You be the Decision Maker | Steve Beckow

By Steve Beckow, June 8, 2020

Written before reading Matthew Ward’s and Blossom’s most recent channelings.

Do I know what’s going on? In a general sense, I do. But in a specific sense, like, who killed George Floyd, etc.? No, I don’t.

Consequently I’m as glued to the screen as you may be. (1) I don’t think the man they have in custody is the man who killed George Floyd. But I don’t know what’s true and what’s not.

I don’t really know Antifa. I assume that they’re fascist more than anti-fascist, whatever anti-fascist is – it all sounds of a piece.

But I don’t know more than that.

I have all this evidence in front of me and I have to hope that my own bias doesn’t outweigh my better judgment in assessing it.

Is this the truth, I ask myself, or the way I’d like things to be?

***

This is very interesting, you know. Here I am saying that we all have to use our discernment and reach our own decision with the evidence before us. Hmmmm…..

I spent eight years reaching human-rights decisions on whether a person was or was not a Convention refugee. (2)

Would you like to hear how I’d reach a decision on claims that, sometimes, could mean a person returned to a life in jail, torture, or worse if I got it wrong? These were serious decisions.

That having been said, I love the art of decision-making.

***

In the background of any decision made is months of studying refugee law, case law, country conditions, human-rights conventions, charters and treaties, legal procedures, etc.

Let’s start with the day of the hearing. Let’s begin by examining the examiner. Before entering the hearing room: How am I today? Have I carried anything in with me? If so, let it go. I need to be available to listen for the next three hours.

Do I have a bias in the matter? Yes? A preference? Yes.? A leaning? Yes? My mind is open but not empty.

OK, now put them all aside as well.

Your task over the next three hours is to determine, if possible, what the truth of the matter before you is, based on the evidence presented to you (not on your biases). On the basis of that tested and winnowed truth, you’ll make your decision.

Consider the evidence. Is it the best evidence available? Does it show signs of being tampered with or of being a forgery? Do all the personal-identity documents before you survive cross-comparison.

Consider the testimony. Is the person testifying before you credible? Test their statements if you have credibility concerns.

Given the country-conditions literature, does the story sound possible? Plausible? Probable? Has it any inconsistencies or contradictions? Is there anything left out or added in?

Does the person seem genuine and sincere? Has their presentation been consistent? If not, have you questioned them on your observations?

Explain to the claimant any problems you’re having with their testimony. Ask for their response and weigh it.

Even if the story is found to be non-credible, look at whether there’s a credible remainder of evidence that you can accept. Is it sufficient to ground a refugee claim? (4)

Having tested the evidence and determined what will enter into your decision and what will not, retire to study the documents and testimony, taken together. Take the time to reflect on all aspects of the decision.

Make your findings (“I find the claimant to be credible,” etc.) and write up your decision.

“I determine X to be a Convention refugee and I extend to you Canada’s protection.” Boy, those words meant a lot to me.

I can’t speak for my colleagues, but that’s how I reached a decision.

I don’t know if that’s been helpful to you. But it’s been immensely helpful to me. What a great reminder for me in these times of mayhem and chaos on how to make a decision.

Footnotes

(1) I’ve since reached the need, again, for a hiatus from following events.

(2) A refugee is defined in the 1951 U.N. Refugee Convention.

(3) Do you see how the decision-maker is left in charge of the decision? “A credible remainder of evidence that I can accept. Is it sufficient to ground a refugee claim?” These can be immensely subjective matters and leave the decision-maker wiggle room. Humanity is permitted a place at the table.

The proudest moments of my life came with saying: “…and I extend to you Canada’s protection.”



Available here

Source: Golden Age of Gaia