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...

Missing the point

It is tragic but true the US, in an attempt to liberate it citizens of a very mundane and costly habit, have completely missed the point. I think this is yet another example of legislation without vision. Rather than looking at why people smoke, why people take up smoking and finding ways to intervene and to encourage the nation to take up different habits like papercrafts and cycling they will try to intervene and tell people what they cannot enjoy.

It is the same as the approach to North Korea. NK says that signing sanctions against the NK will be seen as an act of war. And will respond accordingly. (Partly I just think they are looking for something to rally their citizens against and so incited the pending sanction response) But if we just ignored the NK they would have nothing to say. If rather than making laws that we can't trade with them, we just said "no thank you" every time they tried to buy from us or sell to us...what could they do. It is how we should act globally, if we don't agree with a countries activities then just ignore and silently boycott that country. It works with dogs it works with children, i know it works with adults too.

I find when I engage my friends and keep them doing other things they don't think about smoking and go for hours without a cigarette. But once we sit down and stop moving stopping cooking singing dancing etc then out come the ciggies and lighters. We should take note of this behaviour because it is endemic. Rather than spending billions trying to stop a negative behaviour why not spend millions encourage good behaviours sponsor sports and art invest and interest based community activities...

Or...i guess put scarier pictures on the products, put heavier taxes on the users, increase the medical costs...penalize penalize penalize....i think this business of negative reinforcement completely misses the point of why we want to change to role of smoking in our society. And without taking a good look at the role we want tobacco to play we cannot hope to find ways to end the negative roles it currently fills.