Prevent one of the four strands of the government’s counter terrorism strategy Contest continues to divide public opinion. Significant government funds have been invested since 9/11.

Six years after the London 7/7 bombings, £80m has been reported to have been spent on 1,000 schemes across 94 local authorities. The government however, has been accused of stigmatising Muslim communities, causing disquiet among groups, one of which has announced an alternative counter-terror scheme.

Last week Lord Lester of Herne Hill asked the government whether they intended to set up an independent inquiry to evaluate the operation of Prevent. Minister of State for the Home Office, Baroness Williams of Trafford responded, informing peers that since 2011 Prevent had been expanded in order to account for an increased terror threat.

Defending the strategy she said, “Prevent is working; it is safeguarding people from being drawn into terrorism. The statistics on Prevent delivery are reported in the Contest annual report. We have committed to updating Contest in 2016 and Prevent will be included as part of that refresh.”

Lord Singh of Wimbledon, the Director of the Network of Sikh Organisations talked about the difficulty with Prevent because of ambiguity.

He said, “Words such as “extremism”, “fundamentalism” and “radicalisation” all leave us none the wiser—and “Islamist” is a positive insult to the Muslim community. Would the Minister agree that the real target of Prevent is the out-of-context use of religious texts to justify the abuse of human rights and the cruel treatment of women and people of other faiths?”

He went on, “Will she try to engage with faith leaders to ensure that they interpret religious texts in the context of today’s times?”

Baroness Williams responded, “The noble Lord, as always, makes very wise points. So often in the case of religion, religious texts are misinterpreted to the extent that they are completely out of context with the actions of those who would seek to undermine the true tenets of those religions.”

Earlier this week, Lord Singh the Director of the Network of Sikh Organisations, held the government to account following publication of their four-year hate crime action plan – Action Against Hate. The forty-page document contains not one example of hate crime affecting non-Abrahamic faiths, nor commitment to a single government funded project to deal with the problem. This is in stark contrast to the focus in the report on Abrahamic faiths, along with a firm commitment to implement taxpayer funded projects designed to combat hate crime faced by these communities, particularly Muslims and Jews.

Lord Singh asked Her Majesty’s Government: “Why their report Action Against Hate: The UK Government’s plan for tackling hate crime, published in July 2016, does not report on the incidence of hate crimes against non-Abrahamic faith communities.”

Disappointed with the Minister’s initial response, Lord Singh went on:

“My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response but it does not address my concerns over the narrow and biased thinking in a report that details 45 examples of hate crime against Abrahamic faiths but not a single example of the many, well-documented mistaken-identity hate crimes suffered by Sikhs and others—and this in a report emanating from a department with specifically designated officers to consider hate crime against the Jewish and Muslim communities but not anyone else.

He added, “Would the Minister agree that that omission is more due to ignorance than deliberate discrimination? Would she further agree that those who preach the need for religious literacy should first themselves acquire some basic religious literacy, and apologise to those they have offended in such a way?”

Minister of State, Baroness Williams of Trafford made some vague references to “common issues across the strands of hate crime”, and without specific examples said “we also accept that there are issues which affect communities specifically.”

On the question of religious literacy she said, “We have talked about this in the past. People such as the media have a role to play in improving their religious literacy.”

The NSO has been raising the inequalities in the government’s approach to hate crime for some time. Lord Singh has highlighted the wider affects of ‘Islamophobia’ on a number of separate occasions, and earlier this year the NSO released FOI figures obtained from the MET, which revealed that 28% of victims of ‘Islamophobic hate crimes’ recorded by the MET in 2015, were in fact non-Muslim or people of no recorded faith.

The Minister has agreed to meet with Lord Singh to further discuss community concerns.

(above) Sikhs participating in a vigil following the Wisconsin gurdwara massacre in 2012

Recognise the equality of all human beings’ – Guru Gobind Singh

The publication of the UK Government’s four-year plan for tackling hate crime, ‘Action Against Hate’ has demonstrated a clear bias against those of non-Abrahamic faiths.

The forty-page document published last month, gives 23 examples of hate crimes against Jews, 19 against Muslims and 3 against Christians. There is not a single reference to hate crimes against Sikhs, Hindus or those of other non-Abrahamic faiths.

There are in total 13 references to financial aid in tackling hate crime against Jews, Muslims and Christians. Measures with allocated funding are detailed in the plan to tackle both Jewish and Muslim hate crime. There is no parallel reference to similar funding assistance for Sikhs, Hindus or other non-Abrahamic faiths.

We are especially concerned about the contents of the document, given our prior communication with the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG). Further to a FOI request by the NSO, it was made apparent that 28% of victims of ‘Islamophobic hate crime’ recorded by the MET in 2015 were non-Muslim. This was the subject of mainstream media coverage. Despite pointing this out to DCLG, it’s troubling that this important finding was not highlighted in the plan.

It is well known that Sikhs have suffered immensely post 9/11. The first person to be killed in retribution for the twin towers attack was a turbaned Sikh. This month we mark the 4^th anniversary of the Wisconsin gurdwara massacre, where six worshippers were murdered by a white supremacist. In 2015 the FBI started to separately monitor hate crime against Sikhs, Hindus and Arabs. Prior to this violence against Sikhs had been incorrectly classified as ‘anti-Islamic.’

In 2015 a Sikh dentist was the victim of a machete attack in Wales, which was wrongly labelled ‘Islamophobic’ on a flagship BBC television programme. It was later confirmed the victim was attacked because of his race, not religion. Last month, three Islamic State inspired teenagers were found guilty of bombing a gurdwara in Germany. It is extraordinary that despite these events, the British government blithely ignores the vulnerability of a vast swathe of the electorate.

Lord Singh, NSO Director said, “The plan does not even recognise that Sikhs and other non-Abrahamic faith communities suffer hate crime.”

He went on, “In the 15^th and 16^th centuries the Sikh Gurus stressed that all members of our one human family were entitled to equal respect. UK Sikhs expect the UK government in the 21^st century to give equal support and consideration to all faiths.”

Whilst we are acutely concerned about the marginalisation of non-Abrahamic faiths, we welcome the pledge that national statistics on the incidence of hate crime will be disaggregated from next year. We hope this will finally convince the government that hate crimes occur beyond the Abrahamic faiths, and must be taken equally seriously. The government should issue an unequivocal apology for its failure to acknowledge the very real concerns of Sikhs, Hindus and others.

Hate begins with fear and fear with ignorance. Hate crime will continue to be a blot on British society unless prompt action is taken to address ignorance and insensitivity towards other faiths and cultures at all levels of society, including government.

(Above: Lord Singh)

Lord Falconer’s unsuccessful ‘Assisted Dying Bill’ is old news, but the debate on the controversial issue resurfaced last week when peers discussed the implications of a Supreme Court decision in the case of R (Nicklinson) v Ministry of Justice [2014] UKSC 38.

The issues in the case centered on whether the prohibition on assisted suicide in the Suicide Act 1961 was compatible with the appellant’s right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 ECHR). The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and said although the courts could decide the question of compatibility, it wasn’t right for them to do so.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, Lord Faulks said: “The Government recognise that strong views are held on this subject on both sides. It remains the Government’s view that any change in the law is an area for individual conscience and a matter for Parliament to decide rather than for government policy.”

Lord Singh, the Director of the NSO a fierce opponent of ‘assisted dying’, said: “My Lords, social as well as medical factors can influence a decision to live, and greedy or uncaring relatives can easily influence that decision—we hear about that every day in the press and in care homes.”

He went on: “Does the Minister agree that greater efforts should be made to show that we value all people, whatever their degree of sickness or disability, and that society must work towards better palliative care?”

Last year Labour MP Rob Marris tabled a private members bill on ‘assisted dying’, which was defeated on the second reading. The NSO described it as ‘a grotesque challenge to Sikh teachings on compassionate care.’ At the time some peers expressed concerns about the ‘financial incentives’ involved in ending the lives of the terminally ill. The failed Bill was further described as a ‘breeding ground for vultures.’

(Above): Hamid Nehal Ansari

British lawyer and NSO Deputy Director Jas Uppal has been a leading campaigner in the case of missing Indian national Hamid Nehal Ansari, who has been unlawfully detained by Pakistani authorities.

Ansari’s mother Mrs Fauzia Ansari (based in Mumbai) first instructed Ms Uppal in her son’s case in November 2012. For years the Pakistani authorities had denied knowledge of his whereabouts. However at the beginning of this year it was confirmed that he was in fact in Pakistani Army custody and had been convicted by a military tribunal for ‘espionage.’

The case began when 28-year-old Mr Ansari, an MBA graduate who taught at the Mumbai Management College, traveled to Pakistan looking for opportunities. According to reports Mr Ansari had befriended a Kohat-based woman through social media and had crossed over into Pakistan. He had been staying in a hotel in Kohat, when on November 12 2012; police along with officials from the Intelligence Bureau arrested him.

This is not the first time Indian or Pakistani authorities have arrested citizens of each other’s countries under the pretext of ‘spying’ allegations.

Ms Uppal has raised Ansari’s case at the highest level, and in 2014 made personal representations before the UN on the matter.

She is optimistic that Ansari will be released and repatriated back to India. Ms Uppal said: “Hamid was naive to cross the border into Pakistan without the valid supporting travel documents; indeed his actions were illegal. However, Hamid was arbitrarily detained without trial in excess of three years during which time, the Pakistani authorities failed to notify the Indian authorities that they are holding their national as they required to do so under international law, Conventions and protocols.

She went on: “I formally complained to the UN on behalf of Mr and Mrs Ansari as well as raising the matter with both the Indian and Pakistani authorities.”

Mrs Ansari said, “It’s not that he is alone in pain and suffering the punishment of loosing his freedom, but the entire family is in trauma.” She told the NSO her family have been living in despair for the last four years, with a hope they will see their son again. So far she has been unable to obtain a visa to travel to Pakistan.

Earlier this year a 24-year-old Pakistani journalist Zeenat Shahzadi who had been working on the Ansari case was abducted. Human Rights groups and her family accuse Pakistan’s security agencies for her disappearance.

For further information contact info@nsouk.co.uk or Justice Upheld help@justiceupheld.org.uk