I appreciated last week’s editorial that sought to be a voice of reason and moderation and that discouraged further angry social media reaction to Eric Holle’s hot-mic comment. While the editorial recognized that the comment was inappropriate and insulting, it also recognized that there’s a world of difference between words said under one’s breath, out of frustration (as we’ve all done), and premeditated words intended to be threatening, abusive, and intimidating.
Eric’s testimony at public meetings has always been respectful, focusing on facts and not on verbally attacking others. Yet Eric himself has often come under attack, so I would be inclined to forgive his rare words of frustration, especially when intended to be private.
As a longtime environmental activist in Haines myself, I have to wonder where all the outrage was when overt death and rape threats were made to members of the conservation community, when tires were slashed, and when there were organized economic boycotts and posted notices inciting personal violence. I can attest to having been the recipient of several direct threats. Remember when the child of a greenie was attacked by a tomato thrower in the fair parade?
I agree that whispering something under one’s breath and being overheard is indeed a harmful act, requiring an apology. However, we must also acknowledge our community’s long history of overt intimidation directed at conservationists, for which no one has ever been held accountable. I encourage those currently engaged in social media outrage to pause and do some introspection.
George Figdor