Counter-Terrorism Programs Violate Human Rights: Report

Counter-extremism programs in the United Kingdom (U.K.) and the United States (U.S.) among other countries are violating human rights, a United Nations (U.N.) report submitted Wednesday to the Human Rights Council has found.

RELATED: 

Islamic State Claims London Knifeman As One of Its Soldiers

“Prevention is an important and necessary tool but it will only be effective when it is practiced in a way that protects and affirms rights,” said Fionnuala Ni Aolain, U.N. Special Rapporteur on the protection and promotion of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism.

Her report examines the policies of preventing and countering violent extremism. While Ni Aolain acknowledges the global challenges presented by “terrorism” and the costs paid by individuals and communities as a result, she concludes that “current approaches to prevent it lack a consistent rule of law or human rights grounding.”

The report says that religious groups, minorities and civil society actors, in particular, are victims of rights violations and are targeted under the guise of countering “extremism.” The U.N. expert warns that “large-scale violations of the rights of religious and ethnic minorities are being enabled by “deradicalization” policies and practice. 

"Violations of the rights of religious and ethnic minorities are being enabled by 'deradicalization' policies and practice," the report says. It adds there is a persistent lack of meaningful consultation with the communities targeted by these prevention measures.

For the expert programs should not rely on teachers, social workers, and health care staff to report signs of radicalization.

"The negative impact cannot be overstated," she expressed, adding that such measures break the "fragile trust" between communities and public services.

The report also found that many counter-extremism practices result in "over selection and overreporting" on discriminatory grounds. 

In addition, it warns that many countries engaged these practices to have policies “lacking any kind of systematic and empirically grounded evaluation process” that could instead be "counter-productive."