The Caste of the Forgotten

Much is made of the caste system that has existed in India for hundreds of years and the way this very visible form of social stratification goes against the ideals of the “West.” Yet, as is shown in a very saddening and poignant column by Joe Fiorito in today’s Toronto Star, a less visible, yet extremely distressing social schism exists in cities around the world, including Toronto.

The case shown by Fiorito is that of a 62 year old named George who recently died in his socially supported apartment in January. I will not recount the squalid conditions her was living in, but instead I would like to look at a few of the details in the article that stand out to me.

For a whole week after he died he lay on his bed until the smell coming from his room alerted people to the fact something might be amiss. A week. Think for a moment how lonely this man must have been. Think of all the people you would interact with in a week, then think of this man who went a whole week without anyone coming to see him; without anyone wondering where he was. Fiorito says of the apartment: “It was not the smell of death. It was the smell of years of dying.” In many ways George was already dead to the world. He was ignored, cast aside and left to fend for himself, something he was clearly not capable of doing.

How many other people like this are there? How many times have you passed someone on the street who might’ve been someone like George, or even George himself?

This is clearly not an isolated case. There are tens of thousands of people like George. But why is it that those who are least capable of fending for themselves that are often left to do just that? Unfortunately there is only one answer to that question, and it is one not many of us would want to admit. We believe we are more important; that somehow our lives mean more than those who suffer from alcoholism, metal illness or problems known only to themselves.

In the caste system in India, people are organized into social groups by birth and have no opportunity to move up except through reincarnation. It does not matter how talented one is, they are stuck in their caste. Unfair? Yes, but by whose standards?

In the Western world we do not believe in holding people back but in so called virtues such as “free will” and “equality.” Yet there is a very fine line between opportunity and a Darwinian “survival of the fittest” type of society. Do not get me wrong. I am not advocating the Indian caste system, but instead trying to clarify that while the most able of us reach for the stars, we unconsciously step on the dreams of others and often leave them in our dust. So should we forget about our dreams to take care of the weak? I believe it is possible to both dream and take care of those around us, and the beginning is awareness.

As is seen in the case of George, he was left behind in the caste of the forgotten. There were people that could have helped him but, through weaknesses of their own, they did not.

The word society implies things like community and helping others. There are always those that need help and do not get it. Maybe they do not want it or maybe they cannot find it. Like the case of George, thousands of people like this isolate themselves from everyone around them, and according to many, deserve their fate. How often have you heard or even said the words “There’s only so much you can do.”

But why should there be any limit to what we can do? We, as a society, pride ourselves on reaching for the stars and being the best we can be; why should that stop when it concerns helping others, one of the most integral parts of our existence?

Or is it only important to do our best when there is something in it for us?

Will Grassby

The Belief in Free Speech

This post is half in response to Russ MacDonald’s post “That’s Blasphemy” and half in response to the appalling terrorist attacks this week in Mumbai.

While reading MacDonald’s article and then shortly thereafter seeing reports of the bloodshed in India I began thinking about the very thin line that exists between discourse and action as well as how this is related to the boundary between belief and conflict.

MacDonald characterizes free speech as “sacred” and insists on the necessity of its preservation. The connection is also made by MacDonald between speech and belief and the inherent danger implied by their restriction i.e. thought control, persecution one’s convictions.

These dangers, as evidenced by the UN’s recent “blasphemy”, are not restricted to fiction (1984 comes quickly to mind), but are clearly a reality. I understand everyone’s concern about the control of what we say or believe but on the other hand, as I have already mentioned, the boundary between talking and doing is often exceedingly thin.

The question raised by MacDonald’s blog is: Is free speech a unanimous, unbounded right or are there instances where free speech can, and should be limited?

Personally, I believe in the power of the word. I believe that words are indescribably (pardon the irony) more powerful than any weapon and, contrary to cliché-correctness, have the potential to speak louder than actions. Words can be used to convince, control, or even break a person down. In this context I also believe in, despite the power of words, the liberty to express oneself freely. At the same time however, due to the power and meaningfulness of words, I also believe there are times where people would be better off if they kept they’re mouth shut.

The recent news out of Mumbai is that the well-organized attacks were carried out by a group of terrorists that call themselves “Deccan Mujahedeen” which in English translates roughly to “strugglers from Deccan” which is a plateau in Southern India. As with any terrorist attack this one defies all logic despite appearing to be rooted in religious differences. The group of Deccan Mujahedeen, who many are speculating might be fronting for another, larger terrorist group, are a group of essentially unknown Muslim men (although boys might be a more appropriate term as many have described them as being very young) that are, to this point, only known by their name and their belief.

It seems that even in these most random, irrational acts of violence, that there is a belief to be fought for and a name to hide behind. When terrorism strikes through acts of violence these are the first things people want to know. A name and a belief. Who and why?

What does this mean for free speech then? Even deeper, what does this mean for our right to believe and think? It seems logical that perhaps certain dangerous or seditious beliefs should be restricted in some way. (I am not in any way suggesting this be done)Yet this raises another question of what is worse, the potential violence incurred by these beliefs or the restriction upon our freedom?

When there is a terrorist attack it is usually the not the terrorist act but the backlash that is most destructive. In the terrible attacks in America on September 11th, 2001 almost 3000 people lost their lives. However in the even more terrible wars in Afghanistan and Iraq well over one million people have been killed to this point.

Over the past seven years there have been different names in front of different beliefs and through all this killing and devastation it seems that words begin to lose their power. Even the beliefs which are being fought for become forgotten amongst the loss and grief of those affected by the war. Yet in the end it will only be words that solve the conflict. Peace will not come from the silence left by exploding bombs. Only with the proclamation of the belief in peace, can peace actually be brought about.
Although terrorists such as the ones in Mumbai will try and reinforce their beliefs with violence they will not succeed for a belief is nothing without words and it is in this sense that MacDonald is completely right when he discusses the sacredness of free speech and the absurdity of impinging on it to protect a belief.