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.

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

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.