Ever since I began to promote restorative justice principles as a better way to do justice in the mid-1970's, I have been outraged at the use of the word 'radical'. Because some of us had the audacity to suggest that both victims and offenders would be better served by having dialogue and identify ways in which the offender could take responsibility and repair the damage done, we were called "radical". Indeed, we saw ourselves as radical as well but when our critics used the word, they meant it in a derogatory way. We had done our research and began to realize that the current retributive justice system was an aberration derived from the feudal and monarchic systems and notions about a vengeful God. By advocating a more equitable, fair and reasonable way of doing justice, we were labelled as "radicals".
The same thing happened as a result of my involvement with the peace movement, traditional Aboriginal justice and self-governance, and advocacy of recycling, energy conservation, elimination of hazardous waste and promoting alternatives to nuclear power. Whenever you examine the roots of an idea or practice, go back to the source and the origin, instead of glibly and blindly accepting the way things are or appear to be on the surface, and then suggest a more wholesome or human way, or even more scientific way to do it, you are doing something radical. Copernicus suggested the sun was the center of the universe, not the earth as was commonly understood. He, too, was a radical in his time.
Most recently, the federal Minister of Natural Resources, Joe Oliver, used the word "radical" when referring to environmental groups who plan to submit briefs to the environmental hearings on the Gateway oil pipeline project running from the Edmonton area in Alberta to Kitimat, B.C. The primary definition of the word 'radical' is to proceed from the root of a plant. Mathematicians know what the term radical really means. And so do surgeons who perform radical surgery in order to remove all the tissue affected by a disease. But what the Harper government means by the word radical is extreme, threatening, even dangerous, almost insane.
Now I realize that the meaning of words do change over time and that we cannot always insist on linguistic purity. But in this case, the use of the word radical by the Harper government to describe environmental and Aboriginal groups is far more Orwellian than simply a linguistic and social shift in semantics. In 1984, the Ministry of Truth was really the ministry of propaganda and lies and the Ministry of Peace conducted perpetual war. To be radical, to go to the root of a matter, is truly a good thing. To avoid deeper issues and embrace superficial fixations such as the economy without any protection of the environment is destructive and will eventually mean the end of life as we know it. In fact, as David Suzuki pointed out in an e-mail to CBC, environmentalists are true "conservatives" because they are the ones who wish to conserve life on this planet.
Calling for more radicals - there are not enough of them.
