Securitisation, Counterterrorism and the Silencing of Dissent: The Educational Implications of Prevent

Abstract

This paper outlines some of the implications of counterterrorist legislation, including Prevent, for the pedagogical relationship and for educational institutions. The concept of ‘radicalisation’, central to the Prevent Strategy, is one that is contested in the field of counterterrorism, yet educators are now expected to identify and refer students ‘at risk of radicalisation’. Such students are described as vulnerable throughout the policy documentation; however, the way in which vulnerability is conceptualised is resonant with colonial discourses of contagion and immunity, and it risks silencing and even pathologising the person labelled vulnerable. Prevent does not clearly define central concepts such as extremism, radicalisation, vulnerability, and this may make both students and staff fearful speaking freely in classrooms and lecture halls. Based on the experience of teaching IRA and INLA prisoners in the Republic of Ireland, the author outlines a set of philosophical and ethical principles that ought to underpin education. It is argued that education must not be subordinated to security and intelligence agendas on pragmatic, educational and ethical grounds.

Keywords:

• counterterrorism
• CONTEST
• education
• prevent
• dialogue
• trust
• vulnerability
• prison

9. Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

¹ The Offences against the State Acts 1939–1998 constitute the main body of counterterrorism legislation aimed at domestic terrorism in the Republic of Ireland. The Criminal Justice (Terrorist Offences) Act 2005 is directed toward international terrorism and also amends the Offences against the State Acts. There was a further Amendment to Section 4 of the 2005 Act with the Criminal Justice (Terrorist Offences) (Amendment) Act 2015, which now includes three new offences of public provocation to commit a terrorist offence, recruitment for terrorism and training for terrorism.

² This programme had been funded directly by the Department of Justice, and the review was commissioned by the NCAD as a legacy review to capture the knowledge and learning from the programme. The purpose of the programme was to introduce students in prison to the experience of a third-level approach to art by practising artists.

³ Whilst the NCAD programme was funded by the Department of Justice and was rolled out under the aegis of the Irish Prison Service, there was no interference in the programme by these bodies. Teachers are not required to sign the Official Secrets Act, although prison officers are required to do so.

⁴ Education in prison in the Republic of Ireland is mainly provided by the local Education and Training Board (ETB), previously known as the Vocational Education Committee, which offers the same courses as are offered by the ETB in the wider community. ETBs are autonomous of the Irish Prison Service and are funded by the Department of Education and Skills. Third-level provision is primarily provided by the Open University. Prisoners attend classes in a voluntary capacity. In the UK, on the other hand, whilst students in prison also access third-level education through the Open University, prisons put out tenders for prison education provision and prison education is coordinated by the Offenders’ Learning and Skills Service (OLASS) in partnership with the Department for Education and Skills (now Department for Children, Schools and Families), and the Prison Service. Contracted providers are paid by results which can create greater instability and turnover of staff. A number of other organisations and institutions are also involved in educational projects and ‘offender learning’ in the UK is part of the strategy of reducing reoffending.