At the start of COP15, the Mayor of Montreal called on the decision-makers present to make “radical” changes in terms of the environment. In politics, the term “radical” is radioactive. As the extremes become more extreme, all those who aspire to rule want to be at the center. Everyone wants to appear to be the one who compromises, who is reasonable, who is pragmatic.
On the other hand, in terms of public policy, this philosophy is often the equivalent of an anesthetic, it prevents us from making real decisions.
Prohibiting people from smoking in bars, restaurants or even planes was a radical choice. The compromise has therefore long been to make sections for non-smokers. Yet we knew that eliminating indoor smoke was the only scientifically sound solution to protecting customers and workers from exposure to second-hand smoke. It was a compromise solution, yes, but useless if we wanted to significantly reduce the prevalence of diseases associated with cigarettes.
When Camille Laurin and the Parti Québécois passed Bill 101, they did not escape any insult, including the ugliest. Why ? Because Bill 101 was “radical”.
Indeed, she went to the end of the principle she was defending, the common language in Quebec was henceforth French, and that meant something. Children would no longer have the possibility of going to school in the language of their choice, merchants would have to display signs in French, businesses would have to work in French. Laurin’s opponents would have wanted a law without consequences, as some opponents of Law 96 are demanding today. If Laurin had given in, he would have been the man of compromise, but the law would not have gone down in history as our greatest linguistic legislative success.
When the current government adopted the law on secularism, many of them demanded an “open” secularism, that is to say a secularism that changes nothing, that has no consequences, that does not bother anyone. As far as religious symbols are concerned, the government has assumed responsibility. It will not be possible for a state employee in a position of authority to display his religion during office hours. As with justice, there must be secularism and the appearance of secularism.
The nationalization of electricity, the protection of agricultural land, the establishment of health insurance or car insurance are all measures which, in their time, would have been considered radical.
They are all seen today as just and good reforms. No, virtue does not necessarily stand in the middle.
He may not be the first to have said it, but it was from him that I heard this sentence for the first time. Luc Ferrandez, former mayor of the Plateau-Mont-Royal borough in Montreal, said that today, in the environment, good decisions are necessarily radical. Why ? Because in the face of climatic upheavals, the right decisions are those that require behavioral changes. Make polluters pay, stop widening highways, tax gasoline even more, ban pesticides, make composting and recycling mandatory, protect caribou, so sometimes say no to the logging industry, reduce the number of parking lots and increasing the cost, making real estate developers pay the real cost of growth, even if it means limiting access to a single-family home, and so on.
If the choices and messages from COP15 appeal to everyone, if they don’t bother anyone, if they are not “radical”, this will mean that the conference will not have achieved its goal. I hope M.me Plant will be heard.