32. 不少防止和打击暴力极端主义的做法针对特定人员、社区和群体，助长了假定“嫌疑人”身份、类型分析和排斥的做法，加剧了监视和骚扰等结构性歧视和排斥。69 特别报告员对所谓的“全社会”办法尤其感到关切。在这种办法下，发现“激进化迹象”的责任落在了社会各行为体身上，包括教师、社会工作者、医务人员和其他卫生保健专业人员、监狱工作人员、邻里和家庭成员、社区领袖和宗教团体成员。70 她认为，让医疗工作和社会工作等关爱性质的工作承担安全职责，侵犯了这些领域专业人员对服务对象的特有道德义务。71 这种做法制造了暴力极端主义威胁无处不在、无孔不入的环境，其负面影响怎么强调都不为过。这些措施打破了个人和社区对主要负责保护和赋能的专业人员的脆弱信任，而且在对造成个人投身暴力极端主义的过程没有任何可靠科学认识的情况下，准确识别基本无法实现。这类政策导致过度筛查和过度报告，主要依据被禁止的歧视性理由进行筛查和报告，对宗教和言论自由权及隐私权造成影响。此外，在使用生成的信息方面缺乏透明度，对政府实体共享信息的行为也往往缺少监管，这些促使人们相信，防止和打击暴力极端主义不过是国家情报部门反恐工作的又一工具，而不是抵御暴力极端主义威胁的真正努力。
32. Many practices for preventing and countering violent extremism involve targeting particular people, communities and groups, giving rise to assumptions about their “suspect”, profiling, excluding and compounding structural discrimination and exclusion, including surveillance and harassment.69 The Special Rapporteur is particularly concerned by the so-called “whole of society” approach, in which responsibilities to detect “signs of radicalization” fall upon various actors in society, including teachers, social workers, medical staff and other health-care professionals, prison staff, neighbours and family members, community leaders and members of faith-based groups.70 She views the securitization of care professions, including medical professions and social work, as impinging on the unique ethical obligations of professionals in those fields to those they serve.71 In addition to creating an environment in which the threat of violent extremism is ubiquitous and pervasive, the negative impact cannot be overstated. Not only do those measures break the fragile trust that individuals and communities place in those professionals, whose primary duty is to protect and empower, but, without any reliable scientific understanding of the process that makes individuals turn to violent extremism, accurate identification is largely unattainable. Such policies lead to overselection and overreporting, largely on prohibited discriminatory grounds, having an impact on the rights to freedom of religion and expression and privacy. Furthermore, the lack of transparency about the use of the information generated and its often underregulated sharing across government entities lends credence to a perception that preventing and countering violent extremism is yet another tool of a State intelligence entity’s counter-terrorism efforts, rather than a genuine effort at building resistance to the threat of violent extremism.