What's being missed about what's wrong with Trump's Britain First retweets

What can be reasonably determined about Britain First's Jayda Francen from just the three re-tweeted tweets is that she is not a reliable source of what is true - a consequence of her worldview being seen through the lens of an extreme collectivist ideology. The specific misdemeanor that the media and most politicians have correctly - though vaguely - danced upon is that by uncritically re-tweeting the tweets (the videos accompanied by the captions that Francen wrote for them), Trump may have given to some a perception of 'weight' to any of Francen's (and her organization's) truth claims, and not just the tweets in question.  However, pretty much the entire media including the BBC have missed or misrepresented what is wrong with Trump uncritically re-tweeting Francen.

Richard Dawkins is anti Islam.
Jayda Francen is anti Muslim.
They are absolutely distinct.

As some of the media have done, it is arguably correct to describe the tweets as 'anti-Muslim tweets', rather than anti-Islam or anti-Isamism tweets, as they are accompanied by Francen's captions, which are influenced and driven by her apparent nationalist supremacy ideology that collectivises Muslims as an out-group. It is no surprise to me to learn that her organization is influenced by extreme Christian ideas. But it is incorrect to describe collectively, as most of the media have done, all three of the videos *themselves* (rather than the tweets) as anti-Muslim *videos* (rather than anti-Muslim tweets). This may seem a trivial distinction, but it is a crucial one, and one that journalists, especially print journalists, whose job entirely concerns the correct use of words and language, ought to get right. The error repeated throughout the media represents evidence of a group think in these echelons of public communication.

An example of an anti-Muslim *video* would be a talking head making a judgement of all Muslims based on the negative actions of an individual Muslim. Of the three videos from the three tweets, one features persons of unknown religion, one is of a Muslim desecrating a Christian icon, and one is a video of Muslim on Muslim violence. None of the content of the videos themselves provide commentary, opinion or the like. Disregarding Francen's captions (as does the descriptor 'anti-Muslim videos'), the content of all three videos are of something happening in front of the camera. In of themselves, they are a record of an event and as such they are not pro or anti anything.

As an atheist, I am like minded with Richard Dawkins with regards to to Islam, Christianity, Judaism, etc. I am a critic of the ideologies as when sincerely and literally believed as truth, they are extreme collectivist authoritarian ideologies that seek to forbid critical thinking, especially of the ideology itself. 

For this exact same reason that I reject and oppose these religious ideologies, I reject and oppose Francen's ideology. Making a judgement about any individual based on an identity they share before you judge the individual on their merits (Eg, 'all individuals identifying as members of one particular religion collectively are not members of the nation', or 'all individuals that do not a believe what you believe to be true collectively are fit to be ushered into the supernatural afterlife for judgement') is a horrible, collectivist worldview that can only maximize human suffering, has succeeded in that endeavour over the 20th century and continues to do so presently as ideologies that drive states like North Korea, Eritrea, Iran or 'organizations' like ISIS, Boko Haram or The Lord's Resistance Army demonstrate.

Ideas are not people.
People have rights.
Ideas do not.

Another important point is that the media and politicians are repeatedly getting the following wrong: Islam is not a race; anti-Muslim bigotry is not racism. This leads me onto my final point that while Francen is an anti-Muslim bigot, she is distinct from critics of ideas (like Dawkins) to whom the label racist or bigot do not apply.

Criticism (relating to ideas) is absolutely distinct from anti-[identity] bigotry (relating to persons). Ideas are not people. Ideas are void of feelings or sensitivity to pain. Ideas are not human and have no human rights. All ideas stand or fall on their own merit, and in our liberal society all ideas are open to scrutiny. It is true that Trump's re-tweets were inappropriately chosen and may possibly feed into actual acts of physical harm for the reasons I've already given. It was irresponsible and, sadly, consistent with his buffoonery. Concurrently though, the liberal principle that criticism of any ideology, including religious ideology, Islamism, nationalist supremacy, etc is an entirely legitimate form of discourse in a liberal democracy like ours. It is arguably more dangerous as a threat to this and other liberal principles that uphold our democracy, like freedom of expression, the freedom of the press, the free market of ideas, freedom of thought, and freedom of debate that *videos* (not Francen's tweets) of events, without commentary, are described almost without exception throughout the media as 'anti-Muslim videos', rather than perhaps 'Anti-Muslim tweets', or better still 'Britian First's tweets' which is entirely objective (which good journalism ought to be). How could moderate Muslims and Muslim reformers - already faced with herculean challenges at great personal risk - possibly hope to reform their religion if evidence of the woeful consequences of its extremes, even to its own members, were all to be cited without exception as 'anti-Muslim'? Recollecting that a religious ideology seeks to forbid critical thinking of itself, what is the status of our free speech, the bedrock of all our liberal principles and democratic values, if evidence to support criticism of any ideology (be it Islamic or Christian far right, or any extreme collectivist ideology) becomes widely regarded as unmentionable?