Category: Human Rights

Does the United States Have an Obligation to Provide Adequate Housing?

Does the United States Have an Obligation to Provide Adequate Housing?

Does the United States Have an Obligation to Provide Adequate Housing?

Homelessness Persons Defined in International Law

The United Nations has defined homeless households as “households without a shelter that would fall within the scope of living quarters. They carry their few possessions with them, sleeping in the streets, in doorways or on piers, or in any other space, on a more or less random basis.”[1]

Who Figures Strongly in the Homelessness Demographic?

Black Americans in the US strongly figure in the homelessness demographic. It is well known and widely acknowledged that Black adults have been systematically denied—often explicitly by the law itself—equal civil rights and myriad socio-economic opportunities in the US[2] that has resulted in their homelessness state.

Why Are Black Americans Homeless in the United States?

The Special Rapporteur on adequate housing has highlighted that poverty is a common denominator in the experience of people experiencing homelessness.[3] Homelessness and poverty are inextricably linked.[4]

Concentrated poverty and residential segregation have increased during the post-civil rights era creating settings in which the behaviours that define antisocial personality, as seen with the Neely and Brown cases, are more likely to reflect the social environment rather than individual psychopathology.[5] To be sure, Rhee and Rosenheck found race-based inequalities in lifetime homelessness were primarily associated with differences in income, incarceration history, exposure to traumatic events, and to a lesser extent by antisocial personality disorder, age and parental drug use.[6]  

According to General Resolution 34, States should develop and implement policies and projects aimed at avoiding the segregation of communities in housing, such as Black Americans. The involvement of “communities of people of African descent” should be seen “as partners in housing project construction, rehabilitation, and maintenance.”[7]

Does the United States Have an Obligation to Provide Adequate Housing?

What Does the Right to Adequate Housing Guarantee?

While some articles claim that Americans are provided a bundle of protections through the Fair Housing Act, research demonstrates there are still particularly high levels of segregation in metropolitan areas with large Black populations. Indeed, Jargowsky, Ding and Fletcher found the racial and economic segregation in the nation points to the failure of the US to fully implement the FHA, particularly the law’s directive to affirmatively further fair housing. The Researchers also stated the large goal of integrated living patterns – the polar opposite of “two societies…separate and unequal” – has not been achieved. In other words, the patterns of Jim Crow are still alive.

The Obligation to Fulfil

Obligations to protect rest primarily with the US legislature, who is required to adopt laws ensuring that housing is available for people experiencing homelessness and persons in distress.[10] Indeed, the Special Rapporteur on adequate housing has called homelessness “perhaps the most visible and most severe symptom of the lack of respect for the right to adequate housing.”[11] States’ obligations towards the full realization of the right to adequate housing include taking measures to prevent homelessness.[12] Under the obligation to fulfil, the US must prevent and address homelessness; provide the physical infrastructure required for housing to be considered adequate, or ensure adequate housing to individuals or groups unable, for reasons beyond their control, to enjoy the right to adequate housing, notably through housing subsidies and other measures.[13]


[1] UN. “The Right to Adequate Housing.” United Nations Office of the High Commissioner, www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Publications/FS21_rev_1_Housing_en.pdf. Accessed 15 May 2023.

[2] Id.

[3] Id., p. 22

[4] National Coalition for the Homeless. “Why Are People Homeless?” Why Are People Homeless?, nationalhomeless.org/publications/facts/Why.pdf. Accessed 15 May 2023.

[5] Id., p. 168.

[6] Rhee, Taeho Greg, and Robert A Rosenheck. “Why Are Black Adults Over-Represented among Individuals Who Have Experienced Lifetime Homelessness? Oaxaca-Blinder Decomposition Analysis of Homelessness among US Male Adults.” Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1136/jech-2020-214305, p. 167.

[7] Thornberry, Patrick. “The Right to Housing.” International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination: A Commentary, Oxford University Press, Croydon, 2016, p. 370.

[8] Kälin, Walter, and Künzli, Jörg. The Right to Adequate Housing. The Law of International Human Rights Protection. Oxford University Press, 2019, p. 300.

[9] Id.

[10] Id., p. 302.

[11] Supra, note 1, p. 21.

[12] Id., p. 23.

[13] Id., p. 34.

Calls for Accountability Grow as HRD Quianna Canada Condemns Shooting of Trans Organizer, Banko Brown

Calls for Accountability Grow as HRD Quianna Canada Condemns Shooting of Trans Organizer, Banko Brown

Calls for Accountability Grow as HRD Quianna Canada Condemns Shooting of Trans Organizer, Banko Brown

To Honorable Olivier De Schutter and the Esteemed Members of the Human Rights Committee,

I am writing to urge you to conduct a thorough investigation into the murder of Banko Brown, an American trans organizer, whose life was taken by a security guard on April 27, 2023. The tragic event has left not only his loved ones, but also the entire LGBTQ community he was fighting for, devastated and fearful for their safety.

The Walgreens security guard stopped Brown for shoplifting, and afterwards, a confrontation ensued. During the confrontation, the security guard fatally shot Brown. Several US security guards have gunned down shoplifters in the US, raising the question as to whether shoplifting is now punishable by death in the nation.

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 US 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 US—that have not abolished the death penalty—only may impose the death penalty for the most serious crimes. This means the US must interpret the term “most serious crimes” restrictively and should appertain only to crimes of extreme gravity, involving intentional killing. Evidence indicates that Brown was unarmed. 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.

Calls for Accountability Grow as HRD Quianna Canada Condemns Shooting of Trans Organizer, Banko Brown and Strangulation of Jordan Neely

The murder of Brown is not just a crime against an individual, but an attack on the fundamental principles of democracy and the rule of law. As with Jordan Neely, Brown could not fully enjoy his rights, such as the right to food, because he could not afford to buy adequate food. I would even go so far as to say that Brown was also unable to obtain food because of the persistent patterns of discrimination in political and social participation in the US.

How the U.S. Government Failed Brown:

Right to Adequate Housing: the US Government has not fulfilled its obligation to protect homeless persons nationwide. As per the UN, States should regulate the housing and rental markets in a way that promotes and protects the right to adequate housing.

Right to Adequate Food: Food was not available, accessible or adequate for Brown. While there is no right to be fed by the Government, Brown does have a right to feed himself in dignity (Right to Adequate Food, p. 3). Whenever individuals or groups are unable, for reasons beyond their control, to enjoy the right to food by the means at their disposal, the US has the obligation to provide. An example provided by the UN is providing food assistance or ensuring social safety nets for the most deprived.

Links between Brown’s Human Right to Food and Other human rights:

The right to life. When people are not able to feed themselves, they face the risk of death by starvation, malnutrition or resulting illnesses.

The murder of Brown and Neely sends a chilling message to other houseless individuals that their lives are at risk. Indeed, the murder of impoverished persons is a broader problem with vigilante justice in the US. It may indicate a lack of respect for human rights, embolden a culture of impunity for those who commit crimes against homeless persons, or may indicate state-sanctioned violence.

As the world’s leading intergovernmental organization promoting peace, justice, and human rights, the UN has a responsibility to investigate such cases and hold those responsible accountable. The UN must send a strong message that the murder of homeless persons will not be tolerated and that those responsible must face justice.

I therefore call on the UN to conduct a thorough and impartial investigation into the murder Brown and Neely, and to seek information as to why the perpetrators are not being brought to justice. It is critical that the UN take action to prevent further attacks on homeless persons in the US, and to uphold the values of democracy, freedom, and justice that are at the core of its mission.

Sincerely,

Journey to the Center

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

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

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 (“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.

Breaking the Silence: Shocking Treatment of Asylum Seekers in Ireland Demand Urgent Action from NGOs

Breaking the Silence: Shocking Treatment of Asylum Seekers in Ireland Demand Urgent Action from NGOs

Breaking the Silence: Shocking Treatment of Asylum Seekers in Ireland Demand Urgent Action from NGOs

Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are often at the forefront of advocating for asylum seekers, refugees, and the Traveller community in Ireland. Most have made significant strides in raising awareness about the mistreatment and injustices that occur in different parts of Ireland. However, there is an issue that has been largely ignored by many asylum advocate NGOs in Ireland, and that is the issue of torture in Direct Provision. Torture is a heinous crime that violates human rights and has devastating consequences for victims.

United Nations Definition of Torture

The United Nations defines torture as “any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person”. Torture is a violation of human rights and a crime under international law. It is a cruel and inhumane practice that has no place in Ireland or any society.

NGOs Must Break Their Silence on the Torturous Practices Authority Officials are Using Against Asylum Seekers in Direct Provision

Despite the unequivocal condemnation of torture by UN Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, authority figures in Ireland continue to use these practices to intimidate certain asylum seekers. Torture is being used by Irish officials to extract information, punish individuals for seeking asylum, and to intimidate populations. It is used as a tool of repression to silence dissent and maintain power.

Breaking the Silence: Shocking Treatment of Asylum Seekers in Ireland Demand Urgent Action from NGOs: Consequences of Torture

The consequences of torture are severe and long-lasting. Victims of torture often suffer from physical and mental health problems, including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), chronic pain, and serious ill-treatment. Many are left with permanent disabilities, and some even die as a result of their injuries.

NGOs Role in Ending Torture

NGOs in Ireland play a critical role in ending torture. For instance, NGOs have the expertise, resources, and networks to document cases of torture, provide legal assistance to victims, and advocate for changes in policy and practice. Further, NGOs can work with international bodies, such as the Committee Against Torture, to raise awareness about the use of torture and to pressure the Irish governments to take action to end this abhorrent practice.

NGOs Are Being Persuaded by Powerful Authority Figures Not to Act

Irish NGOs have been hesitant to break their silence on the torture that is occurring in Direct Provision because they are being persuaded by powerful authority figures not to act. Torture often occurs in secret, and sometimes, it is difficult to obtain evidence of its use. What is more, officials who are deploying torturous practices in Direct Provision are often repressive and unresponsive to criticism, making it difficult for asylum seekers to speak out and access their rights. Indeed, there is a history in Ireland of intimidating asylum seekers into silence over their poor treatment.

While NGOs may be concerned about the safety of their staff and the impact that speaking out against torture may have on their relationships with governments and other stakeholders in Ireland, one of the primary roles of NGOs is to foster a culture of accountability. In other words, NGOs in Ireland must hold government officials responsible for their actions.

Why Silence on Torture is Not an Option

NGOs must recognize that their silence on torture is not an option. NGOs have a moral obligation to speak out against all forms of human rights abuses, including torture. By remaining silent on torture in Ireland, NGOs are allowing this heinous practice to continue unchecked. Moreover, by failing to speak out against torture, NGOs are failing to fulfill their mandate to promote and protect human rights.

When NGOs speak out against torture, they expose torture and the International Community is more likely to take action to prevent future abuses. NGOs can demand Direct Provision centres follow international human rights standards, such as the Istanbul Protocol, which provides guidelines for the investigation and documentation of torture.

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees Must Investigate Ireland's Coercive Repatriation Practices

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees Should Investigate Ireland’s Coercive Repatriation Practices

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees Should Investigate Ireland’s Coercive Repatriation Practices before its too late.

MARCH 24, 2023

To the esteemed members of the United Nations:
I, the undersigned, write to draw your attention to the pressing issue of coercive repatriation in Ireland, a practice that violates the fundamental rights of asylum seekers in the State. I urge the United Nations to undertake a comprehensive investigation into this practice in Ireland, and to take necessary steps to ensure that it is eliminated.

Coercive Repatriation in Ireland


Coercive repatriation refers to the forced return of asylum seekers to their home countries, often in violation of the principles of non-refoulement and the right to seek asylum. Despite the contentions of those involved, some asylum seekers in Ireland have fled their country due to police violence and brutality, gun violence, racism, or discrimination on the basis of their gender identity.  I further submit that some asylum seekers are at risk of real harm if they are returned. Despite the risks faced, the International Protection Office in Ireland and staff in Direct Provision continue to engage in this coercive practice, which disregards an asylum seekers basic human rights under international and human rights law. It is essential that the United Nations investigate this issue and take action to put an end to Ireland’s effort to coercively repatriate asylum seekers, on account that it has formed diplomatic relations with an asylum seeker’s country of origin. Moreover, it is settled law that any repatriation through coercive means is a breach of Art. 33 of the Refugee Convention.

Responsibility of the United Nations to Investigate


The United Nations has a responsibility to uphold human rights of all individuals, regardless of their nationality and race. By investigating this practice and working to eliminate it, the United Nations can help protect my rights, and the rights of other asylum seekers, ensuring that we are all treated with dignity and respect.

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees Must Investigate Ireland’s Coercive Repatriation Practices! Comprehensive Investigated Required.


In conclusion, I call on the United Nations to act without delay on this important matter. I also urge the United Nations to launch a comprehensive investigation into Ireland’s coercive repatriation and to take strong actions to ensure that this practice is stopped once and for all. I believe that this is a critical matter that demands immediate attention, and I stand ready to support the United Nations in any way possible, with any evidence and documentation I have complied over the last two years, to achieve a just and humane solution.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Quianna Canada

Skip to content