Hi Everyone,

When criticising this article, be mindful what the article actually talks about.
The article is quite technical and hence may not always be clear. I may be missing something but I cannot see a significant problem with the article.

I draw your attention to a few paragraphs/sentence in the article:

(1)..."Homophobic, xenophobic and Islamophobic should be seen in the same light, as ways of brushing aside
opinions we dislike by invalidating the people who hold them."

Example:- CJMorgan labels anyone who criticises Islam as Islamophobic, his way of brushing aside opinions.

(2)..."It could be argued that none of this matters. Perhaps calling attitudes phobias is meant as harmless
metaphor, not as literal diagnosis. But words have consequences..."

It seems people labelled as Islamophobes regard that as harmless and may have actually started to think it is OKAY
to be regarded as an Islamophobe. But the author argues there is a harm involved-- "...consequences...closes the door on dialogue".
I think, identifying with Islamophobe probably explains why some commenters reacted very negatively to this article, thinking it attacks us (Islamophobes). But the thing is, no one is an Islamophobe to start with.

(3)..."Let's cure our language of them."

Exactly, the labelling of homophobic, xenophobic and Islamophobic are invalid and should be "banned". Those who abuse the terminology severely reprimanded.

My earlier logical explanation for "Islamophobia" prove that people who criticise Islam are not Islamophobic:-
(A)...Those criticising Islam may or may not be Islamophobic <--(Logical truth)
(B)...Correct interpretation leading to fear of Islam <--Fear is valid, hence not Islamophobic.
(C)...Incorrect interpretation leading to fear of Islam <--Interpretation is wrong, but the fear is still valid, personal and real. Hence this is also not Islamophobic.
(D)...Correct interpretation proves Islam is not to be feared. But a fear persists <--This is irrational Islamophobic fear.

The ONLY possible condition that truly satisfies IslamoPHOBIC is (D).
Such a condition rarely exists, if at all.

So it is those (such as CJMorgan) who label others as Islamophobic that are prejudiced and need a fix.

So many have missed the point entirely,you need to forget PC and think.

Haslam is a psychologist and he examines and refutes"Islamophobia" in psychological terms and only briefly discusses the use of accusations of "Islamophobia"to dismiss dissent,it is a limited analysis. Any one who is prepared to accept all criticisms of Islamic ideology as impelled by prejudice,or an example of "racism", is what the Bolsheviks called a "Useful Idiot." The threat is the infiltration of a totalitarian ideology into a secular state, not individual Moslems. Robert Mugabe claims legitimate criticism of his appallingly brutal regime as "racist" doesn't he?

“The threat is the infiltration of a totalitarian ideology into a secular state, not individual Moslems. Robert Mugabe claims legitimate criticism of his appallingly brutal regime as "racist" doesn't he?” (Mac’s comment).

The threat often does come from totalitarian ideology, but not necessarily a god-related one. The threat reaches beyond secular issues.

During the past decades many an instantaneous rush to cry “racism” has been made to close down rational debate on matters other than religion. The accusation, and resulting threat to free discussion, has also been used frequently by the unprincipled as a weapon of disinformation.

The issue covers a wide spectrum and, I repeat, could have been covered with much less obfuscation.

Exactly, mac

Haslam is attempting to apply a strictly clinical interpretation to words that have much broader meaning. We don't hear doctors bemoaning the fact that the word 'cancer' has wider non-clinical meanings, and curiously Haslam doesn't choose to take issue with psychological terms like 'neurotic,' 'anxious' or 'depressed,' whose common meanings are considerably different to the clinical definitions.

He is also showing considerable ignorance of how language works. Yes, these three terms appear to be coined words, with xenophobia coming first from a combination of Greek roots: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=xenophobic There's a long tradition of coined words in English - the prescriptive dictionaries of Webster and Johnson are full of them. Coined words are quickly forgotten if there's no need for them, but where they represent a way to express a previously unknown or un-discussed concept, then the word sticks, cf. platypus, post-modernism, and many others.

Clearly we have a need for terms that express fear of and/or prejudice against muslims, foreigners and homosexuals. If we didn't, these words would have dropped out of the language again as soon as they were coined.

Frankly, in the case of homophobia, I'd prefer an alternate term, because the lumping of two ideas (fear of and prejudice against) makes it unwieldy, enrages those who would admit to one but not the other, and gives every homophobe the opportunity to deny the prejudice, in the absence of the fear. I suspect the same applies to 'xenophobia' and 'islamophobia.' However until someone comes up with better terms, they're all we've got.

In arguing that there are no such clinical conditions as islamophobia, homophobia and xenophobia, Haslam is vacating the field, leaving the terms open to every interpretation except the clinical ones. Yet he wishes to "cure our language of them." Is he proposing to replace these terms with others expressing fear of/prejudice against particular minorities? If so, let's hear his suggestions.

Or is he arguing that these terms should be removed from the language altogether, in some kind of Orwellian attempt to shut down dialogue on these issues by removing the means to talk about them?

Yep, time again to get out those fridge magnets, dial up ASIO, then put the jigsaw together to assemble a picture of Big Bad Dr Haneef! Islamophobes? “Cretins” does just perfectly.

AdamD's point is similar to mine: a real “gotcha” article, or gadfly/flypaper piece, or so it may seem at first given the many irrational (and yes, “phobic”) responses! Take a bow: runner, kactuz, Polycarp, Philip Tang, RobbyH.

But it is unintentional. It's just a poorly structured article, where the title's expansion line/sub-title (“Prejudice flourishes...”) and the first rhetorical paragraph mislead as to the general thrust and main point. Haslam actually believes that his field of business must be allowed to monopolize the Greek-derived English “phobia/phobic”. Yet by “phobia” we refer to “irrational fear”, regardless of whether Haslam's industry certifies or otherwise diagnoses such fear. Also, Haslam apparently lacks the guts to state so explicitly, but his argument implies that there are rational grounds for a fear of Islam!

For those who still miss it, the phobics' fish trap is the title's expansion line/sub-title: “Prejudice flourishes among people who are cold, callous, inflexible, closed-minded and conventional.” Now that sentence does not really capture the article's general thrust or main point at all. But it does provoke those paranoid “culture warriors” who bite prematurely at any apparent defence of their bête noir i.e., Muslims and their religion. Remember: the word “paranoid” above (for “culture warriors”) has a close synonym in “phobic”.

Therefore, in trying to secure an industry monopoly on the lexicon, and in the process delete “Islamophobia” from that lexicon, Haslam accidentally and ironically netted a catch of “Islamophobes”, identifiable by their irrational responses (others slipped through the net or dodged it from a safe distance). This forced shrewder, colder “culture warriors” like mac to try putting that rabble in order.

But notice that such irrational fear, alarm, hostility, loathing, prejudice, etc., is part of precisely that manic projection that gets a Brazilian shot dead in London, Haneef detained, held incommunicado and deported, and various and much vaster levels of atrocity in diplomacy, warfare and transnational organized crime (including terrorism).

Great article and some very good replies e.g. by CJ.

Oh dear,
Despite having had a few glasses of wine this afternoon in the spirit of xmas, I'm now quite aware that I'm guilty of having assumed that homophobia and Islamophobia would be classed under "Mental Illnesses".
I believe I even advised Poly to seek help from a psychiatrist at one stage. Oops!
I can accept that I was wrong about these 'phobias' being mental illnesses, and even won't hesitate to apoligise for that.
Sorry Poly, it appears you don't need help for a mental illness after all.

Having said that, I do still believe that these "phobias" are treatable whether these kind of "phobias" are illnesses or not (I'm not sure what terminology to use for these "illnesses" anymore, LOL).

I believe that (social) phobias like this are treatable because they are learned and anything learned can be un-learned.
The good news is that Poly et al can still seek help, although perhaps not from a psychiatrist.

Merry (and sane!) Christmas to all!