This statement was submitted to the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression on January 8, 2026, in response to the call for input ahead of the official visit to Germany.
Submission for Official Visit to Germany by the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression
Subject: Submission for official visit to Germany – freedom of expression
Dear Special Rapporteur,
I am writing to contribute to your official visit to Germany with a focus on the right to freedom of opinion and expression of people whose behavior, emotional expression, or presence in public space falls outside dominant social norms.
While one of my own experiences of involuntary psychiatric confinement occurred outside Germany, the patterns described below are also present within Germany and raise serious concerns under international human rights law.
- Non-Normative Expression and State Response
Freedom of expression is commonly understood as speech, writing, or media. Less attention is paid to expression through the body, emotion, presence, or behavior — especially when such expression does not conform to social expectations of “calm,” “rational,” or “appropriate” conduct.
People who express joy, distress, agitation, or unconventional behavior in public spaces are frequently perceived as disruptive or threatening. Instead of being met with dialogue, curiosity, or de-escalation, they are often met with police intervention, coercive control, or psychiatric confinement.
These responses function as mechanisms of silencing, removing a person’s ability to speak, refuse, narrate their experience, or remain visible in public space.
- Police Responses to Emotional or Behavioral Difference
In Germany, police are frequently deployed as first responders in situations involving emotional distress or non-normative behavior. Numerous reports and testimonies describe patterns of:
- rapid escalation rather than de-escalation
- physical restraint
- framing of distress as threat
- lack of meaningful non-police alternatives
This is particularly dangerous for people who are:
- openly emotional or expressive
- communicate, move, or relate to the world in unconventional ways
- reacting to overwhelming or painful life experiences
- migrants or people who are racialized
- living with social isolation or limited support networks
Behavior itself becomes grounds for intervention, even when no crime has occurred and no immediate danger is present.
- Police Violence, Racism, and Lethal Outcomes
In Germany, including in Berlin, there have been multiple documented cases where police encounters with people perceived as “out of control,” emotionally distressed, or behaving outside social norms have resulted in serious injury or death. These incidents disproportionately affect racialized people, migrants, and people in crisis.
Cases reported in Berlin, including districts such as Berlin-Spandau, illustrate recurring patterns:
- emergency calls framed as “disturbance”
- police deployment rather than health or social services
- escalation instead of communication
- racialized perceptions of danger
- post-incident narratives that delegitimize the affected person’s voice
When a person dies during such an intervention, their expression — their voice, behavior, and perspective — is permanently erased. Lethal police force thus represents the most extreme form of suppression of expression.
- Involuntary Psychiatric Confinement (Zwangseinweisung)
Germany permits involuntary psychiatric confinement under state-level laws (Psychisch-Kranken-Gesetze). While framed as protective, these measures allow for deprivation of liberty, often following police involvement, and frequently without safeguards that meet international human rights standards.
Involuntary confinement entails:
- loss of liberty
- loss of legal agency
- suppression of expression
- forced medical intervention
Many individuals subjected to Zwangseinweisung are not violent and not a danger to themselves or others, but are detained because their behavior or expression is considered socially unacceptable or incomprehensible.
These practices conflict with the principles of autonomy, legal capacity, and freedom from coercion enshrined in international human rights law, including the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
- Illustrative Personal Experience (Brief)
To illustrate how non-normative but harmless expression can be interpreted as grounds for coercion:
In my own case, I was involuntarily confined after I was observed dancing alone in Carl Schurz Park in New York City, a well-known public park in a residential area. I was not threatening anyone, not harming myself or others, and not committing a crime. Nevertheless, this behavior was deemed sufficient justification for psychiatric detention.
This experience demonstrates how joyful, embodied, or unconventional expression can be reinterpreted as pathology or danger — leading to loss of liberty and voice.
Although the confinement lasted only two weeks, the impact was profound and long-lasting. The sudden loss of liberty, the experience of being disbelieved, and the absence of meaningful consent — understood as informed, voluntary agreement with real alternatives —caused enduring harm and a lasting sense of vulnerability that persists to this day.
- Chilling Effect on Expression
The normalization of police intervention and involuntary confinement creates a profound chilling effect. People learn that:
- expressing distress may result in punishment
- emotional intensity is risky
- being “different” in public space can lead to loss of freedom
This discourages not only personal expression, but democratic participation and social plurality.
- Recommendations
I respectfully encourage the Special Rapporteur to address the following during the country visit to Germany:
- Recognition of involuntary confinement as a freedom-of-expression issue, not solely a health or safety matter, given its direct impact on autonomy, legal agency, and the ability to express oneself in public space.
- Critical review of police involvement in situations involving emotional or behavioral difference, including assessment of escalation patterns and the development of non-police, non-coercive response alternatives.
- Examination of Zwangseinweisung practices under international human rights standards, with particular attention to autonomy, proportionality, consent, and the availability of meaningful alternatives.
- Investigation of the intersection of racism, policing, and coercive responses to non-normative behavior, including how racialized perceptions of threat contribute to escalation and harm.
- Promotion of community-based, peer-led, non-coercive forms of support as alternatives to detention and forced intervention.
- Systematic inclusion of people with lived experience of police intervention and involuntary confinement in monitoring, evaluation, and reform processes.
- Establishment of independent, survivor-led task forces composed of people with lived experience of altered realities, police intervention, and involuntary confinement, with a mandate to:
- collect experiential knowledge on how police encounters escalate or could be de-escalated,
- develop practical, non-coercive response strategies grounded in lived experience,
- contribute to training programs for police and first responders, and
- support preventive education efforts, including age-appropriate programs in schools, that normalize difference, reduce fear of non-normative expression, and strengthen early skills of listening and de-escalation.
- Conclusion
Freedom of expression must include the freedom to be human in public — including being emotional, unconventional, joyful, or distressed — without fear of being forcibly silenced through confinement or violence.
Thank you for your attention to these concerns. I would welcome the opportunity to provide further information if helpful.
Ingrid e Johnson
Founder of RECASAS in Berlin
