Teacher executions, fear to speak, and parrhesia
A teacher, Samuel Paty (47), was beheaded in France for showing drawings of the prophet Muhammed in the classroom during a discussion with students about the Enlightenment and democratic ideals. How will teachers in Europe react to this, in their classrooms? There is hardly a better pedagogical tool for conveying the purpose of freedom of expression, than involving the risk of showing a drawing.
The goal of freedom of speech must be the opposite of fear to speak. What exactly is the value of freedom of speech, if it`s not to distance fear of speaking?
The execution of Samuel Paty was an instrumentalization in closing the mouth of critical voices, and in principle you become a follower in not defying fear. The democratic self-image is destroyed, and one becomes pitiful.
Freedom of expression:
In time to come, teachers and academics will in their insecurity, be confronted with their lack of knowledge of the history behind freedom of expression. From ancient times, freedom of speech is the most important means – and an end in itself – for development, against tyranny, harassment and lack of freedom. It is precisely because that courage is unfortunately required, that one has a fundamental right to expression in our society.
Parrhesia:
In Greek antiquity, an insight and a concept were developed to curb the fear of utterance in the citizen. The special insight that went beyond the general provision on freedom of expression; Gr. isegoria, was the concept of speech at risk: parrhesia.
If you do not have brave people who speak the truth, then you live in a tyranny. He who speaks the truth at risk is in an inferior power relationship.
Parrhesia was a cultural and collective protection of brave men who spoke the truth, and the certainty that those who speak the truth at risk always have something important to say. Samuel Paty was one who wanted the young to think, one who stimulated them at risk like Socrates; a parrhesiastes.
Parrhesia was an ideal that was difficult to implement in practice, against religion/mythology, the traditional values, and the cultural correctness. Despite the risk, there were a few men (today also women), who spoke against the people, the “clergy”, and the aristocracy, with science, 
reason, argumentation and questions. Some famous people who were reprimanded for this were Socrates (executed; picture), Anaxagoras (thrown out of the city), Evripides (thrown out of the city), and the ateist Diagoras from the island of Melos, who managed to escape to Corinth after he was sentenced to death in Athens for having cut into pieces a wooden statue of Heracles, and used it as firewood. Feel free to replace the Heracles-provocation with the Muhammad drawing or with the burning of the Quran, and we will see that the problem is 2500 years old. Parrhesia was their cultural gold just long enough for democracy, the free arts and philosophy to be developed. As now, the free arts ended. Image: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MAntokolski_Death_of_Socrates.JPG
Attitudes and practices: Not all thoughts and actions can be regulated by law. A society without a good common ground in attitudes and values will cease to be a good society. What if you choose not to use your freedom? Then it will be as in Jean-Paul Sartre’s words; “the choice of being unfree is also made in freedom”.
In European countries, political currents are increasingly being established that fight against individual equality and equality. Values fought for by thousands of brave people for hundreds of years.
Values/rights: Freedom of expression, political civil rights, freedom of thought, equality between the sexes, free homosexuality, and equal ethnic rights. What one believes and what one belongs to should have no bearing on individual rights to choose one’s life.
What when you can`t criticize Islam in classrooms with Muslim students, because you are afraid of violating them? The teacher being “pedagogical correct”, takes a neutral stand that makes him/her careful to problematize ancient traditional oppressive views of women, etc.; a cowardice in wisdom, which will be adopted by those for whom one should be a model. It`s irrelevant that not “all” Muslims are conservative. Is a girl in a hijab conservative or liberal? What when the teaching is discussed at home? What when mobile-film and comments from the classroom is put on social media? Is it the teachers who are to be the frontline-fighters against (conservative) Islam? Are they expected to be brave like Socrates? The teachers are for the most in “soft rationality”, and not warriors fighting against enemies one can`t see.
It is now first and foremost the responsibility of the countries’ leading politicians to wage the fight against the fear that teachers and society feel for forces that put critical and improving utterances and actions at great risk. We have seen this fear for decades in “public discussions”, and lack of critical art. They must in clear courageous speech express their concern about self-censorship in the classroom. They must make clear that this is not about respect of a religion as much as it is a fight for democratic principles and a democratic future. This future concerns also the confidence the people can have in their leaders. We need governmental projects into schools, where for some, unfortunately provocational expressions are handed (texts, links, flyers, etc) out and worked with, where the teacher as an individual in no responsibility of people who wants to “raise the glory” of the prophet Muhammed. It`s a governmental responsibility.
He who gives his freedom for safety gets none of them.
Thomas Jefferson