The ADgenda: this week's most offensive advert

Fifty years of Flash.

Flash is waving a red rag to a bull, gleefully taunting the British female population with its 50th birthday celebrations. Not content with enraging Londoners with its Underground advertising campaign during the Olympics ("Imagine London is your flat and the world's your mum. Don't you want to clean your flat ready for your mum's visit?"), which resulted in otherwise dead-eyed commuters spluttering with indignation at the idea that their city is a shithole the rest of the time (and that's just fine by the corporate fat cats) but once the global eye was momentarily resting on this little backwater, it was time metaphorically to shove your dirty dinner plates under the sofa.

The saccharine theme song jauntily bounces over the top of a montage of housewives with fixed smiles concentrating very hard on wiping a bin lid with a cloth. Years pass but the dedication to their womanly duty remains – all that alters is the height of the hairdos.

Fifty years down the line, it's worth taking a look back at the world Flash was born into. It's 1962 and a large proportion of the female population has managed to shake off the stifling 1950s pristine housewife tag. These women are about to embark on an adventure of discovery – exploring their bodies, experimenting with drugs and pushing the limitations of gender boundaries. 

Meanwhile, amid all this societal flux, a new cleaning product is being launched, the makers of which take one look around at the newly bohemian landscape and promptly set to work putting women back in their place. Know your limits. So this is what Flash is celebrating and they have a lot to celebrate. Fifty years later, millions of bottles are still being sold despite no attempt whatsoever to give a voice to the thousands of families who don't conform to mummy cooking in the kitchen, daddy smoking in the lounge. The first female prime minister, the contraceptive pill and the slow crawl towards equal pay in the workplace have all come to pass and the Flash ad execs have staunchly dug their heads deeper into the sand. Progress? Pah. Gender liberation? Bloody hippies. Fifty years of Flash, 50 years of tired old stereotypes.

A woman's work: a 1960s housewife. Chaloner Woods/Hulton Archive/Getty Images
Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

The Prevent strategy needs a rethink, not a rebrand

A bad policy by any other name is still a bad policy.

Yesterday the Home Affairs Select Committee published its report on radicalization in the UK. While the focus of the coverage has been on its claim that social media companies like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube are “consciously failing” to combat the promotion of terrorism and extremism, it also reported on Prevent. The report rightly engages with criticism of Prevent, acknowledging how it has affected the Muslim community and calling for it to become more transparent:

“The concerns about Prevent amongst the communities most affected by it must be addressed. Otherwise it will continue to be viewed with suspicion by many, and by some as “toxic”… The government must be more transparent about what it is doing on the Prevent strategy, including by publicising its engagement activities, and providing updates on outcomes, through an easily accessible online portal.”

While this acknowledgement is good news, it is hard to see how real change will occur. As I have written previously, as Prevent has become more entrenched in British society, it has also become more secretive. For example, in August 2013, I lodged FOI requests to designated Prevent priority areas, asking for the most up-to-date Prevent funding information, including what projects received funding and details of any project engaging specifically with far-right extremism. I lodged almost identical requests between 2008 and 2009, all of which were successful. All but one of the 2013 requests were denied.

This denial is significant. Before the 2011 review, the Prevent strategy distributed money to help local authorities fight violent extremism and in doing so identified priority areas based solely on demographics. Any local authority with a Muslim population of at least five per cent was automatically given Prevent funding. The 2011 review pledged to end this. It further promised to expand Prevent to include far-right extremism and stop its use in community cohesion projects. Through these FOI requests I was trying to find out whether or not the 2011 pledges had been met. But with the blanket denial of information, I was left in the dark.

It is telling that the report’s concerns with Prevent are not new and have in fact been highlighted in several reports by the same Home Affairs Select Committee, as well as numerous reports by NGOs. But nothing has changed. In fact, the only change proposed by the report is to give Prevent a new name: Engage. But the problem was never the name. Prevent relies on the premise that terrorism and extremism are inherently connected with Islam, and until this is changed, it will continue to be at best counter-productive, and at worst, deeply discriminatory.

In his evidence to the committee, David Anderson, the independent ombudsman of terrorism legislation, has called for an independent review of the Prevent strategy. This would be a start. However, more is required. What is needed is a radical new approach to counter-terrorism and counter-extremism, one that targets all forms of extremism and that does not stigmatise or stereotype those affected.

Such an approach has been pioneered in the Danish town of Aarhus. Faced with increased numbers of youngsters leaving Aarhus for Syria, police officers made it clear that those who had travelled to Syria were welcome to come home, where they would receive help with going back to school, finding a place to live and whatever else was necessary for them to find their way back to Danish society.  Known as the ‘Aarhus model’, this approach focuses on inclusion, mentorship and non-criminalisation. It is the opposite of Prevent, which has from its very start framed British Muslims as a particularly deviant suspect community.

We need to change the narrative of counter-terrorism in the UK, but a narrative is not changed by a new title. Just as a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, a bad policy by any other name is still a bad policy. While the Home Affairs Select Committee concern about Prevent is welcomed, real action is needed. This will involve actually engaging with the Muslim community, listening to their concerns and not dismissing them as misunderstandings. It will require serious investigation of the damages caused by new Prevent statutory duty, something which the report does acknowledge as a concern.  Finally, real action on Prevent in particular, but extremism in general, will require developing a wide-ranging counter-extremism strategy that directly engages with far-right extremism. This has been notably absent from today’s report, even though far-right extremism is on the rise. After all, far-right extremists make up half of all counter-radicalization referrals in Yorkshire, and 30 per cent of the caseload in the east Midlands.

It will also require changing the way we think about those who are radicalized. The Aarhus model proves that such a change is possible. Radicalization is indeed a real problem, one imagines it will be even more so considering the country’s flagship counter-radicalization strategy remains problematic and ineffective. In the end, Prevent may be renamed a thousand times, but unless real effort is put in actually changing the strategy, it will remain toxic. 

Dr Maria Norris works at London School of Economics and Political Science. She tweets as @MariaWNorris.