Prevent Under Fire for Labeling Migration Concerns as Terrorist Ideology

[Social Media]

 

Prevent Under Fire for Labeling Migration Concerns as Terrorist Ideology

 

The UK Government's counter-extremism programme, Prevent, has come under intense scrutiny following revelations that it categorizes concern over mass migration as part of a "terrorist ideology." According to official training materials, beliefs linked to "cultural nationalism" — including fears that Western culture is under threat from immigration and poor integration — may warrant referral for deradicalisation.

 

The controversial classification appears in Prevent's "refresher awareness" course, available on the government’s own website. It identifies "cultural nationalism" as a common sub-category of extreme Right-wing ideologies, grouping it alongside white supremacism and ethno-nationalism. The course explicitly states that those who believe Western identity is endangered by migration could be flagged by authorities.

 

A Home Office spokesperson attempted to justify the programme, saying, "Prevent is not about restricting debate or free speech, but about protecting those susceptible to radicalisation."

 

 

However, critics argue that Prevent’s guidelines dangerously conflate mainstream political views with extremist beliefs. Lord Young, general secretary of the Free Speech Union, has raised concerns in a letter to Home Secretary Yvette Cooper, warning that the broad definition could implicate even prominent political figures. He noted that Robert Jenrick, the shadow justice secretary, might fall within scope because of a previous statement where he warned that "excessive, uncontrolled migration threatens to cannibalise the compassion of the British public."

 

In a striking example, Lord Young suggested that even Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer could be targeted under the criteria. Starmer recently stated, “Without fair immigration rules, we risk becoming an island of strangers, not a nation that walks forward together.”

 

The controversy has reignited broader concerns about the Prevent programme’s credibility and effectiveness. A damning report by Sir William Shawcross two years ago revealed that Prevent had misallocated funds to extremist organisations and failed to intervene in multiple cases that later culminated in violence. One particularly glaring failure was the case of Axel Rudakubana, who went on to commit murder in Southport despite being referred to Prevent three separate times.

 

Professor Ian Acheson, a former government adviser on extremism, criticised the current training framework, arguing it wrongly prioritises thought over action. “We are now beginning to see the consequences of a referral mechanism built on training like this which skews away from suspicion by conduct to the mere possession of beliefs that are perfectly legitimate but regarded by Prevent policy wonks as 'problematic,'” he said.

 

As the debate intensifies, the Prevent programme finds itself at a crossroads. While intended to safeguard the public from radicalisation and terror, its methods — and its definitions — are increasingly being viewed as threats to civil liberties and democratic discourse.

 

  Adapted by ASEAN Now from The Telegraph  2025-06-09

 

 

 

 

[impulse]

They keep harping on race, but it's about culture. 

 

Western culture works because it's based on 1000+ years of Judeo-Christian values.  The laws are written around them and societal norms (even etiquette) are based on them.

 

[Chomper Higgot]

4 minutes ago, impulse said:

They keep harping on race, but it's about culture. 

 

Western culture works because it's based on 1000+ years of Judeo-Christian values.  The laws are written around them and societal norms (even etiquette) are based on them.

 

Erm:

 

4 hours ago, Social Media said:

It identifies "cultural nationalism" as a common sub-category of extreme Right-wing ideologies, grouping it alongside white supremacism and ethno-nationalism.

 

[JonnyF]

Ridiculous. 

 

Labeling someone who holds a different view to yourself as a terrorist just shows you have lost the argument.

 

 

So now they've gone from locking people up for questioning the negative effects of mass migration, to labeling them extreme right wing terrorists. 😄

 

They will have a shock at the next general election when they find out that this is actually the majority view and the party that shares this view, Reform, are voted into power. 

 

Presumably the likes of Douglas Murray are about to be charged with terrorism offences for books such as The Strange Death of Europe?

[impulse]

3 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Erm:

 

That's what lefties do if you disagree with them.  They accuse you of being racist or fascist.  When all you really want is some continuity. 

 

There's a reason that living standards are generally higher where Judeo-Christian values have guided things for centuries.  

 

[Chomper Higgot]

Just now, JonnyF said:

Ridiculous. 

 

Labeling someone who holds a different view to yourself as a terrorist just shows you have lost the argument.

 

 

So now they've gone from locking people up for questioning the negative effects of mass migration, to labeling them extreme right wing terrorists. 😄

 

They will have a shock at the next general election when they find out that this is actually the majority view and the party that shares this view, Reform, are voted into power. 

 

Presumably the likes of Douglas Murray are about to be charged with terrorism offences for books such as The Strange Death of Europe?

“Labeling someone who holds a different view to yourself as a terrorist just shows you have lost the argument.”

 

On that we agree Jonny, though it happens a lot.

 

“So now they've gone from locking people up for questioning the negative effects of mass migration, to labeling them extreme right wing terrorists.”

 

No it hasn’t, that’s a bit of hyperbole on your part.

[JonnyF]

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

No it hasn’t, that’s a bit of hyperbole on your part.

 

Gaslighting again, I see. "You're imagining it" 😄

 

Did you read the OP? That's exactly what they are doing. Try reading it 3 times, slowly...

 

[impulse]

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

“Labeling someone who holds a different view to yourself as a terrorist just shows you have lost the argument.”

 

On that we agree Jonny, though it happens a lot.

 

“So now they've gone from locking people up for questioning the negative effects of mass migration, to labeling them extreme right wing terrorists.”

 

No it hasn’t, that’s a bit of hyperbole on your part.

 

Here's a little thought experiment for you to ponder:

 

Imagine burning a Bible in public in London.  Now, imagine burning a Quran...

[Cory1848]

9 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

That's what lefties do if you disagree with them.  They accuse you of being racist or fascist.  When all you really want is some continuity. 

 

There's a reason that living standards are generally higher where Judeo-Christian values have guided things for centuries.  

 

Not sure exactly how Western culture “works” any better than non-Western cultures. All cultures are prone to cycles of barbarism, present-day Islamic extremism being one example. And don’t forget that, with regard to the “Judeo-Christian values” you hold up as the standard, over the past two millennia the “Christian” part has turned on the “Judeo” part with sickening regularity.

[Chomper Higgot]

3 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

Here's a little thought experiment for you to ponder:

 

Imagine burning a Bible in public in London.  Now, imagine burning a Quran...

I don’t burn books.

 

I’m cognizant of the historical context of such acts, particularly by rightwing Christian nationalist in a cult of national cultural and racial purity.

 

Perhaps book burning isn’t a good example.

 

 

[impulse]

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I don’t burn books.

 

I’m cognizant of the historical context of such acts, particularly by rightwing Christian nationalist in a cult of national cultural and racial purity.

 

Perhaps book burning isn’t a good example.

 

Between burning a Bible and burning a Quran, which one would get you the stink eye from passers by and which one would get you tossed in jail (or worse)?

 

[impulse]

4 minutes ago, Cory1848 said:

Not sure exactly how Western culture “works” any better than non-Western cultures. All cultures are prone to cycles of barbarism, present-day Islamic extremism being one example. And don’t forget that, with regard to the “Judeo-Christian values” you hold up as the standard, over the past two millennia the “Christian” part has turned on the “Judeo” part with sickening regularity.

 

Look up GDP per capita, then correlate that with the founding principals of the countries.  How many non Judeo-Christian societies in the top 25%?  (Other than where God happened to put a bunch of oil...)

 

[Chomper Higgot]

9 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

Gaslighting again, I see. "You're imagining it" 😄

 

Did you read the OP? That's exactly what they are doing. Try reading it 3 times, slowly...

 

 

Maybe a bit of comprehension difficulty on your part Jonny.

 

Advocating discrimination or violence against minorities is not simply a matter of a different opinion.

 

Those are illegal acts.

 

 

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

4 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

Between burning a Bible and burning a Quran, which one would get you the stink eye from passers by and which one would get you tossed in jail (or worse)?

 

I have no idea, I said earlier, I don’t burn books.

If you want an answer to your question, try it out first yourself and let us know how you get on.

 

Maybe extend the range of religious texts and let us know how that goes too.

[JonnyF]

10 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Advocating discrimination or violence against minorities is not simply a matter of a different opinion.

 

Holding a belief that western culture is under threat from mass immigration is not advocating violence. The two are not even nearly the same thing. 

 

It is simply an opinion that you do not like being voiced, therefore you try to conflate it with a non existant call for violence in order to shut it down.

 

Nobody listens when the left shout RACIST at people they disagree with, so now they are shouting TERRORIST instead. It's pretty pathetic to see. 

[Chomper Higgot]

24 minutes ago, Cory1848 said:

Not sure exactly how Western culture “works” any better than non-Western cultures. All cultures are prone to cycles of barbarism, present-day Islamic extremism being one example. And don’t forget that, with regard to the “Judeo-Christian values” you hold up as the standard, over the past two millennia the “Christian” part has turned on the “Judeo” part with sickening regularity.

“And don’t forget that, with regard to the “Judeo-Christian values” you hold up as the standard, over the past two millennia the “Christian” part has turned on the “Judeo” part with sickening regularity.”

 

Exactly.

 

 

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

3 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

Holding a belief that western culture is under threat from mass immigration is not advocating violence. The two are not even nearly the same thing. 

 

It is simply an opinion that you do not like being voiced, therefore you try to conflate it with a non existant call for violence in order to shut it down.

 

Nobody listens when the left shout RACIST at people they disagree with, so now they are shouting TERRORIST instead. It's pretty pathetic to see. 

I suggest you go back and read the text you chose to post.

 

You chose it Jonny, not me,

[Cory1848]

1 hour ago, impulse said:

 

Look up GDP per capita, then correlate that with the founding principals of the countries.  How many non Judeo-Christian societies in the top 25%?  (Other than where God happened to put a bunch of oil...)

 

If you’re going to measure a culture’s worth by its GDP, that’s a pretty short-sighted criterion. How much of the West’s wealth did it steal from non-Western civilizations, during the centuries of colonialism for instance (Africa and Asia), or the conquest of Indigenous territories (the Americas)? And in the present day, how much of that wealth is hoarded by the uppermost tier as the wealth gap only continues to grow, at least in those Western countries that follow the neoliberal economic model, which is linked indelibly with your “Judeo-Christian values”?

 

Western culture has indeed produced much of value -- in innovation that benefits humanity, in the arts, sometimes even in philanthropy. However, that has gone hand in hand with violence, destruction, and abject greed. I think the same can be said of most all cultures.

[impulse]

2 minutes ago, Cory1848 said:

Western culture has indeed produced much of value -- in innovation that benefits humanity, in the arts, sometimes even in philanthropy. However, that has gone hand in hand with violence, destruction, and abject greed. I think the same can be said of most all cultures.

 

Getting pretty far afield there.  The topic is unvetted immigration.  Is it racist to be against inviting people in that you then have to support financially, and who advocate the downfall of your very society? 

 

I think not.  And it has very little to do with race or skin color.

 

[JonnyF]

55 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I suggest you go back and read the text you chose to post.

 

You chose it Jonny, not me,

 

They are defining the ideology itself (the subject of this thread) as extreme right wing terrorist ideology.

 

 

It is possible to hold that belief without advocating violence or discrimination, but they (and you) are trying to conflate the two in order to shut it down. In order to silence people.

 

Since labeling everyone a racist has clearly failed, now the left are trying a new tactic. They are now labeling people terrorists by defining a (farily commonly held) view that they do not agree with a terrorist ideology. Most likely because that carries the increased threat of a jail sentence and therefore they are hoping people will be scared into silence.

 

Judging by what I am seeing on social media, it is failing spectacularly. Don't give up though...

[connda]

The UK has all of the hallmarks of a country that is now turning into a third-world totalitarian s**t-hole as exemplified by the government's use of state sanctions to legislate authoritarian dictates to curtail freedom of speech and expression as the state itself protects those who illegally enter the country as the government itself seeks to destroy UK culture and heritage, and British nationalism.  

Orwell's book was suppose to be fiction, not a template for government behavior. 

[Cory1848]

1 hour ago, JonnyF said:

Holding a belief that western culture is under threat from mass immigration is not advocating violence. The two are not even nearly the same thing. 

 

It is simply an opinion that you do not like being voiced, therefore you try to conflate it with a non existant call for violence in order to shut it down.

 

Nobody listens when the left shout RACIST at people they disagree with, so now they are shouting TERRORIST instead. It's pretty pathetic to see. 

Well, for one thing, human migration has been occurring for millennia, unabated, with varying effects. Cultures as a result are forever evolving, and usually not in a bad way. If a million Syrian and Iraqi migrants, whose homes have been destroyed, are given refuge in Germany, most, at least those who stay, will learn German and assimilate culturally and in other ways even if they retain their Muslim faith. Plus, they will add in their own ways to an evolving German culture: thanks to earlier migrations of Turks, you can now get some of the world’s best doner kebobs in Berlin. That’s a plus!

 

To think that these refugees will suddenly create a state based on sharia law, for instance, is ludicrous. There are 85 million Germans.

 

And second, while the belief that mass immigration is a “threat” to some notion of a “local culture” may not provoke violence on *your* part, the simple characterization of immigration as a “threat” may indeed lead to violence by those who in fact do lean toward xenophobia and racism and fascism -- violence for the sake of some glossed-over, idealized notion of “local culture.” Demagogues throughout history have invented such “threats” for their own political advantage, as is happening right now in the US.

[quake]

How typical of photos about this issue.

what's wrong with this picture.

You got it,  the bottom one is full of men of fighting age only.

No families or ladies in it.

The Uk at it's worst.

Shame on you, you have let evil come straight through the front door.

 

[Chomper Higgot]

 

18 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

They are defining the ideology itself (the subject of this thread) as extreme right wing terrorist ideology.

 

 

It is possible to hold that belief without advocating violence or discrimination, but they (and you) are trying to conflate the two in order to shut it down. In order to silence people.

 

Since labeling everyone a racist has clearly failed, now the left are trying a new tactic. They are now labeling people terrorists by defining a (farily commonly held) view that they do not agree with a terrorist ideology. Most likely because that carries the increased threat of a jail sentence and therefore they are hoping people will be scared into silence.

 

Judging by what I am seeing on social media, it is failing spectacularly. Don't give up though...

 

It is in deed possible to hold that belief without advocating violence or discrimination, but going back to your preciously selected text, we can see precisely where the extremism comes into play:

 

 

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

2 minutes ago, quake said:

How typical of photos about this issue.

what's wrong with this picture.

You got it,  the bottom one is full of men of fighting age only.

No families or ladies in it.

Uk at it's worst.

Shame on you, you have let evil come straight through the front door.

 

Those men are also of working age.

 

The age when they are very unlucky to need medical care, the age when they have the energy and ambition to make a better life for themselves.

[quake]

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Those men are also of working age.

 

The age when they are very unlucky to need medical care, the age when they have the energy and ambition to make a better life for themselves.

 

What work are they capable of.

Delivering a take away meal on a stolen scooter.

 

Nah,  They are all highly skilled blue and white collar workers.  

 

[Denim]

I think if you get right down to the nitty gritty until you reach the bottom line , its not about culture or religion.

 

In my opinion , as with many things in life it devolves to money and wealth.

 

Those coming here in rubber boats are mainly attracted by the idea of bettering themselves and their situation.  90% of this percieved improvement involves money and the opportunities to aquire it.  The other 10% involves moving to a safer more stable envirinment that facilitates the former.

 

Those who are strongly opposed to the influx of illegals are against their tax money being spent on people who have not made any financial contributions. They feel that that money should be spent on improving the lot of native born people. Better housing , a better NHS , more help for the homeless , equity for pensioners regardless of where they live etc etc. There is also a small minority of racists and bigots

 

For those immigrants who succeed in settling in the UK , it is understandable that they prefer their own religion and culture. Some of these people can maintain these yet still succeed in integrating into the greater society. The Chinese for example. Whatever they may do at home and whatever language they speak , when going about their outside business they behave ' as the Romans do ' They do not need to live nearby others of their kind but are content to live anywhere and open up a takeaway.  Other immigrants do not wish to do this , prefering to have a society within a society. This even happens here , where you see lots of westerners gravitate to places where there are already many westerners.

 

Personaly , I do not see any solutions.  If today was like yesterday , tomorrow will be like today.

[JonnyF]

5 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

 

 

It is in deed possible to hold that belief without advocating violence or discrimination, but going back to your preciously selected text, we can see precisely where the extremism comes into play:

 

 

 

 

 

So you would therefore agree that the following view in itself is not an extreme wing terrorist ideology.

 

 

That's great - nice to have agreement on the issue. 

 

Perhaps you should email Prevent and voice your displeasure at their mischaracterization of such a commonly held belief. 

[Cory1848]

46 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

Getting pretty far afield there.  The topic is unvetted immigration.  Is it racist to be against inviting people in that you then have to support financially, and who advocate the downfall of your very society? 

 

I think not.  And it has very little to do with race or skin color.

 

Well, at least in a US context, most all immigrants -- whether documented or undocumented -- work, pay taxes, and purchase items in their local economy. The benefits they receive are commensurate with their contribution. The same as with US citizens. As for the downfall of (US) society, I expect there would be only a very few immigrants in the US advocating for that, and they would be handled by law enforcement.

 

I don’t know enough to comment about the situation in European countries that have accepted refugees; one friend of mine who spends time in Sweden says that Somali refugees there are overcompensated by the Swedish government, and I have no reason to doubt him. Those immigrants who use their relative freedom to commit acts of terror should of course be arrested and deported, but again, I would think that’s a very small minority.

 

I’m a dual US/Estonian citizen but have lived most of my adult life in neither of those places. However, I have the luxury of choice. Remember, the great majority of migrants leave their homes for an uncertain future elsewhere not by choice, but because they can no longer provide for their families in their home countries -- whether because of war, environmental destruction, or the collapse of their society. You might say, <That’s not my concern>; I would say, we are all responsible for each other regardless of “states” and “borders” -- which in the end are purely political structures and as such are temporary. That’s probably where we differ.

[Bkk Brian]

7 hours ago, Social Media said:

In a striking example, Lord Young suggested that even Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer could be targeted under the criteria

lol so flip flop Keir could now be targeted himself under "terrorist ideology."

 

His rhetoric is "Deeply Racist" according to Diane Abbott and "terrorist ideology" by Prevent............

 

More Prevent nonsense below.

 

In February, Michael Portillo told GB News viewers how back in 2023 his BBC television series, Great British Railway Journeys, was singled out by Prevent for being capable of ‘encouraging far-right sympathies’ (other programmes also named by Prevent included House of Cards, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy and Yes, Minister). Portillo’s disclosure came the same week a leaked internal Home Office review on extremism suggested that claims of ‘two-tier policing’ were a ‘right-wing extremist narrative’.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/worrying-about-migration-doesnt-make-you-an-extremist/

https://archive.ph/qXXJL