4 ms·

Yes, the UK government is behind the erosion of free speech on campus. The Counter Terrorism and Security Act of 2015 imposes a statutory duty on universities

by neel_k 8y ago

Yes, the UK government is behind the erosion of free speech on campus. The Counter Terrorism and Security Act of 2015 imposes a statutory duty on universities to have a "due regard to the need to prevent individuals from being drawn into terrorism". This means that institutions now have a statutory duty to participate in the government's Prevent strategy. This means UK universities have a legal obligation to narc on students who are too Muslim. As a whole, universities have tried to finesse this attack on free expression this by defining violent radicalism as a signal of mental illness and telling us lecturers that we should feel obliged to refer struggling students to mental health services. Ultimately, though, when the intent and design of the rules is fundamentally bigoted, there is only so far that technical compliance can mitigate that.

beaconstudios 8y ago
what is a preferable way to handle what you call "violent radicalism"? If the rule is only targeted at those who are drawn into beliefs that would see those individuals commit violent acts, what makes reporting them bigoted compared to reporting other violent groups?
- DanBC 8y ago
  Here's some information about CHANNEL / PREVENT: http://www.teescpp.org.uk/prevent-channel-referral-process http://www.teescpp.org.uk/prevent-channel-referral-process People who are referred are assessed, and most appropriate help should be provided. For some people this will be mental health services. For others it might be befriending services, or access to non-radicalising social groups. People have mentioned external speakers. Here's the guidance for Higher Education in England and Wales. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/445916/Prevent_Duty_Guidance_For_Higher_Education__England__Wales_.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/... ---begin 6. We would expect RHEBs to be delivering in the following areas. External Speakers and Events 7. In order to comply with the duty all RHEBs should have policies and procedures in place for the management of events on campus and use of all RHEB premises. The policies should apply to all staff, students and visitors and clearly set out what is required for any event to proceed. 8. The RHEB clearly needs to balance its legal duties in terms of both ensuring freedom of speech and academic freedom, and also protecting student and staff welfare. Although it predates this legislation, Universities UK produced guidance in 2013 to support institutions to make decisions about hosting events and have the proper safeguards in place: http://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/highereducation/Pages/Externalspeakersinhighereducationinstitutions.aspx http://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/highereducation/Pages/Extern... ---end https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/445977/3799_Revised_Prevent_Duty_Guidance__England_Wales_V2-Interactive.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
- pjc50 8y ago
  > drawn into beliefs that would see those individuals commit violent acts That potentially covers any and all of homophobia, sexism, support for Rangers FC, signing up for the Army, animal rights, etc. The actual guidance says > 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 and calls out Islamic fundamentalism and white supremacism. That raises the question, should the BBC's recent broadcast of the "Rivers of Blood" speech have been referred to Prevent for white supremacism? https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/445977/3799_Revised_Prevent_Duty_Guidance__England_Wales_V2-Interactive.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
  - DanBC 8y ago
    Page 15: animal rights extremism is covered. That feels reasonable so long as it's focussed on extremists: we had a spate of "fire bombing" incendiary attacks on department stores in the 1980s; and one group dug up a human corpse.
  - beaconstudios 8y ago
    > That potentially covers any and all of homophobia, sexism, support for Rangers FC, signing up for the Army, animal rights, etc. individuals wanting to commit violent acts can arguably belong to any set of beliefs, it's the extent of their beliefs and the specific belief that violence is needed to implement their vision that is the problem being discussed (imo). I think Islamic fundamentalism and white supremacism are specifically called out because they are the most visible current threats. In case you were being serious, the BBC broadcast clearly falls under journalistic protection. An individual recreating the speech would likely be tried for hate speech.
DanBC 8y ago
> who are too Muslim. Do you realise that you're saying devout Muslims are terrorists? That may not be what you intended. Obviously prevent is not about people who are "too muslim", but about people who are drawn to violence for political or religious means. This includes islamic extremists, but also includes some animal rights activists or far right extremists.

by neel_k 8y ago

beaconstudios 8y ago

what is a preferable way to handle what you call "violent radicalism"? If the rule is only targeted at those who are drawn into beliefs that would see those individuals commit violent acts, what makes reporting them bigoted compared to reporting other violent groups?

DanBC 8y ago
Here's some information about CHANNEL / PREVENT: http://www.teescpp.org.uk/prevent-channel-referral-process http://www.teescpp.org.uk/prevent-channel-referral-process People who are referred are assessed, and most appropriate help should be provided. For some people this will be mental health services. For others it might be befriending services, or access to non-radicalising social groups. People have mentioned external speakers. Here's the guidance for Higher Education in England and Wales. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/445916/Prevent_Duty_Guidance_For_Higher_Education__England__Wales_.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/... ---begin 6. We would expect RHEBs to be delivering in the following areas. External Speakers and Events 7. In order to comply with the duty all RHEBs should have policies and procedures in place for the management of events on campus and use of all RHEB premises. The policies should apply to all staff, students and visitors and clearly set out what is required for any event to proceed. 8. The RHEB clearly needs to balance its legal duties in terms of both ensuring freedom of speech and academic freedom, and also protecting student and staff welfare. Although it predates this legislation, Universities UK produced guidance in 2013 to support institutions to make decisions about hosting events and have the proper safeguards in place: http://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/highereducation/Pages/Externalspeakersinhighereducationinstitutions.aspx http://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/highereducation/Pages/Extern... ---end https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/445977/3799_Revised_Prevent_Duty_Guidance__England_Wales_V2-Interactive.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
pjc50 8y ago
> drawn into beliefs that would see those individuals commit violent acts That potentially covers any and all of homophobia, sexism, support for Rangers FC, signing up for the Army, animal rights, etc. The actual guidance says > 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 and calls out Islamic fundamentalism and white supremacism. That raises the question, should the BBC's recent broadcast of the "Rivers of Blood" speech have been referred to Prevent for white supremacism? https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/445977/3799_Revised_Prevent_Duty_Guidance__England_Wales_V2-Interactive.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
- DanBC 8y ago
  Page 15: animal rights extremism is covered. That feels reasonable so long as it's focussed on extremists: we had a spate of "fire bombing" incendiary attacks on department stores in the 1980s; and one group dug up a human corpse.
- beaconstudios 8y ago
  > That potentially covers any and all of homophobia, sexism, support for Rangers FC, signing up for the Army, animal rights, etc. individuals wanting to commit violent acts can arguably belong to any set of beliefs, it's the extent of their beliefs and the specific belief that violence is needed to implement their vision that is the problem being discussed (imo). I think Islamic fundamentalism and white supremacism are specifically called out because they are the most visible current threats. In case you were being serious, the BBC broadcast clearly falls under journalistic protection. An individual recreating the speech would likely be tried for hate speech.

DanBC 8y ago

> who are too Muslim. Do you realise that you're saying devout Muslims are terrorists? That may not be what you intended. Obviously prevent is not about people who are "too muslim", but about people who are drawn to violence for political or religious means. This includes islamic extremists, but also includes some animal rights activists or far right extremists.