There were a lot of seemingly intentional mis-representations of my testimony during my asylum interview

Note — that this is a sub article — the context for which is provided in the main Index article:

Today I spent a number of hours reviewing the audio recordings of my asylum interview held on October 11th 2017. This was suprisingly the first time I’d listened to them in their entirety since the interview.

I WAS SHOCKED at how I was dealt with. Specifically it would appear to me that a very deliberate use of mis-representing my verbal testimony was used against me through the combined use of a translator and the conversion of my verbal testimony into summarised written Finnish language answers for evaluation of my case.

Let me give you a vignette so you can understand a little of what I refer to — one of the questions referred to by the interviewers was phrased thus:

“Are you against your prohibited entry into Finland?”

I enquired a number of times as to what this statement meant — to me the combination of words is fairly meaningless — my initial response was to ask for clarification by saying I don’t understand this question. No clarification was given.

In fact I went on to guess and ask — “do you mean would I attempt to illegally enter Finland” (obviously I would not attempt or even consider something so stupid). However as happened around 15 or 20 times my question was simply ignored — a good politician can evade a question by sidestepping it or asking a different question or simply by answering the question they wanted to answer. This was the case in my interview. Numerous times upon re-listening I hear a very active (in my opinion) intention to mislead and misrepresent — DESPITE my clear and vehement verbal correction of such mis-representation and obfuscation. Lets remember the people sat opposite me have probably conducted hundreds of such interviews. For me its my VERY first such interview. I also do not have the privilege of understanding the written language or spoken language into which all my testimony is being translated.

I was to put it mildy at a severe disadvantage and yet despite this because I had prepared extensively the extent of intentional mis-representation if quite breath taking. Alot of it occurred around the issue of the initial prescription made at P3 (the first ward I was admitted to on September 27th).

I explained at great length on the audio the PRECISE reasons and background and to this prescription in GREAT detail. Its centrality to the case cannot be overstated at this stage. Its central because credibility is everything cases like this.

So I went over and over the prescription and events leading to it — in short summary these are:

  • I needed to gain access to a safe and secure space such as the heavily monitored and secure environment of a acute psychiatric ward (I was fleeing ongoing persecution, and I figured being in a heavily guarded and monitored environment would afford me a very high level of security — and indeed it did!)
  • In order to gain access to such an environment I was willing to comply with any treatment protocol in order to guarantee admission — it was for this reason that I reluctantly accepted for the first time in my life the extremely toxic and debilitating (debilitating physically and mentally) powerful medication I was then prescribed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risperidone)— I had requested within 24 hours to have a ‘drug free’ stay at the ward — this request was even more urgent and emphatic after the VERY first dose of the medication which was entirely counter productive — it simply caused immense drowsiness, lethargy and a severe degradation in basic motor skills along with a pretty long list of other more minor but not insignificant physical side effects
  • At my request I got the dose lowered as soon possible and informed the staff and the prescribing psychiatrist of all of this — they were however not open to ceasing the medication but they did reduce the initial dose from 3mg a day to 2mg a day which was still extremely incapacitating and wholly harmful to my physical and mental health
  • Despite all of this and my extremely good conduct and relative clear headedness while on the ward the psychiatrist was still insistent on continuing the medication.
  • The psychiatrist was happy to discharge after 5 days on the ward (October 2nd) HOWEVER at my request I’m granted an extra two days — time I needed in a safe and monitored environment in which to prepare my asylum application and also research more fully what actually had occurred to me
  • On October 4th I have a final meeting with the psychiatrist around 2 hours prior to being discharged as agreed two days earlier. However during the final interview the psychiatrist effectively coerces me into accepting a prescription for very toxic and harmful medication. We enter into a reasonably long debate with me explaining that I’m extremely unlikely (barring being legally forced to) ever take the prescription ever again. However his insistence is such that it seems of little consequence to me AT THAT TIME to have a prescription written for which I had no intention of ever using. PLUS he was fully aware of my extremely lucid and logical frame of mind and yet still was not conceding that said medication was doing only harm. He was to put it mildy unable or unwilling to acknowledge the very clear evidence placed before him that I did not require or benefit from the medication — quite the contrary in fact. However given his insistence it seemed an easier path at the time to simply take have the prescription written as he seemed unable to let go of the issue.
  • ALL of the above was explained in DETAIL to the asylum interviewers and was summarised roughly — “prescribed anti psychotic medication. Agreed to take said medication. Failed to take said medication”.

I’m now facing a very uncertain next step in my asylum process as the extent of the intentional misconstruing of my testimony and intentional way I was misled has generated a largely flawed written account of my interview which is largely mis-representative in just about every key area to my case.

A good follow up piece to this one is posted below which goes into the longer term context of psychiatric treatment as a tool for political persecution:

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.