Sameul Paty

Everything about this story is tragic.

My heart goes out to Mr Paty and his family. I am sorry for his tragic end and for the pain that is being felt collectively by the people of France.

And to the family of his murderer. While their son made a hugely misguided and tragic judgement, the loss of his life and thus his opportunity to repent and redeem himself further compounds this tragedy.

Finally, to all those who feel their identity, their culture, their history and their beliefs have been attacked...I feel your pain most deeply.

The young man was wrong to act as judge, jury and executioner in Mr Paty's case.

But what of Mr Paty's case.

I am appalled that he, a teacher, would behave as he has. Now, I don't have the full details about his classes over the years, but what I understand is that as a history and geography teacher he covers the topic of Freedom of Speech in his classes each year. Presumably (and this is a point I have yet to confirm) he discusses the French tragedy of the Charlie Hedbo case. And in discussing this moment in recent French history, he showed [images?] or [footage?] depicting the Prophet Muhammad.

According to this article from BBC News, he allowed students who didn't want to view the images to leave the room or look away while he was showing them. And that he has taught this same lesson plan in years passed as well. 

What I want to understand, is why it is necessary to show the images to students/children, presumably they are minors or only just 18 as he taught at a secondary level school, rather than simply discussing the images. Furthermore, why it was necessary to continue teaching this lesson in the same way year after year? Surely, there are many controversial images and examples of freedom of expression in French history that could be drawn on.

Is it/was it his opinion personally that the prophet is fair-game in satirical depictions? If that is the case, why does he need to bring his personal opinions into the classroom. He is a teacher. Is it the schools policy that the prophet is fair-game in satirical depictions? 

Is it/was it his opinion that the Charlie Hedbo case was the only valid example of freedom of expression that his students could relate to? Surely as a young and popular teacher, he could find many other examples. Perhaps ones that offend or attack the homosexual community, the Jewish community, women or single men...

He clearly and unarguably recognized that his actions were going to and did make some of his students uncomfortable. What I want to understand is what did he do to ameliorate those offenses? Simply say it is his freedom to express such opinions? Did he give those students the same freedom to express their opinion against showing offensive images?  Perhaps allowing all students in the class to debate and decide whether the images should be shown?

Murder is more than an extreme reaction to this case, but I don't think demanding he be removed from teaching this class would have been. I would have hoped his school, department head, colleagues would have advised him on better ways to address the topics of immigration, diversity and freedom of speech. 

In my opinion, a classroom is not the real world in many ways. It is a kind of simulation center. It allows for all kinds of examination and experimentation to take place. Teachers are facilitators and engineers who spin up different scenarios for their students to test and explore. This testing should help prepare young adults to navigate the complicated interpersonal relationships that are a necessary part of living in a society. Of course, teachers should spin up sometimes dangerous, risky or controversial things for their wards. But ultimately, the teachers of minors should have their health and well-being at the heart of the simulation...should they not?

That teachers, in their role as teachers, are not their individual selves but vessels to facilitate learning...

Pushing products

I recently posted about the EU's quest for supported claims. That they want any medical sounding claims on products to be supported by research. A, I think, very expensive and futile objective...but then we are talking about the EU.

Well, then I finished using my tube of Crest toothpaste. As I was winkling out that last little divot of paste I read the tube, probably for the first time in the three months I have been using it. And it said that is was an "All in one" toothpaste. And a twinge of panic gripped me. All in one...does that mean I shouldn't have been flossing these past months? Or I shouldn't have been using mouthwash, if only occasionally? What is included in this All that the tube was speaking of?

Unfortunately, beyond the claim that everything was there, there wasn't much else to let me know what complementary oral care I should continue with, and what was really unnecessary. I thought of the minutes of my life I may have wasted flossing, when this toothpaste should have been sufficient. I tried to assure myself that I had at that time removed build up with that little bit of thread...and that perhaps it was All in one, but I may not have been using it properly anyway...I never did read the use instructions.

Then another thought occurred to me...my next tube of paste was Colgate Complete. Was this the same as an All in one? Or did it just mean it was a complete toothpaste, and that other complementary care was still necessary? What about those years of just using the regular red tube Colgate...was that an incomplete toothpaste? Should someone be held accountable for the inferior oral care provided by that product. I mean we should always be good DOB scouts shouldn't we?

So I opened the box to see if the new Colgate would give me a better sense of what complete meant. It said tarter control and breath freshening* I thought, hmm what is the * for? So I looked down the side of the tube It said *with brushing...

With brushing?

Well...how else do you use toothpaste? This is when I really started to panic. i tried to imagine other ways toothpaste might be employed that would provide other kinds of tooth care. Maybe as a kind of soak, or an application, maybe to be taken as a drink? Diluted and used as a rinse?

But in the end, I decided that my smile is beautiful, and still beautiful just with the care I am giving it. And if there might be better care out there, it is okay, because I could be doing a lot worse. And this is what I think the EU science supported-claims need to take into consideration. By forcing companies to back claims scientifically, makes the claims even stronger in the public eye, making individuals even more controlled by the claims made to push a product. Which, as I ahve demonstrated can cause a lot of needless worry (and blogging). Really we should be working to weaken that bond, to encourage people to be their own scientists, to observe their bodies, and the effects of their environment on them. I know some claims can be dangerous, and some of us aren't equipped to handle the investigation...but I am sure we can learn.

Although, the latest episode of South Park "Dead Celebrities" #1308 does suggest, through the Chipoltaway product placement, that this is wishful thinking.

EU wants it specific

I just read an article about the debunking of the probiotic effects of yogurt drinks. The article was concerned with the EU's attempts to ensure that any "medical-sounding" claims made on food products be supported by facts. They want it verified by scientific observation that the probiots in many yogurt products are "good for you". And what is the percentage, what is the short and long term group mean distribution of effects, and how do these effects come about...perhaps.

This is all in their attempt to protect the public, (there it is my favourite phrase), from misleading or false advertising, and to ensure that all products are fairly represented. Personally, I think it is time to do away with advertising on foods. All food packaging (if any packaging at all) should just say what is in side. Maybe how to cook it. And even those instructions should read something like: add water or add fire or add both...go on experiment.

I don't get it. Or rather, I don't get what people don't get about food. Can't you just eat something and feel it was good for you, or feel, "hmm maybe i shouldn't eat too much of that." I mean, don't you just feel good after eating high quality bread, or a peach, versus when you eat dollar a zip-locked loaf bread and a tinned peach? Can't you feel after a yogurt...oh that was a lot of sugar, or that was a little tarte but my tummy feels calm...

Maybe some of the high fruit, high processed yogurts aren't as healthy as they claim, but eating yogurt is a good habit. Just take away a company's right to promote by claims...I think this is nicer. Instead of spending billions on questionable, arguable research let's spend it teaching people how to enjoy food, how to eat food and how to appreciate how food makes their bodies feel.

I have friends who I know are allergic to tomatoes or maybe cheese who don't know it. I see, we eat pizza or a nice lasgna, 10 minutes later they look lethargic and strained, not long after they are off to the loo. They enjoy the gustatory experience so much that they don't associate the coupled digestive experience with the ingredients their bodies don't like. I know I am probably mildly sensetive to bread. I eat it, especially when I eat a lot of it, and I get depressed, sleepy, groggy. And its a positive feedback cycle too, when I start getting depressed I crave more bread, I eat it, I feel more sick and sad, so I crave and eat more. But when I catch on and go for a bowl of soup or some rice instead of bread it is only a matter of time before my whole condition shifts again.

When we pay attention to our body, we can find out how wise it is. And then all the faulty health claims in the world don't matter a stitch and companies can tell you what you want, but you will say, "your words sound wise, but I know otherwise, my body whispers to me what it needs to keep fit and vital"

But I guess we need some lessons in the listening part. It isn't easy and it does take time. But i think if i could get funding for research I could demonstrate how much money would be saved by governments if food didn't need promoting.