There are broadly two kinds of politically correct people. Those who have good intentions and want to say or do the right thing, and those who hide malign intentions behind sweet words. In advocating free speech, I have always preferred that prejudiced people be open with their thoughts than hide behind sweet words.

I was reminded of this when reading the minor controversy that writer Martin Amis is currently involved in. In his almost grovelling letter to Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, he put on his snake-oil charm and declared: "That night you revealed, inter alia, that you were Shia; and, as far as I understand it, the Shia minority speaks for the more dreamy and poetic face of Islam, the more lax and capacious ... the more spiritual ... as opposed to the Sunnis, whose approach is known to be stricter and more legalistic."

It's hilarious. Anyone with basic knowledge of the 1979 Iranian revolution, the Iran-Iraq war, the illiberal nature of the current Iranian regime or death squads currently creating havoc in Iraq would realise that not all Shias embrace poetry so readily. Amis seems to be trying that classic line: "I know you're all right, it's those others we have to worry about."

It's rather like the BNP interviewing Sikhs as a model minority and conspiratorily declaring it's the Muslims we have to worry about. After all, Sikhs and Muslims are supposed to hate each other, right?

Martin Amis's crime was to declare in an interview: "The Muslim community will have to suffer until it gets its house in order. What sort of suffering? Not let them travel. Deportation - further down the road. Curtailing of freedoms. Strip-searching people who look like they're from the Middle East or from Pakistan ... Discriminatory stuff, until it hurts the whole community and they start getting tough with their children ... "

He "felt the urge" to say that, he confesses, but it quickly dissipated. But was it simply a "thought experiment" to be hurriedly dismissed when Eagleton picked up on it, or indicative of feelings he is too politically correct to articulate?

This literary spat in fact reflects the poor level of debate about religion, terrorism, civil liberties and of course British Muslims.

More than that, it reflects how far the temperature has risen that an author can even (briefly?) suggest that Muslims are treated today as Jews were in 1930s Germany and yet still be regarded seriously. Now he can't back-pedal fast enough while his supporters pathetically drone on about how Prof Eagleton is a Marxist.

Let's be clear about my own stance. I have little time for Marxism and my contempt for religious fanatics is abundantly clear here and on my own blog. I've shown no hesitation laying into extremist organisations like Hizb ut-Tahrir nor self-appointed community leaders. I have no love for terrorists, their aims, their methods or even countries run by "moderate" theocrats. I don't even buy into the view that Hamas and Hizbullah are misunderstood anti-imperialists.

And yet it's worrying that Martin Amis is invited to pass opinion on a topic he knows frighteningly little about. His "horrorism" essay was terrible and deservedly ripped apart by Laila Lalami. But he isn't alone in this. We are plagued by writers and polemics who are trying to outdo each other with wild pronouncements on race, Islam and terrorism merely because it grabs attention. They flog easy horses like political correctness, multiculturalism, Islamism, immigrants or even "militant gays" (step forward Melanie Phillips) to sell books and grab the limelight. They score zilch on sensible policy recommendations.

Of course, they're playing to a gallery that is just as ignorant. Recently we were abused by Andrew Anthony's polemic on liberalism's failure to deal with contemporary society. Except, in defending himself on my objections, he admitted he "never actively believed" in all the liberal assumptions he castigated others for. Unsurprisingly, AllyF destroyed him in the comments.

And there are plenty more where these two came from. Rod Liddle comes to mind, with his rantings about Eurabia to the oxymoronic assertion that while one should not "blame an entire community" for crime, there is "a positive correlation between Somalians and incidences of crime in our southern inner cities." How's that for evidence-based rationality?

They are only playing catch up with the queen - Melanie Phillips - of course. Her proposed solutions against the "Islamicisation of Britain" range from desiring Christian fundamentalism to rewriting history. Actually I could dedicate a whole article to her but I don't do repeats. Actually, Mel isn't the queen. That crown belongs to Ann Coulter and her latest desire to see Jews "perfected". Guess what, she has a book coming out too.

One is better off reading the Financial Times or The Economist for a more evidence based sensible approach, since polemics like Amis simply want to reduce liberal ideas, policies and practices to cheap soundbites and patronising letters.