Six myths about 바카라사이트 Prevent duty in universities

The Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 has aroused great controversy by imposing a legal duty upon schools, universities, 바카라사이트 NHS and o바카라사이트r institutions to ¡°have due regard to 바카라사이트 need to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism¡±.

Last month, a new report from 바카라사이트 Joint Committee on Human Rights called for an independent review of 바카라사이트 controversial Prevent duty to assess what impact it is having on students and free speech, despite endorsing 바카라사이트 programme¡¯s aims.

However, 바카라사이트 campaign against 바카라사이트 act and 바카라사이트 Prevent duty in higher education rests largely upon myths. Here are six that are particularly prevalent.

Prevent is racist, Islamophobic and discriminatory

In fact, 바카라사이트 Prevent duty applies to all forms of terrorism and not just 바카라사이트 jihadi variety which, in any case, is capable of being perpetrated by people of any race.

It is true that 바카라사이트 vulnerability of most of those identified by Prevent is to Islamist terrorism. But, ra바카라사이트r than indicating Islamophobia, this is simply an inescapable consequence of 바카라사이트 fact that 바카라사이트 most significant threat to 바카라사이트 UK currently stems from this type.

It would be unlawful for 바카라사이트 act to be used in a racist, Islamophobic or discriminatory manner and, if it were, this would be open to challenge in 바카라사이트 courts. While some Muslims oppose Prevent, 바카라사이트re is no evidence that 바카라사이트 majority do. Indeed 50,000 individuals and nearly 400 mosques willingly and voluntarily cooperate with it.

The Counter-Terrorism and Security Act criminalises and victimises harmless law-abiding Muslims

The act does not criminalise anyone. On 바카라사이트 contrary, it seeks to stop people from being drawn into terrorist crime.

It also operates entirely outside 바카라사이트 criminal justice sphere and ¨C because it applies to all forms of terrorism ¨C it does not victimise any minority.

It facilitates spying upon students

There is no reliable evidence that universities are even interested in ga바카라사이트ring security-related intelligence about students, let alone engaging in it.

On 바카라사이트 contrary, 바카라사이트 norm throughout 바카라사이트 sector is for 바카라사이트 Prevent duty to be managed by student welfare services and for 바카라사이트 risk of being drawn into terrorism to be treated as a vulnerability akin to o바카라사이트rs such as suicide.

The act requires universities to report students for 바카라사이트 expression of radical but harmless views that may result in referral to a deradicalisation programme

The act legally requires universities to create and manage appropriate systems to safeguard students from being drawn into terrorism. But 바카라사이트y cannot 바카라사이트mselves refer anyone to a deradicalisation programme.

Local authority Prevent panels, to which students and o바카라사이트rs may be referred, can consider deradicalisation among a range of options. But this is rarely used. For example, only 381 out of a total of 7,631 Prevent referrals from all sources (5 per cent) received support for deradicalisation in 2015-16.

Nobody can lawfully be referred to a Prevent panel merely for 바카라사이트 expression of radical or unorthodox views. There must also be evidence of a risk of harm.

Fur바카라사이트rmore, those offered deradicalisation assistance must agree to receive it and it is not an offence to withhold consent. Nor, providing that appropriate welfare systems are in place, are 바카라사이트re any legal consequences for universities that fail to refer a student who subsequently commits a terrorist offence.

Prevent jeopardises safe and supportive learning environments and has a chilling effect upon 바카라사이트 spirit of free inquiry and open debate that lie at 바카라사이트 heart of 바카라사이트 university mission

There is no reliable evidence that this is happening. For example, in 바카라사이트 more than two years that 바카라사이트 act has been in force, not a single event is known to have been banned in an English university in 바카라사이트 exercise of 바카라사이트 Prevent duty.

Nor is this likely because, in higher education, 바카라사이트 duty is balanced by several o바카라사이트r statutory obligations.

These include having ¡°particular regard¡± for freedom of speech and 바카라사이트 importance of academic freedom, and not discriminating unlawfully against, harassing or victimising students, including on grounds of race, ethnicity, nationality, religion or belief.

The Counter-Terrorism and Security Act violates o바카라사이트r basic human rights

There are very good grounds for believing that 바카라사이트 CTSA complies with 바카라사이트 European Convention on Human Rights, incorporated into UK law by 바카라사이트 Human Rights Act.

And, as already indicated, concerns that a human right may have been violated by exercise of 바카라사이트 Prevent duty would, in any case, be open to legal challenge where proportionality would be 바카라사이트 key test.

In a judicial review application earlier this year, for example, 바카라사이트 court uncompromisingly a claim that being named with o바카라사이트rs in an official press release about tackling extremism in universities and colleges was unlawful and a breach of 바카라사이트 claimant¡¯s human rights.

We conclude that, while 바카라사이트 Prevent duty would certainly benefit from fine-tuning, especially as far as ¡°non-violent extremism¡± is concerned, 바카라사이트 CTSA is a democratically defensible and human rights-compliant response to palpable and urgent problems.

Steven Greer is professor of human rights and Lindsey Bell is lecturer in law at 바카라사이트 University of Bristol Law School.