A recent government training module has ignited controversy over the definition and identification of “radicalisation” in British society. The “Prevent Awareness” program, developed by the UK government, aims to “educate” public sector workers on recognising and addressing potential radicalisation. However, a recent post of one of the training videos on X from a Hampshire council worker has sparked outrage about the program’s focus and methodology.

While the module purports to address all forms of extremism, it appears to disproportionately target individuals with certain political views on immigration and multiculturalism. Surprisingly, it seems to place less emphasis on more traditional concerns such as religious extremism in Britain, including Islamism. The training material notably flags individuals who express “anti-immigration” views or argue that “British tradition and identity is under threat from multiculturalism and that Islam is fundamentally opposed to British values”.

At the heart of the controversy is a case study featuring “Mr J”, a 17-year-old college student described as “quiet” and “polite”. The module uses this fictional teenager to illustrate potential signs of radicalisation, raising serious questions about the program’s criteria and potential for overreach. In the scenario, staff at a nature reserve where Mr J works become concerned after noticing the contents of leaflets he has created.

Alarmingly, the video continues by encouraging the trainee to file a “Prevent referral” based on the discovery of these leaflets and stickers, citing the belief that Mr J is “vulnerable and susceptible to being radicalised”. The Prevent referral process involves assigning a counter-terrorism case police officer and a social worker from children’s services to visit the family and check on the individual’s thinking. This approach raises significant concerns about civil liberties and the potential criminalisation of political views.

The leaked module is part of the broader Prevent Duty training, a key component of the UK government’s counter-terrorism strategy introduced in the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015. This controversial program requires various public sector entities, including schools, healthcare providers, and local authorities, to identify individuals at risk of radicalisation and report concerns. While ostensibly designed to safeguard vulnerable people from extremism, Prevent has faced persistent criticism for potentially infringing on civil liberties.

Further investigation into the leaked video reveals detailed definitions and examples provided in the Hampshire Council portal. Under the “Extremism” tab, the UK government defines extremism as “vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs”. 

The module does acknowledge that “most individuals, even those who hold radical views, do not become involved in extremism” and notes that “numerous factors can contribute to and influence the range of behaviours that are defined as extremism”. However, this nuance seems at odds with the program’s apparent readiness to label certain political views as potential indicators of radicalisation.

Under the “Radicalisation” tab, the training attempts to clarify its focus: “Radicalisation in the Prevent context focuses specifically on forms of radicalisation that lead to violent extremism and acts of, or support for, terrorism. The act of holding radical ideas is in itself not detrimental and does not necessarily lead an individual or group to commit an act of terrorism, or to support it.” Yet, the examples and case studies provided suggest a much broader net is being cast.

What makes this approach particularly concerning is its apparent disconnect from mainstream public opinion. A recent YouGov poll shows that 68 per cent of people think immigration has been too high over the last 10 years, with the poll hitting its highest record of 69 per cent in early September. Another YouGov poll reveals that when asked, “Has immigration in the past 10 years been good for Britain?” 39 per cent say that it has mostly been bad for Britain, with that same polling result hitting its highest record last month at 40 per cent.

These results indicate that the conversation surrounding immigration has become a central issue in British politics. Many voters feel betrayed that mass immigration has continued under 14 years of “Conservative” rule. Given these polling numbers, it’s alarming that views critical of immigration could be flagged as potential indicators of radicalisation.

A particular story is strikingly similar to what the training module conveys in the video. Right-wing activist Sam Melia was sentenced to two years in prison for “inciting racial hatred” by producing and distributing stickers with slogans such as “We will be a minority in our homeland by 2066” and “Stop mass immigration”. Blurring the lines between such activities, however one feels about them, and violent extremism feels like a convenient means of obscuring free speech concerns.

… it threatens to stifle political dialogue that is fundamental to a healthy democracy

Across Europe, similar sentiments are reflected not just in polling, but in policy changes. In Sweden, for instance, new policies aim to impose stricter conditions for low-skilled migration, increase measures for revoking residence permits and repatriation, and implement integration requirements. Similarly, in Denmark, the government is focusing on the return of beneficiaries of international protection, rather than integration. Should we call Prevent?

The Prevent Awareness training module, as evidenced by this revealing training video, is categorising mainstream political discourse on immigration as symptomatic of extremist tendencies. Moreover, it threatens to stifle political dialogue that is fundamental to a healthy democracy.