Editorials - March 22, 2024

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, consumers were persuaded to spend hours rinsing and sorting their paper, glass and plastic with the introduction of the blue box recycling program. It made us feel good that the tons of waste we generated were no longer filling up the landfill, and let’s face it - of the three “Rs”, recycling is probably the easiest, with the least amount of thinking required. Reusing and reducing takes a lot of planning and effort, especially in the current model of consumerism.

 

In recent years, evidence of mounds of recycling hitting landfills and loads of plastic dumped in the oceans have begun to shake our faith in the system. The world produces an average of 430 million metric tons of plastic each year and, on average, only about five to six per cent is recycled. The American environmental watchdog group, The Centre for Climate Integrity, which helps municipalities hold corporations accountable for pollution, has released a damning report entitled, “The Fraud of Plastic Recycling”, which lays out how “Big Oil and the plastics industry have deceptively promoted recycling as a solution to plastic waste management for more than 50 years, despite their long-standing knowledge that plastic recycling is not technically or economically viable at scale.” It was in their best interest to continue the myth of recycling to avoid regulation that would have a negative effect on their bottom line.

 

The public had the right to know that recycling plastics was not a magic fix to pollution. We should have spent the last three decades figuring out how to reduce our plastic consumption, not blissfully carrying it to the curb every week or two. – DS

Earlier this week, Russian President Vladimir Putin “won” the country’s “election” over the “opposition” of three other candidates, extending his reign to at least 2030. Putin claimed he earned 87 per cent of the vote in an election more democratic than those in the west.

 

Meanwhile, as she grieves the death of her husband, Alexei Navalny, widely seen as an act of murder by Putin, Yulia Navalnaya is emerging as Putin’s chief opponent, taking up the mantle of Navalny in fierce defiance of Putin’s accepted narrative at a great risk to herself.

 

Just about everyone but Donald Trump and Putin himself has little problem calling Putin a cruel dictator, with politicians calling the election a sham due to a clear lack of the democratic process. And yet, Putin has shown that he will do anything and kill anyone to remain in power. That’s why Navalnaya’s insistence on continuing her family’s fight is so courageous, inspiring and impressive. Amid real danger for herself and her children, she is stepping up, rather than back, in the fight against Putin and for a democratic nation of Russia. 

 

Navalny and Navalnaya have been held up as freedom fighters in an increasingly authoritarian world and, clearly, they’ve put their lives on the line for a cause they see as just. And, as nefarious politicians and grifters, like the aforementioned Trump, aim to subvert democracy and launch themselves into power whether the people they aim to “govern” like it or not, the couple should serve as an inspiration; as people who have the courage we all wish we had in the face of injustice. – SL 

Recently, France made history by amending its constitution to protect women’s right to abortion. Lawmakers overwhelmingly approved the bill with a final vote of 780 - 72. President Emmanuel Macron has vowed to safeguard abortion rights against future restrictions, a push that he has stated is a direct response to changes in the U.S. 

 

The history of abortion rights in France and the United States differ in key ways. Abortion in the U.S. was decriminalized by the Supreme Court in 1973, following its landmark 7-2 vote on “Roe v. Wade”. This constitutional right was removed by the Supreme Court in 2022, in a vote of 5-4. In France, abortion was decriminalized in 1975, when The Veil Act was voted into law. When The Act’s original five-year term ended, it was extended indefinitely, and now has constitutional protection.

 

A nation’s system of government is tested by the issues that most divide it. In France, an elected Parliament made a momentous decision, whereas both the initial decision and its subsequent reversal in the U.S. was made by a handful of judges. When hard decisions need to be made, America has frequently relied on this small group of appointed individuals to make those choices for them. This has inevitably led to these lifetime judgeships being highly sought-after prizes for partisan politicians looking for a shortcut to power. In the French judiciary, matters relating to the constitution are handled by the Constitutional Council, whose members serve for a period of no more than nine years.

 

No matter what side of an issue you’re on, representational democracy is our way of having a say in our own lives. When you don’t have the right to choose who chooses for you, then what part are you playing in your own future? – SBS