The Long Overdue Conversation: Revisiting the Theme of Political Abuse of Psychiatry and the Black American

May 8, 2023 by Quianna Canada 0 Comments #Principle 4

The Long Overdue Conversation: Revisiting the Theme of Political Abuse of Psychiatry and the Black American

Psychiatry is a powerful tool that can be used for good. Yet today, political figures and powerful institutions are using this medical specialty to undermine victims of abuse, oppression and injustice.

The Long Overdue Conversation: Revisiting the Theme of Political Abuse of Psychiatry and the Black American

Political figures and powerful institutions have used psychiatry to discredit people living on the fringe, such as previously incarcerated individuals and homeless persons. A prime example is the media’s framing of Jordan Neely, who died on May 01, 2023 by asphyxia. While I do not condone violence or the allegations made against Neely, disenfranchised persons like him sometimes lack the skills, such as tact, to assertively communicate their needs, as we seen in several videos circulating on the internet. Even when they have the capacity to communicate their needs effectively, individuals in positions of power will stereotype them or, interpret their plight as an act of violence. Indeed, Tristan McGeorge and Dinesh Bhugra found psychiatrists were more likely to misdiagnose Black patients as more dangerous and violent. They also found that psychiatrists were more likely to diagnose Schizophrenia and overly suspicious personality disorders in those they believed were Black Americans.[1]

Why Powerful Institutions Use Schizophrenia to Diagnose Black Americans

Political figures and powerful institutions use Schizophrenia to diagnose Black Americans because it can discredit their claims. It also makes it easier for those in power to isolate to facilitate abuse. For example, if a homeless Black person protests their conditions, political figures and powerful institutions can use Schizophrenia to suggest that the victim is simply mentally ill, and therefore, their complaints should not be taken seriously. While some people may show signs of disease, mental health professionals should make sure that the diagnosis is correct and not influence by politics.

Another way political figures and powerful institutions use psychiatry to undermine victims is through the use of involuntary commitment, detention or imprisonment. Involuntary commitment is when an individual is forcibly hospitalized or detained in a psychiatric facility, detention center or jail against their will. This can be used as a tool of oppression, especially when it is used to silence homeless persons, political dissidents or others who are speaking out against their inhumane conditions. By labeling someone as mentally ill and forcibly detaining them, political figures and powerful institutions can effectively silence their voices and undermine their credibility.

In 1991, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted Resolution 46/119: The UN Principles for the Protection of Persons with Mental Illness and for the Improvement for Mental Health Care (hereinafter MI Principles). Of the 25 Principles, number 4 is potentially relevant to institutional racism in mental health care:

4 (2) A determination of mental illness shall never be made on the basis of political, economic or social status, or membership of a cultural, racial or religious group, or any other reason not directly relevant to mental health status.

It has been further suggested that the ideology of racism has been incorporated into psychiatry resulting in an emphasis on individualized pathology, with insufficient attention paid to social pressures such as race and culture.[2] According to Principle 4:

4 (3) Family or professional conflict, or non-conformity with moral, social, cultural or political values or religious beliefs prevailing in a person’s community, shall never be a determining factor in diagnosing mental illness.

The misuse of psychiatry is not just a historical problem, it is also a contemporary one. As we seen with the Neely case, political figures and powerful institutions will use psychiatry to undermine victims and maintain control over political messages. By raising awareness of this issue and holding those in power to account, together, we can put an end to this insidious practice.

References

[1] McGeorge, Tristan, and Dinesh Bhugra, ‘Race Equality in Mental Health’, in Michael Dudley, Derrick Silove, and Fran Gale (eds), Mental Health and Human Rights: Vision, praxis, and courage (Oxford, 2012; online edn, Oxford Academic, 1 Feb. 2013), https://doi.org/10.1093/med/9780199213962.003.0008, accessed 8 May 2023.

[2] Id. p. 140.

Rights

Not a Refugee: Safe Country Nationals and the Withholding of International Protection

Apr 28, 2023 by Quianna Canada 0 Comments #Right to Asylum

Not a Refugee: Safe Country Nationals and the Withholding of International Protection

When we think about asylum-seekers and the countries that are unable or unwilling to protect them, our thoughts may turn to Shia Hazara families fleeing Taliban violence in Afghanistan. We may think about the arbitrary detention of activists in Damascus by the Syrian Democratic Forces. As we think about what drives a decision to flee one’s country, the Eritrean government’s barbaric acts of torture and its imprisonment of Asmara residents, and the Midgan clans use of female genital mutilation as a political tool to control women in Somalia may also spring to mind.

We may turn to lawyers and human rights experts to gain a better understanding of why militant organizations seeking to establish an Islamic state may arouse fear in political activists. Academic journals, country reports, and case law may also highlight how the inundation of terrorist propaganda in rogue nations can grow to be dangerous for the average national.

As we journey away from the transgressions above, imagine that an individual fled their country because members of a criminal organization seek to extort and harm them. Are they entitled to international protection? What if authorities in a country fail to arrest the suspects who repeatedly assault and threaten a member of the LGBTI community? Suppose a student activist fled their country after police racially profiled and assaulted them, and the courts refuse to prosecute. Is this a legitimate claim for international protection? What if a whistleblower wrote an academic piece about the human rights conditions in their country, because they felt disclosure was in the public’s interest; however, had their act of fearless speech — that stands testimony to wrong — chilled by media in their country? Let’s assume mainstream did it to conceal from the public, serious government wrongdoing that ought to be known and deliberated about. Are they entitled to international protection? If the answer is yes, would it still be if we learned the individual fled Oceania, Europe, or North America? Some jurisdictions would argue no, as these nations have a democratic style of leadership. When there is a system of checks and balances, and “constitutional guarantees” of due process in place, a country is considered a safe country of origin. To be sure, the European Union’s Directive 2013/32/EU (Annex I) states:

“A country is considered as a safe country of origin where, on the basis of the legal situation, the application of the law within a democratic system and the general political circumstances, it can be shown that there is generally and consistently no persecution as defined in Article 9 of directive 2011/95/EU, no torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and no threat by reason of indiscriminate violence in situations of international or internal armed conflict.”

One cannot possibly accept this definition, as “consistently” indicates that in every democratic regime case, there is no persecution, torture, inhuman, degrading treatment or punishment, nor is there indiscriminate violence in situations of international or internal armed conflict on any occasion. That is a heavy burden for a country to meet, even those with a democratic style of leadership. If a country contends that its behavior is consistent with every citizen, and there are absolutely no forms of persecution on its soil, can we really trust it? Moreover, can we trust the international bodies that believe it too? It is a question that figures prominently in terms of the principle of non-refoulement — the practice of not forcing asylum-seekers and refugees to return to a country in which they are liable to be subjected to persecution.

Not a Refugee: Safe Country Nationals and the Withholding of International Protection – Are States Complicit?

Another question of huge significance is whether the country of asylum participates in wrongdoing committed by the agent of persecution when it imposes an irrebuttable presumption on the claimant not to qualify as a refugee under the Refugee Convention. Miles Jackson explores the idea of attribution in Complicity in International Law, and asserts that countries “cooperate with each other and with non-state actors all the time, often virtuously but sometimes wrongfully.” Indeed, in Goldstein v. Sweden, an American asylum-seeker was subjected to systematic police persecution and surveilled after he actively worked to reveal police brutality and other misconduct by the police in the United States. Non-state actors destroyed Goldstein’s property and attacked him with chemical substances. Even though Goldstein’s reports to the police authorities had been to no avail, the Swedish Migration Board decided there was no evidence to show that the United States police authorities had persecuted Goldstein and found him “not in need of protection in Sweden.” Goldstein appealed the decision to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). Although Sweden breached its international obligation to offer protection, the ECtHR decided the United States could obviate the risk of non-state actors by providing appropriate protection.

The Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB) reached a similar conclusion in X (Re), 2014 CanLII 88897. In that case, applicants of Roma ethnicity in Hungary asserted Commandos forced themselves into their home and assaulted them. Their children were also assaulted on numerous occasions at school and on the bus. Although the applicants emphasized these attacks were racially motivated, the IRB rejected the appeal on grounds that Hungarian “police are being held accountable for their actions if they fail to take Roma complaints seriously or become agents of persecution of Roma citizens themselves.” While the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance encouraged Hungary to make further changes to continue its fight against racism, a recent report shows extensive discriminatory and abusive police practices against Roma still exist. What is more, many of the police officers interviewed in the report admitted to ethnic profiling. If the rule of attribution were applied, Hungary’s inaction would constitute a breach of its positive obligations to take measures to prevent violations committed by non-state actors, an obligation conditioned by a due diligence standard. With regard to Canada, Jackson suggests imposing a correlative duty of non-participation, as it would hold Canada responsible for its own contribution to the wrongdoing.

In both cases, the asylum-seekers laid out a plausible claim for international protection, and had it withheld because they were from countries that were considered “safe.” The appeals of asylum-seekers from “safe countries” are often not suspensive. In other words, these asylum-seekers will be deported to their country of origin pending the appeal decision, which The European Association for the Defence of Human Rights (AEDH), the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) and EuroMed Rights argues, renders the right to recourse ineffective in practice. Others have also argued that the concept reduces safeguards on procedural standards, places an extra burden on applicants, and reduces their chance to be granted protection.

The presumption that a country is “safe” for all of its citizens has been criticized by NGOs and scholars. EuroMed Rights, AEDH, and FIDH also opposes the notion of “safe countries of origin,” and points to members of minority groups who can face specific discrimination in countries where the rest of the population is generally “safe.” Although the UNHCR likened the presumption to a form of discrimination, when its committees and councils disregard violations committed by state and non-state actors in democratic regimes, and fail to hold these regimes responsible for positive obligation breaches, it acquiesces to such violations.

It is not argued here that an applicant who cannot substantiate a risk regarding the lack of state protection should be bestowed Convention Refugee status. The contention is this: when a country of asylum connivingly uses an irrebuttable presumption to withhold international protection — believing a low rate of convictions before human rights tribunals is proof that there are few rights violations in that country — it should be held accountable for its role in the toleration of the private human rights violations. To be sure, Jackson suggests where complicity is found in an international law matter, accomplices must be held responsible for their own acts of contribution to the principal’s wrong.

Take, for example, the case of A. v. Migrationsverket. In that case, the Swedish authorities relied on the rebuttable presumption in the recast Asylum Procedures Directive for procedures based on the safe country of origin concept to withhold international protection from a Serbian national, despite the fact it did not fully implement the concept in legislation. The Court of Justice for the European Union held when a Member State has not implemented the concept of a safe country of origin into relevant laws, regulations, and administrative provisions, it cannot reject an asylum application as manifestly unfounded on the grounds that the applicant is from a safe country of origin.

Lastly, there is a widely circulated claim that asylum-seekers from democratic regimes are not “real refugees” but are “economic migrants.” However, this is a charge launched against genuine applicants to degrade them and undermine the rights that emerge from obtaining Convention Refugee status. Many of these asylum-seekers bear some of the most powerful passports in the world that enables them to enter countries that have cordially recognized free migration and emigration for purposes of curiosity, trade, or to remain as permanent residents. This observation should demystify the specious argument that asylum-seekers from democratic regimes are leveraging incriminating country of origin evidence and fabricated stories so as to enter and remain in a foreign country.

Immigration and refugee law makes clear that the right to asylum is not a right to abreaction. It is a right to have an application for international protection carried out on an individual basis. The most effective way to exercise this right is for the persecuted to leave their country, and to provide evidence that outweighs a general presumption that their country is safe. The country of asylum must adequately examine and consider such evidence. When countries of asylum adopt and enforce administrative edicts based on nationality, they not only suspend this fundamental right, but they also breach their obligation not to discriminate — a precept widely recognized under international anti-discrimination law. In the words of the late Desmond Tutu, to remain neutral in situations of injustice is to be complicit in that injustice.

Not a Refugee: Safe Country Nationals and the Withholding of International Protection was originally published on 5th January 2022.

ICCPR

In a State of Mourning: US Gun Contracts, the Middle East and the Victims Affected

Apr 15, 2023 by Quianna Canada 0 Comments #Article 6

In a State of Mourning: US Gun Contracts, the Middle East and the Victims Affected.

Several innocent and vulnerable people in the Middle East have lost their lives due illicit firearm contracts formed by the United States.

In a State of Mourning: US Gun Contracts, the Middle East and the Victims Affected – the Countries Impacted

YEMEN: There has been an ongoing conflict in Yemen that has been fuelled by arms sales and transfers from the United States to other countries, which has called for gun-control there and has led a coalition of Arab states in support of the Yemeni government. The conflict has resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of people in the region, including many civilians.

Reports indicate that dozens of Yemeni civilians, most of them children, were recently killed when an airstrike by U.S.-backed forces hit a bus in the rebel-held city of Dahyan.[1]

IRAQ: The United States has provided significant military aid and weaponry to the Iraqi government for multiple reasons. While this does not suggest the reasons are nefarious, some of these weapons have ended up in the hands of non-state actors, including extremist itself, which they have used to carry out attacks against Iraqi and coalition forces.

As a result, many Iraqi civilians continue mourn lives lost as of the result of U.S. firearm contracts.[2]

To support this cause for peace and gun-control in the Middle East, please send appeals to the human rights bodies below Urging Them to Protect the Middle East from the United States’ Gun Contracts:

List item 1

List item 2

List item 3

References

[1] Al-haj, A. (2018, August 9). Yemen rebels say Saudi coalition airstrike in North Kills 50. AP NEWS. Retrieved April 15, 2023, from https://apnews.com/article/yemen-ap-top-news-houthis-middle-east-international-news-3e5674e9d42f4ee19e582203128d1f92

[2] Kotsonis, S., & Chakrabarti, M. (2023, March 30). The American invasion of Iraq through an Iraqi’s eyes. On Point. Retrieved April 15, 2023, from https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2023/03/30/20-years-of-chaos-in-iraq-through-iraqi-eyes

ICCPR

Well-founded Fear: Freedom of Expression Under Threat as Texas Governor Seeks to Pardon Police Convicted of Murdering BLM Protester

Apr 10, 2023 by Quianna Canada 0 Comments #Article 19

Well-founded Fear: Freedom of Expression Under Threat as Texas Governor Seeks to Pardon Police Convicted of Murdering BLM Protester.

Texas Govenor, Gregg Abbott, says that he is swiftly working to pardon Daniel Perry, a U.S. Army sergeant in Austin, who a jury convicted of murdering Garrett Foster in 2020. Foster was a Black Lives Matter protester. Abbott has since directed the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles to consider a pardon for Perry on an expedited basis. For instance, Abbott stated, “I look forward to approving the Board’s pardon recommendation as soon as it hits my desk.”

Cristina Ramirez criticizes Greg Abbott's Decision to Pardon Officer who Shot BLM Protestor — Courtesy of Cristina Ramirez

Abbotts’ move has been highly criticized by underrepresented groups in Texas. First, Cristina Ramirez Tweeted, “It’s time for Governor Abbott to listen to the people of Texas.” Ramirez went on to say Abbott should listen to the people “rather than to the voices of extreme conservatives and media personalities.” Joe Porter also Tweeted, “The racist governor of Texas is letting you know that murdering protesters is OK.” There were other voices, such as Black Aziz, who likened Abbotts’ move to Nazism, claiming that “Pardoning people who murder your political enemies is def something that the Nazis would do.”

Black Aziz said, "Pardoning people who murder your political enemies is def something that the Nazis would do." — Courtesy of Black Aziz aNANsi

Abbotts’ pledge to pardon Perry comes on the heels of evidence which showed Perry made numerous posts and direct messages on social media expressing his desire to shoot protesters in Austin, Texas. Irrespective of this evidence, Abbott is swiftly working to pardon the police officer.

Well-founded Fear: Freedom of Expression Under Threat as Texas Governor Seeks to Pardon Police Convicted of Murdering BLM Protester. How Did Texans Get Here?

In 2021, Abbott Tweeted that he “signed SEVEN pieces of legislation into law protecting #2A rights in Texas — including constitutional carry & making Texas a #2A sanctuary state.” In other words, Texas is now the Gun State of the nation.

Abbott gloats over giving guns more protection in Texas — Courtesy of Texas Governor, Gregg Abbott

As attorney general, Abbott opposed gun-control legislation. Moreover, in 2013, Abbott criticized New York State legislators for expanding an assault weapons ban and creating a high-capacity magazine ban. During the same year, he articulated that he would sue if Congress enacted a new gun-control bill.

In 2015, Abbott signed into law the right of Texans to carry firearms on campus, which may have spawned the 2018 Santa Fe High School shooting and the Robb Elementary School shooting in Uvalde, Texas.

Nearly 95% of individuals who quoted Abbott’s Tweet either thanked or congratulated his move, or requested that the Texas Governor pardon more police officers who murder protesters.

ICERD

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

Mar 31, 2023 by Quianna Canada 0 Comments #Article 2, #Article 4

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

Analysis, Gun Violence US

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

Mar 22, 2023 by Quianna Canada 0 Comments #Right to Life

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.

Analysis

The Poetic Injustice of the Non-Ideal Victim

Mar 18, 2023 by Quianna Canada 0 Comments #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.

ICCPR

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

Mar 4, 2023 by Quianna Canada 0 Comments #Article 6

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.

Analysis

All the Easter Eggs in ‘Two Distant Strangers’ You Missed

Feb 24, 2023 by Quianna Canada 0 Comments #Films

All the Easter Eggs in ‘Two Distant Strangers’ You Missed

The film ‘Two Distant Strangers’ takes place in the fast-moving city of New York and is inspired by Cynthia Koa’s Groundhog Day for a Black Man. The protagonist is Carter James, who is trapped in a time loop, where he re-enacts several high-profile fatal encounters that Black Americans had with police officers in the United States.

In the opening scene, we see a statute of a dog, and eventually, James’ rottweiler. While one could interpret this as dogs are loyal and friendly, another interpretation is the symbolism of how authorities and the mean-spirited have used dogs as a tool of oppression against Black Americans. According to Shontel Stewart, this idea has its origins in slavery and manifests itself in a variety of oppressive acts that target Black Americans—such as extrajudicial killings—a persistent theme in this film.

Symbolism of the WhiteCycle and Noose

We see two memorials inside James’ apartment: a white bike and a white rope tied like a noose. WhiteCycles (or ghost bikes) are often placed where the driver of a motor vehicle ended a cyclist’s life. They have also been placed in areas where a cyclist was severely injured. The WhiteCycle pays homage to Dijon Kizzee, who Los Angeles sheriffs stopped and fatally shot while riding his bicycle in 2020.

All the Easter Eggs in ‘Two Distant Strangers You Missed’ – The Encounters

Carter James’ First Encounter with New York Police

James steps out Perri’s apartment, a girl he wants to start a relationship with and adores. As James makes an effort to get home, he collides with a White man who is wearing a white shirt with blue stripes. The collision causes the White man to spill his coffee; and James to drop a wad of cash. Historically, the color white has symbolized innocence. The color blue has often symbolized trust and truth.

The incident captures the attention of a White police officer named Merk, who accuses James of smoking something other than a cigarette. James refers to Merk by his name. When James does, Merk commands him to call him sir. Although James complies, Merk snatches him and pins him against the wall. A White woman records the police brutality incident and screams, “He didn’t do anything!” which depicts allied voices—especially female voices—that carry no weight in a White patriarchal society.

Merk throws James to the ground and places him in a choke-hold. Although James pleads “I can’t breathe” several times, Merk continues to choke him. This scene observes the death of Eric Garner, who New York police officers placed in a choke-hold in 2014.[1]

The Symbology of ‘The Way It Is’ Song

James plays Bruce Hornsby’s “The Way It Is” — a track about “a law passed in 1964,” which was remixed by Tupac Shakur in 1998. According to SMF, the law is likely a reference to a couple of statutes passed that year—the Civil Rights Act and Economic Opportunity Act—which were meant to counteract the self-same “rules” mentioned in the second verse.[2] Based on SMF’s interpretation, the song appears to be saying this: even though such laws were passed which make people change how they behave on the surface, internally their thinking remains the same.[3]

James’ Second Encounter with New York Police

In James’ second encounter, he doesn’t drop cash nor does he collide with the White male. Nonetheless, Merk still approaches James and demands to conduct an illegal search of his bag. James does not consent, stating “I know my rights.” James’ self-preservation angers Merk who then retaliates by throwing James to the ground. Merk then yells, “Do not resist!”, “Comply!” and “Let go of my gun!” American police often yell these commands during fatal encounters to justify their misconduct against Black Americans, even when Blacks have complied, are not resisting and have not reached for a weapon. In this scenario, James is shot several times. The scene observes the death of Ezell Ford, a 25-year-old Black male who LAPD officers shot several times on August 11, 2014.

James’ Third Encounter with New York Police

James continues to have dreams where Merk kills him, a frightening harbinger and glimpse at a short-lived future in New York. These premonitions induces James to take a different course of action to stay alive. For example, James elects not to leave the apartment, hoping this will stop the manifestation of his death.

All seems to go well until James and Perri get an unexpected visit from New York Police, who aggressively commands they “open up!” In what seems like a second, New York Police is inside their apartment pointing their AK-47 shot guns at both James and Perri. James jolts awake after Merk shoots him several times, discovering its just another nightmare. This scene observes the death of Amir Locke, who Minneapolis police killed during a no-knock warrant search.[4]

James’ Fourth Encounter with New York Police

To escape death, James tries a different course of action. This time, James does not wear his jacket outside. But he still encounters Merk. Regardless of the direction James decides to go—whether it’s the left or right—his premonitions are the same: Merk shoots him.

James’ Fifth Encounter with New York Police

James tries a different strategy: being cordial to Merk. This strategy fails, as Merk orders James to display identification and to “keep your hands where I can see them.” They both say, “That’s a lotta money for a guy with a not-so cigarette smelling cigarette.” James explains to Merk how both of them are stuck in a time-lapse, pointing to the couple who would soon share a kiss; the girl who takes a selfie, and the boy on the skateboard who would fall. Merk asks James if he shoots him, will the cycle repeat itself. To which James replies, “Yes.”

James survives the encounter and proceeds walks down the alley. When two teens run pass him, New York police automatically assume James is affiliated with them. For example, New York police demand to know, “Where did your friends go?” which frightens James to the point he awakens from the nightmare.

James’ Sixth Encounter with New York Police

James converses with Merk, where he discloses that Merk shot him 99 times. It appears Merk is sympathetic and asks, “What do you want?” James asks Merk to drive him home. Merk’s license plate reads 1488, which symbolises hate. According to Anti-Defamation League, the first symbol is 14, which is shorthand for the “14 Words” slogan: “We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children.”[5] The second is 88, which stands for “Heil Hitler.”

Although Merk agrees to give James a ride home, Merk places him in the back of the police vehicle. This illustrates law enforcement’s perception that Blackness equals criminality. Indeed, James finds it odd that he must ride in the back of Merk’s police car.

James then inquires, “Why you become a cop?” to which Merk claims that people “Lost respect for rule of law; lost respect for order.” Not believing Merk’s answer, James asks him for the real reason. Merk and James deeply dive into being a product of one’s environment—and it is here we learn that Merk was bullied.

The decal on the police cruiser reads: Courtesy, Professionalism and Respect. This is a signpost of how relations between law enforcement and Black Americans should/could be. While James believes that he has reached common ground with Merk, he is condescended to by Merk, who claps and says “Bravo!” Merk then reaches for his gun and shoots James in the back. This scene reveals no matter how polite Black Americans are with police, they still risk losing their life in some of the most mundane encounters. It also observes the shooting of Walter Lamar Scott, a 50-year-old man South Carolina police shot in the back.

Travon Free’s ‘Two Distant Strangers’ Explained – Ending

James lies dead in a puddle of blood that is shaped like the continent of Africa, which illustrates the genocide of African descendants in the United States. In the end, James awakens for the 100^th time. Undeterred, James leaves Perri’s apartment to make yet another effort to get home.[6] And that’s All the Easter Eggs in ‘Two Distant Strangers’ You Missed.

If you enjoyed All the Easter Eggs in ‘Two Distant Strangers’ You Missed, please share, comment or subscribe.

References

[1] History.com Editors. (2020, July 15). Eric Garner dies in NYPD Chokehold. History. Retrieved February 4, 2023, from https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/eric-garner-dies-nypd-chokehold

[2] SMF, & (Optional), N. (2019, August 2). “The way it is” by Bruce Hornsby and The Range. Song Meanings and Facts. Retrieved February 4, 2023, from https://www.songmeaningsandfacts.com/the-way-it-is-by-bruce-hornsby-and-the-range/

[3] Id.

[4] Canada, Q. (2022). Why America Must Knock the Habit of No-Knock Warrants. Jurist. Available at: https://www.jurist.org/features/2022/03/28/explainer-why-america-must-knock-the-habit-of-no-knock-warrants/

[5] ADL (n.d.). 1488. Anti-Defamation League. Available at: https://www.adl.org/resources/hate-symbol/1488

[6] Wikipedia. (n.d.).Two Distant Strangers. Wikipedia. Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Distant_Strangers

UN MI Principles

Florida PD Throws Black Activist in Psychiatric Facility After She Made Complaint to Bank

Feb 9, 2023 by Quianna Canada 0 Comments #Protest Psychosis

Florida PD throws Black activist in psychiatric facility after she made complaint to the bank her deposit was missing from her account.

Linda Stephens is a community activist and retired educator for Polk County Schools. Stephens asserts there were more than eight cameras when she deposited $600.00 into the ATM at Mid-Florida Credit Union in Bartow on April 13th, 2021. She spoke to several branch officials and showed them her receipt. Stephens also displayed her receipt to another bank official who informed her the funds would be visible in her account within 3 to 4 hours.

However, Mid-Florida never deposited the funds into her account. This discrepancy led to a dispute between Mid-Florida and Stephens. Following the dispute, a technician informed Mid-Florida that Stephens did make a deposit.

The following details of this story are a bit vague, but it appears two Florida PDs arrived on scene. Stephens asserts one officer stepped into the office and had his hand on his firearm, where he said, “I thought I heard her say ‘I have a gun and I’m going to shoot you.'”

None of the banking officials stood up for Stephens, leaving her alone to speak up for herself. Stephens further assert the Officer was intimidating her with his firearm, causing her to feel threatened. Out of fear of being shot, Stephens declared she never owned or shot a firearm, to which the Officer responded, “If you say to word gun, one more time, I’m going to arrest you.” Attempting to stand her ground, Stephens said: “gun.”

The Officer arrested Stephens, where he ejected her from the car and forced her into the booking station. There, Officers placed Stephens in a psychiatric holding facility, where they made claims against her for being psychotic and “suicidal,” which Stephens firmly disputes.

Florida PD Throws Black Activist in Psychiatric Facility After She Made Complaint to Bank. Have There Been Other Incidents?

As Stephens asserts, the ATM machine was equipped with a camera, which recorded the deposit. However, there are many instances were psychiatric abuse happens without the camera rolling.

Ryan C.W. Hall and Richard C.W. Hall also state psychiatric abuse may consist of an intentional misdiagnosis to discredit an individual, imprison them or, to cause their unemployment and loss of specific rights. An intentional misdiagnosis may also be to protect others (i.e., individuals in power). This quote appeared in Chapter 9 of Principles and Practice of Forensic Psychiatry (2017, p. 846). Indeed, Jonathan M. Metzl calls this psychiatry abuse “protest psychosis.” In The Protest Psychosis: How Schizophrenia Became a Black Disease (2011), Metzl draws a connection between the discriminatory perceptions of schizophrenia as a disease prone to Black people, and the continued pathologisation of them within systems that relies on language that has been shown to oppress.