The False Equivalencies of James O'Brien

A video was shared on social media featuring James O'Brien.
On Facebook, the video is accompanied throughout with the caption:
"James O'Brien absolutely nails how the media protects the Tories over their rampant racism"
source: https://www.facebook.com/EvolvePolitics/posts/2196065960645339?__tn__=C-R

The video predominantly makes several false equivalence fallacies: Religious ideologies are equivilent,  Criticism is equivilent to prejudice, lsIamophobia is equivalent to Antisemitism, lsIamophobia is equivilent to racism, therefore criticism is racism and equivalent to Antisemitism.

Several errors there...


1. Definition error (and 3rd fallacy): The caption alleges 'racism'.
"Something you can convert to is not a race" - Richard Dawkins - src: is.gd/qq0Z3h.
To be fair the caption writer has made this fallacy, not O'Brien. It is erroneous to make the claim that lsIamophobia is racism, nonetheless. Islamophobia is not equivilent to racism.

2. O'Brien makes a several fallacies throughout the video, I can't go through them all here, I'll focus on what I think is his two main fallacies:

Referring to this article https://is.gd/pTHOq8 by Rod Liddle,
O'Brien asks:
"Just imagine if Owen Jones wrote an article about there not being enough antisemitism in the Labour Party and then tell me how the hell Rod Liddle gets to write an article arguing that there's not enough lsIamophobia in the Conservative Party?"

Two false equivalence fallacies:
O'Brien assumes that the word 'lsIamophobia' is the Muslim equivalent to 'Antisemitism'. It is not. (1st: fallacy).
The equivalent phrase-word for the word 'Antisemitism' for Muslims is 'Anti-Muslim bigotry' (or a few use 'Muslimophobia').
This is because 'antisemitism' and 'Anti-Muslim bigotry' both mean a pre-judgement of individuals
(So for Anti-semite, semite= Jewish individual
/ and for Anti-Muslim, Muslim=Muslim individual).
The definitions do NOT mean judgement of ideas (criticism).

'lsIamophobia' is not the Muslim equivalent to 'Antisemitism' because Antisemitism means
pre-judgement of individuals (=prejudice) ,

but lsIamophobia definition conflates
pre-judgement of individuals (=prejudice)
with 

judgement of ideas (=criticism)
drawing a false equivilence between anti-Muslim bigots, and critcs of ideology (2nd fallacy)

Eg Google definition of lsIamophobia:
"dislike of or prejudice against
Islam [judgement of the ideology, ie the set of ideas (=criticism) ]
or
Muslims [ pre-judgement of individuals (=prejudice)]."

O'Brien is using 2nd false equivilence (criticism of ideas =/= prejudice of individuals)
to make his false equivilency (Islamophobia =/= Antisemitism)

Judgement of ideas (=criticism) is, in a liberal democracy, not just entirely legitimate, but a necessary part of its function. In response to O'Briens question, this is 'how Liddle gets to write his article'. In his article, Liddle is clear that it is the ideology [the set of ideas] of which he is extremely critical. You may not agree with his criticism, you might even be offended by it as is your right. However it is a fallacy to argue that criticism of ideas is equivalent to any form of prejudice.

Elsewhere in the video, O'Brien makes some of the same false equivalency fallacies by bringing into question comments in an article by Boris Johnson, where, as I have rebutted in a previous blog, Johnson's argument is also no more than criticism of an idea, and not equivalent to prejudice.

The 'lsIamophobia' word is not a useful word because of its conflation of criticism/scrutiny with prejudice/bigotry. It should be consigned to the dustbin of bad linguistic ideas. 

'Anti-Muslim bigotry' is a word-phrase that describes prejudice towards Muslim people without conflating Anti-Muslim bigotry with scrutiny of ideas, and ought to be the selected form.