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...

How much can you mourn a pet?

There was an interesting article in the news this morning about mourning, following former British politician, Lord Hattersley's, letter of his grief at the loss of his pet dog.

I thought this to be a very striking article, both the article itself and the comments that accompanied it from readers. I was very surprised by it, but also quite struck. I myself still have a cat who my family adopted when I was 4 or 5. We are now both in our twenties. Of all the members in my family Cocoa (the cat) hung out with me the most. We had a very close friendship growing up. When I called her, with a whistle, she would come in a minute. But my dad or brothers or any of my other family could rarely get her to come. I was also the only one who could pick up the feisty cat.

When I left home to start university, Cocoa started mourning my loss. She cried (or mewed as a cat will do) all day, she stopped eating and drinking. She is a small cat but lost nearly 3lbs over the first 2 months I was a way at school. She didn't know I was just at school, for her it was the same as a death. I was gone. As far as she knew, never to return. From that experience I am quite struck by the fact that animals are just as emotional as humans.

And this is the part that I think makes mourning a pet so difficult. No one could tell her I was just gone for a little while and I would be back. No one could help comfort her that it was okay to miss me. There was little consolation for her. And yet, whenever I was sad, she knew just how to tell me it would be okay, just how to help me put things in perspective. In the article, it was noted by Lord Hattersley that when his father died his dog was there to help him mourn. But now that his dog has died, there is no one there to support him.

I think that mourning a pet is so difficult because we can't speak with them to be sure they know how much we love them. We can tell them, and they show us affection in return, but we are so unsure of the nature of the relationship. But there is also what a pet gives us. They bring regularity and continuity to our lives, we have to feed them, walk them, play with them and that doesn't change (much). They are that friend who invites you out for a drink or a coffee after a break up. They help take your mind off your sadness in a way that few humans have the compassion to do for their friends or family, in a way few humans even recognize as important. Not to rag on humans. Many humans regularly fill this role too.

The article also talked about people being more affected by the death of a pet, than by the death of a mother or father. I thought that singularly interesting. I don't know, as my parents are young and healthy so I haven't had to mourn their deaths (and hope I won't for many years), but I think as we get older we drift apart from out parents. From childhood where we spend all day everyday with them, to adulthood where we spend weekends, to older age where we see them at holidays... our parents in many many cases become less of a companion to us as we grow older. But quite the opposite happens with a pet. We say "Familiarity breeds contempt" and with human relationships this is often true. But not with animals.

Further, an animal is not family like a parent or sibling, but family like a husband or wife. You chose to bring the pet into your life. At first you were strangers, but you brought your different life experiences together. So I think the mourning would be more similar to the mourning of a partner than a parent. Again I haven't had to mourn the death of a partner, but I have had to mourn (grieve) the end of a long term (well relatively long term considering my age...) relationship. And even that hurts, and takes a lot of work and time to heal from. And like the death of a pet, perhaps it is a hurt and a healing that is rarely recognized by others.

Now the article talks about taking a day off to grieve and such, which may be over the top. But I think like anything so long as it is only one day. My grandmother said, many times during her life; "When I die, you get one day to mourn. And then take out your glad rags and celebrate. Because I had a good life." And I think this was very good advice. Whether for our dear Ursula, for a pet, a parent, an end of a marriage, or an end of a friendship. We should take a day to remember that good life we had, to grieve our loss and to find a new perspective to continue our life. But then we must take out our glad rags, because like it or not, we must all live even after the loss or death of the ones we love.

Young love

I was recently reading about a survey in the UK of people age 13-17 and their views about their intimate relationships. The survey found that many young people experience abuse and violence in these early relationships. One of the researchers claiming that it is surprising and appalling that abuse would start so young. But, I'm not sure that it is at all surprising. Aren't children far more abusive that adults? I mean I thought physical communication like hitting and biting to be vital in childhood to express frustration, displeasure, distaste and also preference in the time before we had the words to do so. I know I am a pretty unusual kid, but I see it all over the place, even here in Japan. When kids don't know how else to say "no" or "yes" they usually say so physically. They pull you towards a certain activity, they throw books on the floor, they grab you hand or turn away from what they don't want to do. So should we be surprised that younger people in intimate relationships are abusive with their partners? They aren't adults. They don't appreciate they aren't adults. Often we don't appreciate they aren't adults too. But those of a certain age understand with certain clarity that they aren't adults, and thus it would be difficult to expect them to act as adults would in such a new and uncharted territory as an intimate relationship (even if they have had several). I wonder if it is useful to use words like abuse in describing these sorts of interactions. This very broad category can leave young people feeling helpless and paralysed as what they learn in schools is that to overcome abuse in your life is a lot of work, complete overhaul of your life and the strength to strike out against those who are "oppressing you". I think rather we need to think about how to be involved with your youth. How to be active with them, play with them, engage them in the community so that they have a rich and full life with many diverse aspects to it, so they can engage more things than finding intimate partners. For fear of sounding really catholic, we should also help our kids to value the preciousness of intimacy, and prepare them to wait to find that real person who they want to maintain long term intimacy with. While I know it is unpractical for everyone, there is a great value in the independence and self worth that comes with saying no.