London – The appointment of Lord Carlile as the Independent Reviewer for PREVENT confirms what many civil society organisations have long suspected: that the entire “review” process is simply about legitimising PREVENT.

To underline this, a number of NGOs and community-based groups, including CAGE, sent a joint letter to security minister Brandon Lewis on the weekend highlighting the lack of government consultation throughout the appointment process. 

For government to re-appoint the same reviewer who approved the current PREVENT strategy and has close ties with intelligence and security establishment, only illustrates how committed they are to continue the same circular debates.

CAGE has released an 8-point plan, which we believe provides a healthier way forward beyond PREVENT, and breaks the impasse of the current discussions. 

A more comprehensive explanation of the points raised in this document will then follow in the coming weeks.

Asim Qureshi, CAGE’s Research Director said:

“The core problem with PREVENT is that it fundamentally skews the relationship between government and citizens. Muslims are the test community for a government whose long term aim is to bring about a closed society.”

“Any review of PREVENT would only ever have worked if it was going to address the root and branch of the entire system that produced it. The sad reality is that the decisions to ‘review’ the policy have been made by those who will never suffer the negative impacts of a false PREVENT referral, and so its violence is far removed from their lived experience. Without being able to effectively challenge the roots of PREVENT, this ‘review’ will only serve as a whitewash of the racist ideas embedded in the system.”

“We hope the eight point plan we’ve outlined today, serves as a basis to stimulate more productive debate around PREVENT, and offer a framework towards establishing the baseline for a healthy, safe society.”


CAGE’s 8 point plan towards a healthy, safe society beyond PREVENT


(NOTE: CAGE represents cases of individuals based on the remit of our work. Supporting a case does not mean we agree with the views or actions of the individual. Content published on CAGE may not reflect the official position of our organisation.)