In the news

I'm well aware of what a motion is, I made sure not to say 'law'.

You made sure not to say law, but also wrote it results in 'the real privileging of one religious group over others.' What is the real privileging provided by denouncing a type of prejudice?

This is a slippery slope. They have refused to define 'Islamophobia', which goes to show what an utterly baseless and slanderous word it is.

What is baseless and slanderous about the word Islamophobia? And, although not in the text of the motion itself, Iqra Khalid did define what she meant.

It should not be given a legal context.

What is the legal context related to a motion? Motions are statements of opinion by parliament and have no legal force.

This motion privileges islam by singling it out in such a way.

So governments should not denounce the rise of Islamophobia if it means they have to mention Islam? It's worth noting that the text did mention all other types of prejudice and racism ("Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination"), but this motion was intended to specifically denounce one particular type.

Let's try a thought experiment. If a gunman entered a synagogue and unloaded on those worshiping, and the government responded with a non-legally binding motion stating the opinion that antisemitism is wrong and we need to do more to combat it, would you be equally upset? If so, at least you're consistent. But I think most people would understand that this is not privileging a particular group.