Archive: 31 March 2023

Black University of Arizona Student Conducting Research in Ireland Speaks Out About Her Persecution

Black University of Arizona Student Conducting Research in Ireland Speaks Out About Her Persecution

Black University of Arizona Student Conducting Research in Ireland Speaks Out Her About Persecution

To the Esteemed Professors at the University of Arizona:

I am writing this email in hopes of urging you to opt out of the Biden Administration’s constructive dismissal of Black student activists. As educators, you have a responsibility to promote critical thinking and civic engagement among the student population. This means supporting them when they exercise their democratic rights and engage in dialogue on issues that matter to them.

Black University of Arizona Student Conducting Research in Ireland Speaks Out About Her Persecution – Undermining Freedom of Expression

Recently, we have seen an alarming trend of students being punished for engaging in research and political activism. The Biden Administration has introduced a new policy of giving students an unusual and overwhelming amount of work as reprisal for research is dislikes, that could result in students, especially Black students, dropping their courses. This not only undermines their freedom of expression in the U.S. but also perpetuates a culture of fear and aversion towards social change.

As professors, you are in a unique position to protect the students of the University of Arizona from unjust policies and practices. By opting out of Biden Administration’s tactics, you can create a safe and supportive environment for independent research, activism and civic engagement on campuses and abroad.

Together, we can educate and empower students to be active global citizens who are passionate about creating positive change in society.

I urge you to stand with University of Arizona students, and other students around the world, who seek to send a clear message of resistance to any measures that seek to suppress independent research, free speech and activism. Let us demonstrate our commitment to fostering critical thinking and social responsibility by opting out of the Biden Administration’s destructive practices. Together, we can create a stronger, more inclusive, and more vibrant academic community that values intellectual discourse and respectful dissent.

Thank you for considering this urgent matter.

Sincerely,

Quianna Canada

7 Compelling Reasons Why Communities Should Rally Behind Independent Researchers

7 Compelling Reasons Why Communities Should Rally Behind Independent Researchers

7 Compelling Reasons Why Communities Should Rally Behind Independent Researchers

Independent researchers and human rights defenders who operate public watchdog blogs play a crucial role in holding power to account and promoting transparency in society. While independent researchers are not perfect, these dedicated individuals go above and beyond to expose corruption, challenge oppressive systems, and inform the public. It is essential for communities to recognize the value of their work and actively support them. Here are seven compelling reasons why communities should rally behind independent researchers who operate public watchdog blogs:

(1) Getting to the source of the problem: Independent researchers operating public watchdog blogs are driven by a commitment to getting to the source of the problem that impacts marginalized communities. Our diligent investigations and thorough analysis help to expose wrongdoing, ensuring that the public has access to accurate and unbiased information. It’s important to realize that a published finding just may be the tip of a governmental corruption iceberg.

(2) Promoting accountability: By shining a spotlight on coercive power, independent researchers who operate public watchdog blogs play a vital role in promoting accountability. Our work serves as a check on those in positions of authority, encouraging them to act in the best interests of the community.

(3) Protecting the public interest: Independent researchers operating public watchdog blogs act as guardians of the public interest. Our relentless pursuit of truth and our dedication to exposing malfeasance serve to protect the rights and well-being of the community as a whole, fostering a society where transparency and accountability are valued.

(4) Amplifying marginalized voices: These researchers often prioritize amplifying the voices of marginalized communities that are disproportionately affected by systemic injustices. By highlighting their experiences and advocating for their rights, independent researchers who operate public watchdog blogs help to combat marginalization and give a platform to those who are often ignored or silenced.

(5) Fostering informed decision-making: Through our research, analysis, and dissemination of information, independent researchers operating public watchdog blogs enable communities to make informed decisions. By providing comprehensive and unbiased insights, they empower individuals to engage critically with social, political, and economic issues that directly impact their lives.

(6) Encouraging civic engagement: Independent researchers who operate public watchdog blogs inspire civic engagement by encouraging individuals to question the status quo and actively participate in democratic processes. Our work stimulates public dialogue, mobilizes community action, and promotes a culture of active citizenship.

(7) Strengthening democracy: By fostering open communication, independent researchers who operate public watchdog blogs contribute to the strength and vibrancy of democratic systems. Their work promotes transparency, encourages dialogue, and holds elected officials accountable. Supporting these researchers and engaging in constructive dialogue with their findings can lead to a more informed and participatory democracy, where citizens are empowered to actively shape their society and hold their representatives to the highest standards of integrity and accountability.

To build a just and equitable society, communities must rally behind independent researchers who operate public watchdog blogs. By supporting their work through sharing their findings, providing financial resources, and actively engaging with their platforms, communities can help foster a more transparent, accountable, and inclusive society. Supporting these dedicated individuals is essential for a thriving democracy and a more equitable future for all.

Why the Biden Administration’s New Executive Action Won’t Reduce Gun Violence

Why the Biden Administration’s New Executive Action Won’t Reduce Gun Violence

Why the Biden Administration’s New Executive Action Won’t Reduce Gun Violence

On March 14, 2023, the Biden Administration announced a new executive action to reduce gun violence and to make our communities safe. But Americans have seen this before, haven’t we? Our government proposes a solution that will prevent gun violence in the nation and gun violence continues. After reading the new action, I am saddened to say our government is exposing us to another “Groundhog Gun Day.”

Connecticut was one of the first states to enact red flag laws. Yet this “Provision State” has experienced one of the most horrific mass-shootings in history. What Connecticuter can forget Adam Peter Lanza, who shot and killed 28 children at the Sandy Hook Elementary School? I know I cannot.

America’s undivided attention on the purchaser’s background is a Gadarene decision to make it appear as if the U.S. is tackling the gun epidemic in the nation, when in reality, its action have little to no effect.

While red flag laws are beneficial in preventing gun-related suicide deaths, there is little evidence to show the efficacy against mass-shootings.

Another important point to make is how the Biden Administration has changed its language regarding domestic terrorism. For instance, the Biden Administration has now cleped these individuals: “domestic abusers.” However, it is important to call these acts what they are: domestic terrorism. What is more, many of these individuals have little to no criminal record. Indeed, Payton S. Gendron, Salvador Rolando Ramos, Adam Peter Lanza, DeWayne Antonio Craddock and Ahmad Al Aliwi Al-Issa all had little or no criminal record at the time they committed their shootings.

Why the Biden Administration’s New Executive Action Won’t Reduce Gun Violence: Because Red Flag Systems Are Triggered by Criminal Records

Another important point to make is that red flag systems are triggered by criminal records. If an individual wants to commit a mass-shooting but does not have a criminal record, their purchase will not be red flagged. This means an individual with no criminal record who seeks to commit a mass-shooting can purchase a gun. Therefore, red flag systems are ineffective.

Even if this method closes the loophole for people with felony convictions and domestic terrorists and prevents them from purchasing a firearm legally, it does not avert the illegal purchase of a firearm. In light of these facts, it’s safe to say—or unsafe to say depending on how you look at it—that the Biden Administration’s new executive action will not reduce gun violence.

The Poetic Injustice of the Non-Ideal Victim

The Poetic Injustice of the Non-Ideal Victim 

The Poetic Injustice of the Non-Ideal Victim

In 2015, the American Broadcasting Company aired an anthology crime drama called American Crime. The second season takes place in Indianapolis, Indiana, where the co-captains of a private school’s basketball team are accused of sexually assaulting a male classmate and posting photographs of the incident online. In the beginning of episode four, we hear Kevin Kantor, a non-binary rape survivor delivering “I Am Sure,” in which they speak poetically about their treatment as a non-ideal rape victim in the United States.

The central theme of “I Am Sure” is the critical victimology of the “ideal victim.” According to Nils Christie’s concept, the ideal victim is a young female who is perceived by Society as being weak. She is further perceived as being in the “right place” at the “wrong time” of her victimization. A female jogger who is overpowered by an unknown male victim on a trail at night and raped is an example of the ideal victim. One should note here that biological women who find themselves in these scenarios are more likely to receive sympathetic responses from law enforcement officers and Society as a whole.

Kantor is clearly excluded from this typology because (1) they are not a biological female, and (2) they do not remember how much they had to drink. What Kantor does remember is how Society downplayed their vulnerability based on the stereotype that biological males are not weak. One should not forget that American law enforcement officers have a history of holding trans and non-binary victims in low regard, and disregard the rape complaints they make. Society has also shown an intolerance for people who get drunk. Indeed, Kantor divulged when they reported being raped the responding officers rolled their eyes. A journalist also asked them if they were sure about being raped (Kantor 0:35-0:45). The officers’ non-verbal actions and the journalists’ insensitivity to Kantor’s experience is often thought of as “secondary rape” because the victim is disbelieved rather than treated as a human who was injured. As can be seen, Kantor is the non-ideal victim.

Although Kantor does not say to us “they didn’t believe me,” their disclosure “Remember how busy you were trying to figure out how they got in…” leads us into the psyche of a rape survivor. It also illustrates how law enforcement officers’ style their investigations around the inconsistencies and mistakes trans and non-binary victims made before their attacker raped them. By doing this, law enforcement officers can justify their hostility and lack of support for trans and non-binary rape victims.

It is quite likely there is a sub-theme in “I Am Sure,” one I found nestled in the following paragraph:

 “I am sure I remember it feeling like every room of my home being broken into at the same time…remember how I told you that it felt like every room of my home being broken into at the same time? Remember how busy you were trying to figure out how they got in that you forgot all about the person living there” (Kantor).

The Poetic Injustice of the Non-Ideal Victim – Robbery of the Body

I get the sense that trans women and non-binary people feel as if their body is being robbed, like “every room of [their] home being broken into at the same time.” The breaking into their rooms is an allegory for the stealing of consent. This is discernible from Kantor’s “the trauma of someone trying to take their body from them.” I would even go so far as to say this disclosure reveals how trans and non-binary victims are robbed of their autonomy and the authority of their body. This is what I refer to as “Robbery of the Body.”

Kantor’s soliloquy that law enforcement “forgot all about the person living there” is the bleak emptiness one feels after sexual trauma. This soliloquy also reveals how law enforcement officers raid the non-ideal victim’s thoughts by manufacturing a case against them in order to discredit them. This is done by re-creating the crime scene and fabricating a narrative that harms victims like Kantor. A narrative that individuals like Kantor cannot be raped disregards the traumatic experience, which frequently turns the non-ideal victim’s body against them. This piece screams: trans and non-binary individuals must approach all of their physical or sexual experiences with apprehension! When these human experiences are approached with apprehension, they are snavelled of their enjoyment. This invasion of the human body and self is undoubtedly an experience of emptiness that robs one of bodily autonomy. It is clear from the poem that Kantor was unable to protect those boundaries to secure their bodily integrity (Bernstein 144).

As attested by Bernstein, being raped is traumatic and devastating for victims like Kantor because it means the rape remains imprinted on the body-psyche of the survivor. If we refer back to the soliloquy that law enforcement “forgot all about the person living there,” we hear an immeasurable void within Kantor. We also see how Kantor may be unable to replace what has been taken from the rooms in their home. This replacement would be obsolete for Kantor, had they never been raped.

If you enjoyed reading The Poetic Injustice of the Non-Ideal Victim, subscribe!


References

Bernstein, J. M. “The Harm of Rape, the Harm of Torture.” Bernstein, J. M. Torture and Dignity: An Essay on Moral Injury. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2015. 116-172. Print.

Christie, Nils. “The Ideal Victim.” Duggan, Marian. Revisiting the Ideal Victim: Developments in Critical Victimology. Bristol University Press, 2018. 11-24. Print.

Kantor, Kevin. I Am Sure. Ed. Stanley Thai. 29 January 2016. Web. 02 February 2023.

Kantor, Kevin. I Am Sure. Ed. Button Poetry. 15 March 2020. Web. 22 February 2023.

Wikipedia. “American Crime (TV series).” n.d. Wikipedia. Web. 22 February 2023.

Shoplifting Now Punishable By Death in the U.S.?

Shoplifting Now Punishable By Death in the U.S.?

Is shoplifting now punishable by death in the U.S.?

Shoplifting is the act of knowingly taking goods from an establishment in which they are displayed for sale, without paying for them.[1] In the U.S., store employees have certain powers of arrest. For instance, store employees may detain suspects outside of and inside the store premises if they believe an individual is attempting to take or, has unlawfully taken merchandise.[2]

Store employees also have a certain level of citizen’s arrest powers. However, this power only extends to felony offenses and not misdemeanors.[3] In the U.S., shoplifting is a misdemeanor not a felony. Therefore, the crime should not be punishable by death.

The Penalty for Shoplifting in the U.S.

In 2012, an off duty police officer shot a woman who he suspected was shoplifting at Wal-Mart. At the time he shot her, two children were seated in the back of the car. Six years after this particular incident, a security guard opened fire on a homeless man that he suspected was shoplifting at a Hollywood Walgreens.

Then in 2019, reports surfaced that four individuals rushed into a Pine Hills Wal-Mart and attempted to steal baby diapers. A Wal-Mart employee approached the suspected shoplifters, while they were loading the merchandise in the back of a car. After he approached the suspected shoplifters, an armed customer shot one of them with a gun. During the same year, a Walgreens’ clerk suspected a woman of shoplifting and called a friend for assistance. The friend arrived with a gun—confronted the woman—and shot her.

There is more. In 2022, a sergeant shot and killed a man who Dollar General employees suspected was shoplifting. While law enforcement officers contend the man had a criminal history, witnesses assert the man was a friendly regular in the neighborhood who should not have been shot.

The most recent shoplifting case that appears to be punishable by death in the U.S. is the Tysons Corner Mall incident. Employees at the Tysons Corner Mall suspected a Virginia man of shoplifting designer sunglasses. Loss prevention staff then called Virginia police officers, who chased the man into the forest. The policer officers shot and killed him. Despite conflicting reports, Chief Kevin Davis admits that officers found no weapon at the scene.

Should a Suspected Shoplifter be Shot Based on their Criminal Background?

According to Davis, the suspect in the February 2023 incident was well known to police in Virginia and had a “significant violent criminal history.” With this statement, Davis seems to be suggesting that law enforcement’s shooting of the suspect was justified.

The first thing that needs to be said is that I do not condone criminality despite the argument I will now present. The suspect’s alleged criminal record does not justify the shooting. First, it is unlikely that Macy’s Department store employees knew the suspect’s identity at the time of the incident or had access to his criminal history. Second, it is unlikely that law enforcement knew or had access to the same. To identify an individual, law enforcement officers would need to ask for the individual’s government vitals and then run it through their police system. It is unlikely Virginia police carried out this step before the suspect fled the scene. Indeed, Davis admits that when officers approached the suspect he fled.

Third, the suspect was running away from police officers. This is an indication that the suspect was in flight not fight mode. During the flight response to threat, the brain signals to the individual that there is danger. It then alerts the body to escape and flee to safety. This response is quite different from the fight response, where the body may experience a rush of adrenaline. In this response, an individual may resort to physical violence and aggression, which we can agree, did not happen during this incident. To reiterate, law enforcement officers found no weapon at the scene. Even if they thought the suspect would become violent, it was clear that he was out-numbered by two police officers. In other words, the police officers had the potential to overpower the suspect. This leads me to believe the shooting was not justified.

Shoplifting now punishable by death in the U.S.? Are We Following in the Footsteps of Non-democratic Regimes?

Afghanistan, China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and North Korea impose a death penalty for theft, which leads me to believe we are following in the footsteps of these non-democratic regimes.

Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights prohibits arbitrary deprivation of life. It also provides for specific conditions for the imposition of the death penalty with respect to countries that have not yet abolished it. Although the U.S. ratified the Covenant on June 08, 1992, individual citizens cannot bring a complaint under the protocol.

The Human Rights Committee has articulated that countries such as the U.S.—that have not abolished the death penalty—only may impose the death penalty for the most serious crimes.[4] This means the U.S. must interpret the term “most serious crimes” restrictively and should appertain only to crimes of extreme gravity, involving intentional killing.[5] Crimes not resulting directly and intentionally in death, such as economic crimes, can never serve as the basis for the imposition of the death penalty under Article 6.[6]


References

[1] Wikipedia. (n.d.). Shoplifting. Wikipedia. Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoplifting

[2] Id.

[3] Id.

[4] HRC (2019). Capital punishment and the implementation of the safeguards guaranteeing protection of the rights of those facing the death penalty. A/HRC/42/28, at para. 8. Available at: https://ap.ohchr.org/documents/dpage_e.aspx?si=A/HRC/42/28

[5] Id.

[6] Id.

Skip to content