Commission for Countering Extremism's response to FOI request on academic papers review process (counter-extremism) (Dr Sadek Hamid) (Prof. Tahir Abbas) (Islamophobia) (anti-Semitism)

1. Email: info@extremismcommission.independent.gov.uk Blog: extremismcommission.blog.gov.uk Twitter: @CommissionCE
Yahya Birt
By email only: yahya.birt@gmail.com
22 November 2019
Dear Mr Birt,
Thank you for your emails dated 21 October, in which you request:
“(1) What was the process and criteria by which the CCE carried out its review of (i)
submitted research proposals and (ii) submitted research papers as a result of its call for
papers in February 2019? Please release any internal policy documents not currently in
the public domain that explain the process and criteria in more detail.
(2) Given that the rejection of the research papers by Drs Tahir Abbas and Sadek Hamid
(“Our Academic Papers on Extremism”, CCE Blog, 7 October 2019) has become a matter
of public debate, the basis of that decision should be made as transparent as possible.
Please release the reviews and correspondence in relation to their papers that were used
by the CCE to assess and decline their research papers for publication (names of any
reviewers can be redacted to protect anonymity if necessary).
(3) How did The Sunday Times (“Muslim advisers hit by anti‑semitism row”, 5 May 2019)
acquire the 'internal documents' from the CCE about the Abbas and Hamid papers? Please
release the internal and external communications that led to this information being given
to the press.
(4) How did the CCE come to the decision to publicise the exclusion of Abbas and Hamid’s
research papers from publication? Please release all internal or external communications
regarding the deliberation and execution of this decision to publicise.
(5) Was the social media of other academics and experts commissioned by the CCE
scrutinised? If not, how were Abbas and Hamid singled out for (re)tweets? Who presented
this information to the CCE? Please release the social media assessments, if any, that
were made of all the researchers involved in the CCE call for papers, and any internal or
external correspondence relating to this.
(6) Why were the assurances that Abbas and Hamid gave of their innocence of the charges
made against them of antisemitism not taken into serious consideration by the CCE
(“Muslim academics criticise Extremism Commission after their studies are ‘censored’”
[interview], 5Pillars, 11 October 2019)? Was the stipulation that they meet with an external
organisation part of the CCE’s standard procedure or was it the outcome a request from
that organisation? Please release any relevant policy documentation and internal and
external correspondence about these decisions.

2. 2
(7) Does the CCE include legal checks on its published research as part of its quality
assurance process? The temporary withdrawal of ‘The changing nature of activism among
Sikhs in the UK today’ Dr Jagbir Jhutti-Johal and Sunny Hundal under the advice of the
CCE’s internal lawyers (“UK counter-extremism body forced to remove controversial
paper on Sikh activism”, Times of India, 9 October 2019) suggests that such checks are
either not in place or are ineffective. On what legal grounds did the Commission decide to
remove temporarily this research paper from its website? Please release any policy
documentation on the Commission’s internal legal checking process and any internal
communications relating to the Commission’s decision to withdraw the paper.”
First, the Lead Commissioner and Commission abhor and commit to challenging antisemitism in
all its forms. The Lead Commissioner and the Commission were deeply concerned about the
social media posts that were brought to our attention and took swift action accordingly. The
outcomes of this challenge are available on our blog
https://extremismcommission.blog.gov.uk/2019/10/07/our-academic-papers-on-extremism/.
As you acknowledge, the Commission for Countering Extremism (CCE) is not subject to the
provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, but we will respond to your request as far as
possible in line with the Act in the interests of transparency. Your requests will be dealt with
according to the order that they are listed above.
With regard to your first request, the process for selecting the academic papers is explained in
the attached document ‘Call for papers webpage content’. We have also enclosed an example
statement of work (used in the call for papers on the far right). This document contains more detail
on the process and the selection criteria which was applied to all the proposals under each topic.
The ‘scoring grid’ document is a clearer representation of the scoring criteria that each proposal
was judged against.
With regard to your second request, if we were subject to the provisions of the FOIA, we would
not release the requested information on the grounds that releasing such information would
prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs, by inhibiting those involved inside and outside the
Commission from expressing themselves openly, honestly and completely. This is the exemption
in section 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) of the FOIA.
If we were subject to the provisions of the FOIA, we would have to consider the public interest
test as the exemptions in section 36 of the Act are qualified. There is always a strong presumption
in favour of transparency and disclosure. However, on this occasion, that presumption is
outweighed by the Commission’s need to protect the views of those, including external
contractors, that were involved in the production and publication of the papers, and the peer
review process, so that in the future those people (or different people in similar roles) would not
be deterred from expressing their views by the possibility of future disclosure.
In answer to your third request, we are aware that the Sunday Times published one document.
We do not know how they obtained it.
We do not recognise your fourth request as a request for information. It is a request for an
explanation of the Commission’s decision making. Where your request is for ‘all internal or
external communications regarding the deliberation and execution of this decision to publicise’,
we would again withhold this information using the exemption in section 36(2)(b), because to
disclose such material would be likely to prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs.
Again, there is a need to address the public interest test. I reiterate that there is always a strong
presumption in favour of transparency and openness. However, this is outweighed in this instance

3. 3
by the need to protect deliberation from scrutiny, which might deter officials and external
contractors from expressing themselves freely and frankly in the future.
We have outlined the process for selecting successful bidders in our answer to your first question.
We were later informed of the tweets in question by the Sunday Times. Regarding the request for
assessments of researchers’ social media accounts, we do not hold this information as it was not
part of the selection criteria.
We do not recognise your sixth request to be a request for information. It is a request for an
explanation about the Commission’s decision making. We do not hold the recorded information
that satisfies the request.
In answer to your seventh request, the Commission did assess all papers for legal risk before
publication. Further information about the legal reviews of specific papers will not be disclosed,
because this information is legally professionally privileged. Were we subject to the provision of
the FOIA, we would have to consider the public interest test, because the legal professional
privilege exemption is qualified. In this instance, I see no strong countervailing argument to the
need to safeguard openness in communications between lawyer and client to facilitate the free
and frank provision of advice. The paper on Sikh activism was temporarily taken down following
legal advice and has since been republished.
Yours sincerely
Commission for Countering Extremism Secretariat