Britain’s new anti-radicalization “Prevent” program is designed to protect Muslim migrants and terrorists from online criticism by white people

For example, “If you express your opinion that Western culture is under threat from mass Muslim immigration and the fact that most Muslim immigrants refuse to integrate into British culture, you are guilty of supporting “terrorist ideology.”

ModernityWhat they aren’t telling you is that since the year 2,000, the number of terrorist attacks that resulted in fatalities by far right extremists is exactly “2.” They also aren’t reporting that the number of Islamic terrorisst attacks that resulted in fatalities since the year, 2,000 is 100.

The UK’s Counter Terrorism Police have released a disturbing advertisement depicting a white teenager facing police seizure of devices and a potential criminal record simply for sharing a link he found “funny”—content, we are told, was later deemed terrorist material.

This move, part of the broader Prevent anti-radicalization strategy, underscores the UK regime’s push to police online activity among youth, framing it as a gateway to extremism while ignoring surging real-world dangers from mass migration.

In the ad, a teen laments: “I just got all my device taken away by the police… My mom couldn’t believe it. I might get a criminal record and not be able to go to college.” He then explains: “I only shared a link. I just thought it was funny, but it was terrorist content.”

Counter Terrorism Policing describes itself as “a collaboration of UK police forces working with the UK intelligence community to help protect the public and our national security by preventing, deterring, and investigating terrorist activity.” It adds that professionals like teachers are “legally obligated to refer that child to the police under the auspices of Prevent” if suspecting risk.

In other words, you’ll be responsible for turning in your own family members to the authorities for wrongthink. Where have we heard that before?

It’s also part of a broader curriculum overhaul, where the Labour government embeds “critical thinking” to spot “extremist content and misinformation”—code for aligning with establishment views on open borders and globalism. Kids analyse articles to “differentiate fabricated stories from true reporting,” but only through a lens that deems migration critiques as “fake news.”

Also recall the teacher branded a terrorist threat for showing Trump videos in a U.S. politics class, referred to Prevent after students claimed emotional distress. The educator called it “dystopian,” highlighting the program’s weaponization against conservative ideas.

While ordinary Brits face this hellish surveillance net, the regime welcomes actual extremists with open arms. Prime Minister Keir Starmer celebrated the return of Alaa Abd el-Fattah, who praised Osama bin Laden, denied the Holocaust, and called for killing Zionists and police, labeling it a “top priority.”

In addition, dangerous terrorists like Zahid Iqbal, convicted for plotting to bomb an Army base, get early release despite warnings.

And Shahid Butt, jailed for conspiring to bomb the British consulate in Yemen, is now standing for election in Birmingham, urging Muslim youth to “learn to fight” against “disbelievers.”

Meanwhile, the crackdown on free speech intensifies. The government has threatened a total ban on X over Grok’s image generation, with Kier Starmer raging it’s “disgraceful” and “all options on the table.”

People continue to be arrested for posts deemed to be ‘dangerous’.

Luke Yarwood got 18 months in prison for two tweets viewed just 33 times, ranting about migrant hotels with no real impact.

And Lucy Connolly was threatened with a return to prison after already having served a year long sentence for a tweet, after she shared a joke post that suggested “Could Trump come and take Starmer like they did in Venezuela.”

This is state-sponsored fearmongering, diverting resources to suppress dissent on borders and identity. As terrorism fatalities from Islamist ideology dwarf those from any other group since 2000, the real extremists are those eroding Britain’s freedoms.

British politician Nigel Farage warned Americans they could also face censorship — and even arrest — for the social media posts just by stepping foot into the UK.

BUT WAIT, THERE’S MORE: The UK government is ramping up its assault on free expression, now urging schools, councils, and workplaces to monitor and report “anti-Muslim hostility” as part of a broader strategy that critics slam as a tool to silence legitimate debate.

ModernityUnder Labour’s plans, institutions will be encouraged to track incidents of ‘prejudice’ against Muslims, with a new definition adopted to clarify unacceptable behavior. This comes amid a surge in hate crimes, but opponents warn it could muzzle criticism of Islamism or immigration policies.

Schools are at the forefront, with the government pushing for monitoring in education settings where antisemitism and anti-Muslim hate have reportedly normalized.

This escalating surveillance in schools reeks of authoritarian control, prioritizing thought policing over genuine security.

The strategy includes boosting security for mosques and Muslim schools through schemes upgrading CCTV, alarms, and fencing. A new “anti-Muslim hostility tsar” will oversee implementation, advising schools, universities, and public services on tackling hatred.

Communities Secretary Steve Reed defended the move in Parliament: “Today, we are adopting a non-statutory definition of anti-Muslim hostility. This gives a clear explanation of unacceptable prejudice, discrimination and hatred targeting Muslims, so we can take action to stop it.”

But Jonathan Hall KC, the government’s independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, has blasted the vague wording, warning it could chill free speech and make people afraid to criticize Islam, migration, or Islamist extremism. He argued it might be used to silence debate rather than stop actual attacks.

Tory MP Miriam Cates echoed concerns, noting the definition raises serious questions. A recommendation from Hall suggested including examples of free speech not deemed anti-Muslim hatred to safeguard open discussion.

Richard Holmes, from the Free Speech Union, added: “It risks hindering free speech under the law and legitimate criticism of Islamism.”

Labour insists the definition won’t halt legitimate criticism of religion, focusing instead on tackling anti-Muslim hatred without protecting Islam from scrutiny.

This push also ties into the leaked “social cohesion” strategy previously covered earlier, where the government branded the Union Jack and other national flags as potential “tools of hate” wielded by the “extreme right” to intimidate.

That draft allocated £800 million over 10 years to areas under “pressure,” highlighting how antisemitism has become “normalised” in society, from schools to the NHS.

It’s also part of the regime’s broader censorship drive, like plotting another X shutdown over Grok’s “offensive” roasts targeting religions. As users pointed out, the likely real motive behind the push is that Kier Starmer’s administration can’t handle a platform exposing their constant lies and spreading of misinformation.