The information the authorities are trying to find out includes political and religious views, information on mental health, sexual activity and associates, and other sensitive information, according to documents seen by the Guardian. Other documents reveal that the intelligence and information can be stored until the people concerned reach the age of 100.
Tonight Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty, branded it the biggest spying programme in Britain in modern times and an affront to civil liberties.
The intelligence is being gathered as part of the strategy Preventing Violent Extremism – Prevent for short. It was launched three years ago to stop people being lured to al-Qaida ideology and committing acts of terrorism.
The government and police have repeatedly denied that the £140m programme is a cover for spying on Muslims in Britain. But sources directly involved in running Prevent schemes say it involves gathering intelligence about the thoughts and beliefs of Muslims who are not involved in criminal activity.
Filed under: Radicalisation, Surveillance, UK
More: http://www.irr.org.uk/pdf2/spooked.pdf
There was a follow up in the Saturday Guardian, which indicates the House of Commons committee overlooking local government (DCLG) will now hold sessions on the allegations: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/oct/18/prevent-extremism-muslims-information-allegations
In a later comment Bob Lambert, ex Met Police Special Branch (Muslim Contact Unit) and an academic partner join the dbeate with: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/oct/19/prevent-quilliam-foundation-extremism
Just to add variety and poignacy an ex-Nottingham University student, who was arrested and not charged in 2008 has a view too: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009/oct/19/uk-prevent-muslim-terrorism
Whether this media furore in one newspaper will gain momentum is unclear or political attention from across the spectrum. Some expect the Conservatives to remain silent and await their possible chance, if elected to govern, to change the Prevent strategy and implentation (let alone the cost).
Sadly it is now at the local community level where the impact is and yes, only within Muslim communities. Prevent has yet to really move into other areas e.g. extreme right. Very few Muslims and others want to engage in Prevent, this report will only reinforce that and provide as yet unchallenged evidence in support.
Note engagement with Prevent can be voluntary and within employment – as distinct from the legal obligation to report on known suspected terrorist plots. See the case in Bristol for how this dilemma can end up in a court case: http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/news/Bristol-student-cleared-terror-charge/article-1352771-detail/article.html
The Prevent strategy appears to be well thought and a suitable state response to a terrorist threat – when in fact it is a grand structure with no real foundation in the communities it seeks to protect. Too much top down, bureaucratic and paid lip service by many who as top managers sign up and do little else. As is evident in the UK universities where very few staff accept the validity or practice of Prevent.
Thans a lot for this insight visitor.
Some more links i wanted to post: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/20/prevent-radicalisation-inclusiveness
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/oct/18/prevent-extremism-muslims-information-allegations
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/dec/08/denham-prevent-extremism