The wrong kind of law to prevent terrorism

The Prevent programme will cause real problems for universities, say Phil Lindan and Meriel Schindler

September 18, 2015
law, legal, statue, justice

Yesterday, Jo Johnson told the National Union of Students to drop its opposition to the Prevent counter-terrorism strategy, saying that the programme was “not about oppressing free speech or stifling academic freedom, it is about making sure that radical views and ideas are not given the oxygen they need to flourish”. 

In other words, you could say, it is about stopping certain people saying certain things. If that meant stopping hate speech, or incitement, it could be lauded - but Prevent is too blunt an instrument to achieve that. Its operation in universities will see debate stifled, muted, distorted or stopped altogether. 

But free speech is the crucible in which to assay ideas. “Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants,” said former US  Supreme Court justice Louis Dembitz Brandeis. Prevent will force dangerous minds into the shadows.

Universities are gearing up with policies, training and monitoring in order to discharge their general duty to “have due regard to the need to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism”. They are less prepared for the legal troubles that will follow.

Lecturers will be obliged to report students at risk of “radicalisation”, a portmanteau term susceptible to glib stereotyping, and fear of radical ideas themselves. If a lecturer refuses to follow policies and make reports, is that a disciplinary matter? Is a Muslim student taking too much interest in cryptography to be reported? Is it possible at all to be trained to reliably spot the signs of someone at risk of being drawn into terrorism – or isn't that the province of the security services? 

It is an odd duty indeed for an academic to bear.

Prevent modifies and curtails basic rights. That’s not new – the legitimate curtailment of freedoms is an essential part of the balancing of those rights. But Prevent seems to be aimed at the wrong targets, and its clumsy deadening hand will breach those rights unacceptably and unlawfully.

If “hard cases make bad law”, then this bad law will make hard cases too – and plenty of them.

Phil Lindan is an associate and Meriel Schindler is a partner at law firm Withers LLP.

You've reached your article limit

Register to continue

Registration is free and only takes a moment. Once registered you can read a total of 6 articles each month, plus:

  • Sign up for the editor's highlights
  • Receive World University Rankings news first
  • Get job alerts, shortlist jobs and save job searches
  • Participate in reader discussions and post comments
Register

Have your say

Log in or register to post comments

Featured Jobs

Most Commented

question marks PhD study

Selecting the right doctorate is crucial for success. Robert MacIntosh and Kevin O'Gorman share top 10 tips on how to pick a PhD

India, UK, flag

Sir Keith Burnett reflects on what he learned about international students while in India with the UK prime minister

Pencil lying on open diary

Requesting a log of daily activity means that trust between the institution and the scholar has broken down, says Toby Miller

Microlight pilot flies with flock of cranes

Reports of UK-based researchers already thinking of moving overseas after Brexit vote

Portrait montage of Donald Trump and Nigel Farage

From Donald Trump to Brexit, John Morgan considers the challenges of a new international political climate