Why Are Threats of Violence Okay for the Left?

Climate hypocrite and perpetual mass emitter David Suzuki is up to his old tricks. Emerging from the shadows of irrelevance from one of his many houses after jet-setting from junket to junket, Suzuki has the audacity to threaten the livelihoods of tens of thousands of Canadians and the infrastructure that provides energy security for our country. Security that nations across the globe envy.
Hinting at forthcoming instances of domestic terrorism should industry not change course, Canadian’s from across our country should be calling these asinine comments for what they are; dangerous and illegal. For some reason, the media believes that threats from left-wing radical activists are less of a crime than utilizing our abundance of natural resources, and don’t come with repercussions.
This recent example of environmental extremism begs the question. Why does the death of a welder on a pipeline mean less? Why is the permanent disability of a backhoe operator performing maintenance on a pipeline easement less important? Imagine one of Suzuki’s acolytes follows through on his threats and a working-class operator isn’t able to walk his daughter down the aisle because of it. Is that the price that the left is willing to pay in order to satisfy their climate objectives?
Violence and the threat of violence should never be tolerated in public discourse, but for some reason, it seems the mainstream media looks the other way for their favoured sons and daughters. What can’t be ignored is the deafening silence from climate activists and federal leaders, who have failed to even comment on the threat, let alone unequivocally condemn it.

Read the Whole Article

The post Why Are Threats of Violence Okay for the Left? appeared first on LewRockwell.

Share DeepPol