Well said, however there's a political dimension to this,

Accusations of "Islamophia" are more than just a way of brushing aside opinions, they are sometimes a sinister instrument of policy designed to silence opposition and suppress free speech. The Communists also claimed that dissenters must be mentally ill.

There's an interesting article on 'Darwinism' in this week's issue of 'The Economist'. Sadly, it argues that xenophobia is a deeply ingrained human characteric, according to the latest work in evolutionary biology. This work also demonstrates, however, that skin colour, hair colour and physiognomy have no implications for intelligence.

In other words, prejudice is just prejudice.

The writer is arrogant to assume a professional class's monopoly on certain forms of English. Dictionaries have long described the Greek-derived "phobia" both as general usage for "irrational fear/s", etc., and for specific psychiatric disorders. That psychologists and psychiatrists avoid similar phenomena would rather suggest to us not only their practical challenges in seeking wider treatment regimes, but also the ideological constraints and biases formed within, or at least applied to, such industries.

On those who spread such irrational fears to influence the perceptions of others, "phobia" is often a very apt description. Haslam may be correct that a diagnosis of sorts is unsuited to many or even most who are affected by such fear-spreading. However, we can be sure that "phobia" often applies to those who actively devote themselves to target, exaggerate and even invent "threats" to foist onto the perceptions of others.

So we can see a first group of people, either normally oblivious to those who would rant about "threats", or - more likely - too busy and too close to new migrants, gays, etc., as real people to become very bothered by them as some kind of "pathological type" or "hidden threat".

That is where a second category comes in, as a type actively spreading fear of some mysterious "unknown quantity" somehow attached to the targets of bigotry. Such genuine "phobics" betray their own insecurities so obviously that it is clear how pursuit of bigotry serves some inner purpose of "transferral" for the personal deficiencies and traumas that they have failed to confront and overcome. I saw one such person phone ASIO about a middle-easterner making a 'wrong number' call!

Of course, that is not to ignore a third category typically involved in such processes of bigotry: the cynical manipulator of public perceptions, sensing various opportunities and protections from such phenomena of prejudice.

A fourth category of "accomplice" can become complicit in such phenomena of bigotry. I recall several psych professionals who endorse such divisive and destructive bigotry by targeting the very opponents and victims of the bigotry. For such apparatchiks, bigotry is big, lucrative business.

From the way the article is expressed, the author comes out as a confused poor buggar.

It is like a cast-net of psychological mist thrown to ensnare five quite separate outlooks/issues:

One is the (Nazi/South African-apartheid/USA-Ku Klux Klan) genuinely barbarous mind-set.

Two is that of the One-World outlook where all people, of whatever origin and at their request, must be provided with resources which are at parity with our own.

Three belongs to those of us who have concern for all people, and want to apply the most effective approach to minimizing the reason for whatever disadvantages people of any origin may have; while reasonably maintaining the integrity of the environmental resources upon which we all depend, and which are under our custody.

Four is that of misrepresentation, deliberate or otherwise, of outlook three by referring to it as racism.

Five comprises campaigns by people/organizations, from a commercial perspective, knowingly promoting disinformation to discredit those of category three.

The article could have differentiated between these five issues, but conflated them instead. Does this suggest that the author is psychologically confused?

This article is a pathetic attempt to demonize those who won't accept perverted and unacceptable behaviour . I have met 'nice people' who have been charged with Pedophile. I think that they should be castrated so that they can't destroy any more lives. Surely a psychologist has enough brains to separate the hate of a persons actions as opposed to the person. My views on homosexuality are well known. I happen to know some very nice people in homosexual relations. It does not change the fact that it is an unhealthy lifestyle and should not be promoted. It does not change the fact that the Catholic Priests who abused so many were homosexuals.

You would be in complete denial not to see that Muslims generally are peace loving people however anyone would be a fool to deny the ideology behind Islam is violence and intolerance. All the evidence in the world is not enough to convince the secular humanist who are totally blinded by their own dogmas. Nick appears to be one of them.

Another “Islam is peace” and “some people are delusional” article.

Not once does the article mention the hate and violence perpetrated by Muslims around the world. Of course, to do so would require honesty.

It is as if what the author calls islamophobia is baseless and irrational and Muslims have done nothing to provoke this attitude. It is a one-way street.

To these people, Islamophobia is basically any criticism of Islam. It is an attempt to censure speech and abridge human rights.

I have personally been threaten by Muslims. I have been told by Muslims that they are “going to find out where I live” which I take as a threat against my family. Yet this man, Mr. Haslam, would say I suffer from islamophobia. He makes excuses for people that preach hate, threaten and kill. Pathetic.

Whatever their faults, people that criticize Islam and Muslims because of its hate and violence, do not have any "phobia" of Islam -- much to the contrary. Mr Haslam and company doesn't even understand basic Greek etymologies and their English vocabulary derivatives. The real Islamophobes are the liberals, afraid for their lives or afraid to hurt Muslims’s feelings. I am not afraid of Islam. I despise Islam and Muslims for their ignorance, denial and deception.

Now would some Muslim here care to talk about the Quran and hadith? Would they like to tell me how wonderful and peaceful Islam is?