets.

*[The  is a partner institution of 51�Թ�.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Yellow Vests: The Irony of Transnational Nationalism appeared first on 51�Թ�.