Uncategorized

Truth Wars

/ stefanfeller / 4 Comments

From the Cambridge Dictionary:

“truth – the quality of being true”

“the truth – the real facts about a situation, event, or person“

“truth – a statement or principle that is generally considered to be true“

“truthfulness – the quality of being honest and not containing or telling any lies“

From Wikipedia:

Truth is the property of being in accord with fact or reality

I guess I could go on and use definitions or descriptors from many other sources, and still there would be a sort of ambiguity reflected in the term “truth” that can’t be dissolved. Words such as “quality“, “real“, “facts“, “generally considered“, “being honest“, “lies“, they are a far cry away from an axiomatic meaning which would establish something like “an absolute truth” which can not be disputed by anyone, or any argument.

Looking at the above, truth is a relative term, and it requires consent between those who state that a thing, an event, a statement, a concept “is true”.

So, truth is not only a label, but also a relationship between conscious entities, such as human beings (but not only!) through consent, or agreement, or unfortunately also by unchallenged imposition, or through joint perception. For any non-colorblind person, “red” is “red” and “blue” is “blue”, despite the fact that I cannot prove that what I see as “blue” is seen the very same way by another person agreeing with me on labeling the color of a thing as being “blue”. There are people who, just for example, perceive colors and sounds VERY differently from the majority of humans: “Chromesthesia or sound-to-color synesthesia is a type of synesthesia in which sound involuntarily evokes an experience of color, shape, and movement.” Those who have experience with substances such as LSD, or Psylocybin, will report about sound or especially music creating patterns and extremely detailed textures and colors, once one closes the eyes. It helps in understanding the relative truth of conventional perception, and the limitations coming from if I just assume that another person is assuming the same things being “true”.

If it is true for me that this color is “red”, it requires a consent with you to agree on labeling a perception the same way. In order to understand you, I need a certain degree of joint experiences, and languages being used in a similar or same way.

Is there something which is beyond a requirement to consent in order to be considered being “true”? Aren’t the facts from science undisputable? Isn’t mathematics something which is founded on axioms? So, looking up “Axiom” reveals the definition that “an axiom, postulate, or assumption is a statement that is taken to be true, to serve as a premise or starting point for further reasoning and arguments.“

Here we are again, using the term “true“, or “taken as true“, meaning that we have to consent on accepting some statement as being “true”. If I believe in a flat earth, my fellow flat-earthers and I will claim that it is true, and will not deviate, whichever scientific facts which I consider being true I throw at them.

I remember a science lesson at my high-school, probably around 1974. The teacher had invited two members of Jehova’s Witnesses into our class. We were invited to discuss their belief that the World has been created by their Creator roughly 6000 years ago (plus the almost fifty years between that discussion and today…). My friend Peter and I, who loved loved science, used every fact we knew about in our reasoning that, according to our knowledge, the Earth was roughly 4.5 billion years old, in a universe we nowadays believe has been evolved from a Big Bang 13.8 billion years ago. There was literally no way that we could penetrate their arguments and make them agreeing on some form of truth which would have established a consent between us and them. Neither could they convince us related to their version of Genesis, just mentioning.

So, as an intermediate thought: What does it mean if people in our current state of antagonisation say “Truth Matters”? What is the meaning behind a brand label created by Number 45, “Truth Social”?

It means nothing else than that consent on an unspecified number of qualities, beliefs, policies, worldviews, or else, is called upon. And at least “Truth Social” would be an example for a dogma such as “As long as you consent to my view, you are in line with my truth, and if you are not, I may even call you an Enemy of the State.” Truth as a means of control. Number 45 did this on countless occasions, and more recently he is hard-pressed by people who are attempting to establish even more radical forms of white supremacy, xenophobia, racism, and anti-semitism. Read in The Rolling Stone: “How Trump Got Trolled by a Couple of Fascists“.

So, when we talk about “Truth Matters”, is it about imposing my truth upon you, or finding a mutual platform of consent, through listening, empathising, understanding, agreeing, compromising, finding common denominators?

Before coming back to my last question, here another source of my personal belief system:

In the Buddhist teachings, there are Two Truths. …”there’s an idea that everything has two levels of truth, relative and absolute: how we experience life when we’re immersed in it, and how we experience it from a distance when we can get a vaster perspective” (Pema Chödrön – How We Live Is How We Die, 2022 Shambala Publications, Page 51).

Essentially, in my interpretation (sic! need of consent again…): Absolute truth is a concept from the spiritual realm, including, but not limited to, religious faith. Please note that in my view Buddhism is not a religion, but a spiritual source of wisdom. I don’t believe in a personalised God concept. But I am firmly rooted in a spiritual connection with Everything.

If you, the reader, would agree with me, then we would conclude that the world of phenomena has only relative truths, based on perceptions which are mutually held. The absolute is the realm of the spiritual world. However, if people claim they have understood the Absolute (Or claim God spoke to them), and they allow it to permeate into the world of phenomena, dogma is born: My truth is absolute. My God will protect my soldiers, and not your soldiers. My God says that women need to be veiled. My God allows me to fight a Holy War. Radical Muslim dogmatists have done that, radical Buddhist fundamentalists have done that, radical Hindu fundamentalists have done that, Christianity has its share of radical violent dogmatism and suppression and brutal violence, Judaism is not without such phenomena, no religion or spiritual belief framework is without shameful stains resulting from imposing an absolute truth on my fellow women and men, human beings of any sexual and gender identification, followers of a belief, and especially also children.

Where does this lead me to, here?

What I see is the widespread use of catchphrases such as “Truth Matters” with a reduced understanding as if there would be “one truth”, and that others fall victim to “untruthfulness”. That those who manipulate with lies do establish the opposite to truth. I don’t see it like that. I see it as the attempt of replacing “your truth” with “my truth”. I see it as an attempt to control the narrative, and through it, others.

That is why I continue to note that still, increasingly, and on a global level, we see antagonisation thriving, and collaboration and listening in an effort to understand the position of others diminishing.

When the Biden Administration took office, there was a refreshing silence for some time on Number 45. Nothing today is reminding of those few months. Everywhere I look, listen, watch, read, I see Trumps, Ye’s, Elons, Victors, Matteos, Björns, Vladimirs, and their copycats. And everywhere, the radicalisation leads to that the next copycat is more radical than the one before.

That’s why I choose “Truth Wars” as the title. Truth Wars do not require consent by argument, in such a violent scenario it matters that I succeed, by imposition and manipulation, not by accepting another person’s reality as equally relevant to mine.

What I see is that after a perceived “lull”, the Truth Wars have become even more radical. Racism, xenophobia, hate against transgender people, hate of and supremacy over women, anti-semitism, anti-muslim sentiments, they come closer to be part of the mainstream. As a part of a larger pattern of xenophobia, in the Western World the white hateful male lower middle-class and impoverished lower-class underdogs fall victim to pied pipers, some of them extremely privileged and dishonest.

What I also see is that we deploy force against force, loudness against loudness, control against the attempt to control. Literally every such concept is pouring gasoline on the firepit.

In my line of professional work, I support the consent between the six jurisdictions forming the Western Balkans, on the belief that fewer weapons, explosives, and ammunition, and more control over all licit aspects of them, and the fight against illicit aspects of using weapons, their ammunition, and explosives, is good for peace and security in these societies. As a consequence of this consent on a jointly held truth, these six jurisdictions (we name them jurisdictions, since Kosovo is not un-disputed amongst all of them and amongst others in relation to statehood, different to Albania, Bosnia &Hercegovina, Montenegro, North-Macedonia, and Serbia), these six jurisdictions communicate, collaborate, and cooperate highly joint in implementing policy and operations. They do this despite the fact that some of them have disputes on a political level, and that cultural, ethnical, and faith diversity creates this amazing and wonderful mix which has also seen violence, oppression, war and genocide when some considered their truth more supreme than the truth of others.

I am using this as a practical example for the opposite of what I have labeled “Truth Wars”. This is one of countless examples were people sit together and listen, and learn from each other, willing to do things jointly, whilst acknowledging that they do not agree on everything, for the sake of a higher objective, and advantages for all, instead of only for oneself.

Yet, the fundamental consent (sic: truth) on how to control Small Arms and Light Weapons could not be more different from, for example, the United States, where there is a widely held belief by many (don’t know whether they constitute a majority, and doubt it), that only the Second Amendment ensures the protection of the First Amendment. The accepted truth, and the consequences of it (exponentially more violence and unprecedented levels of mass shootings) are radically different, and this permeates literally into everything, including how for example policing concepts are being developed and implemented: It is not only about the need of police to protect themselves against an ubiquity of weapons; If citizens reject policing as something they want to give up their own weapons for, community oriented policing is VERY different in understanding, concept, and implementation.

If truth matters, it includes to accept that there are many different subjective truths. This allows for their coexistence, their learning from each other, their development, and ideally the growth of something that is more joint. So, very different to what we seem to nurture, or to fight, right now.

One Love

/ stefanfeller / Leave a comment

I am not getting into the shameful decision of FIFA’s threat of on-field punishment for players forcing World Cup teams to back down and abandon a plan for their captains to wear armbands seen as a rebuke to host nation Qatar’s human rights record. It is all over the news, it is deeply upsetting, and here just one of the many references, for accuracy and the record. I am no fan of soccer anyway and I am not following the World Cup.

However: Here is a report in the German “Tagesschau”. A German sports journalist, Claudia Neumann, is reporting from Qatar wearing a t-shirt in rainbow colors. Taking a stand. At the same time the report is mentioning that a Danish reporter, Jon Pagh, was preparing a live transmission in front of the Hotel hosting the Danish soccer team, wearing a One Love armband. Pagh is quoted with a Tweet in which he describes being approached by a Police officer ordering him to remove the armband. The report also mentions how a U.S. journalist, Grant Wahl, was held and harassed by security forces for half an hour and requested to take off a t-shirt in rainbow colors.

That’s the point: The symbol points towards a bad human rights record. Police ordering to remove it is an infringement of the basic human right to freely express an opinion. Which is a testament for a bad human rights record.

German Security authorities warn about the use of apps on smartphones which are requested to be installed by everyone who is traveling to Qatar in order to attend the World Cup. There is strong suspicion that these apps are capable to entirely control functions on the phone from reading out storage to listening in into phone conversations.

The way how to dress is regulated (at least no rainbow colors).

What’s next, and why am I making a point here? Because it is important not to get used to stories like these. I am a (now retired) police officer. All my life I also appreciated that there is an inherent mistrust towards police officers, especially amongst young people. Like, I am having such discussion here in Toronto with my teenaged children. For them, cops are carrying a label of enforcing rules of the State, often perceived as an all intrusive State. Of course, they will add, it is different with Dad. And I could leave it with that. Heck no!

Like I have done in other articles, here is the United Nations definition of policing: ” Policing refers to a function of governance responsible for the prevention, detection and investigation of crime; protection of persons and property; and the maintenance of public order and safety. Police and law enforcement officials have the obligation to respect and protect human rights, including the right to life, liberty and security of the person, as guaranteed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and reaffirmed in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and other relevant instruments.“

So, it is not about Dad being different. It is about a universal yardstick, establishing a minimum framework of how we promote human rights in all our affairs. Shrugging shoulders only leads to getting used to the erosion of fundamental human rights, and concepts how to protect them.

The calm voices of the many need to continue making that point. Over and over again. Stopping to remind equals giving more space to those who continue to chip away from fundamental achievements we have been working hard on for many decades.

Durabile – Thinking about Growth

/ stefanfeller / Leave a comment

December 19, 2014, this blog was born. “Every Journey Has A Beginning” went online. At that time I did not have any idea where this would lead to. Yet, as of today durabile.me is hosting 113 blog posts on the topics of peace, security, trauma, and reconciliation.

Looking a bit into the statistics

Since three years this blog is finding significantly more interest. Already after the third quarter of 2022 the increase matches the increase of the entire year of 2021, compared with the previous year. This would indicate a further increase for the entire year of 2022.

Since 2014, blog posts were read globally, access originates from 123 countries.

Taken all views since the inception of this blog together, the vast majority of reading interest was generated in the United States of America and in Germany. 444 views from China are surprising. I would wish these are representing a keen interest in topics collected here, but I have no means to analyse as to which extent automated web crawling might play a role, too, or anything else. No thing, just mentioning this.

This quick look brings me back to why I was beginning to write in the first place: I was hoping to find my tiny own home in the Internet, between blogs, vlogs, and relentless social media, where I could express views about topics which are at the core of my professional experience. I remember how uncertain I was at the beginning, even anxious: I needed to learn how I could mitigate my wish to express myself with contemporary tools, meeting the requirements of my professional ethos, and the needs of not mixing personal opinion with action on behalf of the organisations I was working for. I believe I managed to publish views in moderation, with facts and conclusions based on firm and transparent research and thinking. I doubled down on it whenever I saw people in highest offices abusing social media as bullhorns and for manipulating reality, and people. I can’t really claim that this little blog is proving that interest can also be generated through calm expression of facts and opinions, but this is at the core of my understanding of democracy: Engaging in voicing opinions, and engaging in taking a choice, it is a collective process in which the contribution of single individuals does not make the visible or earthshaking difference, but the collective absence of doing so erodes democracy as much as the radicalisation and polarisation of those who are yelling from rooftops using bullhorns.

If the voices of moderation fatigue, the void will be filled by voices of rage.

So, over time I felt ever more confident in using contemporary tools for public discourse and expression of opinion in an ethical framework, instead of leaving the ground to manipulators. To sum this one up: The Internet has changed the way how our democratic discourse is happening, but the requirement to participate in a public discourse is as old as democracy itself. Without our active participation, democracy, justice, peace and security just die.

But there was another motivation why I was beginning to engage in writing: My ever more increasing understanding about how my own story is intertwined with the story of my work. Since 2013, I have begun to systematically connect the dots.

There is a lot of writing which I have done since then, and which I have kept away from this blog. This has been a somewhat very complex process, non-linear, at times messy, often very painful and then sitting and resting again for long periods of time, followed by periods of intense work again on writing things down, followed by emotional exhaustion again. For most of those years between 2013 and 2022 I would not be able to say whether those results from writing would ever see the light of the day, by making them available. I just committed to the process of writing because I felt it was necessary anyway, notwithstanding the question if, one day, this work would go dormant in my digital archives, or if it would be useful for others, or at least an interesting read.

I am at the verge of opening this up. This part of my writing falls into three broad categories:

(1) Essays on Peace and Security

(2) Essays on Trauma and Reconciliation

(3) After The Storm

I am working on ways how to share this work. What I know is that I will not publish the entirety of it here. Like everyone else sharing personal experiences, I feel vulnerable doing that. Partly for the same reasons, I have not felt comfortable with finding a way into conventional publishing, or self-publishing. An alternative could be to link this part of my work to this blog, whilst the results of this writing and a safe&secure place for discussion are being made available through dedicated membership only.

I am working on that. If you like, let me know what you think. I would welcome your thoughts, and you can also drop me a mail on censeo@icloud.com.

Dystopian – Or reality?

/ stefanfeller / Leave a comment

A few days ago, I wrote this dystopian piece of fiction: “Checkpoint Hellweg #17“. It is based on the question “What would happen if even more lethal mutations of the Covid-19 virus would develop and spread like a wildfire?”. One could argue that we don’t need even more disturbing negative stories, but I wrote it against the background that, all too often, only those see how the virus is rampaging through our societies who have a direct personal experience. Like I said, nurses for example.

We cope with a huge amount of conspiracy theories, distortion of reality by anti-vaxxers, and more, mixed with a may be growing body of people who are just fed up, who crave normality, who express their feelings of being upset by confinements coming from lockdown measures, mixed also with people who rightfully express concern about protecting human and citizen’s rights. We have the full spectrum of people mindfully expressing their opinion, unfortunately at the same time being abused by people with malicious intent to establish a narrative of police states controlling their citizens.

We need to remind ourselves that we only see what we want to see. So, here a few disturbing pictures about what we sometimes don’t like to see. The reality is disturbing, cruel, and dystopian, compared with what we experienced 16 months ago.

BBC published pictures today. They are NOT for the faint of hearts. They describe today’s reality in New Delhi, India. “India coronavirus: Round-the-clock mass cremations“. This is what happens if you have spikes like the above graph, taken from the COVID-19 dashboard of the Johns Hopkins University, today. Whether you, according to the cultural context of your society, do public mass cremations, or you are using refrigerator vans, it doesn’t matter. This virus is lethal beyond anything that rips through our societies on a seasonal level.

I have a friend who lives and works in Karachi, Pakistan. Already being under a yearlong lockdown, this friend tried to get vaccinated in Dubai, with no success. This friend is now considering to take a long journey to the U.S., to get the jab at home. This friend is frightened to death about neighboring India, and the already catastrophic situation in Pakistan.

Still, like I, and many of us who do international work, we are privileged, and we remain grateful, on a daily basis. Because we are surrounded by billions of people with no escape route. The many of us who stay “local” and live in privileged countries of the West, I would like to join those who remind us about how lucky we are. And we should take no pride from it, or wrong feeling of being superior:

I am the first one to admit how much the situation sucks, seemingly without end. I am the first one to admit how my entire life has been affected, whether my ability to see my loved ones, taking care of helping my children, or my mental state, which more often than not can be nicely described as “challenging”.

But I am also joining all those who call for reason, and responsible action. We will get through this. If we stay in it together. Only then. On a local, national, regional, and global level.

We need to share what we have. The pandemic is just like the proverbial gasoline poured over an already burning fire called “Global Warming”, which is so much an understatement term of the year.

Character matters

/ stefanfeller / Leave a comment

I’m writing this with tears in my eyes. Yes, it becomes easier now to say to our children: Character matters. Compassion matters. Love matters. Sharing this World matters. Humanity matters. The Rule of Law matters. Democracy matters.

It is easier to be a Dad…

Watch it yourself:

Van Jones fights back tears: Result shows character matters

This is the America that has our back. And thank you for reaching out to those who feel they lost. As a matter of fact, I hope that most of them will see that they won, too.

Others have a long way ahead until they can be trusted again. Action speaks louder than words, in this regard. But, please, let us stay humble, free from resentment, and steer away from hypocrisy.

Congrats, America. Congrats, Joe and Kamala. And Kamala: We are soooo proud of you. My daughter sure is.

On storytelling

/ stefanfeller / 1 Comment

Like others before, I have reached a point where I give up hesitating to add my voice on dangers inflicted on all of us by the current incumbent of the Office of the President of the United States of America. As a former public servant I feel like many former holders of office in the U.S., staying out of a polarised antagonizing debate. But like others, I see that I can not uphold this reservation any longer. However, I am not doing this because I want to join the polarised army of do-gooders. I am doing this because I want to make a point by saying that, potentially, an important piece in the puzzle explaining what is happening may still be missing. A piece which might help in better predicting of what will happen in the weeks and months ahead.

October 5, 2020: Over my last tea before falling asleep I watched news about the President of the United States returning to the White House from Walter Reed Hospital despite a still ongoing medical treatment of a Covid-19-infection which had led to a hospitalisation just a few days earlier. I could see the story he was about to tell already in his preceeding tweets in which he spoke so ominously about what he had learned, that he really got it, and how good he feels. He was prepping his followership for the pathetic show ahead.

The evening news carried the story of him returning to the White House. From everything medical experts can tell, it is near certain that he continued to be contagious when he, in a premeditated way walking up an illuminated stairway to the second level of the White House, took off his face-mask with a pompous fake gesture of dignity, saluting Marine One as the helicopter flew off. Like to millions of other people it looked ridiculously childish and immature to me, but it was a calculated gesture aiming for a core audience within his base of followers: The believers and superspreaders of conspiracy theories that elevate him to the protector of the American people against all evil, including the monsters from Avengers’ Endgame lurking at the fences of the White House premises. Equal “monsters” with “Dems” and “Fake Press”, then you have the story he tells, and further develops.

I consumed the outrage and frenzy of the press about it, including about his callous calling on the American people not to take the virus too seriously, through some Twitter messages earlier that evening, before he left Walter Reed Hospital.

Then I woke up the following morning and I watched the news about his re-playing the helicopter salutation after Marine One had left. The aim was to shoot “proper” footage that could be used for a pompous and manipulative display of his godly return to the office for his followers. The news read: “Infected Trump re-shoots entrance into White House with camera crew https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2020/10/05/trump-no-mask-white-house-camera-crew-balcony-collins-lklv-ebof-vpx.cnn“. The polarized press acted on it either with messages of appreciation, or, like the above, with ever louder outrage. I watched anchormen and commenters in utter exasperation, displaying helplessness, and fury, literally with tears in their eyes, in light of more than 200.000 Covid-19-deaths in the U.S. alone, at that time, and still counting.

Many of those who read my blog have watched that by themselves, so what is my point? What is the additional thing that makes this blog entry standing apart from just being another outcry of anger and hurt? In order to see where Trump is going, one needs to understand the inner workings of his mind first. Much has been said there, some has not. I am venturing into the part which has not been said, as far as I can tell.

Throughout October 6 it quickly transpired that the pompous setup of the night before was to support establishing the storytelling narrative of a heroic selfless leader who went through all this at the virtual frontline of an alleged pandemic for his people. Or so he told through his Twitterphone. My point is that this, at best, may be only half of the truth. At worse, it may be a by-product of something much more serious: A high-risk gambling pattern that can be identified in Trump’s life on uncounted occasions, and including as recent as during the last elections. It is not only that Donald Trump re-invents himself in a situation of financial or political bancruptcy. I suspect that he may, consciously or not, create the situations from which he then seemingly escapes, demonstrating his “unique capacity” to re-define himself against all odds. I suspect that he may have no choice but doing just that, because he may need that kick.

We know from psychological experts that he appears to be on the extreme end of a narcissistic scale, and that he is absolutely incapable to empathise, which is also an indication for a severe sociopathic disorder. However, stories like the above make me believe that he, in addition, may carry the hallmarks of a severe addiction disorder.

Trump has a track record of being at his best in manipulating a situation when everyone believes that he already has lost the battle, by appearing to foolishly placing the noose around his own neck. Think, for example, the second debate at the eve of the 2016 elections: Remember the Locker Room Talks? I believe that he may actively get himself into these seemingly foolish situations because he needs the kick from a high-risk gamble which, at the end, needs to demonstrate his superiority. The more often he is winning this game, the more often he needs it, and the deeper his own delusional belief in his superiority. If I look at the super-spreader event one week earlier in the Rose Garden when he announced his candidate for the vacancy at the U.S. Supreme Court, I can not help but ask: How much of this carelessness is based on delusional thinking, how much is based on cold-blooded knowledge, and how much is based on the mindblowingly selfish and destructive, reality-denying mind of an addict who has no means to stop doing whatever is needed for getting the kick? We know from troves of scientific research, as well as from all practical experience represented by recovering addicts that the strongest kicks come from behavioral addictive patterns, not from substance abuse. You can be an addict of the worst kind, destroying yourself and others, without drinking, smoking, or doing drugs.

In this version of attempting to explain what happened, Trump literally would have no choice: He would have to get the virus, to run the risks involved because there was no other way to get the next kick. Like the heroin addict knowing there is a risk of OD’ing, and a part of that person’s mind even hoping that this is happening.

This is like to create the rabbit hole yourself that you then slide down. Success reinforces his belief in his superiority, and at the very same time, the ever deepening craving to feel more of the kick, again. In this vicious cycle, nothing is good enough for repetition, the kick requires more of the same, in ever increasing doses, and in ever shorter cycles.

We may witness the moment of history giving birth to an autocrat of the most dangerous kind: A person suffering from the combined delusional effects stemming from narcissism, sociopathic disorder, and behavioral addiction to power and extreme forms of gambling: The narcissist persona requires the constant need of being validated as superior and invincible. The sociopath persona provides the cold-blooded analytical capability of knowing how to manipulate other people for reckless application of own selfish needs only. Remember: Sociopaths are masters in identifying the weak and blind spots of empaths. They have a PhD in manipulation sciences. But the addict persona adds the need for the kick through high-risk gambling, as we have seen in the 2016 elections, and everything before, and after, until today.

The Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, was clearly exasperated when she, on October 7, spoke about the potential impact of steroids on the President’s thinking and decisionmaking as he was telling his negotiators to walk away from talks on a stimulus package relieving American people from economic effects of the Covid-19-pandemic. If my contribution to explaining Donald Trump’s behavior is correct, this may be true, but only be a part of the story: The other part is the elated feeling coming from a mind-altering drug which is produced by the body itself: Dopamine. I highly reccommend the book “The Deepest Well” by Nadine Burke Harris. Read what she has to say on the effects of Adverse Childhood Experiences on, in this case, the Ventral Tegmental Area of the human brain.

Assuming the above scenario is true, what would be different compared to what we already know? In this scenario

(1) Trump’s unwillingness to concede any defeat has to be understood as an absolute inability to concede defeat;

(2) The delusional storytelling creates a personal world in which leaving the White House is impossible to even think about. It is a mental no-go-area, the option of walking out with dignity does not exist. Myriads of options exist how to make it happen to stay, and to get kicks all along the way;

(3) Meaning that, if that would be true, any assessment characterizing his mental state as “panicking” would need correction. Because, how fatigued must a 74-year-old be after a life with so many panicking moments? No, it is not fatiguing, it is creating a kick;

(4) Meaning that, if that would be true, we see the progressive part. The need for a kick comes in shorter intervals, and the dose needs to be much higher in order to achieve any effect. That then constitutes the real danger for the American people, and the World;

(5) How could the above be proven? In theory, that is easy: Take away his Twitterphone and you will see the effects of withdrawal. In practice, it is impossible: Try to take away the Twittertoy from the President of the United States, and you will be in trouble.

The reckless insane behavior of this incumbent of the great Office of the President of the United States puts not only my values, but my life, and the life of my children at grave risk. I am not morally judging Donald Trump. Many of my blog entries are being motivated by the desire to understand the devastating impact of a brain disease called “addiction“. I feel great pity and compassion for Donald Trump. The problem: This person has a “red button” at close range, carried around by an aide whereever the President goes.

On Defunding the Police – Policing as a Function

/ stefanfeller / Leave a comment

Policing refers to a function of governance responsible for the prevention, detection and investigation of crime; protection of persons and property; and the maintenance of public order and safety. Police and law enforcement officials have the obligation to respect and protect human rights, including the right to life, liberty and security of the person, as guaranteed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and reaffirmed in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and other relevant instruments.

 

Main argument

In this part I am presenting the argument that it is necessary to identify the core role of policing in a jurisdiction. Funding then needs to prioritize the effective and efficient implementation of that core role, and provide the means to ensure that policing is carried out within the framework of rules which reflect on the values that underpin that implementation of policing.

I also say that it is entirely common to look at which functions a police organization could carry out in addition to their core mandate. Of course, there is funding needed for this as well. However, responsible governance needs to make sure that additional tasks for a police department do not negatively affect the core mandate of that department. Responsible governance also has to question whether police is well-suited for additional tasks that may require specific, or different training. Police training is different from customs training, from military training, from training for correctional services, or from training for social services. Do not use a hammer for screws, or a screwdriver for nails. It destroys hammer, nail, screwdriver, and screws.

It is entirely legitimate to look at whether there would be better ways to implement the additional tasks given to a police organisation, by other means, such as strengthened social services. That, again, would require to re-allocate the necessary funding. Which is a form of defunding the police.

Thirdly, law enforcement needs to be equipped for carrying out its tasks. There is a direct line between the identification of “what” I want to do “how”, and what I decide to use as a technical means of assistance. If a police department decides to procure or to accept military style equipment for carrying out its tasks, that will change the attitude of officers in how they understand the task of policing. If that is leading to problems (which is evident in the United States), then reform efforts may lead to giving up purchase and use of military style equipment. Defunding the purchase of military equipment may allow both for funding core tasks of policing better (such as giving more resources to community-oriented policing), or free funds for support the work of other parts of government, such as social services.

Taken together, all three lines of what is named “defunding” are no reason to believe law enforcement and their staff would be “punished”. Instead, the reform leads to better policing, and more of it, and it leads to better other services of governance, such as social services.

Supporting arguments

It is all too easy to throw out the baby together with the used water in the bathtub if one doesn’t take the necessary time for a careful look.

The current debate about reforming policing has gone way beyond the borders of the United States of America, and it is happening on grounds of both long simmering discontent and because of current justified anger and immense outrage. Crimes such as the murder of George Floyd have triggered it, and the confrontational and at times horribly abusive handling of the protests by the system of governance is escalating it: It proves the case that something is flawed on a fundamental level. This in turn has led to so much growth of the protest movement in size that we may see, for the first time, a real chance for substantial change.

The sheer size of the demand to reform policing in its fundamental aspects is inevitably causing tension between those who advocate reform, and those who hold conservative views. That is good for a constructive democratic discourse.

Comparing how things are done elsewhere can help, as long as those who describe what they do elsewhere, and how they do it, don’t pretend that they have better ideas and solutions. We all cook with water, hypocrisy is poison to the debate.

I see, however, that there is an element in this discussion which goes beyond the constructive exchange of arguments in a reform discussion:

There are those who dig in. Reactionist forces attempt to quell the reform movement by a combination of (1) de-legitimizing reformers’ motivations; (2) de-legitimizing reformers as persons “per se” by demonizing them; and (3) pretending to associate with the cause, in order to take out the energy for change. The longer the successful application of this strategy, chances are that reform runs out of steam. And like events in 2016 allowed reactionists to boldly roll back honest and deep-looking reform efforts, the same threat is looming over 2020.

An example for de-legitimizing reformer’s motivations: Accuse them collectively and with no supporting evidence that they want to abolish the police entirely, or to de-construct the State.

An example for de-legitimizing reformers by demonizing them: Accuse them of anti-constitutional attitude, label them “radical left”, or even “domestic terrorists”, and freely make use of de-humanizing them, talking about “low-lifes”, “loosers”, or even worse.

An example for pretending to associate with the cause: Jump on the band-wagon of talking about how serious the problem is, express sympathies, be a bit emotional if you can, make sure to spread your hollow words of empathy and sympathy widely, say that you fully agree, throw in a “however”, and talk about anything but the core argument that leads to the reform necessity. Make no efforts to turn your pretended sympathies to the cause into any action.

So: What is the core argument?

The core is related to the question what the function of policing is about. No more, no less. A reform discourse needs to look at this one first.

Second comes the discussion about how (aka by which organizational means) the function of policing is implemented. Here, things become complicated, because the way how policing is being implemented is based on historical developments that are entirely localised. America’s culture is different from France, Germany, the United Kingdom, China, Russia, India, Pakistan, Sweden, Tanzania, South-Sudan, Jordan, Egypt. Or any of the 193 countries forming the United Nations. All are different. Because of their history.

But does it mean we can only talk about one country’s policing approach, and does it mean there is no possibility to come to a common denominator which we all agree upon? Do we have to engage in a never ending “My toy is fancier than yours”-debate?

The answer is: It is very much possible to come to a unified minimum understanding, because we have done and achieved exactly that. I have witnessed that, by participating in it. It took us give or take ten years from voicing the dream, through finding support, learning how to do it, until we had written it down and agreed. The result includes what I quoted in my “Statement of Solidarity“.

And this result is not a collection of lofty sentences. As the United Nations, we needed to put a common understanding of what is policing and how it should be done front and center, for purpose of maximum transparency: This is what you get when we help you, this is what we need you to agree upon when we help you, because we have a few red lines which we all must not cross in this partnership. This is what any UN Police officer will understand as her or his function, notwithstanding from where that officer comes. This is how we expect police officers to be trained before they deploy into a United Nations Mission meant to assist in handling a conflict, or recovering from conflict.

If you look up the entire work which began with the document I quoted from, you see that we broke it down into a detailed understanding: We do have a common understanding about how to carry out community-oriented policing. We share detailed understanding about intelligence-led policing. We do know what a tactical group of the Police, such as a company sized “Formed Police Unit” should do when protecting peaceful demonstrations, and how to engage with those who disturb the peace, become violent, carry out crimes. We do know how police should establish functions that ensure accountability towards the law and towards citizens. We do know how police officers should use force as the last resort.

We have written that all down, and much more. And all along the way, the United States of America was part of a truly global support for further development of this framework, stressing the need that it has to be operationalized through training. Which is what we do, all over the world, and including heavy support by the United States of America. For which I am grateful beyond words.

Does, therefore, police have to look the same anywhere? No. But it does mean that one always should look at whether we have gotten the implementation of the core function of policing right. You can assign additional functions of any kind. The discourse about whether this makes sense, or not, usually carries many practical and political arguments with weight in the specific local context. But it should always prioritize the question whether the additional tasks impede core tasks, and whether police departments are suitable and capable to carry out that task. Like any other profession, training and organization of work in the police creates specific mindsets, highly capable of implementing policing. But it does not mean that this mindset, or training, is the right one for the additional tasks that are being expected to be handled.

The way to ensure this is called management. And any reform of something which has taken root is no less than an art.

Sometimes, less tasks for the police will create much more satisfaction with results.

On Defunding the Police – Entry Point

/ stefanfeller / Leave a comment

Not everything that can be faced can be changed, but nothing can be changed that is not faced.

JAMES BALDWIN

 

This will only be the first blog entry on this topic. I will go into the substance of how I look at this discussion in following articles. This one is intended to make clear how I look at the entire discussion, as a concerned individual and retired police officer, and a former United Nations Police Adviser. Thus, expect that my statements in subsequent articles will be as rational as I can be, and I reserve the emotional part motivating me for contributing to this discussion to this entry article. So, keep looking for follow-on to this writing, it will come soon. Expect the juice being inside a rational, but passionate debate contribution. I always try to stay away from partisan positions, except when it comes to underpinning values.

On values, I am very clearly partisan: I am United Nations hard-core, including all values on humanity represented by the UN, and developed within the UN-system. Which, by way of reminder, is the community of 193 Member States of the United Nations. We are the UN, as long as we contribute to the spirit of the UN, rather than disengaging from the UN. Like in the narrow context which will follow, engagement requires willingness to listen, rather than to yell. Any discussion which is lead in the spirit of finding consent requires to accept that it is legitimate for others to differ.

A friend of mine (who happens to be a journalist) suggested that I engage in the current discussion on policing and reforming the Police. He reminded me that, in 2014, I participated in a “Black Lives Matter” demonstration when I was living in New York (working as the UN Police Adviser). The picture is from December 13, 2014:

25B8A860-8474-470B-BE49-C1FE4896F235

August 9, 2014, Michael Brown had been shot dead by a Police officer, in Ferguson. Earlier, July 17, 2014, Eric Garner died after being put into a chokehold by a Police officer, in New York City. I am singling out two out of many events that led to renewed calls for reforming policing in the United States. Both in the U.S. and internationally, brutal instances of police abuse of power, including most serious crimes, sparked outrage leading to large and peaceful demonstrations. The “Black Lives Matter” movement stems from there. As a human being, and at that time being a temporary resident in the United States, I joined my fellow American friends in their peaceful call for addressing systemic racism reflected in the Criminal Justice system, and through abuse of power through individual police officers.

Already at that time the reform discussion on policing had much deeper roots, and there is a direct line connecting the history and those days of 2014 with what happens today, 2020. However, today the outrage is amplified, and there are signs that the calls for reforming policing, and the Police, are, finally being heard. Good.

Yes, peaceful demonstrations are proving that they are one of the most essential means and an inalienable right for citizens to participate in a democratic discourse about issues that matter.  And the subject matter of discussion is genuinely international: A friend of mine reported about participating in a demonstration in Berlin last weekend, with estimated 15.000 participants. It is one of many current events in Europe and elsewhere. Societies including my own German society have undertaken to conduct a self-critical discourse on the question as to which extent policing over here may also be unduly influenced by racial bias. Good.

Would all of that have happened without large-scale demonstrations? In my view, absolutely not. That is, by the way, why those who do resist these reforms, individually and institutionally, fear the demonstrations and thus attempt to label them with anything that would allow for discrediting intent of the demonstrations, manipulation of the course of the demonstrations and how they unfold, and the malicious labeling of individuals taking part in such demonstrations. These attempts are being conducted through manipulation, establishing and spreading unverified claims, false facts and lies, and using and spreading conspiracy-mongering strategies.

Most respected former U.S. public servants, including retired military officials are voicing their deepest concern about those who have adopted well-honed strategies practiced by systems and autocrats all over the World which have been criticised for exactly doing this by the very same United States of America. Good, because I hope the light can shine again, soon, and credible.

It looks like the peaceful demonstrations are here to stay. Good. Double down.

The range of topics in that discussion leading to these demonstrations is highly complex and beset with an enormous amount of emotions. It is about racial bias. It is about white supremacy. It is about countless cases of individual suffering and fear. It is about wrongful convictions, and a system of biased mass-incarceration, especially targeting communities of color. It is about the question how policing should be carried out, and how to hold police officers and other public officials accountable for their actions, including criminal actions. And much much more.

Within the current context of the United States, the contemporary development also can only be understood if put into the context of a society that is literally devouring itself, unraveled by a political partisan war ripping the fabric of consent into pieces about what is identifying and unifying all Americans, and what is so-called “un-American behavior”. It may well be that both sides blame the other for being un-American. The World is in disbelief. The ripples of instability stemming from this development have long arrived at the shores of Europe, Africa, Asia, and elsewhere. They bounce back from there, hitting the United States’s shores on the Atlantic and Pacific sides. Will that all calm down and settle into a new order, and will this be done with, or without violence?

Certainly, COVID-19 may have been a spark that set many things on fire. Fire? Not good in light of Global Warming. Oh yes, Global Warming is a fact. So, please, let us settle for consentual discussions allowing the young generations of this World to define our and their present, and their future.

These discussions need to be narrowed down. Topics have to be identified which can be taken forward, notwithstanding the complexity of the development as a whole. And in my view, it is extremely critical to take emotions out of these discussions, and to avoid antagonisation as much as possible. At the end of the day, a society needs to find an own consentual way forward in which positions converge into acceptable compromises. For, otherwise, there is no societal peace. And we do know that, without peace, there is no security. With no security, there is more heat. We can’t blame others for our own disengagement. But we always have the choice to engage. That’s why I am quoting James Baldwin.

This includes reforming policing, and the Police. After having settled on what policing is, the question how to implement it, follows second. Third then, one needs to consider how to fund what we want, and to re-allocate funding to where it is needed, and to stop funding of issues which run counter the implementation of what a society wants. So, in this third step, it is about de-funding, being part of a funding, and a reallocation-of-funding debate.

I should be clear: There is no way to establish a society with no self-policing of the rules that this society has given itself.

The violent death of George Floyd is a crime, one police officer is charged for second-degree murder and manslaughter. Three police officers are charged with aiding and abetting murder. George Floyd was subjected to police action after he was alleged to have used a counterfeit 20 USD bill for buying cigarettes. The police action ended in eight minutes and fourty-five seconds of suffering inflicted by some of the most cruel behavior I have seen in a while. And believe me, I have seen a lot.

It started with a counterfeit 20 USD bill. Why was Eric Garner being put into a chokehold, again? Proportionality of enforcement will be a point I will touch upon, later.

But I will say here that the reform discussion is triggered not by these few cases only, but because of the allegation that such behavior is systemic. That, also, makes it understandable why some try to argue that these actions are single cases. Which is not true. Truth matters, so look it up yourselves.

Another point in this first writing, attempting to look at the scope:

200415-michigan-protest-video-tease__415481.focal-760x428This picture was taken April 15, 2020, at Michigan Capitol. 

Of course I am respecting that the United States hang on to the Second Amendment. I have a personal opinion (horror and disbelief that people protest against the COVID-19 lockdown whilst carrying weapons of war), and I can also assure you that in Germany such an event would have led to as many SWAT-units as are available coming down on what would be considered a violation of strict weapons laws. But, of course, this is legal in America, thus the protest can be considered a peaceful protest.

The question I want to ask: Do you see one Afro-American person in that picture? Take a second and imagine all the individuals being black. And then, honestly, answer the question whether the indifferent action of the Police on occasion of that event would have been the same. Honestly, please!

Chances are the reaction would have been very different. That’s what I was saying in my post “Statement in Solidarity“: “Representative policing aims to ensure that the human rights of all people, without distinction of any kind such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status, are protected, promoted and respected and that police personnel sufficiently reflect the community they serve.” At this moment, an overwhelming majority of U.S. citizens believes that this is not the case. Instead, we are facing a cultural form of racism, different in argument from previous forms of biological racism, but on grounds of the same attitude and thinking of white supremacy.

Statement in Solidarity

/ stefanfeller / 3 Comments

Floyd

With the “Report of the Secretary General on United Nations policing” to the United Nations Security Council as of 10 November 2016 (S2016/952), the United Nations adopted, for the first time ever, a common understanding of the function of policing, and how it must be carried out by police and law enforcement officials. This understanding can be found in https://police.un.org/en/policy-united-nations-police-peacekeeping-operations-and-special-political-missions-2014, Sections 14 to 19.

Policing refers to a function of governance responsible for the prevention, detection and investigation of crime; protection of persons and property; and the maintenance of public order and safety. Police and law enforcement officials have the obligation to respect and protect human rights, including the right to life, liberty and security of the person, as guaranteed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and reaffirmed in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and other relevant instruments.

Pursuant to the UN Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials, police and other law enforcement officials are required, at all times, to fulfil the duty imposed upon them by law, by serving the community and by protecting all persons against illegal acts consistent with the high degree of responsibility required by their profession.

For the United Nations, the function of domestic policing must be entrusted to civil servants who are members of police or other law enforcement agencies of a national, regional or local government, within a legal framework that is based on the rule of law.

In accordance with United Nations standards, every police or other law enforcement agency should be representative of and responsive and accountable to the community it serves.

Representative policing aims to ensure that the human rights of all people, without distinction of any kind such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status, are protected, promoted and respected and that police personnel sufficiently reflect the community they serve. Fair and non-discriminatory recruitment and retention policies are expected to encourage, among other goals, an adequate participation of women and minority groups.

Responsive policing ensures that police respond to existing and emerging public needs and expectations, especially in preventing and detecting crime and maintaining public order and safety. Policing objectives are informed by the public safety concerns of the communities they serve and are attained lawfully, efficiently and effectively and in accordance with international norms and standards in crime prevention, criminal justice and human rights law.

Accountable policing means that police are accountable to the law, as are all individuals and institutions in States; that police are answerable to the public through the democratic and political institutions of the state, as well as through civilian democratic oversight bodies and mechanisms to improve community-police relations; that police are accountable for the way they use the resources allocated to them and that effective mechanisms are established for accountability over police conduct, including any allegations or established human rights violations committed by the police.

For the United Nations, the rule of law refers to a principle of governance in which all persons, institutions and entities, public and private, including the State itself, are accountable to laws that are publicly promulgated, equally enforced and independently adjudicated, and which are consistent with international human rights norms and standards. It requires, as well, measures to ensure adherence to the principles of supremacy of law, equality before the law, accountability to the law, fairness in the application of the law, separation of powers, participation in decision-making, legal certainty, avoidance of arbitrariness and procedural and legal transparency.

 

As one of the chief architects of this United Nations policy, I stand in solidarity with the countless citizens, in the United States of America and all over the World, who exercise their right to demonstrate peacefully. I join them in expressing utter outrage in the face of widespread racism, white supremacy, and a systemic and horrifying abuse of power including most serious and heinous crimes by police officials against communities and individuals of color, and minorities.

I call on my fellow police colleagues to stand in humility and in support of the communities they serve, to walk with them, and to protect them. The streets belong to citizens peacefully exercising their rights and enjoying their freedom. They are neither a battle-ground to be dominated, nor a place for curfews preventing peaceful citizens to exercise their most basic human and citizen’s rights, including the freedom of opinion and speech. Curfews can only be possible under most serious and temporary circumstances.

No public official shall use his or her power for violently pushing peaceful citizens aside.

I call on my fellow police leaders to exercise a strict no-tolerance-policy towards acts of violence and the systemic disrespect of police officials towards the communities they are obliged to serve. No zero-tolerance-policy against violence and criminal conduct is legitimate in a democratic society if those who are mandated to serve and to protect peaceful citizens show no respect to the law, to the values underpinning the laws, and to fellow citizens, themselves.

I commend those police officers who apologize to victims of police violence and abuse of power, but I also say: You must work long and hard to earn back the respect of those citizens who have lost faith in you. You are meant to protect, rather than to be an instrument of “law & order”.

My heart goes with all victims of police abuse of power and horrible crimes including murder, conducted by individual police officers, supported by a cruel and self-serving, selfish and dividing attitude by those who believe they can exercise unrestrained power, rather than fulfilling an obligation to serve all citizens who have democratically elected them.

I am saddened, ashamed, and deeply sorry. I hope we can all breathe together.

 

Stefan Feller, Former United Nations Police Adviser and Director of the Police Division (2013 – 2017).

Berlin and Belgrade, June 06, 2020

A bone-crushing juggernaut

/ stefanfeller / Leave a comment

“Should his own face in the mirror be too awful to contemplate (and it usually is), he might first take a look at the results normal people get from self-sufficiency. Everywhere he sees people filled with anger and fear, society breaking into warring fragments. Each fragment says to the others “We are right and you are wrong.” Every such pressure group, if it is strong enough, self-righteously imposes its will upon the rest. And everywhere the same thing is being done on an individual basis. The sum of all this mighty effort is less peace and less brotherhood than before. The philosophy of self-sufficiency is not paying off. Plainly enough, it is a bone-crushing juggernaut whose final achievement is ruin.”

Written by some very wise and fine people, in New York, 66 years ago