Concern about mass migration is a “terrorist ideology” that requires intervention by the Government’s anti-radicalisation Prevent programme, according to official documents.
An online training course hosted on
the Government’s website for Prevent lists “cultural nationalism” as a belief that could lead to an individual being referred to the deradicalisation scheme.
This encompasses a conviction that “Western culture is under threat from mass migration and a lack of integration by certain ethnic and cultural groups”, staff taking the course are told.
It is the latest example of officials, police and the courts
appearing to restrict free speech.
In recent weeks, The Telegraph has disclosed that a pensioner was
wrongly arrested for warning of anti-Semitism on Twitter, as well as highlighting the case of a man who was given a criminal sentence for burning the Koran.
The Prevent programme was the subject of a damning report two years ago and failed to stop
Axel Rudakubana, the Southport killer, who was referred to it on three separate occasions.
Free speech critics warned that the definition of “cultural nationalism” was too widely drawn and could, in theory, mean that
even Sir Keir Starmer and
Robert Jenrick, the shadow justice secretary, would fall foul for their past comments.
Others at risk of being labelled extremists could include Douglas Murray, the bestselling author, who has written extensively on migration, as well as Matthew Goodwin, the academic-turned-GB News broadcaster, campaigners said.
A Home Office spokesman said: “Prevent is not about restricting debate or free speech, but about protecting those susceptible to radicalisation.”
Lord Young, the general secretary of the Free Speech Union (FSU), has written to Yvette Cooper, the Home Secretary, urging her to reconsider the classification urgently.
He claimed that anyone referred to Prevent could face “serious, long-lasting consequences” for their education, employment and public reputation.
Prevent aims to identify people at risk of turning to terrorism, who are then referred to the programme, where agencies work to divert them from radicalisation. The personal details of those referred are retained on Prevent databases for at least six years and duplicated across police and intelligence systems.
Schools, universities, hospitals and other public sector bodies have a legal duty to stop people from being drawn into terrorism. Each year, thousands of teachers, police officers, health workers and other staff undergo Prevent training.
Prevent’s official “refresher awareness” course, hosted on gov.uk, states that “cultural nationalism” is one of the most common “sub-categories of extreme Right-wing terrorist ideologies”, alongside white supremacism and white/ethno-nationalism.
In a letter to Ms Cooper, Lord Young said this was a “matter of serious concern”.
He said: “While not defined in law, nor subject to statutory constraint, the definition in the training course expands the scope of suspicion to include individuals
whose views are entirely lawful but politically controversial.
“Now that ‘cultural nationalism’ has been classified as a subcategory of extreme Right-wing terrorist ideology, even mainstream, Right-of-centre beliefs risk being treated as ideologically suspect, despite falling well within the bounds of lawful expression.
“Topics captured under the Prevent category of ‘cultural nationalism’ include widely held views, ranging from
concerns about immigration and social cohesion to the belief that integration should be a policy priority, and that shared cultural norms help sustain a liberal society.”
Lord Young suggested the definition could even capture Mr Jenrick, the former immigration minister, who has previously warned that “excessive, uncontrolled migration threatens to cannibalise the compassion of the British public.”
Senior Labour politicians could also fall within the scope of the definition, he claimed. Lord Young cited Sir Keir’s recent statement that without fair immigration rules, “we risk becoming an island of strangers, not a nation that walks forward together.”
There are growing fears that police are wrongly seeking to limit free speech.
The Telegraph disclosed last month that Julian Foulkes, a retired police officer, was arrested and detained over a social media post warning about the threat of anti-Semitism. Officers who conducted a search of his house described a collection of books by authors such as Mr Murray as “very Brexity”. Mr Foulkes later
received an apology and £20,000 compensation.
Last year, Allison Pearson, the Telegraph columnist, was questioned at home by two officers over an X post following pro-Palestinian protests.
The Telegraph has also covered the case of Hamit Koskun, who was
fined this week for burning a Koran. It led Mr Jenrick to accuse the courts of reviving blasphemy law.
Lord Young said the course material appeared to reflect a shift in the Prevent approach from focusing on conduct – such as acquiring weapons or inciting violence – to “treating ideology itself as a risk indicator, encompassing belief, alignment or political attitude”.
He said the FSU had already had to support members referred to Prevent, including a 24-year-old autistic man whose social worker reported that he had been viewing “offensive and anti-trans” websites and “focusing on lots of Right-wing dark comedy”.
Prevent referral could stain person’s name
Even if a person was subsequently deemed to require “no further action”, their name would risk remaining on police and other databases that could be accessed by MI5, MI6, the Home Office, Border Force, HMRC, the Charity Commission and local safeguarding teams.
Lord Young said: “There are multiple documented cases in which individuals referred to Prevent – despite not meeting the threshold for further action – suffered serious and lasting consequences simply because their names were logged in the system.”
The row comes despite a report by Sir William Shawcross, a former independent reviewer of Prevent, which criticised the way that mainstream literature and even a former Cabinet minister had been described as “cultural nationalists” by a Home Office research unit on extremism. The minister was later revealed as Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg.
Sir William recommended that Prevent must be “consistent in the threshold that it applies across ideologies to ensure a proportionate and effective response.”
He added that there were
major failings with Prevent more broadly, including that it wrongly funnelled money to extremist organisations and had repeatedly failed to identify people who went on to carry out terrorist attacks.
Lord Carlile, a former independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, said: “It is a very difficult job that the Home Office has to do, but maybe they should do a careful bit of editing so that people who are close to the political mainstream are not caught up in it.”
A former government adviser said the “cultural nationalism” definition was “pretty shoddy”.
“Agencies like counter-terrorism police and MI5 are much more rigorous in their classifications,” they said. “We are talking about Right-wing extremists, who are often neo-Nazis. It undermines the seriousness of what counter-extremism is all about.”
Professor Ian Acheson, a former government adviser on extremism, said: “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.’”
