The response adopted by the leadership of France in the face of terrorism borders on being pathetic in some cases, and even ridiculous.
For example, banning a march under the pretext that we are not certain of being able to protect those who will attend is an absurd decision, and the sole motive behind it is the fear of being held accountable.
In that case, we should close immediately–and forever, every café, theater, play, concert hall, stadium, and restaurant. And more generally, all public areas that we will never have the means to fully monitor.
Now, the reaction of public opinion to politicians’ attitudes is even more pathetic. Instead of rebelling against this surrender that infantilizes it, and insisting that it be consulted, the public confirms its ‘absence’ by agreeing with cowardliness, thus acknowledging that it is not concerned with its own security–being the role of elected officials in its eyes. The solution to fear is to never give in to it.
It is to always give ourselves the means not to justify fear. For this, it is essential to confront danger face to face and seek quietly an appropriate way to reduce it.
For example, I am confident that by mobilizing all actors involved in the Grande Braderie de Lille–shopkeepers, policemen, exhibitors, elected officials, visitors, and residents–it could have been possible to come out with a consensus on moving forward with the Grande Braderie de Lille.
A risk in the face of danger that would, in any case, exist: in practical terms, who will be able to prevent a terrorist attack–a bloodshed–on a bus in Lille during the weekend where the Braderie of Lille should have taken place?
The cancellation of the Braderie of Lille makes no sense and is consistent with the attitude of most political leaders on the precautionary principle. Designed–and rightly so–to ban all experiments having irreversible consequences on man and nature, today the precautionary principle is being applied indiscriminately, to prohibit any possible action which would engage the responsibility, no matter how minor, of an elected official.
Living is risky.
No risk equals being locked inside a tomb. We are sentencing our society to death by surrendering to fear. This surrender will first lead us to cowardice, confinement and then collaboration with those which should be fought. No enemy will ever surrender to someone who is afraid.
Anyone, who has at some point faced the most brutal and vicious threat is well aware that fear is the main ally of dictatorships, political or at home. Learning not to be afraid is not an easy task. Achieving that goal demands a commitment to understanding that fear inevitably leads to the realization of what we dread most, and then dealt with it, admitting that it is part of being human. And never giving in to fear.
Do not be afraid of fear.
Thus, defending nature does not require us to fear her, we should instead dare to understand her. Protecting society is not calling for us to yield in the face of those who fight it, but rather to confront them with courage and determination. In the face of a threat, we have the choice between collaboration and general mobilization. Between fear and lucidity. Not being afraid of one’s own fear does not necessarily entail the adoption of an absurd attitude.
It doesn’t mean diving head first with swords drawn towards the enemy machine guns. It means using the most effective means to disable them. Through education, force and ethics.
And through many audacious words that fear forbids us to use.