Category: ECHR

Examining the Inconsistencies: Why the US Government's Portrayal of the Kimbrady Case Lacks Credibility

Examining the Inconsistencies: Why the US Government’s Portrayal of the Kimbrady Case Lacks Credibility

Examining the Inconsistencies: Why the US Government’s Portrayal of the Kimbrady Case Lacks Credibility

First, my heart is heavy with sorrow for all the families in the US who have endured immeasurable pain and irreparable loss, as they bear the unbearable burden of losing a cherished soul to the unforgivable atrocity of the recent act of gun violence that plagues our streets.

Now, to some uncomfortable truths while not losing sight of the horror that guns have caused for so many innocent people: the Kimbrady Carriker case, as portrayed by American media, lacks credibility when examined closely. It is essential to apply critical thinking and thorough analysis to the evidence presented before forming conclusions. When we scrutinize the available information, several inconsistencies and questionable assertions emerge, further weakening the narrative put out by the US government.

To begin, it has been alleged that Kimbrady was a supporter of the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement. However, if we assume that Kimbrady had extremist tendencies, as it is claimed, it is highly unlikely that their first target would be Black Americans. BLM’s core purpose is to advocate for justice and equality for Black lives, so it is contradictory to suggest that a supposed BLM supporter would target the very community they claim to support. With that said, no individual should be exposed to an act of gun violence on the basis of their skin color, gender identity, sexual orientation or religious beliefs.

Additionally, conflicting reports regarding Kimbrady’s gender identity raise doubts about their status as a transgender individual. Contrary to initial claims, their grandmother stated that Kimbrady was gay, not transgender. It is crucial to respect an individual’s self-identification and avoid making assumptions based solely on external appearances. Merely dressing in clothing associated with a different gender does not automatically indicate transgender identity.

The US further alleges that Kimbrady stated they committed the shooting to address gun violence. However, this assertion is highly questionable, as it goes against the principles of the gun-control movement. Advocates for gun control, like Journey to the Center, firmly believe in resolving issues through peaceful means and would never resort to violence or the use of firearms to further our cause. Therefore, such a claim appears inconsistent with the beliefs of gun-control proponents.

Moreover, we must critically examine the alleged religious affiliation of Kimbrady. While it is true that transgender individuals, including trans women, can be spiritual or religious, linking religious beliefs to the alleged attack lacks evidential support and is misleading.

It’s worth mentioning here that the experiences of transgender women often center around personal gender identity struggles, including discrimination and social exclusion, rather than using religion as a rallying point for violent actions. Studies consistently highlight that violence against transgender individuals is more commonly perpetrated against them rather than by them.

Additionally, the reported facts surrounding the case raise suspicions. While it is true that any individual, regardless of their gender identity, can commit heinous acts, it is vital to carefully evaluate the evidence presented. In this instance, inconsistencies and potential ulterior motives warrant further investigation before making conclusive judgments.

To be sure, a confidential source in the US claims that Kimbrady did not identify as a trans woman but male when booked into custody. This raises compelling doubts about the accuracy of the narrative being disseminated by US media.

It is essential to consider this information, examine all available facts, and be cautious about drawing premature conclusions based on incomplete or inconsistent data put out by our government.

Ultimately, it is imperative for the US to focus on the lives affected by this horrific attack and the broader issue of gun control, rather than perpetuating fear and stigmatizing trans women. Throughout history, marginalized communities have been disproportionately subjected to demonization, while systemic issues remain unaddressed. Indeed, research shows the US’s failure to protect Americans from gun violence may violate international law.

It is high time to shift our collective focus towards preventing future tragedies and creating a society that embraces inclusivity, justice, and understanding. Congress has the power to prevent gun violence in the US. The question is: will they?

In conclusion, the Kimbrady case, as presented, fails to withstand scrutiny when the available evidence is carefully evaluated. It is crucial that we approach this case with discernment, continuously questioning the inconsistencies and biases present in the narrative. Rather than perpetuating fear and stigmatizing marginalized groups, let us prioritize understanding, justice, and comprehensive solutions that genuinely address the root causes of violence and injustice.

Quianna Canada: Environmental Case Adjournment Minor Setback for Major Come Up

Quianna Canada: Environmental Case Adjournment Minor Setback for Major Come Up

Quianna Canada: Environmental Case Adjournment Minor Setback for Major Come Up.

Justice is a fundamental pillar of any democratic society. It ensures the rights, liberties, and well-being of individuals are protected, and that wrongdoings are appropriately addressed. However, when justice is delayed, the repercussions can be severe, and the entire concept of justice can be undermined.

As the famous saying goes, “justice delayed is justice denied.”

“When I faced an injustice at the Kinsale Road Accommodation Centre, I naturally sought redress through the Courts on Washington Street,” says Quianna Canada, a student, activist and country researcher.

Victims in civil suits, like Canada, often look to the legal system to provide them with a fair and impartial process that will hold wrongdoers accountable and help them find closure. However, if this process is delayed, it may lead to a sense of frustration, loss of faith in the system, and even irreversible harm for those affected. “Not for me,” says Canada. “Delays are simply a minor setback for a major come up. This ‘major come up’ need not be financial; it can often take the form of achieving a much needed discipline. Yes, superficial delays can be frustrating. They are also a signpost that some major influences may be at play. However, this will not stop me, and it shouldn’t stop you.”

The influence toxic authority figures wield over their environment may be another reason why justice plaintiffs cannot access the courts. Toxic authority figures understand delayed justice prolongs suffering, keeping wounds open and increases emotional distress. They also know the plaintiff (victim) may feel ignored, disregarded, or even re-victimized by the system itself.

“This is the effect toxic authority figures want to have on victims, especially those who are fighting their battles alone. However, it’s important for victims to have resilience and not give up. All toxic authority figures have is their ability to oppress; nothing more. It’s a bleak existence,” says Canada. “True leadership is not oppressive, coercive or intimidating. It’s leading from a place of unconditional love, which some powerful people controlling this case know very little about.”

Quianna Canada: Environmental Case Adjournment Minor Setback for Major Come Up

However, research suggest the longer justice is delayed, the harder it becomes to ensure a fair trial and proper resolution. Additionally, if justice is delayed, it allows wrongdoers to further harm the victims who brought a case against the defendants. Such situations undermine the sense of security and trust within the court system, breeding a culture where wrongdoing goes unpunished. “I have total faith that justice will prevail. No Kreeseism, nepotism or toxicity can stop what the Universe has planned,” says Canada.

“Justice delayed will not erode my confidence in the Irish legal system. While I may have no confidence in toxic authority figures, I do have faith that justice will prevail.” Canada further states she will do what she can to build trust; build bonds with these legal systems, even if that means writing more articles about injustice in Ireland.

Can an Immigrant Human Right Defender Bring an Action in Irish Court by Themselves?

Despite the view of some very influential people, United Nations Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders clarified that “Everyone has the right, individually…to promote and to strive for the protection and realization of human rights and fundamental freedoms at the national and international levels” (See para. 29).

Mrs. Lawlor further articulated that states, such as Ireland, must ensure the rights of human rights defenders are not violated or curtailed because of the work they do. Indeed, Mrs. Lawlor specified that governments must “ensure that human rights defenders have access to justice and to effective remedies through national courts…regardless of their immigration status.”

However, the detrimental effects of delays in delivering justice in Ireland cannot be overstated. It deprives victims of closure, weakens the legal process, creates a culture of impunity, overburdens the legal system, and may erode public trust. “But don’t let it get you down. If there is an injustice, make sure your video record or document it, and then, keep it moving,” says Canada.

Publicizing America’s Persecution of African-Americans is a Moral Duty, Not Treason

Publicizing America’s Persecution of African Americans is a Moral Duty, Not Treason

Publicizing America’s Persecution of African Americans is a Moral Duty, Not Treason

As Human Rights Defenders (HRD), we have a moral obligation to speak out against acts that violate human rights, such as government wrongdoing and impunity. In my personal opinion, it is important to bring these concerns to light because of the damaging influence it has on disenfranchised communities, such as African Americans.

Over the years, the US government has hired private security firms to surveil African Americans who protest police brutality.[1] It has militarized its police departments and trained them in global counterinsurgency tactics to intimidate Black communities who make public complaints about racism. The US has also used surveillance, monitoring, informants,[2] colluders and other illicit practices to classify Black activists and HRDs as a threat to national security. Its framing of Black activists and HRDs as a threat gives it imprimatur to criminalize dissent both domestically and abroad.

These tactics, according to Mian, are reminiscent of the Counter Intelligence Program (“COINTELPRO”). While some suggest the FBI has abandoned its use of the term ‘BIE’, Mian contends there are no signs that it has retracted the label it has given to African American dissidents.[3] Indeed, evidence reveals the US government still frames Black dissidents who are critical of law enforcement as violent, so that it can quell dissent.[4]

Can the Expressions I Make Against the US Government Abroad be Interpreted as Treason?

As a HRD who actively speaks out against the US government’s ill-treatment of African Americans while abroad, my research and activism got me thinking: Would the US government interpret my expressions abroad as treason?

What is Treason?

The Encyclopædia Britannica defines treason as crime of betraying a nation or a sovereign by acts considered dangerous to security.[5]

What is Aid and Comfort in US Treason Law?

According to Article III, § 3 of the US Constitution, “treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort…” However, in Young v. United States, the US Supreme Court clarified that “aid or comfort to the rebellion” should be interpreted in its hostile sense,[6] such as furnishing warships or giving secret intelligence relating to the strength, movements, or position of an army.[7]

Publicizing America’s Persecution of African Americans is a Moral Duty, Not Treason

Do American HRDs Owe Fidelity to the US if Abroad?

It is argued that “every individual owes fidelity and allegiance to the government under which [they] are living in return for protection which [they] receive from the government.”[8]  The key word is “protection,” but, how it is defined in the eyes of international law? Protection or the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) entails a State safeguarding its citizens from “…genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and Crimes against Humanity.”[9]  Yet, the Inquiry Commission found the systematic killing and maiming of unarmed Black people, who posed no threat of death or serious bodily harm to police or others, was so widespread that it constituted Crimes against Humanity.[10]

This raises the question as to whether an American HRD or activist residing abroad is permitted to pass on evidence of US human rights violations, if one has formed the belief that facts warrant disclosure, and does so on the basis of such belief.[11] Indeed, American HRDs often form and hold opinions, and draw public attention to human rights violations,[12] such as Crimes against Humanity, which the US government could interpret as a treasonable act. Yet, Philosopher Cécile Fabre contends that an individual is robustly justified to commit, what she refers to as permissible treason, if an individual acts on the basis of such belief.[13] To be sure, Fabre specifies there is a moral duty owed to both the victim and the rescuers when the latter are under a duty to rescue.[14]

This leads me to believe that American HRDs do have a moral duty to bring global attention to the human rights violations transpiring in the US[15] because the international community has a duty to protect and rescue.

Are American HRDs Committing Treason by Calling for the Nullification of Laws?

It has been suggested that an American could be charged with treason by calling for the nullification[16] or the repeal of law or amendments, such as the Second Amendment. Even if the US government argued that such may weaken its position militarily, this argument cannot stand, as the epidemic of gun violence in the nation indicates the Second Amendment may be interfering with protected rights, such as the right to life.

In Cramer v. United States, the Court said so long as a citizen commits no act of aid or comfort to the enemy, they are free to harbour convictions that may be at odds with the government’s policies and interests.[17] In other words, American HRDs can make speeches critical of the government or oppose its measures while abroad, so long as they do not adhere to the country’s enemy or have an intent to betray the US.

It is worth stating at this point that when the US enacts amendments that adversely affect human rights, it contradicts human rights through the conduct of its constitutional organs, thereby violating its negative duties.

Can the US Government Use Treason Laws to Silence a HRD’s Dissent?

In the 1700s, courts found “letters of advice and correspondence…to enable [enemies of the US] to annoy us or to defend themselves, written and sent in order to be delivered…” may constitute an overt act of treason.[18] However, I disagree with this law in part, as anything could be considered “correspondence” that “annoys” the US. Indeed, history is full of examples of individuals who spoke out against US injustice and persecution while abroad, like Frederick Douglass, James Baldwin, James Meredith and Marian Wright to name a few.

“The American people have this to learn: that were justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob, and degrade them, neither persons nor property is safe.”

Fredrick Douglass

“I love America more than any other country in the world, and, exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticise her perpetually.”  

James Baldwin

  “When it comes to my rights as an American citizen and [African Americans], I am a triumphalist and an absolutist. Anything less is an insult.”

James Meredith

Moreover, if letters of advice, correspondence and annoyance were interpreted in its broadest sense, all HRDs would be in jail for educating others on their rights, and persuading international organs to investigate human rights wrongs.[19] As clarified in Grossymeyer v. United States, there must be an intention to aid the enemy or, an intent to promote its power and success.[20] This leads me to believe the US government cannot use treason laws to silence an HRD’s dissent abroad.

To be sure, the Human Rights Committee (“HRC”) asserted that restrictions imposed on free expression to protect the rights of others must be construed with care. Extreme care must also “be taken…to ensure that treason laws and similar provisions are crafted and applied in a manner that conforms to the strict requirements of para. 3.”[21] The HRC delivered another warning: It is not compatible with para. 3 to invoke such laws to suppress or withhold from the public information of legitimate public interests that does not harm national security. That is to say, States may not use treason laws to prosecute journalists, researchers, environmental activists or human rights defenders for having disseminated such information.[22]

One conclusion that can be drawn from these facts is publicizing America’s persecution of African Americans is a moral duty, not treason.

[1] Mian, Zahra N. “‘Black Identity Extremist’ or Black Dissident?: How United States v. Daniels Illustrates FBI Criminalization of Black Dissent of Law Enforcement, from COINTELPRO to Black Lives Matter.” Rutgers Race & the Law Review, vol. 21, no. 1, 2020, p. 63.

[2] Id., p. 55.

[3] Id., p. 89.

[4] Id., p. 82.

[5] Britannica, The Editors of Encyclopaedia. “treason”. Encyclopedia Britannica, 17 Apr. 2023, Accessed 26 May 2023.

[6] 97 U.S. 39 (1877).

[7] Warren, Charles. “What Is Giving Aid and Comfort to the Enemy?” The Yale Law Journal, vol. 27, no. 3, 1918, pp. 331–47. JSTOR, Accessed 22 May 2023. See p. 336.

[8] Id., p. 346.

[9] General Assembly. “Implementing the Responsibility to Protect.” United Nations, 12 Jan. 2009,

[10] Inquiry Commission. “Report of the International Commission of Inquiry on Systemic Racist Police Violence Against the People of African Descent in the United States, 2021,”, p. 119, para 438.

[11] Fabre, Cécile. “The Morality of Treason.” Law and Philosophy. 26 Jun. 2020, pp. 427-461. Springer, See p. 446.

[12] General Assembly. “Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.” OHCHR, 1999,

[13] Supra, note 11, p. 446.

[14] Id., p. 451.

[15] In my case, human rights violations against African Americans.

[16] Supra, note 7, p. 339.

[17]  325 U.S. 1 (1945)

[18] Supra, note 7, p. 346.

[19] Supra, note 12, Arts. 9, 12 and 16.

[20] (1868) 4 Ct. C1. 1, 13.

[21] HRC. “General Comment No. 34 Article 19: Freedoms of Opinion and Expression.” CCPR/C/GC/34, 11 Sept. 2011,

[22] Id., p. 7, para. 30.

How to Overshadow a Criminal Record and Move On With Your Life

How to Overshadow a Criminal Record and Move On With Your Life

How to Overshadow a Criminal Record and Move On With Your Life

We all make mistakes. In fact, it was Catherine Pulsifer who said, “we all make them, the difference is what we do after we make the mistake, how we see the mistake – a learning experience or a failure.” Mistakes, failure, and the sheer stupidity of having been convicted can toy with an individual’s mental health and invoke feelings of embarrassment. It can also cause a person to doubt their worthiness and position in the world. If that’s you, this article will show you how to overshadow a criminal record in 6 super smart ways.

According to Kathryn Schulz, these “terrible feelings come from realizing wrongness, not the feeling of actually being wrong. Because often, people are wrong for a while before they realize it, and in that intervening time, being wrong feels eerily like being right.”[1]

But what if after serving a sentence and acknowledging the wrong, the individual is limited by public opinion, harshly criticized by family members, and still encounter difficulties in the arena of gaining access to employment?

How to Overshadow a Criminal Record and Move On With Your Life Now

In approaching this issue, one should note that change can be daunting for the de-centered self, and even, most of society. Individuals who enter their moral career will face challenges from a fraction of members of the establishment, as they will seek to put a ‘glass ceiling’ between that individual and what they want to accomplish. This barrier can take the form of publishing the individuals’ past on the internet and  faillisting them from future employment opportunities. In view of this, it’s quite likely that individuals seeking a second chance may not know exactly how to overshadow their criminal record.

Sit With the Truth

First, sit with the truth. It is generally agreed today that previously incarcerated persons have accepted the wrong. While it may not be possible to make amends for the wrong in every case, I believe one of the smartest ways to overshadow a criminal record is to sit with the truth. This is often done within the confines of a prison cell or in isolation. According to Erving Goffman, this ‘mortifications of the self’ or sitting out period, makes it easier to eradicate the old self and create a new one.

Create the Best Ascription of Yourself is How to Overshadow a Criminal Record

Second, create the best ascription of you. An ascription gives, imputes, or attributes certain features to a person without justification. Let’s say an individual volunteers at a homeless shelter and uploads several photos of their action on social media. People may see them as being reliable, selfless, and passionate about social causes. Another way an individual can create the best ascription of themselves is to start their own business. For example, if an individual opens a barber shop and donates a percentage of the proceeds to a victim’s fund, people may associate that person with philanthropy and ‘giving back.’ As can be seen, these attributes are starkly different from terms such as inmate, offender, and criminal.

Ask Search Engines to Remove Negative Results

Third, ask webmasters to remove these negative results from their websites. For example, under the Right to Be Forgotten law in Ireland, people can request search engines to rectify or erase search engine results that are inaccurate, incomplete, outdated, or no longer relevant. This is arduous to accomplish in other jurisdictions outside of the EU, which will be discussed in another article. Be that it may, it is settled law that even individuals with criminal convictions have a right to privacy, and the right to be left alone.

Educate Others on Differential Association is How to Overshadow a Criminal Record

Fourth, individuals should educate those around them on what Edwin H. Sutherland refers to as differential association. While and individual may be wholly responsible for the commission of past criminal conduct, crime is often learnt by individuals in primary groups whose members were criminally inclined. It is often thought that previously incarcerated individuals become criminal by being socialized, in that, the weight of views favourable to crime exceeds those that encourage them to be law-abiding.[2] At times, individuals are merely a product of their environment.

How to Overshadow a Criminal Record and Move On With Your Life By Understanding the Hierarchy of Credibility

Fifth, understand the hierarchy of credibility. According to Howard S. Becker, those at the top (individuals without a criminal past) usually appear much more credible than those at the bottom.[3]  While Becker’s specifically mentioned those in an organization or society as being at the top, we cannot ignore the fact that previously incarcerated individuals are treated as an underclass. As a previously incarcerated person or underdog, the individual might be so completely discredited by a criminal record, as effectively to have no voice at all.[4]

While some employers might sympathize with, for example, marijuana users, it is hard to imagine many employers feeling obliged to assist ‘thieves’ or ‘crack cocaine dealers’ in their search for work. When this happens, use vocabularies of motive. These are the verbalizations of motives and intentions a person uses, not just to describe their actions, but also to justify them to others. For example:

“I burglarized that home when I was 21-years-old because I lived in an environment where I had to fend for myself. I was wrong. But now, I have changed, and I have made amends to my victims….”

“You should hire me for the following reasons: first, as a previously incarcerated individual, my lived-experience placed me directly in environments to understand crime and its impacts on people of color and the community….”

“The truth of the matter is that the content you are seeing online about me is factually incorrect. While that content may be persuasive because it is contained on a government website, its important to know [explain]….”

I understand there will be circumstances where the opportunity to explain convictions will be foreclosed; however, an individual should not allow this to choke off the flow of their enthusiasm or their resolve to create the best ascription of themselves. Where possible, individuals should explain the nature of their convictions in their cover letter or insert it into the objective on their CV.

For example, if an individual is applying for a job in home security, an objective may be “I used to steal stuff for a living, but I left that game behind years ago. I seek to use my criminal skills to test the security devices of corporations and to use my criminal “know how” to help make security devices more effective.”

Own Your Rite of Passage is How to Overshadow a Criminal Record

The sixth and final way on how to overshadow a criminal record is to own your rite of passage by drawing public attention to the changes in your status and social identity. You may also want to document how you handle the strong emotions that may be involved in such a transition.[5] As a previously incarcerated individual, pupil in society will use you as a scapegoat for their ignorance, phobias, political ideology, biases, and frustrations. When employers are unable to identify the real source of their own problems—having identified the source—are unable to challenge it, they may turn on some convenient target—you.[6] Indeed, evidence demonstrates previously incarcerated persons are disproportionately the victims of scapegoating. Thus, it has been argued that police should stop making mugshots public, as it only compounds the problem.

While this is not to be used as a ruse to justify prior criminal conduct, it is your right to change the course of your life. If English poet, John Marston, were alive today, he’d tell you, “Every man has a right to change, a chance of forgiveness.”

Overshadowing the past is the death of the subject. With these 6 super smart ways, I am confident these tools will be the demise of how perhaps your criminal record will be used as an unquestionable reference point, and how, employers may judge it in the future.

How to Overshadow a Criminal Record and Move On With Your Life was Originally published on November 24, 2022.

[1] Mindshift. (2015). Why Making Mistakes Is What Makes Us Human. KQED. Available at:

[2] Bruce, S. & Yearley, S. (2006). Differential Association. In The Sage Dictionary of Sociology. SAGE Publications Ltd. See pp. 71-72.

[3] Id., Hierarchy of Credibility, p. 135.

[4] Id.

[5] Id., Rite of Passage, p. 263.

[6] Id., Scapegoating, p. 269.

Skip to content