-
Language matters. The fact semantic disagreeing exists is because language does matter.
I don't agree using racism for xenophobia either. It muddies the water because we think A but say B.
If the government means anti Muslims hatred then use that. It's especially important i think governments are more accurate to prevent hijacking of laws by pressure groups.
Don't use a term that is already being abuse at the moment to stifle debate. It's a pain that everything has to be defined to the umpteenth extent these days but if we don't we give some people an easy run.
JWestland-
It's a pain that everything has to be defined to the umpteenth extent these days but if we don't we give some people an easy run.
On the other hand, having very specific laws creates the possibility of legal loopholes and requires specific laws against every possible variable.
Discrimination/abuse/violence etc is simply that, regardless of what provoked it.
I don't see the need for laws against discrimination/abuse/violence, * specifically based upon someone's race/religion/gender/sexual preference etc*, when the existing, broader laws prohibit these.
That's not to say I don't see the value in a government, or any other body, publicly stating their opposition to particular problems as they come to prominence, which is the case with the Canadian motion.
Scilly.Suffolk
^ So is antisemitism. All words that describe genuine bigotry can be twisted to apply in inappropriate circumstances to suit political or ideological ends. That's how language works. For example the term "racist" is commonly extended to issues that have nothing to do with race.
In my experience, if an argument (such as lasyrabbit's above) descends quickly into semantic disagreement then it probably wasn't very strong in the first place.