It’s disappointing to learn Liberal MP Iqra Khalid has zero interest in softening the tone of her controversial motion on Islamophobia.

If the Liberal government believes all racism and discrimination is worthy of equal condemnation, then it should encourage Khalid to change its wording to reflect that.

Right now, it singles out Islamophobia and calls for a committee study to look into ways to tackle all religious discrimination.

As several Postmedia columnists have explained, what “Islamophobia” means is up for debate.

To some people it means an irrational hatred of Muslims, which any Canadian who believes in an inclusive society should denounce.

But to others, notably in some parts of the Muslim world, "Islamophobia" means any criticism of Islam or its prophet.

This is also wrong. No one in a free society should support this view.

Religions consist of ideas and ideas are open to criticism.

This is non-negotiable in any free society.

Despite this, Khalid says she will not eliminate the word “Islamophobia” from the motion and replace it with a more clearly-defined term.

By contrast, former Liberal cabinet minister and prominent human rights activist Irwin Cotler proposed the term “anti-Muslim bigotry” as a possible substitute.

That’s certainly a better option than the vague and contentious term, “Islamophobia”.

However, the better option would be to denounce all forms of discrimination by not singling out a specific religion.

Unless, of course, Khalid’s intention is to give a special status to Islam, instead of equally denouncing all forms of religious discrimination.

This is unclear, because she has responded to few media requests seeking clarification of her views.

No politician should be playing partisan games in the aftermath of the tragic Quebec City mosque shooting.

Yet that’s what the Liberals appear to be doing by drawing a line in the sand with this questionably worded motion.

Their motivation seems to be to trap the Conservatives into a no-win situation, where they will be called out as intolerant simply for raising legitimate concerns about how the motion is worded.

If so, this is a cynical ploy.

It’s important to strike the right balance on a motion like this. Symbolism matters.

This is why until changes are made to it, it should be voted down.