the Counter-Terrorism and Security of Terrorism Act 2015. 9 The policy has not been without controversy and has been criticised for ‘marginalising’ Muslims. The Claimant was co-signatory to an open letter on the subject in 2015. I am, however, unpersuaded that the Claimant’s explanation that his objection to PREVENT explains his reaction to Sheikh Chowdhury’s speech. This is, in my view, simply ex post facto rationalisation. First, nowhere in his speech does Sheikh Chowdhury refer to the UK Government’s PREVENT policy (he merely uses the word ‘prevent’ several times in the speech in the context of ‘prevention of terror’). Second, the UK Government’s PREVENT policy was not formally published until 2011.10 Third, the language of the Claimant’s “Advice” is openly hostile to the UK counter-terrorism authorities per se. Fourth, nowhere in his “Advice” does the Claimant himself even refer to PREVENT. 187. It is noteworthy that in paragraph 53 of his statement prepared for the hearing, the Claimant states: “I believe that the government should not alienate Muslim leaders but rather, engage with credible Muslim Imams, scholars, academic and the wider Muslim community… in tackling extremism”. This is, as Dr Wilkinson points out, precisely the position which the Claimant was at such exaggerated pains to denounce in his diatribe against Sheikh Chowdhury. Mr Bennett was driven to accept that the Claimant had treated Sheikh Chowdhury ‘unfairly’ in his ADVICE TO TAWFIQUE CHOWDHURY (2009). Conclusion 188. In conclusion, in my judgement, in his ADVICE TO TAWFIQUE CHOWDHURY (2009), the Claimant espoused extremist Islamic positions. He accuses a manifestly moderate scholar, Sheikh Tawfique Chowdhury, of “signing a deal with the devil” and betraying “his covenant with Allah” for giving a perfectly sensible (and, many would say, praiseworthy) speech to the counter-terrorism police about how to use moderate Islamic scholars to prevent terrorism. The Claimant, however, characterises the UK counter-terrorism authorities as “the devil”, “brutal, cunning and oppressive” and “the enemies of Islam” and displays a deep antagonism to them and an implacable objection to any Muslim co-operating with them. His “Advice” is redolent of the Manichean ‘Us’ versus ‘Them’ worldview in which the West and its counterterrorism agencies are regarded a priori as the enemies of Islam and any Muslims who assist them are to regarded as collaborators and ‘bad Muslims’ who have broken their covenant with Allah. His speech would act as strong active discouragement to any Muslim thinking of co-operating with or reporting concerns to the UK counterterrorism authorities. The language of the Claimant’s attack on Sheikh Chowdhury is also intemperate in the extreme. 189. It is noteworthy that this was not the only occasion that the Claimant reacted in an extreme manner to a moderate and sensible message about identifying Islamic extremism and preventing terrorism (see his reaction to the letter from the Rt Hon. Eric Pickles MP below). Internet 9 Section 26 of the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 places a positive duty on “specified authorities” listed in Schedule 6 to the Act, in the exercise of their functions, to have “due regard to the need to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism” and to have regard to guidance issued under section 29 of the Act when carrying out the duty. 10 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/ 445977/3799_RevisedPrevent_Duty_Guidance_England_Wales_V2‐Interactive.pdf 42