If There Was No Wrong

"If There Was No Wrong" - When The System Says Your Suffering Has No Cause November 20, 2025. The Alberta Human Rights Commission dismissed my complaint against Apple Canada Inc. The Chief of the Commission wrote: "I accept based on the record that the complainant has a mental disability protected under the Act. I also accept that the delay in payment of his benefits constitutes adverse impact. However... there is insufficient information to demonstrate that the complainant's protected characteristic was a factor in any adverse impact." Let me translate: We believe you're disabled. We believe you were harmed. But we don't believe your disability is why you were harmed. So if my disability wasn't the cause... what was? Random chance? Cosmic bad luck? A series of unfortunate bureaucratic errors that just happened to devastate someone with PTSD for four months? This song is what happens when you realize institutions can acknowledge your suffering while denying it has a cause—and that erasure is itself a form of violence. The Facts They Accepted: I have PTSD (mental disability) Apple/Sedgwick didn't pay me for four months despite approved disability benefits I resorted to survival sex work to pay rent I experienced "adverse impact" What They Denied: That my disability was a factor in how I was treated That Apple discriminated against me That I deserve a hearing The Logic Problem: If there was no discrimination, then why did I suffer? If nobody failed me, then why did my life collapse? If the system worked, then why did I have to sell my body to survive? The Commission's answer: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ "Insufficient information." The Settlement They Say I Refused: December 6, 2023: Conciliation meeting. We reach an agreement. I confirm in writing. December 7: Apple's lawyers send the contract. It includes: An illegal clause forfeiting my vacation pay (violates Employment Standards) A "global" non-disparagement clause broader than what we discussed I object immediately. Apple eventually removes the vacation pay clause but keeps the overreach on non-disparagement. The Commission gives me until noon December 19 to sign. I don't because the terms still don't match what I agreed to. At 3:17 PM—after declaring conciliation closed—they send a revised contract with a new 4:30 PM deadline. If the agreement was binding at noon, why revise it at 3:17 PM? The Director's decision: I "refused to accept a proposed settlement that is fair and reasonable." The Chief's decision: Upheld. Complaint dismissed. What This Song Is About: This isn't about anger. It's about epistemological survival. When an institution says "we believe you suffered, but we can't find a cause," they're doing something more violent than denying your claim—they're denying causation itself. If harm exists without cause, then: You don't need justice, just therapy The system didn't fail, you just got unlucky Your suffering is real but meaningless You might be imagining the connection between what happened and why it hurt That's gaslighting. Institutional gaslighting. The kind that makes you question your own sanity even when you have transcripts, emails, bank statements showing $0 income, and evidence of survival sex work. The song asks one question over and over: If there was no wrong, then why did I suffer? Because if the system won't connect cause to effect, then either: The system is lying, or I'm insane And I have too much evidence to be insane. What I'm Actually Asking For: Not revenge. Not millions. Just recognition. Just someone in authority saying: "Something went wrong. The system failed you. Your suffering had a cause, and that cause was preventable institutional failure." That's it. That's the whole ask. And they won't give me even that. Because recognition means admitting systems failed. And systems can't admit failure without threatening their own legitimacy. So instead they say: "We believe you suffered. We just can't say why. Insufficient information. Case closed." The Philosophical Framework: I cited Levinas, Améry, Brison, Giladi, and Stauffer in my legal submissions—philosophers who wrote about ethical loneliness, epistemic injustice, and what happens when institutions abandon people to their suffering. Jill Stauffer calls it "ethical loneliness": "the experience of being abandoned by humanity compounded by the experience of not being heard." This song is what ethical loneliness sounds like set to music.