The Ugly Truth Behind My Direct Provision Research Paper

Nov 23, 2022 by Quianna Canada 0 Comments

The Ugly Truth Behind My Direct Provision Research Paper

Look at what she did! She is a big problem! Are you seeing this! Get her out! If you took a glance at Dominant Woman: The Effects of Masculine Energy on Male Romantic Partners, you might utter these statements too. One can only imagine what the asylum seekers at Kinsale Road Accommodation Centre, who appropriated this preliminary investigation from my computer, voiced to a legion of refugee advocate services and politicians in Ireland to fit their narrative. Most asylum advocates do not understand that there is an ugly truth behind my direct provision research paper. This paper tells you what. It also answers why.

Before I delve into the idea behind Dominant Woman, and how it led to Out of the Miqlaatun into the Fire: the Shariazation of Ireland’s Direct Provision Institution and its Impact on Transgender Asylum Seekers, I need to issue a disclaimer. I am not on the left, nor am I on the right. Further, this article is not intended to incite violence against immigrant men, nor is this a call-to-action to anti-immigrant groups to mete out hate against any immigrant men in direct provision, as I explicitly condemn the use of hate and violence to remedy any issue.

Next, it is expected that my opponents will, either now, or sometime in the future, circulate images of my having a conversation with pro-Irish advocates a few weeks ago. They may even spin that conversation into a macabre encounter. However, much respect is given to the pro-Irish men who challenged me on my worldview, articulated their perspective, and did not make outlandish assumptions about who I really am (at least, not to my face), and vice versa.

Why Dominant Woman Happened – The Ugly Truth Behind My Direct Provision Research Paper

Dominant woman happened because there was abusive behaviour against women and LGBT asylum seekers when I arrived at the Balseskin Reception Centre (“BRC”). BRC, in the earlier stages, was like being inside the Big Brother house. It was coed and communal living, which is quite different from residing in a shelter or an apartment. Indeed, if one wink twice, direct provision could have been mistaken for a college dormitory. I had never lived on one. Thus, my intention was to remove the gravity and distress out of the experience by treating it as a dormitory. But this would change after I found myself constantly being mistreated for being too altruistic. Indeed, I was pathologically altruistic. This is not an indication that I am infallible, or that I have never made mistakes. Indeed, I uploaded a list of foolish things I have done in my life. Nonetheless, this is a true reflection of what I observed happening while living in that particular centre.

As I discuss in my research paper, asylum seekers in Direct Provision are thought to share a common immigrational and parallel experience. From this detail, it could be said that members of the LGBT community enter Direct Provision under the blind assumption that it is an environment where one can create an empirical bond with the community. Even more so for persecuted members of the community. It first appeared as if one could create an empirical bond there. For instance, male asylum seekers would approach me and asked me to teach them English. But I soon learned this was a code name for sex. It cannot be denied that the need for closeness and sexual intimacy is a naturalistic need of human existence. However, when men in direct provision feign to befriend you, feign to accept you, and feign to love women and LGBT persons in order to extort money, obtain a Refugee Declaration (which often happens), and gain absolute power, this undoubtedly led to the ugly truth behind my direct provision research paper.

My opponents will argue that I have a checkered past, never been honest about who ‘they believe I really am’, and that I have taken shortcuts in my personal life that go beyond what is unethical and immoral. Indeed, the same argument can be shifted back to them:

(1) Many men in direct provision do not tell women or LGBT individuals they are married. While infidelity happens all the time (not pot calling the kettle black here), men cannot hide this vital detail and cry foul when others do the same.

(2) Many men in direct provision use the LGBT ground to gain asylum when they are not LGBT, and

(3) Some, not all, cannot be identified because some come from third-world countries that do not have comprehensive database.

On reflection, it seems more accurate to say that no one in direct provision should point the finger at someone for unethical or immoral behaviour. The truth of the matter is that I tried to enter direct provision with an open mind and to see the good in everyone. However, it was clear most male asylum seekers did not. In reality, many still do not. For instance, those that I protect in my research were often called a Bit**! Slu*! Wh***!” I speak from first-hand knowledge. It happened to a Canadian female asylum seeker who had to post a sign on her door that instructed, “No S**! No Marriage!” The mistreatment became so uncomfortable that I donned a hijab just to gain some respect. A Palestinian woman, “Siba”, who tried to free herself from the hijab at Balseskin was coerced back into it after being called a b*t!h. Moreover, my Pakistani comrade, “Mithra,” also put their gender expression back on the top shelf out of the fear of being policed on moral grounds. What also brought me to the ground is when I watched, with my own eyes, my Nigerian friend, “Memory”, fall into a s** scam. Watched her fragment into pieces. An email is welcomed from any NGO, organisation or politician who thinks any of the victims mentioned here are a figment of the imagination. A discussion with all the victims at the table is also welcomed. I was too protective of Siba, Mithra, and Memory.

The most interesting thing about Out of the Miqlaatun into the Fire is not one person asked me why? They had every opportunity. For example, I posted a debate on the community board at Kinsale Road Accommodation Centre welcoming any asylum seeker to a respectful debate of their choosing. No one accepted the offer. Not once. Refugee advocate services and other organisations had space to ask why, but declined to, as they had already made up their mind. Look at what she did! She is a big problem! Are you seeing this! Get her out!

Not once did any of these organisations, including organisations of my own ethnicity ask the question: why? What is the reason behind your behaviour? The asylum seekers who stole the paper had a template in front of them. A critical view of the template clearly showed it was incomplete. So why didn’t anyone ask: why? Maybe these organisations felt they would have gotten a dishonest answer in return. Or, they didn’t want to hear the truth—what so many people have been saying for years. Hearing it come from me, someone who has been branded with the Scarlett letter sounded unbelievable. Or, it sounded too believable and was too real to consider. The answer to why is: a role of dominance had been thrusted upon us for so long by men in direct provision. The why was to feel safe again. The why, initially of course, was to wear the skin of men. The why was so that dominance would feel familiar to men. That is why. Bit*h, wh*re, sl*t was born out of submissiveness. Submission in direct provision could break you. It definitely broke me. To be sure, in 2019, The Journal published a story about Aisha, a woman living in direct provision, who was repeatedly harassed and propositioned by other asylum-seekers. So, why didn’t men in direct provision have to carry this baby to term? At least, for once?

Instead of asking why, authority figures condoned a community placing me on an island. It also condoned the taking of my personal property, the ostracism, the harassment, the uploading my personal information to the internet, the making me feel like the devil, the fake friendships, and the disingenuous relationships that would go to undermine my full potential. It was all condoned. I cannot help but wonder if it was being done to protect a Middle Eastern man at BRC, who seemed to gain nearly 1,000 protectors in the flesh. As he told me once before, most people will believe him over me because he comes from a war-torn country. Today, his words remain true.

The Middle Eastern man would eventually ask me for my number. My initial response was “no.” But I knew what my friends would say, “live a little! Don’t be too up tight! Have fun! You only live once!” You have one life. Just one life. So, I gave the Middle Eastern man my number. He was reserved and knew very little English. Our mode of communication was via Google translate. After he discovered MASI was donating computers to asylum seekers, I wrote a letter on his behalf so that he could communicate with his family.

During one of our conversations, he disclosed to me that he cheated on previous partners. Although he was inconsistent at times, enjoyed being first—always—played cat-and-mouse games, played hard-to-get, was non-committal, and had a superficial view towards women, I had a lot of respect for him. It was after he disclosed that he cheated on women to me. He showed me a glimpse of the truth through the sliver of his conceitedness. Most men wouldn’t have admitted to being a cheater. Here was some truth. It meant something to me, even if it meant little to anyone else. Over the weeks the Middle Eastern man created an environment of uncertainty. So, in return, I created an environment of uncertainty too. I had this grand idea of unfairly accusing him of having sexual intercourse, whether I had the evidence or not. Indeed, several of the men in direct provision, including him, had unfairly accused women of being who*es and sl*ts based on what they wore, whether they had the evidence or not. In hindsight, such an accusation would have given him an ego boost. It was a grant of power. So, I gave him power in the submissive phase. When he pulled back, I pulled back. I ignored him when I saw him in the courtyard on the withdrawal phase. Whether anyone wants to believe it or not, this is the ugly truth behind my direct provision research paper. This prompted a text with an apology, “and remember that you are the first friend.” He was negotiating his way around my firewalls. He was decoding me. He had torn down the barriers I had tried to build through the Dominant Woman. The fact that he saw me as a friend struck a chord. It was at this very moment I made the decision to disclose Dominant Woman to him. Then, I disclosed it to the others.

The Middle Eastern man and I would eventually transfer to different accommodation centres, which left me heartbroken. I did my best to avoid him on the day of transfer, so as to keep from crying. It was happening again, another separation. However, what the asylum seekers at Kinsale Road Accommodation Centre, and their powerful contacts continue to conceal is: I truly loved the Middle Eastern man. I had loved others before him. I even had love for a security guard, ‘Maurice O’Sullivan,’ at the Kinsale Road Accommodation Centre who I had little in common with but mindfulness. This wasn’t romantic love. It was based on friendship and mutual interest. Nonetheless, I needed to remember to “Love yourself.” In order to end the pain, I must “love myself.” Indeed, a wise asylum seeker instructed me to “put all your love in yourself.” That was the most profound advice anyone has ever given me in my life. It cannot be denied that I lived a pretty questionable life. But when I love someone, I love them. Now, I had to love myself.

Referring back to the Middle Eastern man: I got a call in 2021. The Middle Eastern man said that he really missed me. He asked if I wanted to be his girlfriend and, if I wanted to move in with him. I didn’t hesitate. It was like a marriage proposal. “Yes!” I told him. In the background, logical people cautioned, “you’re moving too fast!” They also said, “shouldn’t you know more about him before you move in with him?” But, you only live once! I had always wanted to live a domesticated life and the Middle Eastern man was giving me that opportunity. Carpe diem!

The Middle Eastern man had attempted to move on his own to Dublin, but the International Protection Accommodation Service (“IPAS”) declined his transfer. He then asked if I could get us moved. He knew I had a bit of experience in technical writing, as it was my technical writing that resulted in his laptop. So, I corresponded with IPAS, on several occasions, until they relocated us. IPAS eventually moved us together.

After 30 days, we both petitioned IPAS to move to different centres due to serious irreconcilable differences in the home, what everyone knew would happen. The Middle Eastern man and I included. Maybe it was all part of their plan. At any rate, he and I both made some thoughtless mistakes. However, I am the only one with 1,000+ people planning my demise and seeing to it that I fail. We cannot deny that a why could have been the key that answered so many questions. However, I do not believe my actions warranted placing me on an island, gaslighting me, stealing my USB, stealing my personal post, engaging in continued harassment, the uploading my personal information to the internet, the making me feel like the devil, the fake friendships and relationships that evaporated in a sky of disingenuity, or the treating me like a non-human being by organisations that could not muster the word why. That’s the ugly truth behind my direct provision research paper.

Analysis, CEDAW

Why Protecting Women’s Reproductive Health in a Post-Roe Era is Consistent with the CEDAW

Nov 23, 2022 by Quianna Canada 0 Comments #Bodily Integrity

Why Protecting Women’s Reproductive Health in a Post-Roe Era is Consistent with the CEDAW

In many states across the nation, pregnancy finds no explicit protection under federal law. For instance, companies in the U.S. are not required to adjust the duties of women when they are pregnant even when medical practitioners send letters urging a reprieve (Thomas, 2016). This raises the question as to whether protecting women’s reproductive health in a post-Roe era should be accomplished by (1) striking an appropriate balance between romantic paternalism and egalitarianism, and (2) ratifying the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (“CEDAW”).

First, protecting women’s reproductive health in a post-Roe era can be accomplished by striking an appropriate balance between romantic paternalism and egalitarianism. Companies depend on romantic paternalism because it limits women’s autonomy on the grounds that a discriminatory decision is for women’s own good. In United Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls, Inc., 499 U.S. 187 (1991), the Johnson Controls restricted the autonomy of fertile women on the basis that toxins in its factories, such as lead, posed a greater risk to pregnant women and their fetuses (Thomas, 2016). While the Seventh Circuit rule that a fetal protection policy satisfied the stringent BFOQ test, science showed men were just as vulnerable to lead exposure as women (Thomas, 2016). Indeed, the U.S. Supreme Court found the policy was discriminatory against women because it did not require men to demonstrate proof of medical sterility, despite the fact that lead exposure have proved hazardous to male reproductive systems (Oyez, n.d.).

It cannot be denied that women and their fetuses should be protected from lead exposure. For instance, Professor Judith McDaniel rightfully argues that Johnson could have cleaned up the assembly line so that no one was at risk. The Alabama prison done it, so why couldn’t Johnson? Wouldn’t this leave the decision in women’s hands? Indeed, protecting women’s reproductive health in a post-Roe era cannot be accomplished by excluding women from the workplace altogether. We see this in Young v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 575 U.S. 206 (2015), where UPS told a pregnant plaintiff that she could not continue to work at all with her lifting “restriction” in place. Although UPS had allowed for employees to be temporarily reassigned to “light duty” work or desk jobs, none of its exceptions applied to pregnancy-related circumstances (Thomas, 2016). A question raised before the U.S. Supreme Court was whether the Pregnancy Discrimination Act required UPS to provide the same work accommodations to pregnant women as to employees with similar, but non-pregnancy related work limitations. Shockingly, the U.S. Supreme Court said Congress did not intend the Act to grant pregnancy such an unconditional “most-favored-nation status” (Oyez, n.d.). At any rate, the U.S. Supreme Court did hold courts must evaluate the extent to which an employer’s policy treats pregnant workers less favorably than non-pregnant workers with similar inabilities to work (Oyez, n.d.).

The argument that pregnant women entering the workforce are irresponsible about their bodies and uncaring toward their potential children (Thomas, 2016) is a faulty generalization that sanctions an overly egalitarianistic view of how women should be treated in the workplace. To be sure, companies often use egalitarianistic policies to deny breaks to pregnant women, arguing that other employees are not afforded the same accommodations (Silver-Greenberg & Kitroeff, 2018). Companies also deny women who are employed in warehouses light-lifting accommodations. Not only have these overly egalitarianistic and harsh policies resulted in women miscarrying their fetuses, but they have also resulted in death.

Second, the U.S. government should protect women’s reproductive health by ratifying the CEDAW. It is clear from the observations above that the U.S. continues to disregard the complexities of working class pregnant women in America. Although lawmakers have proposed to upgrade the 1978 Pregnancy Discrimination Act, these proposals do not go far enough. For instance, evidence demonstrates that some employers fire expecting mothers before they can take maternity leave (Silver-Greenberg & Kitroeff, 2018). Moreover, most companies in the U.S. have not made appropriate accommodations for pregnant women that protects their reproductive health. Under Article 11 (2) of the CEDAW, State Parties must take appropriate measures: (a) to prohibit, subject to the imposition of sanctions, dismissal on the grounds of pregnancy or of maternity leave and discrimination in dismissals on the basis of marital status, and (b) to introduce maternity leave with pay or with comparable social benefits without loss of former employment, seniority or social allowances. Article 11 (2)(d) further mandates that State Parties must “provide special protection to women during pregnancy in types of work proved to be harmful to them.”

From these arguments, one must conclude the appropriate way for the U.S. government to protect women’s reproductive health is by striking an appropriate balance between romantic paternalism and egalitarianism, and ratifying the CEDAW.

References

OHCHR. (1979, December 18). Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. Retrieved from OHCHR: https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-elimination-all-forms-discrimination-against-women

Oyez. (n.d.). International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW.Retrieved from Oyez: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1990/89-1215

Oyez. (n.d.). Young v. United Parcel Service, Inc. 575 U.S. 206 (2014). Retrieved from Oyez: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2014/12-1226

Silver-Greenberg, J., & Kitroeff, N. (2018, October 21). Miscarrying at Work: The Physical Toll of Pregnancy Discrimination. Retrieved from New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/21/business/pregnancy-discrimination-miscarriages.html

Thomas, G. (2016). Everyone Deserves a Safe Delivery. In G. Thomas, Because of sex: One law, ten cases, and fifty years that changed American women’s lives at work. New York: Picador.

Thomas, G. (2016). Potentially Pregnant. In G. Thomas, Because of Sex: One Law, Ten Cases, and Fifty Years That Changed American Women’s Lives at Work. New York: Picador.

Opinion: Criminal Mugshot Shaming in America

Rights

Opinion: Why Criminal Mugshot Shaming in the United States is Bad

Nov 22, 2022 by Quianna Canada 2 Comments #Right to Privacy

Opinion: Why Criminal Mugshot Shaming in the United States is Bad

In January 2022, I launched a campaign on Twitter Ireland against the abuse of power at the Kinsale Road Direct Provision Centre, to which garnered nearly 13.7 K in views. I later found that potential colluders of toxic authority had uploaded my mugshot and tagged it to the campaign video. It was a poor attempt to distract viewers from behavior employed to demean, wound, harm, and damage the International Protection claim of asylum-seekers. Little did they know, there is a specious case of criminal mugshot shaming in America.

I studied the contamination strategy and discovered that it emanated from a ‘suspect close in vicinity,’ whose conscious effort was to spread misinformation about my background, arrests, and what led to my application for asylum. In their view, if they introduced the mugshots into an already existing consensus about ‘who is truly an asylum-seeker’ in a clandestine manner, I would retreat. I did not.

Exploitation Nation: The Specious Case of Criminal Mugshot Shaming in America

The number of Americans with a criminal history has risen sharply over the past three decades.^[1] Matthew Friedman, a writer for the Brennan Center for Justice, states “so many Americans have a criminal record that counting them all is nearly impossible.”^[2] Furthermore, activists in America are commonly arrested for their political speech. In 2019, U.S. police arrested LGBT activists in front of the Supreme Court. In 2021, the U.S. targeted Black Lives Matter activists in a bid to disrupt the movement. You may be thinking, “that is activism. In your case, the U.S. implicated you in not one, but many crimes. The U.S. cannot be wrong, can it?” Yes, it can, and it often is wrong.

The World Prison Brief puts the U.S. at number one at incarcerating the most people in the world. Based on data from credible news sources, the countries with the most incarcerated are the U.S., China, Brazil, and Russia. Evidence further demonstrates these countries are likely to have the most innocent people convicted and imprisoned. On a list of 15, the U.S. came in at number one as the country with the most police brutality incidents and individuals wrongfully convicted. Indeed, a study found more than half of all wrongful criminal convictions are caused by U.S. government misconduct. With these findings, it should come as no surprise to learn the alleged owners of Mugshots.com, one of dozens of sites that publish booking photos in the U.S. and demand payment for their removal, were arrested on charges of extortion, money laundering and identity theft in 2016. However, the U.S. has allowed these websites to remain accessible online, along with dozens of others like it,^[3] despite mugshots not being considered public records at a federal level.^[4]

Not only are the publication of mugshots a danger, as Olivia Solon points out, they are also used as a character assassination tool, given the public associates the individual portrayed in the mugshot with some criminal act.^[5] Another key point is that the negative image is easily found when vetting a candidate for a job, and thus, damages a person’s professional relationship.^[6]While the publication of a mugshot is an unwarranted invasion of privacy, the respect of one’s private life finds no explicit direct protection in the U.S. Federal Constitution.^[7] One should note here that Americans are precluded from successfully claiming infringements of our private life against private media reportings, as it relates to our contemporary or past life.^[8] To be sure, the U.S. ridiculed the European Court of Justice’s recognition of the right to be forgotten in Google Spain, holding that it remains inapplicable in the State.^[9] Nevertheless, it is settled law that even individuals with criminal convictions have a right to privacy, and the right to be left alone.

As for the suspects close in vicinity, they disliked that I owned my rite of passage by drawing public attention to the changes I made in my status and social identity. It is abundantly clear they were using me as a scapegoat for their ignorance, phobias, political ideology, biases, and frustrations. Indeed, evidence demonstrates formerly incarcerated persons are disproportionately the victims of scapegoating.

Taking into consideration that shaming American citizens not only compounds the problem, along with the fact that the U.S. continues to make mugshots public, it is not surprising that countries have started to find the U.S. not to be safe for everyone. As far as rights goes in the U.S., what will the land of the most incarcerated do next?

References

[1] Friedman, M. (2015). Just Facts: As Many Americans Have Criminal Records as College Diplomas. Brennan Center for Justice. Available at: https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/just-facts-many-americans-have-criminal-records-college-diplomas

[2] Id.

[3] Solon, O. (2018). Haunted by a mugshot: how predatory websites exploit the shame of arrest. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jun/12/mugshot-exploitation-websites-arrests-shame

[4] Id.

[5] Id.

[6] HG.org (n.d.) Can I Have My Mugshot Removed from the Internet? HG.org. Available: https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/can-i-have-my-mugshot-removed-from-the-internet-37062

[7] Werro, F. (2021). The right to be forgotten: A comparative study of the emergent right’s evolution and application in Europe, the Americas and Asia. Springer. Vol. 40. See p. 4.

[8] Id., at p. 5.

[9] Id.