Police Called Over Bathroom Window in Luxembourg. Officer Responds by Saying “Shut Up” as I Begin Speaking. Audio Available.

La Rochette, LuxembourgAudio recordings of both the police interaction and the call made by hostel staff to Luxembourg police are available in the links below. Video footage of the incident was also recorded but is not included in this post.The call made by hostel staff to Luxembourg police was conducted in Luxembourgish. Because I do not speak Luxembourgish, I cannot independently verify the exact content of the complaint reported to police.The recordings are published for documentation and evidentiary purposes in connection with ongoing legal and institutional proceedings.This afternoon, at a youth hostel in La Rochette, Luxembourg, I was approached by a male staff member who threatened to blacklist me and call the police because I opened a bathroom window after using the restroom and showering.Opening a bathroom window after using the restroom and showering is not a crime. It is not a policy violation that warrants police involvement. The issue was ventilation.Opening the window was the only self protective mechanism available to me in an enclosed building where I was experiencing symptoms consistent with prior documented toxic exposure events. Ventilation through open windows dilutes airborne substances. Closing the windows removes that protection. The demand that the window remain closed eliminated the only available means of ventilating the space and reducing airborne exposure.Staff had already raised the issue of the bathroom window several times over the previous days, including earlier that afternoon and again a few hours before the police were called.In situations involving ongoing harassment, complaints sometimes arise around actions that allow an individual to protect themselves or document events, such as opening windows for ventilation, recording interactions, or requesting a room change.The staff member claimed that I had repeatedly opened the window and further claimed that I had not been showering. At this facility the bathroom and the shower are located in separate rooms within the women’s area. Staff were not present inside either room. For a male staff member to claim knowledge of which room I used and what I was doing inside those private spaces raises questions about how that information was obtained.I had already paid for a full week at this facility. I had made a phone reservation to leave early because of the harassment I had been experiencing on the property. Within approximately five to ten minutes of making that reservation, staff appeared at my door with this complaint and informed me that police had been called. The timing of the complaint occurred almost immediately after I arranged to leave the property.The complaint initially concerned the bathroom windows being opened. When police arrived, the officer stated that someone had called about a problem in the building but did not identify any specific rule violation. I repeatedly asked what rule I had violated or what conduct had been reported that I had done.No specific rule or violation was identified.Later in the interaction, the explanation shifted. The officer stated that my speech during the conversation itself was harassing others. The interaction therefore moved from an initial complaint about windows being opened to a claim that my speech during the police encounter was the problem.The basis for the police call therefore changed during the interaction, shifting from an alleged rule violation involving a bathroom window to a claim that my speech during the police encounter itself was the problem.The following interaction with the police is documented on audio.I began recording as the officers arrived. I observed the police vehicle enter the property with its siren activated. Shortly afterward I heard officers moving through the hallway, and the audio recording captures the knock on my door and the beginning of the interaction.When I began explaining the situation, the officer told me to “shut up.” This statement is clearly audible on the recording. I immediately responded that he did not have the right to tell me to shut up.During the interaction, the officer told me that I was not allowed to record. The officer also stated that if he instructed me to stop recording, I would have to stop. However, he did not actually issue such an instruction, and the recording continued.The officer asked for my passport. I explained that asylum seekers in Luxembourg do not retain their passports because they are held by immigration authorities during the asylum procedure. Instead, asylum seekers are issued a document known as a papier rouge, which functions as their official identification while their case is pending.The papier rouge contains a unique identification number linked to the individual’s asylum file. When an asylum application is filed, personal documentation is registered with authorities and identity checks are conducted as part of the asylum procedure.When I presented the papier rouge to the officer, he appeared unfamiliar with the document and returned it to me.During the interaction I identified myself as an asylum seeker, a human rights defender, and a victim of transnational repression experiencing coordinated harassment.The officer had no framework for receiving that information. He characterized the situation as “speech against speech.” I asked where the nearest police station was so that I could file a report. The officer directed me to a station approximately 20 kilometers away and did not offer to take a report at the scene.The officers confirmed that I had paid through the following day and that there was no violation. They left without taking any action against me.This incident occurred on the same day that I submitted a formal forensic toxicology request to the Institut für Rechtsmedizin in Frankfurt, published documentation of my clinical evidence of chemical exposure on Substack, and publicly announced my March 24 asylum appeal hearing.This interaction illustrates the institutional gap identified in my petition to the European Parliament and in my submissions to United Nations human rights mechanisms. When individuals report coordinated harassment or transnational repression, local authorities often lack training, protocols, or mechanisms for receiving and documenting those complaints.The interaction documented here occurred in real time and is preserved in the accompanying recordings.Audio EvidenceAudio files will be added to this post shortly.Audio recording of the call placed by hostel staff to Luxembourg police:Audio recording of the police interaction: This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit drtamaradixon.substack.com