You will need to spend some time discussing when and why Prevent was introduced and what its objectives are.You will certainly need to address the problems and issues that have arisen out of Prevent and also give voice to the opinions of individuals and groups that support it. As always, the weight of the evidence presented by the two ‘sides’ is key.In responding to this question, you will be engaging in contemporary debates about the process of ‘radicalization’. In so doing, there are a variety of sources open to you: State policies to counter radicalization, academic studies on radicalization, the testimonies of those that have been ‘radicalized’, the views of security experts, government and wider political reports on radicalization and the reports provided by
Human Rights group scounter-radicalization and NGOs, e.g. Quilliam, CAGE, Human Rights Watch, Liberty, Prevent Watch.
It is important to test the credibility of these sources and subject them to scrutiny. You also need to have some certainty about your own position on radicalisation.
Is it a readily identifiable process? If so, why? If not, why not? When did the discourse of radicalisation first emerge and why? You may well want to refer to specific examples and cases. Lots of possibilities here – including 7/7, London Bridge and/or Manchester Arena attacks.
When thinking about alternative strategies, you may have your own suggestions, but do read around the literature on this. Look at approaches to counter-radicalization adopted in other countries in Europe and beyond. You should also (re)engage with the Thought Piece for week 6, where it is argued that bolstering existing health, welfare and support services and advancing human rights would be a preferable alternative.
