Does recognizing an extreme predicament make one an "extremist" ?

Tim Murray pens a very thoughtful piece  via:   CanadianImmigrationReport.  There's lots to chew on here, but chew slowly and concentrate fully.

...Why is it that only ‘extremists’ seem to be worried about Islam?

Why is it that a website that monitors critics of Islam calls itself “Loonwatch”?

Why is expressing apprehension about the growing strength of Islam called “loony”, “xenophobic”, “racist” or “far right”?

Madeline Weld nails it.

“The refusal of individuals and organizations to address the issue of Islam shows the effectiveness of fear–the real and justified fear of physical assault and the fear of having one’s reputation smeared by Islamists and their enabling fools. As a result, it is often only the more extreme elements (such as nationalist parties in Europe) who will address the problems caused by Islam, which is then used to bolster assertions that it’s mainly extremists who are concerned about the impact of Islam on our societies.”

I don’t know if I am an “extremist”, but I certainly have an extreme fear about the course that recent events have taken. When the leader of the so-called “free world” can stand before the dictators of the United Nations and say that “The future does not belong to those who insult the Prophet of Islam” you know that we are in deep trouble. That was a defining moment of history. As was Obama’s refusal to meet with the Israeli Prime Minister just so he could appear on a TV talk show. And the celebratory response of the left-wing consensus media and the Opposition to the announcement that jihadist murderer Omar Khadar had been allowed back to Canada.

The tide has turned. Islam is winning the intellectual jihad. It has now smelled blood. Western civilization and its governing principles are on the run—-thanks in large part to the Left, which spent decades preparing the groundwork for thought control by persuading lawmakers that there exists a fundamental right “not to be offended” and that the test of “offensive” language resides in the subjective judgment of the identity group that chooses to take offence. Contemporary discourse is now about how people “feel” rather than what they “think”. The content of speech is now less important than the imputed motive or emotion embedded in it. If it is deemed “hateful” or “insulting” then it should be proscribed. End of story. How convenient for orthodoxy....