Resisting CVE: Best Practices from Pilot Cities

Shannon Al-Wakeel, Muslim Justice LeagueLaboni Hoq, Asian Americans Advancing Justice | LAFaduma Warsame, Young Muslim Collective

MASA Organizing

Resisting CVE: Best Practices from Pilot CitiesLessons from Boston

Shannon Al-Wakeel, Muslim Justice League

CVE EXTENDS STRUCTURAL TARGETING

OF SUSPECT COMMUNITIES.• Pathologizes and criminalizes dissent and difference.

• Incentivizes members of target populations to police and inform on neighbors.

• Solicits information that may expand watch-listing and resultant coercion (e.g.

through Terrorist Screening Database, CARRP program, CBP interrogations, FBI

fishing expeditions, etc.).

• May expose increased numbers of vulnerable individuals to “pre-emptive”

prosecution. See, e.g. Mahin Khan case; Trevor Aaronson (2013). The Terror

Factory: Inside the FBI’s Manufactured War on Terrorism. Brooklyn: Ig Publishing.

Resources on the roots and popularity of “radicalization” discourse:

• Arun Kundnani (2012). Radicalization: The Journey of a Concept. Race & Class, 54(2), 3–

25.

• Amna Akbar (2013). Policing “Radicalization.” UC Irvine Law Review, 3, 809–883.

CVE DEPLOYMENT

IN BOSTON

● 2014 (one-year anniversary of Boston

Marathon bombing): Announcement of

DHS “local envoy” on CVE to be based on

Boston.

● Curation of “CVE Collaborative” by US

Attorney’s Office for Massachusetts

(USAO-MA, i.e., federal prosecutors), and

production of CVE Framework.

● 2015: USAO-MA taps Massachusetts

Executive Office of Health and Human

Services (EOHHS) as a conduit for CVE

grants to community groups and signs

Memorandum of Agreement.

RESISTANCE TACTICS

IN BOSTON

● 2014: Founding of Muslim Justice League.

● Education of Boston-area communities about

CVE, and raising of concerns with USAO of

MA (federal prosecutors). Inclusion of dissent

against CVE in CVE Framework.

● 2015: Press conference raising community

concerns about non-transparent development

of CVE programs.

● Launch of Resisting Surveillance series —

intersectional community fora on racial,

religious and political profiling, from

COINTELPRO to targeting of Movement for

Black Lives, etc. — to contextualize CVE.

● Discussions with EOHHS of concerns about

entangling health and social services with

CVE.

CVE DEPLOYMENT IN

BOSTON, CONT.

● 2016: Opening of Request for Input (RFI) on

CVE by EOHHS.

● Rebranding by USAO-MA and EOHHS of

CVE as “PEACE Project”: “Promoting

Engagement, Acceptance and Community

Empowerment,” and invitation for grant

applications.

● Three Boston-based recipients awarded

“PEACE Project” grant. 70% ($147,000 of

$210,000) awarded to two Somali-

community-serving non-profits.

● 2017: Separately from the PEACE Project

grant, Boston Police Department (BPD),

together with two Massachusetts non-profits,

is awarded DHS funds for a CVE program

targeting Somali youth — the Youth and

Police Initiative Plus”(YPIP) — in partnership

with the Police Foundation and two non-

profits.

RESISTANCE TACTICS

IN BOSTON, CONT.

● 2016: Submission of community concerns

to EOHHS through RFI process. Delivery of

petition by 1000+ Massachusetts residents

against EOHHS collaboration in CVE.

● Launch of Health Justice Team — health

care providers and health policy

professionals concerned about CVE and

surveillance.

● Education of community organizations that

“PEACE Project” is part of CVE campaign.

● 2017: Coalition letter reiterating concerns to

“PEACE Project” grantees, particularly in

light of Trump policies and appointments,

urging end to CVE involvement and

requesting further conversations.

● Testimony to Boston City Council re BPD’s

CVE collaboration targeting Somali youth.

KEY LESSONS FROM BOSTON

1) Problem: Frequent rebranding of CVE (“Building Community

Resilience,” “public health” themes, “PEACE Project,” etc.).

Recommendation: Be consistent in message and principles.

• Avoid being drawn into discussions that presuppose CVE is a

response to the “problem of radicalization.” (What is your alternative to

CVE?) Instead, contextualize CVE within ongoing structural targeting,

and raise community awareness of the roots of “radicalization”

discourse.

• Be clear that opposition to CVE not based on its name but instead on

its debunked premises that criminalize communities and the ways CVE

erodes privacy and chills freedoms.

• Be clear that the harms of CVE would be no less severe if it focused

on “all types of extremism” (as opposed to “Islamic extremism”).

KEY LESSONS FROM BOSTON

2) Problem: Uniform community rejection of CVE may be unrealistic at

this stage, particularly given financial incentives.

Recommendation: Prioritize informed communities and accountability.

• CVE, particularly as it operates through grants, exacerbates “Good

Muslim”/“Bad Muslim” dynamics — just as it has done in the UK.

• Some organizations will accept CVE funds regardless of how informed

of dangers. But education about CVE has assisted many others who

might have applied if not informed of those dangers.

• Once grants are sought and issued, communities must be empowered

to make informed choices about where to seek services.

• CVE cannot survive without acquiescence of some proportion of

targeted communities themselves. Communities hold the power to end

this criminalization campaign.

Shannon Al-Wakeel, Executive Director, MJL:

swakeel@muslimjusticeleague.org

www.muslimjusticeleague.org

www.facebook.com/muslimjusticeleague

Twitter: @MuslimJustice

For more Information

Resisting CVE: Best Practices from Pilot CitiesLessons from Los Angeles

Laboni Hoq, Asian Americans Advancing Justice | LA

DEPLOYMENT OF CVE IN LA & COMMUNITY RESPONSE

● 2008: “Initial collaborative CVE efforts in greater Los Angeles began”

● September 2014: Announcement of CVE Pilot Programs in 3 cities: Boston, LA, MN

● November 2014: DHS Sec. Jeh Johnson Press Event launching CE at Mosque in LA

❖ Community Response: Civil Rights and Muslim Community Groups issue statement

oppposing CVE as “ill-conceived, ineffective and stigmatizing,” as reported in L.A,

Times

❖ Core community criticisms of CVE:

❑ CVE is based on debunked theories that there are reliable “behavioral

indicators” that can predict radicalization

❑ CVE’s focus on Muslim communities, and false premise that Muslims are more

prone to radicalization than other religious or ethnic groups

✓ White supremacists commit far more acts of extremism than do Muslims

❑ CVE chills free speech/association, stigmatizes Muslim communities, makes

community members less likely to engage with authorities to prevent crime

DEPLOYMENT OF CVE IN LA & COMMUNITY RESPONSEFebruary 2015: Three Day WH CVE Summit: LA Contingent Presents “LA Framework for CVE”

● Created in collaboration/consultation with DHS; FBI, USAO; various City of LA Departments: LAPD; L.A. County Sheriff, Mental Health and Social Services; and hand-picked Muslim community groups; civil rights groups never consulted

● “The Los Angeles Framework consists of three pillars: prevention, intervention, and interdiction. Each of the three components aims to meet community needs while mitigating a variety of risk factors…Both prevention and intervention are early mechanisms of risk mitigation, whereas interdiction is a mechanism for disrupting criminal threats.”

● Community Response: (February 2015 – December 2015)

● Certain Muslim community groups including CAIR-LA, Islamic Shura Council, MSA West officially reject CVE as harmful to Muslim communities

● These and other civil rights groups (Advancing Justice – LA, ACLU-SC) participate in community education against CVE; get support from national groups including Brennan Center

● Other Muslim community groups including MPAC at first seek to defend CVE, and then try to distinguish their efforts (e.g. Safe Spaces) from CVE after community backlash

DEPLOYMENT OF CVE IN LA & COMMUNITY RESPONSE

● December 2015: DHS Appropriations Act passed allocating $10 million to CVE efforts

❖ Community Response: Local CVE efforts continue w/o transparency; opposing groups unable to

respond

❑ “DHE-funded pilot evaluation in LA” ongoing, including creation of CVE “behavioral assessment

tool”

❑ LA Mayor sub-grant to MPAC to implement “Safe Spaces” in LA

● July 2016: DHS announces Fiscal Year 2016 CVE Grant program

❖ Community Response: LA Mayor convenes certain Muslim community groups to attend LA Mayor’s

Office meetings, CAIR-LA voices concerns with basic premise of CVE as stigmatizing Muslim

communities

● September 2016: LAPD’s Recognizing Extremist Network Early Warnings (“RENEW”) program

announced ; attempt to re-band CVE

❖ Community Response: None as unclear whether program has been implemented

DEPLOYMENT OF CVE IN LA & COMMUNITY RESPONSE

January 13, 2017: CVE Grants awards announced - LA groups:

● LA Mayor’s Office ($825,000): “Training and Engagement” and “Managing

Interventions”

● MPAC ($393,800): “Managing Interventions”

● Bayan Claremont - Islamic Graduate School ($800,000) (“Building Capacity”)

February 2017: Trump Administration reportedly changing CVE to “Countering Islamic

Extremism”

● Community Response: Community groups put private and public pressure to decline

funds

❑ Bayan Claremont: Publicly declined CVE grant

❑ MPAC: Holding onto CVE grant for now, but no money disbursed yet

❑ LA Mayor’s Office: Refused to decline funds

February 7, 2017: Community and Civil Rights Groups (AAAJ-LA, CAIR-LA, Vigilant Love

Coalition, NLG-LA, ACLU-SC) file Public Records Act Request to learn more about Mayor’s

CVE program, LAPD RENEW program, and City’s overall involvement in CVE efforts

❑ In response to the PRA, Mayor’s Office produced copies of its CVE grant

applications; but has yet to produce further documents

LA MAYOR’S OFFICE: PROPOSED CVE PROGRAM

Mayor’s CVE Grant Application: Builds on “LA Framework for

CVE” as “a critical case management and community outreach

component of an overall effective, coordinated, and

comprehensive citywide and regional CVE strategy.”

❖ Program heavily reliant on Community Organizations

who will be “critical in … increasing public referrals.”

❖ Sub-grants: “Organizations funded will include

MPAC, ILM Foundation, Not in Our Town, and Tiyya

Foundation”

● Program incorporates fundamental flaws of CVE:

❖ Mayor relies on “collaboration with … DHS-funded

Los Angeles research project on the development of

the behavioral assessment tool to support full

development and implementation of the [CVE

intervention referral] process.”

❖ Mayor endorses CVE as a law enforcement tool,

which makes it less likely that people will engage with

the program:

❖ Mayor claims to incorporate “protocols to protect

confidentiality and civil rights,” but provides no

specifics about what those are or how they will be

implemented.

NEXT STEPS IN LOS ANGELES: ANTI-CVE ORDINANCE

● Proposed LA City Council Ordinance Rejecting City’s Involvement in CVE Programs

❖ Impetus was City Council’s intention to Propose an “Anti-Muslim Registry”

ordinance

❖ Incorporates broader protections for Muslim communities, to address actual

as opposed to just theoretical targeting, profiling and stereotyping of the

community

❖ Using as an organizing tool to build a strong multi-racial and multi-faith

coalition in opposition to government policies that unfairly target and stigmatize

Muslim communities

● Ordinance prohibits City from “using its resources to create, implement, provide

information for, enforce or otherwise assist or support in any manner any government

program that targets the Muslim community, directly or indirectly, for heightened

scrutiny, including any program that:

(1) requires the registration, or creation of a database, of individuals on the basis of

religion, national origin or ethnicity;

(2) relies on the federal CVE program …

(3) involves participation in joint task forces or other joint operations in ways that

violate California law or City policies, or

(4) that entails surveillance and intelligence collection without adequate transparency

and oversight to guard against discrimination against Muslims and other targeted

communities.”

LESSONS LEARNED FROM LOS ANGELES

1. CVE Frameworks are couched in jargon that appear unobjectionable on their face, but

need to be unpacked and placed in context:

❖ Mayor’s program couched as a “public health,” but explicitly supports “combin[ing]

mental health professionals with law enforcement [] to address criminal threats”

❖ Need to educate community groups supportive of CVE to “look behind the curtain”

2. Continued engagement with community groups supportive of CVE can be worthwhile,

and can take many forms

❖ Assess whether critical, private dialogue may be more effective than public shaming

❖ Community groups may have complicated reasons for engaging in CVE

❖ Utilize changed external circumstances to change minds, e.g. Trump and “CVE to

CVI”

3. Engagement with state/local agencies to reject CVE should incorporate many different

pressure points:

❖ Issue Public Records Act Request/Demand Transparency

❖ Build diverse coalition in Opposition

❖ Draft ordinance/legislation with provisions that will resonate with other specific issues

affecting the community

❖ Link CVE with broader issues affecting community (e.g. registry and discriminatory

profiling), as well as issues affecting other communities, to help organize

communities around broader local social justice goals (e.g. sanctuary city or police

accountability)

Contact Laboni Hoq, Litigation Director,

Asian Americans Advancing Justice – Los

Angeles

lhoq@advancingjustice-la.org

Follow: www.advancinhjustice-la.org

www.facebook.com/AdvancingJusticeLA

Twitter: @AAAJ_LA17

QUESTIONS ABOUT RESISTANCE

TO CVE IN LA?

Resisting CVE: Best Practices from Pilot CitiesLessons from Minneapolis

Faduma Warsame, Young Muslim Collective

➢ In September 2014, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced CVE pilot programs in Boston, Los Angeles, and Minneapolis.

➢ In 2015 group of Somali-American were invited to the White House Summit on CVE.

➢ Creation of the Somali American Task Force by Andy Lugar

➢ Formation of the Young Muslim Collective and the #CMeNotCVE social media campaign

➢ The Minneapolis Framework lists five “community-identified root causes of radicalization:

1. disaffected youth2. a deepening disconnect

between youth and religious leaders

3. internal identity crises4. community isolation5. lack of opportunity

“There will be intervention teams in Minneapolis and St. Paul public schools. The schools are very willing. Professionals will be available who can help with difficult conversations to address kids who are exhibiting behaviors of concern.” (Luger, public meeting announcing attendance at White House CVE Summit, February, 2015)

Increased surveillance and marginalization of Muslims.

- In schools

- Places of worship

- Social services and agencies (Non-profits, etc)

- No fly list/ NSEERS

- Previous surveillance efforts in MPS/ST. Paul (SPD recreation club)

- Media representation (Star Tribune op-eds, "objective reporting", etc)

○ Battling recruitment in the land of 10,000 terrorists

- HBO show (portrayal of Somalis as terrorists)

○ The Recruitment -> Mogadishu, MN

Effect of CVE in Minneapolis

Key lessons and ways to resist from Minneapolis

1. Education

a. Brennan Center for Justice/CAIR tool-kit

2. Accountability

3. Advocacy

4. Community Forum/Town Hall

“In Minnesota, almost 50 Muslim organizations signed on to a statement urging law enforcement to "consider our grave concerns about the government's proposed [CVE] pilot program in Minnesota and discontinue this stigmatizing, divisive, and ineffective initiative.”

Follow our work!

Twitter: @YMC_MN

Facebook: www.facebook.com/YoungMuslimCollective

E-mail: youngmuslimcollective@gmail.com