A Mother’s Experience with Anti-Radicalisation Measures
A mother in the UK found herself at the center of an unexpected investigation after visiting Israel. Holly Passmore, a 43-year-old single mother of two, was taken aback when police officers arrived at her home in County Durham just weeks after her trip to the country. The incident raised concerns about how individuals are being monitored and questioned for their travel choices.
Passmore, who is not Jewish, had been part of a group of social media influencers invited by the Israeli embassy for a tour that included a visit to Kfar Aza, a kibbutz where British hostage Emily Damari was taken by Hamas on October 7, 2023. Her interest in Jewish culture stemmed from her studies on the Holocaust during her degree. However, this background did not prepare her for the scrutiny she would face upon returning home.
During the initial visit from the police, Passmore was questioned about why she had gone to Israel, whether she planned to return, and if she felt safe there. She expressed confusion, asking, “What do you think happened? That the Jews kidnapped me?” The officers explained they were there to check on her safety, but the situation left her feeling bewildered.
At first, she thought the visit might be related to her autistic son, but the conversation quickly shifted to her trip to Israel. The questions were intense, and she couldn’t understand why she was being targeted. “I asked them, ‘Is this real?’” she recalled.
A second visit followed ten days later after she raised concerns with local Reform councillor Darren Grimes, a former television presenter. This time, she met with a Prevent officer and a police superintendent. It was during this encounter that she learned someone had reported her to the Prevent program. Passmore, who posts on X as @MummyisTired and has nearly 17,000 followers, expressed frustration over the process.
She noted that the Prevent program’s goal is to safeguard vulnerable individuals from radicalization, but she questioned the rationale behind targeting her for simply visiting Israel. “The Prevent wording is that it’s for people who are vulnerable to exploitation, but that is theoretically anybody. Who do they think is exploiting me into what?” she asked.
Despite the second visit, she was told the investigation wasn’t about her trip to Israel, even though all previous questions focused on that very issue. This contradiction added to her confusion and concern.
Fiona Sharpe, a representative from Labour Against Antisemitism, commented on the situation, stating that the stated aim of Prevent is to protect individuals from radicalization. She emphasized that visiting Israel is not a crime and questioned the evidence used to justify the investigation.
Dr. Daniel Allington, an expert on anti-Semitism at King’s College London, highlighted a growing trend among extremists to target those who support Israel. He pointed out that such actions are part of a broader strategy to mislead public perception. “People of a certain political persuasion love to make the malicious insinuation that Britons traveling to Israel are somehow equivalent to Britons traveling to Isis,” he said. “But Israel is an ally, a trading partner, a democracy – in every sense a friend of the UK.”
Durham Constabulary responded to the situation, explaining that each Prevent referral is reviewed to determine if further action is needed. They emphasized that assessments are conducted to identify any immediate security threats or risks of radicalization for vulnerable individuals.
This case highlights the complexities surrounding anti-radicalization measures and the need for clear communication and transparency in such investigations. As society continues to navigate these issues, it becomes increasingly important to ensure that individuals are not unfairly targeted based on their travel choices or beliefs.
