THE ISLAMOPHOBIA STITCH-UP: PART TWO.
What The Hell Is An APPG?
“Parliamentary.” “All-Party.” MPs working together across political divides on serious issues. Sounds official. Sounds like it matters. Sounds like something with actual authority.
Here’s what an APPG actually is: a lobbying vehicle with zero official status, zero statutory authority, and zero democratic accountability.
There are over 750 of them. I’ll give you some examples.
APPG on Cheese. APPG on Beer. APPG on Gin. APPG on Yoga. APPG on Bourbon. APPG on Beauty, Aesthetics and Wellbeing. APPG on Left-Handedness.
And the APPG on British Muslims.
Same institutional status. Same official power. Same level of democratic mandate.
Which is to say: absolutely none whatsoever.
APPGs aren’t parliamentary committees. They can’t introduce legislation. They can’t compel evidence. They have no formal role in governance. They exist in this weird grey zone - using parliamentary branding and access whilst operating as private interest groups.
They’re essentially clubs. Informal gatherings of MPs and peers who share an interest. Some are harmless networking in regional industries. Some are corporate lobbying dressed up as parliamentary concern.
And one of them has spent seven years trying to redefine what you’re allowed to say about Islam.
A Brief History of Institutional Overreach.
2010: The APPG on British Muslims is founded.
2011: It’s forced to relaunch after an organisation called iENGAGE - described by Conservative and Labour MPs as having “Islamist sympathies” - was given parliamentary passes and access. A Tory MP and Labour peer both quit in protest.
Not exactly an auspicious start.
2017-2018: The APPG launches a “consultation” on Islamophobia. Co-chaired by Wes Streeting (Labour, now Health Secretary) and Anna Soubry (then Conservative).
Who did they consult?
MEND - Muslim Engagement and Development. Muslim Council of Britain. Islamic Relief. CAGE - the organisation that called ISIS executioner “Jihadi John” a “beautiful young man.” Various academics who’d spent years advocating for these same organisations.
Notice anyone missing? Sikhs. Hindus. Jews. Christians. Ex-Muslims. Secular voices. Anyone who might ask awkward questions about why Islamophobia is being defined as racism when Islam isn’t actually a race.
November 2018: The APPG publishes its report. The definition: “Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness.”
Islam - a religion anyone of any race can join - is now officially “a type of racism.”
The report also labels discussion of grooming gangs as potentially Islamophobic, calls free speech a “supposed right,” and suggests critics of Islam are comparable to historical perpetrators of race-based oppression.
2019: The Conservative government rejects it. Home Secretary Sajid Javid - himself Muslim - says it relies on “the unacceptable practice of the conflation of race and religion.”
Definition dead. Official government position: no.
Except...
2019-2024: Councils, universities, police forces, and housing associations quietly adopt it anyway. Not through legislation. Through institutional policy. Whilst nobody’s really watching.
The APPG on Cheese has never achieved this level of institutional penetration.
2024: Faith Minister Stephen Kinnock admits the APPG definition “is not in line with the Equality Act 2010.”
So it’s been rejected by Conservatives in 2019, acknowledged as legally problematic by Labour in 2024.
2025: Labour resurrects it. Not directly - that’d be too obvious. Instead, they create an “independent Working Group” to “examine” the question.
Chaired by Dominic Grieve. Who wrote a glowing foreword to the 2018 APPG report, calling it “well researched” and saying “action is needed.”
The APPG on Cheese has never had this level of institutional persistence.
The Consultees: A Closer Look.
Let’s examine who the APPG actually consulted. Because their “comprehensive consultation” excluded entire communities whilst elevating organisations with serious credibility issues.
MEND.
Describes itself as a civil liberties organisation. The Metropolitan Police Counter-Terrorism unit described it differently in a 2018 briefing: MEND is “seeking to undermine the state’s capacity to counter terrorism.”
Key concerns: Former MEND director Sufyan Ismail said the Westminster Bridge attack - five dead, fifty injured - was “not terrorism.” A senior MEND representative compared Muslims’ treatment in Britain to Jews under Nazi Germany. The Met briefing stated MEND uses “entryism” to influence institutions whilst maintaining extremist objectives.
MEND sued over these characterisations. They lost. The High Court upheld the police assessment.
This organisation helped shape what “Islamophobia” means.
Muslim Council of Britain.
Britain’s largest Muslim umbrella organisation. Sounds representative. Except consecutive governments - Labour and Conservative - have refused official engagement since 2009.
Why? The government admitted in parliamentary answers that the MCB has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, designated as terrorists by Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and others.
The MCB’s former Deputy Secretary General, Daud Abdullah, signed the Istanbul Declaration calling for violence against British troops and Jewish communities. When challenged, the MCB didn’t expel him. They defended him.
This organisation was a key APPG consultee.
Islamic Relief.
Major humanitarian charity doing genuine aid work. Also has issues.
In 2020, an investigation revealed board members and senior figures posted antisemitic content, including that Jews are “grandchildren of monkeys and pigs” - a specific Quranic reference used to dehumanise Jews.
The Charity Commission investigated. Found the posts. Islamic Relief admitted they were “unacceptable.”
Who conducted the review that cleared them? Dominic Grieve.
Who’s on the 2025 Working Group? Islamic Relief.
The APPG consulted them in 2018. Grieve cleared them later. Now they’re helping “independently examine” the definition they helped create.
The Credibility Laundering Process.
Here’s how the scam works:
Step 1: Activist organisations lobby informally. If MEND approached the government saying, “make criticising Islam illegal,” they’d be shown the door.
Step 2: Form an APPG. Now it’s not MEND lobbying - it’s “MPs and peers examining the issue.”
Step 3: APPG “consults” the same activist organisations. They provide evidence, draft language, and shape recommendations.
Step 4: APPG publishes report with parliamentary branding. Suddenly it’s not activist lobbying - it’s “MPs recommend...” Media reports it as if Parliament has spoken.
Step 5: Institutions adopt it quietly. Councils, universities, and police see “parliamentary report” and implement recommendations without democratic debate.
Step 6: When challenged, point to the APPG report as evidence of “cross-party consensus.”
The APPG on Cheese can’t do this because nobody’s trying to criminalise criticism of cheddar. But the APPG on British Muslims got multiple councils to adopt a definition that the government explicitly rejected.
That’s not democracy. That’s institutional capture through credibility laundering.
The Grieve Connection.
Dominic Grieve KC. Former Attorney General. Respected lawyer. Establishment figure.
Perfect choice to chair an “independent” examination. Except:
2018: Writes foreword to APPG report. Praises it as “well researched,” says “action is needed.” Specifically endorses their methodology.
2015-2017: Chairs Citizens UK Commission on Islam. Members include representatives from MEND and MCB - organisations government won’t engage with.
2020: Conducts a review clearing Islamic Relief despite documented antisemitic posts.
2025: Appointed to chair “independent” Working Group examining... the same definition he praised in 2018, developed by organisations he’s worked with for years.
This isn’t independence. This is selecting the judge based on knowing how they’ll rule.
The Bristol Parallel.
This playbook should sound familiar to anyone watching Bristol’s Green administration.
Create a “consultation.” Pre-select participants. Exclude dissenting voices. Publish predetermined outcome with “community engagement” branding. Implement despite opposition. Claim democratic legitimacy.
The APPG did this nationally. Consulted MEND, MCB, Islamic Relief, and friendly academics. Excluded Sikhs, Hindus, Jews, Christians, ex-Muslims, secular voices - anyone who might question whether Islam can simultaneously be a religion anyone can join and a race you’re born into.
The consultation was theatre. The outcome was predetermined. The institutional capture was the goal.
And it worked.
What Nobody’s Asking.
If the APPG definition is well-researched and necessary, why did the Conservative government reject it in 2019?
Why did Labour’s Faith Minister admit in 2024 that it conflicts with equality law?
Why does it need “independent examination” in 2025 when it’s already been examined and rejected?
And why is that examination chaired by someone who already endorsed it, staffed by organisations who lobbied for it, whilst excluding communities named as victims?
Simple answer: because it’s not about protecting victims. It’s about controlling speech.
The APPG on British Muslims has the same official status as the APPG on Cheese.
But the Cheese lobby never tried to make criticism of dairy products a hate crime.
And they never got a former Attorney General to help them do it.
Tomorrow: Part Three - How 6.5% Captured the Institutions.
Electoral blackmail, institutional laziness, violence calculations, and establishment validation. Four mechanisms working together.
The APPG provided the definition.
Tomorrow, we examine how it’s being imposed.