THE ISLAMOPHOBIA STITCH-UP: PART FOUR.
Democratic Capture. The system is locked.Not metaphorically. Not eventually. Right now.
So far, we’ve traced the mechanisms: electoral blackmail in concentrated constituencies, institutional laziness creating organisational dependency, violence calculations nobody admits, and establishment validation through Dominic Grieve.
Now let’s examine what happens when all four converge on a single moment. When the democratic process encounters organised pressure backed by an implicit threat. When leaders choose accommodation over confrontation.
August 2024. Keir Starmer faces his test.
The Southport Calculation.
29th July 2024: Three children murdered in Southport. Bebê King (6), Elsie Dot Stancombe (7), Alice Dasilva Aguiar (9). Eight other children and two adults were wounded.
Within hours, social media claimed the attacker was Muslim. False. He wasn’t. But the claim spread.
30-31st July: Protests outside mosques in Southport and across England. Violence. Rioting. A mosque was attacked. Police injured.
The far-right mobilised on false information. Actual violence against actual Muslims based on a lie.
Starmer’s response was immediate and forceful. Condemned the rioters. Promised swift justice. Emergency COBRA meetings. Deployed 6,000 specialist police officers. Fast-tracked prosecutions. Maximum sentences.
Within weeks, rioters were in prison. Some got years. The crackdown was total. The message was clear: racist violence will be crushed. But still, no one can define what ‘racism’ actually means, and Islam is NOT a race!
Starmer framed it as defending British values against far-right thuggery. Standing up to hate. Protecting Muslim communities from violence.
He was right to do so. The riots were indefensible. The violence was real. The threat to Muslim communities was genuine.
But watch what happened three weeks later.
20th August 2024: The Violence Nobody Crushed.
Bangladesh’s Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina resigned 5th August after student-led protests. Fled to India. Her government had been accused of authoritarian crackdown and targeting religious minorities.
Bangladesh’s Hindu population: approximately 8%. Under Hasina, they’d faced periodic violence.
20th August 2024: Protests outside the Bangladesh High Commission in London. Bangladeshi protesters - mainly Muslim - gathered to celebrate Hasina’s fall.
Some carried signs. Some chanted. And some chanted: “Hindu, Hindu, goodbye, goodbye.”
Video recorded it. Social media shared it. The chant was explicit: targeting Hindus as a religious group. In central London. Outside a diplomatic building.
Starmer’s response? Silence.
No emergency COBRA. No specialist police deployment. No condemnation of religious hatred. No fast-tracked prosecutions.
The Met investigated. Concluded the chants were “unacceptable” but took no action. Said they were “monitoring.” No arrests.
The gap between responses was total:
Southport (false claim, actual violence): Immediate condemnation. COBRA meetings. 6,000 specialist police. Fast-tracked prosecutions. Years in prison.
Bangladesh High Commission (explicit religious targeting, filmed): Silence from PM. Police “monitoring.” No arrests. No prosecutions. No consequences.
Why the difference?
Southport rioters were far-right thugs with zero electoral leverage. Bangladeshi Muslim protesters represent votes in Tower Hamlets (39.9% Muslim), Bethnal Green (59% Muslim), constituencies where Labour depends on Muslim votes.
Starmer calculated:
Crushing far-right riots = politically safe, morally clear, electorally beneficial.
Confronting “Hindu, Hindu, goodbye” chants = politically dangerous, electorally costly, and would anger Muslim advocacy organisations.
So he crushed one and ignored the other.
That’s not a principle. That’s a calculation. The same calculation institutions make when they adopt APPG definitions government rejected, when schools apologise before investigating teachers, and when universities no-platform speakers.
The calculation: “What’s the cost of standing firm versus accommodating?”
When one group has electoral leverage plus violence precedent, the calculation becomes: “Accommodation is safer.”
The Grieve Appointment Makes Sense Now.
Grieve’s appointment wasn’t about independence. It was about inevitability.
The government already knew what outcome they needed: adopt the APPG definition, legitimise what councils have already done, and formalise the speech control framework protecting them from Batley Grammar scenarios.
But they couldn’t just announce that. They needed process. Appearance of examination. Establishment credibility.
Grieve provided all three:
Process: “Independent Working Group examining the question.” Examination: Six months of deliberation. Credibility: Former Attorney General, respected lawyer, establishment figure.
But the outcome was never in doubt because Grieve already declared it in 2018 when he praised the APPG definition as “well researched,” said “action is needed.”
You don’t appoint someone to “independently examine” a question they’ve already answered unless you want that same answer again.
Grieve’s 2015-2017 Citizens UK work (with MEND and MCB representatives) showed he could work productively with Muslim advocacy organisations. His Islamic Relief review showed he’d clear organisations despite documented problems. His 2018 foreword showed he’d endorse the APPG definition.
Perfect candidate - if you want predetermined outcomes delivered with establishment respectability.
The exclusion of Sikhs makes perfect sense in this context. If Sikhs were included, they’d ask questions, disrupting the predetermined conclusion:
“Why are we being attacked?” → Because attackers think Sikhs are Muslims. “Why do they think Muslims are threats?” → Because of violence precedents. “How does speech control solve violence?” → It doesn’t.
Including Sikhs would derail the process. So Sikhs were excluded.
524,000 people were named as victims. Zero appointed. Not oversight. Design.
What The Padlock Locks.
What does the padlock actually lock?
Democratic accountability.
Before the APPG definition becomes official, Citizens can criticise Islam without legal jeopardy. Academics can research grooming gangs without career destruction. Teachers can show Charlie Hebdo in lessons about blasphemy. Journalists can investigate without institutional punishment.
After: Criticism of Islam becomes potential evidence of “Islamophobic attitudes.” Research into religiously motivated crime becomes “perpetuating stereotypes.” Educational content about blasphemy becomes “targeting Muslim students.” Journalism about extremism becomes “spreading Islamophobia.”
The padlock doesn’t lock Muslims in. It locks criticism out.
Once locked, the key is controlled by organisations like MEND, MCB, Tell MAMA, who determine what constitutes “Islamophobia” through their guidance, training, and consultation.
This is the end-state:
Electoral blackmail creates MPs dependent on Muslim advocacy organisations. Institutional laziness creates dependency on those organisations for “consultation.” Violence calculation creates fear of confrontation. Establishment validation (Grieve) legitimises what those organisations demanded.
Result: Those organisations effectively control what can be said about Islam, Islamism, and Muslim communities. Not through law (yet), but through institutional policy backed by career consequences.
The teacher who showed a Charlie Hebdo cartoon is still hiding. Four years later. That’s what happens when you cross the line before the padlock clicks shut.
Imagine what happens after.
The Five Proofs.
The Sikh exclusion proves five things:
One: This isn’t about protecting victims.
If it were, the first victims of post-9/11 and post-7/7 violence would have representation. Balbir Singh Sodhi was murdered four days after 9/11. First UK target after 7/7 was a gurdwara.
Twenty-four years of Sikhs absorbing anti-Muslim violence. Named explicitly in Terms of Reference. Zero representation.
If protecting victims mattered, Sikhs would be included.
Two: This isn’t about preventing violence.
The violence Sikhs suffer comes from people who can’t distinguish religious communities. The solution is education about actual differences, addressing actual attackers, and protecting actual victims.
The APPG definition doesn’t do any of that. It controls speech about Islam. Doesn’t stop people from attacking Sikhs. Just makes it harder to discuss why people associate Muslims with violence.
Three: This isn’t an independent examination.
Independent examination includes affected communities. Terms of Reference name four beyond Muslims: Sikhs, Hindus, Jains, Buddhists.
Zero representation from any.
Also excluded: Jews (who face actual religious hatred), Christians, ex-Muslims, secular voices.
Only perspectives included: Muslim advocacy organisations and those who’ve worked with them for years.
Not an independent examination. Confirming predetermined outcomes.
Four: This isn’t proportional representation.
Muslims: 6.5% of population, complete Working Group control. Sikhs: 0.9% of population, zero representation.
If proportional, Sikhs would have representation. They have none.
That’s not proportional. That’s capture.
Five: This is institutional capture by specific organisations.
Organisations consulted by the 2018 APPG (MEND, MCB, Islamic Relief) are the same organisations on the 2025 Working Group. The chair (Grieve) praised their work in 2018, now “independently examines” it in 2025.
The mechanism: Organisations lobby APPG → APPG publishes their definition → Government rejects it → Organisations lobby institutions to adopt anyway → New government creates “independent” Working Group → Appoints chair who already endorsed the definition → Stocks Working Group with organisations who created it → Excludes everyone who might question it → “Independent examination” concludes definition should be adopted → Government implements what they wanted all along.
Not a democratic process. Institutional capture with procedural theatre.
The Teacher Who’s Still Hiding.
Remember him.
March 2021. Batley Grammar. Religious studies teacher shows Charlie Hebdo cartoon in approved lesson about blasphemy.
Muslim parent complains. The school apologises. Before investigating. Before speaking to the teacher.
Protests. Death threats. The teacher goes into hiding.
Four years later: Still hiding. New identity. PTSD. Suicidal ideation. Career destroyed. Life destroyed.
Union abandoned him. Police couldn’t protect him. Institutions failed him.
The Working Group isn’t examining what happened to him. It’s formalising the mechanism that destroyed him.
If the APPG definition becomes official, every institution will have justification for doing what Batley Grammar did: apologise, accommodate, and abandon anyone who crosses the line.
The teacher showed a cartoon in an educational context. Still hiding.
What happens when the definition is official, and the line is legally defined?
The Starmer Calculation Becomes Policy.
Starmer crushed Southport rioters, ignored “Hindu, Hindu, goodbye” chanters. That calculation - confront the powerless, accommodate the powerful - becomes institutionalised.
Once the APPG definition is official, institutions won’t ask “Is this criticism legitimate?”
They’ll ask, “Will this anger Muslim advocacy organisations?”
Because organisations that consulted on the definition will provide training, guidance, and determination of what constitutes “Islamophobia.”
MEND will train diversity officers. MCB will be consulted on policy. Tell MAMA will collect data. Islamic Relief will be treated as a credible voice.
And Grieve will have provided establishment credibility, making it all legitimate.
524,000 : 0
Those numbers tell you everything.
524,000 Sikhs were explicitly named as victims. Zero appointed.
Not because of oversight. Because including them would expose the game.
They’d ask why they’re being attacked (mistaken for Muslims). They’d ask why people associate Muslims with violence (precedents). They’d ask how speech control solves violence (it doesn’t). They’d ask why the solution defines criticism as racism rather than addressing attackers.
Those questions couldn’t be allowed. So Sikhs couldn’t be included.
The exclusion isn’t a bug. It’s proof of design.
What Happens Next.
The Working Group will deliberate. Consult. Examine. Review.
In six months, they’ll recommend adopting the APPG definition. Possibly with minor modifications, creating the appearance of independent thought. But substantially the same.
Grieve will write a foreword explaining how careful examination led to this conclusion. The same conclusion he reached in 2018.
The government will accept the recommendation. Implement the definition. Councils will be vindicated. Universities will adopt it. Police will train on it. Employers will enforce it.
The definition that conflicts with equality law becomes a functional reality.
And the next teacher wanting to show Charlie Hebdo in a blasphemy lesson will think twice. The next journalist investigating grooming gangs will self-censor. The next academic researcher of religiously motivated crime will choose safer topics.
Not because it’s illegal. Because the cost is too high.
The Batley teacher proved what happens when you cross the line. Still hiding. Four years later.
How many more will risk that?
The padlock doesn’t need to be perfect. It just needs to create enough fear that most people lock themselves.
The Stitch-Up Complete.
Four mechanisms working together:
Electoral blackmail creates political pressure. Institutional laziness creates organisational dependency. Violence calculation creates fear of confrontation. Establishment validation creates legitimacy.
Result: 524,000 Sikhs excluded. Muslim advocacy organisations with documented extremism concerns get total control. The government that rejected the definition in 2019 implements it in 2025. The teacher who showed a cartoon was still hiding.
And the padlock clicks shut.
Not on Muslims. On democracy.
The Islamophobia Stitch-Up isn’t about protecting victims of hatred.
It’s about institutionalising the mechanisms that destroyed the Batley Grammar teacher whilst excluding communities who’ve suffered anti-Muslim violence the longest.
524,000 : 0.
The numbers don’t lie.
The Working Group does.
WHAT YOU CAN DO.
Demand Sikh representation. Contact your MP. Ask why 524,000 people named as victims have zero representation.
Question the composition. Why is the Working Group chaired by someone who already endorsed the outcome? Why do organisations with extremism concerns get seats? Why are affected communities excluded?
Support the teacher. The Batley Grammar teacher is still in hiding. Still suffering. Don’t let him be forgotten.
Reject the definition. If your council, university, or employer tries adopting the APPG definition, point out that the government rejected it in 2019, and a minister admitted it conflicts with equality law in 2024.
Speak anyway. The stitch-up only works if people self-censor out of fear. Speak carefully. Document thoroughly. But speak.
The numbers are 524,000 : 0.
Make them explain why.