“What the above analysis worryingly shows is that PREVENT is “safeguarding” individuals from the accommodation of, or a risk of accommodating ideas which conflict with the state-sanctioned approved ideas and values. In particular, efforts to reconfigure thought has focussed discriminatorily on Islam and Muslims. This is not safeguarding. This is the state targeting its British citizens with mind control strategies. If this does not have an air of fascist totalitarianism, then what does?”
Last year, the hate-financed Henry Jackson Society published a report on how to spin away criticism of PREVENT. One of its suggestions was to recast the public surveillance programme as “safeguarding”. There has been an amplification of this spin by most government-paid PREVENT practitioners, promoters and careerists since then. This claim both from a historic and conceptual point of view, is woefully inaccurate and a continued demonstration of how the PREVENT industry is deceptively manipulating narratives.
Ignoring History? PREVENT’s Discriminatory “Influence Campaign”
As I have explicated in some detail, the counter-productive pre-crime approach to countering terrorism was not based on empirical evidence but the paradigmatically neoconservative military doctrine of pre-emption. McCulloch and Wilson (2015), in their book exploring “pre-crime” intervention state,
“The declaration of the “war on terror” was the catalyst for a more pre-emptive approach to threats.”
With the War on Terror aimed at Muslim countries, PREVENT’s focus…
View original post 2,045 more words