76  Race & Class 51(3)

was associated at birth indicated that it was a declaration of the end of multiculturalism and an assertion that Asians, Muslims in particular, would have to develop ‘a greater acceptance of the principal national institutions’ and assimilate to ‘core British values’. At a local level, however, the language of community cohesion has occasionally been used for more progressive projects that united across communities to address shared issues of deprivation. 7. Prevent has undermined any progressive element within community cohesion and absorbed from the cohesion agenda those parts which are most problematic. Initially, Prevent funding allowed some projects to continue doing progressive cross-community work. But, more recently, Prevent, with its focus on a single group, has undermined this aspect of the cohesion agenda. Often the relationship between a local authority and its Muslim citizens is conducted through the very same structures of ‘community gatekeepers’ which the community cohesion agenda had identified as being problematic and divisive. The developmental needs of Muslim communities are, it appears, being trumped by the need for ‘reliable’ partners in relation to Prevent. While cross-community work in the name of cohesion has suffered, the ideas of ‘shared values’ and Britishness – a powerful strand within the cohesion agenda – have been strengthened by Prevent. This has been especially the case since the publication in March 2009 of the government’s revised counter-terrorism strategy, Contest 2. This aspect of the community cohesion agenda, which is seen as a onesided demand to assimilate to ill-defined values of Britishness, has alienated many Muslims. 8. Many of our interviewees asked why there was not a wider programme of preventing extremism across all communities. In our research, we have been unable to document any evidence of practical Prevent work at community level that is not directed at Muslims. In August 2009, updated guidance for local Prevent partners was published by the government which seemed to signal a recognition that ‘violent far right groups’ should also be taken seriously. It remains unclear what form this shift in emphasis will take in practice. In a bid to gain acceptance, some local authorities already present their Prevent programmes as working across communities to create ‘cohesion’. One local authority, for example, has rebranded its Prevent programme as ‘Building a stronger and united West London: working with Muslim communities’. Whatever the wording, so long as the projects funded are actually directed at Muslims, with other communities involved only insofar as it is necessary to support the core objective of a ‘hearts and minds’ campaign among Muslims, the fundamental problem of a discriminatory agenda will remain. 9. There is strong evidence that Prevent-funded services are being used for information gathering by the police and that the line between the Prevent strand and the investigative ‘Pursue’ strand of the government’s Contest counter-terrorism strategy is being blurred in a way that is