The last refuge of the scoundrel is to call others names. You asked what I I disagree with in the motion and it is  the use of the word Islamaphobia. It is not defined and too broad. Were it to say Muslim people, I would have no issue with it. There- I've addressed you comment in the manner that you asked.  And yes, it is sufficient to disagree with a motion predicated on a single word. To suggest otherwise is quite surprising-- suppose the motion had said Canadians support the tactics of Hitler. The use of a single word is indeed sufficient to express extreme disagreement with a motion. To suggest otherwise is belays a lack of understanding of the importance of language and nuance.

What I find troubling from your approach is your conclusion that whenever someone disagrees with your position they are "patently false" and therefore there is an "inevitable conclusion" that those persons are "simply prejudiced bigots".  People who call others bigots usually are the most bigoted.