Gosh, this is a right old can I' worms. First of all, I think we should leave the word extremist out of this as it will do nothing to enhance the conversation. Second, the naming of names in a topic of this kind throws up a quite interesting anomaly. If I declare that I think Richard, Jim, Shimrod, Kevin and me good self are undoubted lefties, not only would any of them not think of objecting (except, maybe, to complain that I've mentioned them in a thread that they may not have posted in yet), but there'll be others who may feel cheated that I've left 'em out. On the other hand, isn't it amazing that people who proudly proclaim their undoubted right-wing views here hate to be actually called right-wing. There's no badge of honour in it, is there (discuss...)?

To clear up one or two things. Being opposed to abortion doesn't make you right-wing. Campaigning to have it banned or restricted is right-wing behaviour. Standing outside an abortion clinic harassing women and their doctors is positively fascist. Being religious does not make you right-wing. Telling lies to your children about God and making them go to faith schools when there are other choices is right-wing. Forcing people to pay homage to your particular version of God under pain of mutilation or death is fascist. There are degrees. Believing in the continued existence of the state of Israel now that it's here is not right-wing. That happens to be my view and I don't think I'm that right-wing. Justifying the repressive treatment meted out to Palestinians by the Israeli regime (note careful inclusion of the word regime) is definitely right-wing. That is not to say that there should be no criticism of the other side, by the way. Building a wall that divides farms and families, stealing the best land, imprisoning a million and a half people in the world's biggest slum and making Arabs wait at road blocks for three days is fascistic behaviour. Which is not the same as calling people fascists. Clement Atlee was left-wing, but on his watch gay men were harassed and imprisoned and he didn't do much about it. If that were the case today, I should think we'd be calling him pretty right-wing owing to his presiding over an intolerable situation. These things have a habit of evolving.

Speaking of intolerance, well some of the right-wing behaviour I've exemplified is itself intolerance personified. Refuting the work of scientists, even insulting their good name, in favour of creationism is intolerance personified. Not permitting criticism of the Israeli regimes behaviour under pain of being called antisemitic is intolerance personified. Odd how intolerance can be defended by calling its critics intolerant. Take this, for example:


I believe that many people who are middle of the road or slightly right are a low percentage here because of the intolerant way they are treated. If one happens to be person of faith , a Tory, pro Israel or the least bit doubtful about in controlled immigration, you are branded as a racist, an islamaphobe or worse.

People here who are Tories, pro-Israel, religious are not subjected to intolerant ripostes because they are those things. They may well be if their posts display intolerance, which they frequently do. I've tried to resist naming names, but just read almost any post of Teribus's. He's a right-wing, pro-Israel Tory by any measure. And his post will call at least one person who disagrees with him, often more than one, a name, and will be peppered with gratuitous sarcasm (yes I know he thinks we deserve it, but we don't all go around shouting stuff at people all day that they deserve, do we?). The above quoted poster is being a little defensive, not to say selective, methinks.