Advertisements

Archive

Posts Tagged ‘civil rights’

The Psychiatric Ward and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev

April 20, 2013 5 comments

Or: An Oddly Personal Reaction to the News.

I was once in a psychiatric hospital against my will. And yes, they can get just as terrible as mainstream media can make them seem. I don’t keep my mental health problems a secret. Or my involuntary commitment a secret; it’s not an experience I care to repress or forget. At the same time, I’ve never publicly blogged about it before it now.

It happened 16 months ago, and although it’s left an indelible mark on my psyche, I’m not sure I’ll ever be able to get the experience out in a single entry. “The Psych Ward Story” is a complicated story and when asked why it happened I usually sigh and say, “an unfortunate series of events.”

There were lots of traumatic aspects of the ordeal in addition to the obvious confinement: Being denied birth control by the Catholic hospital. Being transferred to another hospital in a poorer area with an under-trained and under-educated staff. Being prescribed psychotropic drugs that I knew from extensive experience were not going to help or agree with me. Being misdiagnosed.* Being falsely accused of being danger to myself.

But the incident that I would ping in my head as “the most wrong” in the week-long experience was when my doctor refused to give me access to my court paperwork and refused to give me the identity or phone number of the public defender. (There were also a nurse and a counselor present at my first and only meeting with the psychiatrist. They were silent.)

It was as simple and as curt as a “No.” My basic rights, probably as citizen and most definitely as a patient, were flagrantly violated.

I never did pursue a civil lawsuit. Besides legal fees and the desire to not re-live the experience, it was disheartening but unsurprising to learn that my requests to pursue my legal options to formally contest the confinement were never documented. My hopeless crying at the psychiatrist’s dismissal of me was ironically* recorded by the doctor in the progress notes as, “Patient thinks [referring to self in third person] does not care.”

These days I get emotional when reading about anything remotely related to civil rights violations, specifically unjust treatment during confinement. Some days I’m afraid I’m becoming a libertarian. I don’t know enough about trauma to talk about it on a medical level, but I do know that I never used to start crying when reading about the disgrace that is Guantanamo. And I have no doubt that had the psych ward incident not have happened, I would not avoid listening to the Bradley Manning tapes out of fear of having a panic attack.

So today when I read that the Boston Marathon bombing suspect was not Mirandized, my immediate thoughts were, “That’s terrible!” and then “I bet Glenn Greenwald is going to go off about this.”

Greenwald already did:

Needless to say, Tsarnaev is probably the single most hated figure in America now. As a result, as Bazelon noted, not many people will care what is done to him, just like few people care what happens to the accused terrorists at Guantanamo, or Bagram, or in Yemen and Pakistan. But that’s always how rights are abridged: by targeting the most marginalized group or most hated individual in the first instance, based on the expectation that nobody will object because of how marginalized or hated they are. Once those rights violations are acquiesced to in the first instance, then they become institutionalized forever, and there is no basis for objecting once they are applied to others.

I cried a lot at that editorial. Not that I want to hyperbolize my experience by comparing it to individuals of national interest or make a plea on behalf of all those that have undergone civil or criminal commitment. I just wanted to make note of the highly personal ways individuals can react to current events based on their own experiences.

Today, in a weird way, I find myself having empathy for a terrorist. Or, to be fully politically correct, an alleged terrorist. I too have made had my fundamental rights abrogated in the name of “safety.” And as an American and an idealist, it makes me very sad.

—–

*My only long-standing diagnosis is Major Depressive Disorder. The same inpatient psychiatrist who shit on my Due Process later carelessly listed the “Final Diagnosis” on my discharge report as “Schizophrenia.”

Advertisements

Overview of the Occupy Wall Street Movement. Videos and Information.

September 29, 2011 2 comments

The congregations of protestors loosely associated with the “Occupy Wall Street Protest” has hit the 12th day of their resistance movement in Lower Manhattan today, September 29, 2011.

Occupy Wallst dot org is the unofficial de facto planning group committed to providing support to the protestors supporting the movement against political influence of the business world.  While a “leaderless group”–they have no official goals or support specific legislation–their base shares a general spirit to persuade the US people and government, according to the site,  “to no longer tolerate the greed and corruption of the [top wealthy] 1 percent.”

Video of arrests here:

Many more amateur videos can be found with the youtube search term “Occupy Wall Street.”

In their Sept. 29 video, Democracy Now! interviews Michael Moore and talks to one of the protestors that allegedly experienced police brutality.  Michael Moore participated with the crowds, who were not allowed by public law to set up PA systems, by rallying them to repeat anti-Wall Street corruption chants aloud as a group in Liberty Square.

It is perfectly legal to video tape a police officer on duty.  Stand up to police brutality.  (Do this discreetly, when possible; police are often ignorant of the law and will destroy evidence of their abuse in situations with less accountability.)  The right to film police was recently upheld as a constitutional right in New England’s First Circuit Court of Appeals.

Police who were caught on film pepper spraying female protestors, are currently under investigation by the NYC DA.

A Civil Rights Attorney comments on the right of the people to assemble and establish temporary tents of a reasonable size:

Same-sex Marriage Legalized in California

In lieu of recent civil rights break through in California, I decided I would reiterate some of the main points from my same-sex essay. The essay is about 2000 words, so I can understand why it’s not getting many fullviews. I too have a short attention span, and mostly read tumblelogs.

Quoteth the AP article “California’s top court legalizes gay marriage”:

“Essentially, this boils down to love. We love each other. We now have equal rights under the law,” declared a jubilant Robin Tyler, a plaintiff in the case along with her partner. She added: “We’re going to get married. No Tupperware, please.”

*headdesk*

1. Marriage is not about love, not in the government ratified sense. No ones preventing gays from loving, living together, or even having a ceremony. Plenty of people who aren’t in love get married.

2. Marriage is not “sacred”, unless you’re talking about in the spiritual or religious sense. Somebody please tell Bush there’s a separation of church and state.

2. Legal marriage is about the 1049 rights, benefits, and privileges are granted by the federal government and the hundreds more granted by the state. Marriage is also about having the title “marriage” so that “equivalent” civil unions don’t echo the failed separate but equal concept.

3. Stop calling it “gay marriage.” Same-sex marriage allows people of the gender to marry regardless of sexual orientation. I’m straight and I want the option to marry a woman if I want to. I want to be able to say, “This is my heterosexual life partner. She is the Jay to my Silent Bob. I want her to be the one that takes custody of me if I’m in a coma and receive my social security when I die.” I’m probably not going to, but goddammit I want that right.

Same-Sex Marriage: The Absurdity of the Arguing

Perhaps it is the irony of a half-naked man in fairy wings parading the streets of San Francisco claiming he’s just like everyone else. Perhaps, Congress, full of disgruntled men sympathetic to Senator Larry Craig and unable to exercise their public restroom fantasies, exude their anger by passing constitutional amendments barring same-sex couples from marriage. Americans, quite vehemently, are still bickering about what should be done with what President Bush has called “the most fundamental institution of civilization.”

But what exactly do gay people want and why are their opponents so intent on denying it to them? Libertarian journalist and gay-rights proponent, Andrew Sullivan, says he wants the right to marriage, “a lifetime legal commitment between two unrelated, consenting adults to take responsibility for each other (and their children, if any) and to share their lives and home together.” Despite the call for civil rights, marriage has been declared as the “sacred institution” that Bush and his conservative followers so desperately want to “protect” via a constitutional amendment limiting it to a man and a woman. How can a legal institution in a country with a clear division of church and state be sacred? Unless, of course, there are multiple components of marriage—religious, societal, and governmental— and people like the President still have trouble distinguishing them. Once marriage is narrowed to the legal definition with societal implications, one can then better look at the arguments against. However, even after sifting through the name-calling and shaky assertions of societal degradation, there is simply no logical reason why two individuals of the same sex should be denied access to the title of marriage and all encompassing federal and state benefits. Read more…