In summer 2015, the government amended its domestic counter-extremism policy. The reforms included a statutory requirement for public bodies to spot and report on signs of “radicalisation”. As I reported for the New Humanist earlier this year, this is problematic for several reasons – not least because no-one is exactly clear what radicalisation is or what the signs of it are.

“The word “radicalisation” proliferates in political speeches, news broadcasts and policy documents, but no one has a clear definition of what it entails; what the exact factors that lead people to carry out acts of violence are. There is no typical home-grown terrorist. Some are deprived and alienated, yes, but others are well educated and to all appearances, integrated. Some are devoutly religious, others barely at all, displaying only a rudimentary knowledge of theology. Ideology certainly plays a role, but there is no academic consensus about how significant that role is. This ambiguity translates into an inconsistent approach when public officials are asked to spot early warning signs.”

As the article explains at some length, the Prevent has been through various incarnations since it was launched in the early 2000s by the last Labour government, and has been dogged by criticism throughout. Issues such as the further alienation of Muslim communities through widespread surveillance have been raised by campaigners for years.

Now they have been echoed by shadow home secretary and Manchester mayoral hopeful Andy Burnham, who said last week in a speech in Manchester that "the brand is so toxic now that I think it’s got to go.” He announced Labour’s intention to oppose the government’s new extremism bill, unveiled in last month’s Queen’s speech. The bill contains new powers to ban “extremist” organisations, close premises used to “promote hatred”, and to gag individuals. Burnham said:

“The Prevent duty to report extremist behaviour is today’s equivalent of internment in Northern Ireland – a policy felt to be highly discriminatory against one section of the community. [Hundreds of people were imprisoned without trial because of suspected IRA involvement].

“It is creating a feeling in the Muslim community that it is being spied upon and unfairly targeted. It is building a climate of mutual suspicion and distrust. Far from tackling extremism, it risks creating the very conditions for it to flourish.”

As I wrote earlier this year, the issues raised by the vast expansion of the Prevent scheme go far beyond a narrative of victimhood from a single community, to encompass “universal values of freedom of speech, transparency in government policy, and the correct parameters of state action.” Hopefully Labour’s decision to oppose the extremism bill will open up a proper public discussion on the Prevent scheme.