Extremism

I cannot touch on Sameul Paty's obligation as a teacher without also touching on all of our obligation to love.

Why is it still so hard for some to understand that there are many and differing ways to live a good life? And I mean Good as in the Platonian sense of pure, true, enriching, beneficial. 

In this information era, we can experience vicariously so many different world views. Through film, books, music. By joining various forum, social media and online activities. By looking around our streets, even here in Japan diversity is increasing. Once monocultured countries everywhere are seeing more and more migration. Most people these days can say the know someone who lives in a different country.

It is so easy to meet alternate world views.

Why is it that we are still so afraid of them?

We have had generations, now, of education about the need to be accepting of difference. About understanding that we don't have to like everything about someone's life to still like some part of them. To still recognize that there is some part of them that is valid, good and valuable as a human being. 

Where are our soothsayers to calm boiling blood, to help us reflect on and understand the actions, agency and choices of others. To understand the outcome and consequences, desired and unintended, of our own actions. 

While the West values freedom above most things. I think that peace is far more valuable than freedom. And sometimes to create peace, we must restrict ourselves. But that is my perspective, having been indoctrinated by the Japanese philosophy of harmony.

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...

Legislate it!

I don't know why we put such faith in legislation. It is as thought the immortal insecurity of humans has led us to a state of unquenchable fear. And that fear a kind of madness for scapegoats. The greatest scapegoat of the day: a new law.

Belguim has just voted on a disgusting new law. I think this law shows us 3 things: 1 all politions should have other full time jobs, because they are just killing time thinking up new ways to govern society to justify their single job status. 2 disproportion has no meaning in the face of legislation and 3 the desire for uniformity in society is approaching new and dangerous levels.

The new law, now sitting before Senate in Belgium, after passing uncontested through the lower house, will effect about 30 women in the tiny European country. This law will not in anyway empower these women to change their mode of dress, all it will result in is a kind of house arrest for them. Of course this means other Belgians won't have to look at them, making them feel more confident that there are no terrorists in their midst. (Because we all know the real threat that has for centries excisted from masked women). Belgium would like to ban the use of the niqab and burka in all public places intended to serve citizens. This includes buildings; parks, street and so on.

What a load of baloney!

In the western world, what does it matter what you wear? Even if you want to wear nothing at all. This stinks of assimilation laws banning mother tongue use, banning traditional costume use, banning the use of cultural assests. It is rife with, what I hope will one day be recognized as, the false belief that to be beautiful is more valuable than to be happy. That the only mode of self expression is through proudly showing your body to the world. This is non-sense and if we hope to empower people to love their bodies and be proud of them, ask questions about them, explore them and know them, then the last thing we need is legislation about how to adorn them.

Suggestions will do.

Anti-islamism

It is hard these days to keep track of how to be open-minded, open-hearted, tolerant and kind. It is hard these days to remember those school-yard lessons of acceptance, of outcasting, of shaming and of helping. These days it gets harder and harder to remember what we meant when we said imagine a world...

Today(or yesterday), over 50% of the citizens in Switzerland supported a ban on the construction of minarets as part of the construction of a mosque building. There are several things at play here. Switzerland being an oldish country with a long and honourable history enjoys maintaining the symbols of its old and unique culture. There are already laws that suggest new building designs must complement and coinside with surrounding buildings. This kind of law is common in Europe, where my grandmother lived in England they have laws saying new buildings on the highstreet, along with all signage must be in a Georgian style as that is the predominant ethos of the community.

However, many citizens are quoted as saying, this vote is not just about maintaining community stylistic ethos, nor is it Muslims themselves being voted against, but against (sepcifically against)a building that symbolizes Islamisation. What does that means?

What is Islamisation? Presumably it is the gradual shifting of style, taste, and landscape to incorporate the styles taste and symbols of contemporary Islamic architechture. I don't know what it is like to live in a monoculture. That is to be raised in a monoculture. That is, I don't really know how it feels to distinguish my culture from another culture. Canadian culture is Islamisation, is hockeyisation, is maple syrupisation, is catholicasation, and protestanization and mormanization, creeation, and inuization, and hippization and the complex and unending integration of all cultures known to all the citizens of Canada. As an immigrant to Canada, I came to learn to be proud of my country as a complex mixing, blending and integrating of cultures, cultural symbols, cultural practices and so on.

That doesn't mean I wasn't glad a few years back when the Ontario high courts said no to Sharia Law. Not because of any fear os islamasation, simply because Ontario has laws, which all citizens of the province abide by (more or less) and that should there be parts of Sharia Law not covered by Ontario law, then those parts may be brought forward and proposed as new law in legislature. This is because no segment of society is different from any other segment of society. What I must abide by, you must abide by; what i am responsible for you too are responsible for. But it is for this reason that the double applicability of Sharia Law was refused in Ontario. Not because it was a symbol of Islamisation, but because it would act to segmatize our unified society.

But perhaps in countries like Europe, (for it is almost a country now...like Africa ;) where each state has for hundreds of years created unity through the sameness of culture, it must be hard to understand how all humans are human. How the symbols of any culture are merely a symbol with the meaning attached to it by humans. Treating humans as humans makes for humanely meaningful symbols (like the pyramids, roman ruins, crosses on churches, kimono, chopsticks and drums of the world). But treating humans like somekind of outsider, some different thing of less value, of less equality, of less right to belong, you associate those same treatments to the meaning of symbols.

Having been raised learning that we are all Swiss and Swiss looks a certain way, eats a certain food, builds buildings with plants in the walls, It must be hard to feel that identity changing.

Unfortunately (or well I think fortunately) all the votes in the world, all the public opinion in the world, all the generally held contempt for change will never stop change from happening. God made the world to change. That is the only truth in any religion, culture, or system of belief. Change is. And change is irresistable. Babies have to stop breast feeding eventually, people have to start earning money eventually, you will one day think it cool to wear neon green or velvet or pleather or fleece, and that horrible blocky retro building you once though to tacky for words will grow on you and soon become and important mark of your community.

Just as Swiss will immigrate to other countries, Muslims, Brits, people with 6 fingers will all emmigrate to Swizterland. And if they aren't welcome, well then I suggest looking west to Canada.