Compound Discrimination

While handling the domestic violence incident that led to the breaking down of my marriage and collapse of my life, instead of checking my body to verify my claims of being assaulted, the Canadian Police opted to give me relationship advice: “relationships between middle eastern men and western women do not work”. Not a letter short, not a letter extra.

I am not judging the statistical correctness of this statement, as I wouldn’t know, but where the Canadian Police placed themselves in social dynamics and how they had classified me in their minds by only looking at the place of my birth: a natural-born wife-beating middle eastern Muslim. Needless to say, their treatment of the incident was exactly through that lens of racial discrimination.

I know that my words alone won’t mean enough to prove my claims against the Canadian Police. However, I am both saddened and encouraged by the fact that I’ve met several others who had very similar encounters with the Canadian Police and I am certain that a brief investigation in to the matter would reveal many other cases similar to mine in nature. And that should at least be enough to prove that there is enough smoke to look into the matter in more depth for the benefit of the Canadian Public. Investigating racial discrimination claims is what the international law the Canadian Government vowed to abide by dictates, anyway.

The racist and the sexist discrimination I’ve been subjected to by the Canadian Justice System cannot be attributed to a single individual or incident alone. The best way I can describe what I experienced is with the term “compound discrimination”. Akin to compound interest adding interest to the previously accumulated interest, the compound discrimination grows at each exposure by adding on top of the previously accumulated discrimination. This is exactly what led an empowered, unchecked, out-of-line judge to making a final order during an uncontested trial – a trial to which my request to take part in was denied by the Canadian Government – to take my parental rights away and not just to violate the international law but also to abandon basic human values.

I have consulted to several lawyers at the beginning of my attempts to reunite with my daughter in order to make sure that I was following the right track and every single one of them found the final order made by Judge Paisley going too far. In a particular case, after reading the final order that was made by Judge Paisley, one of them reacted by slapping his forehead in frustration and out loud saying “This … should be taken off duty at this point. He is not being smart, not being smart at all.”.
Was this lawyer simply trying to get my business by showing false empathy and hoping that I would fall for that? Possible. But that wasn’t the impression I got from his tense eye line, clenched jaw and the tight fist he made with his hand. I think it was the opposite, I believe he was holding back and trying to act professional to not give the image of a hot-headed lawyer to his potential client. There is at least an equal possibility that this lawyer was being genuine and right about his assessment.

Given the reaction of a lawyer who is very experienced in the Canadian Justice System, how precious children are and how fragile human life is, the Canadian Government owe to the Canadian Public an investigation and reassessment of this Judge’s fitness for duty. Anyone who holds this much power must be kept to very high standards and under constant strict checks.

At the very beginning, the fact that the racist Canadian Police had labeled me as the aggressor encouraged the courts to punish me and my 3 months old daughter with cruelty of alienation. At the age of 3 months old, my daughter was forced to live under the conditions of a women’s shelter for 3 months by her own mentally ill mother (assessed by a doctor of pschology) and the Canadian Government. Deprived from her father’s love, attention and care, with no reason.

The alienation efforts of the Canadian Government did not stop there. At the first appearance at the Supreme Court of BC, I was again punished with seeing my own daughter for only 6 hours a week. That is 24 hours a month and 312 hours a year. That, to be exact, adds up to 13 days a year.
13 days a year is clearly not sufficient to develop a meaningful relationship with anyone, let alone with a newborn who should be spending as much time as possible with both her parents to develop into a healthy adult. The motive behind this order is clear as daylight: to separate and alienate my daughter from me, the natural-born wife-beating middle eastern man.
I challenge the Canadian Government to back this decision with a single scientific or medical fact that 6 hours a week with a parent is in the best interest of a newborn. Because, all the psychiatrists and psychologists I have spoken to, in Turkey, in the Netherlands and in Canada, advocate that this is a sure way to scar a child’s psychology for a lifetime. What is this 6 hours a week decision based on?! Science?! Medicine?! Psychology?! Or, how racist and sexist a judge is feeling that particular day?

At a later court session, one of the judges tried to decrease this time to 4 hours a week, however after my firm push back, he backed down from this decision. That is about 8 and a half days a year.

The rate of discrimination accelerated over time and at each step the Canadian Government increased the dose of discrimination and abuse. During the last session I attended at the Supreme Court of BC, after his continuous dismissal of everything I put forward regarding the abuse me and my daughter was being subjected to, I asked the judge what I could do to protect myself against the abuse coming from the Applicant. He responded yelling at me as loud as he could; “You suck it up!”. Not a letter short, not a letter extra.
I am sure this was recorded by the clerk present at the courtroom.

By looking at the reaction of the judge and the tone of this particular writing, one might think I must have done something to anger him. However, the fact is that, back then I still had the illusion that the legal system of Canada was something at least to be respected even though I could not rely upon it, and I was acting accordingly.
The judge was hostile from the very beginning, from the very first opening sentence of mine. His attitude reached a point where I could not even speak. When I pointed this out by saying that “you are making it impossible to defend myself”, the judge was startled. He literally jumped in his seat and changed his posture.

The same judge refused my request for taking care of my daughter instead of sending her to a daycare while I was unemployed to avoid unnecessary costs.

Later on, the same judge ordered me to pay all the remaining funds in my bank account to my ex, even though, because of the unemployment the Canadian Government unrightfully forced on me, I had no income for almost one year at that point.

This was my breaking point, this was the order that forced me to leave the country and leave my 2 and a half years old baby behind. Being already gone through a period of homelessness and starvation, this order meant that I had to leave Canada because I could not afford neither food nor shelter for myself and my daughter. This also meant that I had to go back to my home country, Turkey, where even if I could find a well-paying job, I could not pay any meaningful child support simply due to the value, or rather the lack thereof, the Turkish currency. When I explained the situation to the judge, his response was that me leaving the country would be better for my child than me fooling around.

“Fooling around” was the exact phrase the judge used to describe my unemployment, despite the fact that I had explained to him that I was not allowed to work in Canada due to the Canadian Immigration Office’s unrightful rejection of my permanent residency request and I was trying to fight to win back my right to work.

The same judge added that he does not believe my claim of Canadian Government not allowing me to work to provide for my family. A Supreme Court judge hiding behind the excuse of not knowing the simplest immigration law of his own country, a law publicly accessible via a Google search, to punish someone to abandon his infant child, or a government whose immigration policies are so inhumane that even their own Supreme Court judges cannot believe them to be true. I am having a difficult time deciding which one is more frightening.

The liberty this judge and the ones after him took in punishing a man to abandon his child, a man who is – even in the worst-case scenario, even if every single lie his wife has been telling was true – someone who pushed his violent wife away by holding her from her neck without harming her, a man who is – even in the worst-case scenario – a once in a lifetime offender, in a country where even murderers are allowed to see their children, cannot be explained with anything else but compound discrimination, with the empowerment provided by being a member of a pack whose members’ hands are dirty, hence will have to watch your and their own backs against the others.

The Accusation, The Purpose and The Ask

I accuse the Canadian Government with racism, sexism, rape, kidnapping, child abuse, torture, immigrant exploitation and violation of 4 international agreements which has been going on for over 5 years now.

The purpose is rather simple: stopping this rogue government from abusing my child, torturing me, the others whom I met along the way and everyone else who has been victimized by their corrupt, broken so-called justice system, and preventing the same things from happening to others.

I have tried every option under the sun to resolve these issues through the legal channels but, of course, a government I attributed the qualities above is not going to be just and it will try to protect itself, its own; and try to cover its true face at all costs. As a result, I have not been able to see my daughter for the past three and a half years despite my best efforts and I know that I am not the only one who is victimized by criminal activities of this government.

I also tried to get help from human rights organizations and media. Human rights organizations were powerless either due to jurisdiction or time lapse, and the media hasn’t been interested in the matter simply because these all look common on the surface. In its details however,  the combination of events make this quite unique and interesting which surfaces several corrupt aspects of the Canadian Government and reveal its true face.

At this point, the only way I see to stop this rogue government is to expose it hoping some individuals within with the required authority, who still has their humanity, will hear my voice and act on those issues to prevent further victimization of innocent Canadians and immigrants, especially the children.

In short, Canada is not what it seems to be, it is not what media makes it out to be. Media needs heroes as much as villains to sell us stories, and as they often create their
villains they also create their heroes. Canada is just one of those made up heroes to keep their stories interesting. In reality, it is as monstrous as any country which uses their judicial institutions as political tools, any country that discriminates against people based on their color of skin, origin, gender and financial worth. It is racist, it is sexist, it is rapist, it abuses children, it tortures people, it exploits immigrants, it is lawless.

The ask: The Canadian Government must

  1. Immediately return my daughter to my care, whom they organized and funded the kidnapping of.
  2. Grant my fair trial right and allow me to produce evidence to clear my name, which they stained by framing me to protect their own.
  3. Immediately start the reunification process of all the children with their families who has been victimized by their lethargic, biased and inhumane so-called justice system. They will cover all the expenses related to the reunification process including locating the separated parents and their children; advertising in media organizations and websites that operates in every single country in the world to announce the reunification efforts.
  4. Compensate those children and their families for all the financial and psychological damage they have caused.
  5. Provide those children and their families a minimum 5 years of full financial support to allow them a fair chance to reunite and amend the bonds that were broken by their corrupt justice system.
  6. Take away the right to separate a child from her parents from judges and give it to juries composed of the victims of their corrupt justice system.
  7. Dishonorably discharge the judges who unjustly separated children from their parents to send a firm message to the justice system employees that no one gets away with child abuse and injustice.
  8. Commit to honoring the international agreements they signed and set up an official watchdog with sufficient authority to enforce them.
  9. Set up a watchdog organization to monitor, rate and evaluate the fitness of judges for service. Especially of those who handle cases related to children.

Fixing the World

There are a ton of problems from income inequality to corruption to injustice that need to be addressed globally, problems that create constant conflicts and pose a threat for the future of global social peace. Yet we don’t seem to be able to take even a single meaningful step towards solving them for centuries. The same problems created the monstrous government that led to our forced separation too my love. Hence, I will write about what I believe to be the most realistic solution here.

I believe the underlying reason for the inability to solve these problems is self-inflicted and roots from our habits. We are tribal creatures and so are our governance systems. Even in this day and age we still seek a leader who is a strong, charismatic parental figure we can look up to. Hence, we let a handful of individuals lead the seven and a half billion of us into a future full of conflict and suffering, into the certain failure of our civilization.

We came from small tribes that were lead by strong men, hence we didn’t see a problem in uniting in larger numbers and putting just another strong man in charge. Then we rediscovered the idea that everyone should have a say in who that strong man is going to be. We replaced kings with presidents by thinking that we were solving the problem without even realizing what the root-cause is: the way we distribute power, and ignorance.

Concentrating the power to only a few hundred people in each country makes them easy targets for the groups that want to take advantage of them and steer the system to the direction beneficial to themselves. The so-called checks and balances system is clearly ineffective as we have seen repeatedly across the globe. Hence the corruption, hence the paralysis… There is only one way to overcome this issue, and that is to distribute the power to the point of making it meaningless, making it hard to control. Controlling a few hundred representatives through offering benefits or otherwise does not seem to be an issue for those self-interest groups. Let’s see how will they deal with tens of thousands of representatives.

No more one-man leaderships, no more entrusting only a few hundred of us to determine our future. A healthy and corruption-resilient governance model is the one in which we balance the representative and full democracy models, in which we allow an individual to represent only the number of people he/she can directly maintain contact with and represent accurately. A democracy in which the leadership is entrusted to a large group of people rather than an individual.

I believe that in well-educated and less populous countries – such as most of the Central and Western European; and all the Nordic countries – this ratio can be as low as 1-to-1000. In populous, less educated countries and/or countries with tribal inclinations – such as Turkey, India, Japan, the United States, Brazil – this ratio can be lower, lets say 1-to-10000. No, we cannot, we should not go full democracy or entirely rely on AI as some contemplates. Those are dangerous paths for different reasons.

Yes, we will lose efficiency in some already inefficient legislative processes, but take it from this efficiency freak in everything he does and owns, this is a worthy tradeoff. Arriving at a healthy future slowly should be more preferable to all rather than arriving at a dystopian future speedily. Having said that, we can also gain efficiency in many areas by creating smaller and specialized legislative units that does not require attendance from all representatives.

There of course  are certain aspects of governance which requires immediate action or secrecy, such as responding to threats or gathering and sharing intelligence. For those, we will come up with smaller groups of governance that are more agile, but still without much power.

For the second part of the problem: No, I do not believe in everyone having a right to vote on every matter either. I find this principle dangerously romantic, disconnected from reality. When was the last time anyone sought advice from an 18 years old for managing their investment portfolio, or advice from a farmer for shaping international relationships, or advice from a music teacher for which crops to subsidize? And no one should, unless those individuals demonstrate a certain level of understanding of those topics. Likewise, no one should have a vote in determining what the future should be for everyone in the matters they don’t grasp. People should earn the right to vote by passing a civic exam which targets educating the public in every field of life, an exam they can take as many times as they like. Yes, we are capable of coming up with a / a few fair civic exam model(s) that could be applied to the majority of the world, if not all. We are capable of creating social structures that will give a chance to everyone to experience more, learn more, have more, share more, love more, tolerate more.

An alternative to this would of course be allowing everyone to vote on all the matters by giving their votes a different weight based on their civic exam scores.

A stretch “goal” would be to having multiple governance models and laws applying to different groups with in the same society, based on their preference and not their geographic location. This is already the case for certain groups in certain countries, such as the native folks of Canada. This is basically just taking the federalist government model of the United States and defining the states based on people’s governance preferences rather than their geographic location. This would especially help countries such as Turkey where there is a clear division within the public’s opinion of what the way of living should be, where some groups are forced to abide by values they find offensive/torturous/inhumane because of the fear of a non-unitary governance model leading to loss of hegemony in certain geographic regions.

This is an achievable -as exampled in certain cases- but yet rather complicated way of governance. Therefore, I deemed it a stretch goal and put it as the bottom of the priorities.

I believe once we fix the fundamental issue of fair, just and correct governance the rest will unfold. Once we see we can solve millennia old problems, we will grow confident, mature and learn how to live together better.

There is a ton to read between the lines in this writing. It is certainly not well-planned and more of a brain-dump than an article. Unfortunately, I am running out of time and have to move on with the hope that I will be able to fill in those lines later on, or you will find this writing and pick it up from where I left my love.