Ezra Levant, and the consequences of his actions.

There are so, so many things that can be said about Rebel News' Ezra Levant's truly creepy recent cash bounty on medical professionals (all of which we will get to in good time), but one of the interesting developments is the miniscule group of dimbulbs defending Levant's creepiness by insisting that the bounty is only for proof of misbehaviour or malfeasance, or some such lame ass justification; I mean, after all, he's not actually asking people to go out and assault or kill anyone, so we're all good here, right? Right?

Apparently, these people are unaware of the consequences of relentlessly bad-mouthing and demeaning and denigrating someone publicly, given that the occasional person might, you know, get the wrong idea and decide to take things into their own hands.

I suggest that, if you don't understand of what I speak, you go read this, and then read this, then come back and argue that a constant drumbeat of public criticism might not end really, really badly.

And if Ezra wants to argue that he's not responsible for any deranged misinterpretation of his "bounties," well, I have bad news for him, but that can wait for another post.

Thanks for stopping by.

BONUS TRACK: I was going to save this for a subsequent post, but I think this is important enough to get out now, so pay attention because I think this is critical.

A number of truly stupid people are currently defending Ezra Levant's bounty on some health care professionals because, technically, he's not explicitly calling for physical violence. Their argument is that Ezra is perfectly within his rights to mock and insult and denigrate these people by name, as long as he stops short of a suggestion of actual violence, and if any of Ezra's loyal acolytes takes it into his (or her) hands to misinterpret Ezra's public denunciation of these people, well, he can't be held responsible for the actions of others, right? Right?

An interesting proposition, since it flies directly in the face of Ezra's own position when it comes to blaming Justin Trudeau personally for the RCMP's recent beatdown of professional victim David Menzies, of which Ezra wrote:

Go back and read that again if you missed the significance of it the first time. That would be Ezra Levant, explicitly and quite publicly taking the position that, if the Prime Minister constantly and relentlessly excoriates Rebel News, and some of his staff eventually "get the message" and take matters into their own hands to the point of physical violence, then Trudeau is ultimately responsible. Which seems to me to be a really unwise position for Ezra to have announced, given the potential blowback.

So the next time Ezra claims, hey, he can't be held responsible for the actions of people who take him seriously or misinterpret what he's asking of them, it seems to me only appropriate to quote his own words back at him.

I'm betting that will be awkward.