'Conceited, contempt and unjust condemnation.'

"Britain has built a massive network of snitches"

Folks, it's quiz time. Are you ready?

Q1: In which country does your doctor, who you consult about depression, feel obliged to report you to the police because you've had dark thoughts about events in the Middle East? 

Q2: In which country is your optician, nurse, dentist, social worker, lecturer or councillor duty-bound to alert the police if you exhibit signs of radicalisation or express opinion out of line with national values? That includes expressing non-violent extremist views.

Q3: In which country must a college student get an endorsement and cite a security assessment before booking a seminar room?

Q4: In which country was a librarian, when asked for a reference, required to assert that the prospective employee is not involved in extremist activity or terrorism?

Q5: In which country did the college cleaning staff report a Sikh lady for uttering prayers in her room? This report led to a covert search and an interview by the Dean.


Is this Russia, the USA, China or the UK? Suppose you answered the UK, well done. You scored 100%. 

Under the 2015 Counter-Terrorism and Security Act, all public institutions must put in place anti-radicalisation programmes. That includes the identification of terrorists or those likely to evolve into terrorists. Moreover, universities and colleges must make regular submissions giving tangible examples of steps they've taken. One college cited the prayer incident to show its diligence. 

With typical over-reach, some places demand guest lists before an event for security purposes. No list, no approval. At Oxford University, this prompted the cancellation of a talk on unrest in the Middle East. 

A variety of hotlines and anonymous reporting channels support these programmes. Rochdale Borough Council provides a helpful guide to spotting the potential terrorist, which includes :

• Unwillingness to discuss their views or refusing to listen to different points of view.
• A sudden disrespectful attitude towards others.
• Increased levels of anger or becoming increasingly argumentative.

I've self-assessed. O dear, that's me before my first coffee in the morning. 

All this activity is a legal obligation on public bodies and individuals who work there. Failure to comply can have severe consequences.

In support of these laws, over one million public sector workers received training to spot proto-terrorists. In short, Britain has built a massive network of snitches.

May this explain data that indicates that about 80% of the referrals have no merit. That doesn't mean the other 20% are on the route to terrorism, far from it. Yet, every year the scheme flags up thousands of men and boys considered a risk. The vast majority are cleared. That decision comes after police interviews, homes searched and other intrusive checks. You have to wonder how many people get radicalised by these interventions. 

It's worth noting that in 2016 the police received 60 children referrals a week, with 300 of those kids under the age of nine. Virtually all were Muslim children. 

Unfortunately, studies do not support this approach. A flawed theory of radicalisation — as a linear process — asserts that people move through stages to become a terrorist. Despite a body of research refuting this simplistic linear theory, Britain continues to apply it.

You could argue such a response to terrorism is at least understandable, no matter how inept or counterproductive, given the threat. Whatever the merits of the UK's approach, this got my attention, because British politicians are attacking Hong Kong's security laws. In truth, by comparison, our laws are tame. I can't imagine the uproar here if we sought to impose the UK approach on our colleges.

Dominic Raab, the UK Foreign Minister, needs to confront the truth of Britain's domestic anti-terror policies before he's in a position to criticise others. I heard a comment this week that Britain's response to events in Hong Kong is 'conceited, contempt and unjust condemnation.' 
​
Indeed, the utterances from Raab come weighed with heavy conceit. He holds a high opinion of  so-called ‘British' values that are not borne out by facts on the ground. Second, he displays a contempt shaped by his prejudice and jaundiced lens. Lastly, his condemnation falters because he fails to recognise Britain helped plant the seeds of our predicament. Of course, he avoids the many historical questions or the support that the UK gave to radicals here.

On those rocks, his words founder.