Recently, Asian Image attended a ‘Preventing Extremism and Radicalisation Seminar’ being run from a Lancashire office to examine the issues being discussed.  

It was also an opportunity to see exactly what public sector officials will be required to know when looking to ‘spot signs of radicalisation’ as part of the Governments Prevent Duty.
 
Later in the week, we also spoke to several public sector employees on their feelings of going through similar training courses.
 
The Prevent Duty applies to, amongst others, those working in all schools, health officials and those working in prisons.
 
The Government’s Prevent initiative has come under fire repeatedly by some Muslim organisations and has seen to have lost all credibility within the community. It has been accused of discriminating against Muslims and seen as something that fails to tackle the issues at hand.

And it is not hard to see why the strategy is being sidelined by many Muslim organisations.

But with the Prevent Duty applying to all public sector workers one is unable to ignore the consequences this may have.
 
A huge amount of money has been spent in ‘reaching out to communities.' But is it really only a programme that encourages spying on Muslims? And one that fails to explore the root cause of radicalisation?
 
It is quite easy to be put into one of two boxes when discussing Prevent
 
If you state anything remotely positive about Prevent then you are quite quickly labelled as an organisation or individual that is supporting the government narrative. Or is in some way benefiting from Prevent and has ulterior motives to further one’s own reputation.
 
As a critic of the programme then it is quite easy to be labelled as ‘extreme’ and as someone who sympathises with extremist acts. And it does not help when organisation’s such as the Quilliam Foundation and right-wing press commentators round-up anyone who remotely wants to have an opinion on the issue.

It is ironic that one cannot speak freely on the very subject that aims to instil values of freedom and democracy upon us.

Because of these reasons there is an understandable nervousness amongst many Muslims of any note to discussing Prevent in an open and transparent manner.

The truth though is a little more complicated. 
 
What the Prevent Duty training actually involves
 
The Prevent Preventing Extremism and Radicalisation Seminar we attended was conducted by Victvs Limited. They have a base in Blackburn and as well as offering the seminar also offer online courses.
 
The seminars are primarily aimed at public sector workers and may we point out, not funded by the Home Office. But we were told that the Home Office did examine what the course entailed.
 
Coming into this one must admit there was a level of apprehension. The course itself looks to examine what, for example, teachers or those working with young people should look out for and what they should do when they are faced with challenging situations.
 
Whilst there was criteria to define extremism from the beginning, we were in many respects still left with a void. And in all essence it was not the course leaders fault.
 
At what point is a human being deemed to be ‘extreme’ and at what point should one act? Simply leaving this to judgement might be the most problematic part of this whole initiative.
 
And clearly this is not going to change anytime soon.
 
The Prevent Duty requires individuals working in schools to single out people who they think might be at risk of radicalisation.
 
During the course you are given an explanation of radicalisation and the reasoning behind violent extremism. There are pointers on how one might ‘recognise’ radicalisation.
 
We did notice that the focus on extremism and radicalisation tended to do this without actually singling out Islam or Muslims. Despite this we know full well this is the whole reason this course is being conducted.
 
One of the biggest criticisms of Prevent as a whole is that it looks to explain issues relating to radicalisation without seeing British foreign policy as an overriding factor. The idea is that we are faced simply by an evil ideology that is ‘radicalising’ young impressionable people and we must essentially deal with it.
 
It was the ‘great unsaid’ here and the same could be argued in many other similar courses on Prevent Duty. It is easy to be critical of this fact but once raised, the issue here was discussed and pointed out as a factor that needed to be taken into account.
 
You couldn’t really dismiss the qualifications of the team who were conducting this seminar.
 
The course was conducted by an individual who has spent a long time in the occupied territories of the West Bank with an aid agency and is managed by someone who is not only fluent in Arabic but spent time in the Middle East, seeing the consequences of terrorism first hand. You can find out more about the team here www.victvs.co.uk
 
When it came to discussing case studies, one was presented with wide-spread radical narratives including right-wing violent extremists such as Hitler and Zac Davies, the man who screamed ‘white power’ who attacked a Sikh man in a superstore.
 
Pessimists amongst us may well point out that such case studies were simply there to mask the overriding concern of the whole initiative - that being to single out Muslims. But again there was an openness here to raise points and discuss a wide varied range of views.

The course we sat in on may vary to others being conducted up and down the country. This particular firm were keen to explain that their course may look at issues a little differently.
 
The course also touched upon the governments Channel strategy but looked primarily at aiming to educate front line staff at identifying ‘risk’.
 
 
Speaking to teachers and public sector workers few had concerns about the courses itself.
 
Names have been changed to protect identities. The following attended Prevent Duty sessions NOT managed by Victvs Limited.
 
Jamil, a secondary school teacher said, “There was not enough focus on the causes of extremism and more on the fact that there was extremism.

“At the course I was on, people just wanted to get it over and done with and not get into any arguments. I sensed no-one wanted to say the obvious in the session in case somewhere down the line you are yourself accused of being a ‘sympathiser.’ That’s how paranoid things have become.

“Despite being asked to be open and honest, did I as a Muslim feel I could be? No, I couldn’t.”
 
Hasina, a public sector worker said, “We completed the online versions for work. It was pretty straight forward. They didn’t tell me anything I didn’t know already.

“I had no problems with it. I can’t see what the big issue is.

“If it helps people to stop going to Syria and killing people, then why the issues?"

"You can't ignore the obvious sometimes can you?"
 
Imtiaz, also a teacher, questioned the need for the course. “It was pretty helpful but I can’t see why they are going to such trouble?
 
“We Muslims know what makes an extremist. We know what makes people radicalised. We don’t have our heads buried in the sand.

“All we are doing is ticking another set of boxes for some government department.”
 
Yusuf is a teacher and recently attended a Prevent Duty course. “I’m sorry but this was a complete waste of time.
 
“It didn’t answer simple questions such as 'what if a child says something that might be deemed extreme because he heard his dad say something at home whilst watching TV?'
 
“As a Muslim I might be able to explain the context but a non-Muslim teacher might take this to the next level.
 
“There is a very ‘Big Brother’ attitude to the course.”