All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
Nanna Skov Høpfner, or as she is known by her friends Nanna Fri (Nanna Freedom), talked at a rally against the Danish Government and their corona restrictions. In her speech she made many good points, but also ended with “lets go smash this town up in a non-violent way. Lets make some noise, so they can hear, we are here”.
For this she was sentenced 2 years in jail, because they used an option to double the sentence, when it’s corona related. The law was never meant to be used against activists, but to punish people committing coronary crimes like fraud. Nanna is 30 years old and the mother of 2 small children and has no background of activism or violent behavior.
Activist Per Brændgaard comments on Nannas case. Per is a Cand. Scient. in Human Nutrition, works as a nutrition consultant, author and lecturer on life quality and natural health. He is also one of the strongest public voices against corona restrictions in Denmark, also started a new party to fight political corruption. Per and other important groups in Denmark, such as The People’s Freedom Movement, the JFK21 Party, More Freedom Less Control – have helped to uncover the many incoherencies in the corona pandemic narrative, as well as the frightening tyrannical development in Danish politics during thi period.
Per comments on Nannas case:
It is my impression from here that the police have absolutely no evidence that Nanna Fri has done anything criminal. The police, on the other hand, are trying to set up Nanna Fri on a conspiracy theory that the police themselves have prepared. It is a theory about a conspiracy among protesters to commit violence against the police, which Nanna Fri was supposed to lead.
March 12, 2021 will go down in history as one of the darkest days in Denmark. Nanna Fri was today sentenced by the Copenhagen City Court to 2 years unconditional imprisonment for having said these words from a scene at a demonstration: “let’s smash the city – in a non-violent way”. Nanna was convicted of an undocumented conspiracy theory drawn up by police. I hope the three district court judges are well and truly ashamed now, but unfortunately they probably are not. I especially hope that many more Danes are now starting to wake up and realize what a system corona fascism has introduced in Denmark.
The Nanna Fri case is tragic in many ways. It is also tragic for the Danish police, which many Danes have probably now lost the last remnant of respect for. If the police think, and they obviously do, that a young mother must be punished so severely for uttering those words, yes it’s just WORDS, then it is very difficult to take the police seriously in other areas in the future. It is detrimental to the work of the police against real crime and to the protection of the population. I would urge every single police officer to look at the Nanna Fri verdict and decide for themselves whether it is such a fascist system one wants to work for or whether it is time to move on. If the police can not hire people to carry out the fascist tasks, then the fascists in suits behind the scenes will have to go on the streets themselves, and they probably will not dare, after all. We must have the police on our side, the people’s, by peaceful, lawful means. Let’s hug them over here – over here on Lyste’s page!
Here is a critical review of Per Brændgaard’s opinion of the city court against Nanna Fri.
Per Brændgaard: Nanna Skov Høpfner, who is also known as Nanna Fri, was sentenced by the Copenhagen City Court yesterday, 12 March 2021, to 2 years unconditional imprisonment.
The legal judge in the case was Uffe Habekost Sørensen. In addition, two lay judges participated in the verdict against Nanna. Judge Uffe Habekost Sørensen writes about himself on LinkedIn that he has previously worked for the Ministry of Justice as resp. clerk in 2016 and student in 2005-2007. He thus has a past in the executive branch before switching to the judiciary.
The Copenhagen City Court has published this justification for the verdict, which I assume was written by judge Habekost. Here is a list of points that I wonder about when reviewing the text.
I quote from the text of the judgment:
“It is thus proven that the accused approx. at 18.30 from a podium in front of about 400 demonstrators in the Town Hall Square over a loudspeaker, among other things, stated “Okay, are you ready to walk around and smash the city in a non-violent way? Just to make Copenhagen aware that we are here? ”,“ We ??are here.
We are angry and we are tired and we are going insane ”,
“ Is no one listening to us? There is no one listening to us friends. So what do we do? We get them to listen and how do we do it. Time will tell ”and“ Are you in? Are we done accepting that shit? So let’s smash it, friends! Democracy okay? ” and
“The people into the Folketing. Smash that system. Thank you. Fuck the system. Fuck Mette. Fuck Poli. Fuck it all man. Thank you ”, whereby she helped to light Roman candles, cannon shots and fired fireworks at Copenhagen City Hall during and after her speech.
Per Brændgaard’s comment: I simply do not see where there should be any incitement to violence or other forms of crime. It is a speech given in youth language in the context of a demonstration to mainly other younger people who, in my opinion, feel a completely just resentment over the corona-fascist abuses of national freedom and public health. It may be stupidly worded, but if it is to give two years in prison to make a stupid statement, then half the population should be behind bars now.
How can the judges misunderstand “smashing the city in a non-violent way”?
They can only do so when they choose to judge in favor of the executive, of which they themselves, unfortunately, are a part. How has the communication been between judge Habekost and the police / prosecution in the period up to the trial? Is it possible to gain insight into this with a view to investigating any crime committed by Judge Habekost?
The verdict further states:
“Furthermore, it is proven that shortly after the speech, the defendant participated in a serious disturbance of public order in, among other places, Rådhuspladsen, H.C. Andersens Boulevard and Blegdamsvej, as she repeatedly took the lead in the demonstration and by her presence, shouting, including using a megaphone, and behavior, in conjunction with her previous speech, participated in and encouraged others to attack by throwing objects, including cannon shots, fireworks, cans and stones, against the police officers present, injuring several of them and not less than 16 police officers were hit by objects.
Per Brændgaard’s comment: It is simply too vague! What did Nanna say? What has Nanna done? What is the documentation for this? And what about the video documentation that Nanna Fri was actually trying to calm the agitated protesters? Have the judges chosen to override this in order to instead believe in the police’s undocumented conspiracy theory about Nanna as the great mastermind in a coordinated attack on the police?
I have no doubt that there were police officers who were injured. But what about the evidence that the police themselves contributed to the escalation of the situation? And what about the many protesters who were beaten to death half by the police?
If this judgment sets a precedent, then one will e.g. could also be convicted of speeding if driving on a road where other cars are driving too fast. It is absurd that you can be convicted of the crime that others in a group may commit simply because you join the group yourself. We do not find ourselves being treated inhumanly like sheep that way!
Judge Habekost further writes:
It is also proven that the defendant failed to comply with the authority’s lawfully served order to the crowd to divorce and encouraged others to new gross disturbance of public order and violent behavior of the above-mentioned nature, while playing the police uplift form on HC Andersens Boulevard ca. at 19.35 in a megaphone stated “freedom for Denmark, we have had enough”, “up the ass with the queen” and “get some time in the drum there man”, just as the defendant participated in the run, including at the intersection Blegdamsvej / Tagensvej approx. at 20.50, where objects were also thrown at the police, until the riot was dissolved approx. at 21.00.
Per Brændgaard’s comment: So the police’s evidence is that Nanna has stated “freedom for Denmark, we have had enough” and “up the ass with the queen”, and that she has encouraged a drummer to play her instrument?
Judge Habekost continues to excel:
“The court finds in general that the defendants in the above statements and actions have contributed to gross disturbance of public order as well as the use of violence against the police officers present, including aggravated violence and attacks with objects. In this connection, the accused is found to have acted in association and by prior agreement or by common understanding with a larger group of identified and unidentified accomplices.
Here it is so black and white that the Copenhagen City Court chooses to believe the conspiracy theory that the Copenhagen Police has developed about Nanna Fri.
What is the evidence that Nanna Fri has entered into a “prior agreement” to commit criminal acts? It does not appear that there is any documentation whatsoever. It’s all based on presumptions, and that’s not how a district court should judge in a civilized legal society, in my opinion.
The madness of the city court ruling is further apparent from the text of the judgment in this continuing section: The court notes that the two police commissioners who have given explanations in the case have explained, among other things, that prior to the demonstration on January 9, 2021, organized by Men In Black , were concerns about violence against police. The background for this was, among other things, Men In Black’s previous activities and the storm at the US Congress on January 6, 2021.
So Nanna Fri has been convicted based on not only what other people have done at that demonstration but also what others have done on completely different occasions and in the US?
Judge Habekost continues:
The court finds it proven that the defendant at least had probable intent, as the defendant must have realized that it was overwhelmingly probable that she with her statements and actions contributed to the mentioned offenses. Emphasis has been placed on the information about the circumstances of the defendant’s speech at Rådhuspladsen, including that the defendant knew that arrests had been made and that she perceived that fireworks were being fired. It is also emphasized that it appears from the video recording of a speech that the defendant gave on 11 November 2020 that she was careful to avoid encouraging clashes with the police. Furthermore, it is emphasized that the defendant’s actions and statements took place over a longer period of time and continued after she had seen fellow demonstrators commit the offenses in question.
Per Brændgaard’s comment: In other words: The documentation that Nanna Fri actually tried to put a damper on the tempers is used by the Copenhagen City Court as proof that she is guilty of provoking violence against the police. If we had a Minister of Justice who was interested in people’s freedom, then he would fire Judge Habekost immediately and send him for a mental examination before he is given new tasks as a judge.
The text of the judgment from the Copenhagen City Court contains a large number of other nonsense that confirm to me that Denmark has become an idiocy and not a democracy.
Now this should not be seen as a call for criminal acts against the clearly incompetent judge Habekost. After all, he cannot pretend to be incompetent, or perhaps he has been subjected to pressure or bait, which he has not been able to resist. He is also only a human being. The Folketing, on the other hand, should make a proposal to the Minister of Justice that Habekost be dismissed immediately and that Nanna Fris’ city court ruling be overturned under the leadership of a competent and competent judge. At the same time, Nanna Fri should be set free now so she can go home to her children while she waits for the case to come before a new judge who will judge fairly and not politically.
All of this is merely an expression of my opinion as a politically committed non-lawyer. If the police should decide to arrest me for this, then I remind you of sections 71, 72 and especially 77 of the Constitution.
The Social Democrats and the Danish People’s Party report fascist suit
Per Brændgaard’s comment: S, DF and DR participate in advanced propaganda for continued corona fascism. In a new propaganda article from the state media DR with the headline Corona double punishment against 30-year-old woman arouses tremors at Christiansborg, S and DF state that they believe that double punishment for Nanna Fri is completely in place, as the case was connected to covid- 19.
It does not get behind me with S, who should immediately go to a numerologist and change his name from the Social Democrats to the Social Fascists, but DF you never quite know where you are, unless the case is about Muslims. Now the DF has also shown their true fascist suit with this announcement, and we know that the DF will in future stand for Danish Fascists. The more advanced propaganda in the DR article comes from statements from the Radicals and SF as well as from DR’s organization of the propaganda itself, which is disguised as a journalistic article by Nicolai S. Nielsen and Caroline Clante. The latter I return to at the end of this article.
Both the Socialist People’s Party and the Radicals disagree that the special corona clause should have been used in the Nanna Fri case, but with their statements they are interfering in a pending lawsuit. The Radicals’ legal spokesman Kristian Hegaard says: “- She has done something illegal.” SF’s legal spokesperson Karina Lorentzen-Denhardt says to DR: “- There is no doubt that some very serious things have been committed here. I will not defend that. This woman must also take her judgment for that. ” I assume that none of these politicians have read the reasoning for the verdict, which at least in my and many others’ point of view suggests that it is city court judge Habekost and not Nanna Fri who has done something illegal. She is convicted on a very extremely thin basis, which is not worthy of a society governed by the rule of law.
DR emphasizes this propaganda trick by taking something for granted – “Nanna is guilty” – even though it is definitely not a matter of course!
And then they use another propaganda trick to shift focus from Nanna’s guilt to the corona clause on double punishment, thereby derailing the debate. The case is about a judge in the Copenhagen City Court having made a political and not a legal judgment against a citizen who has had big enough balls (or ovaries) to stand up on a lectern and speak against the occupying power and its followers. Nanna Fri is a freedom fighter, a folk hero who should be praised instead of being subjected to this abuse in a system that gradually reminds a lot more of China than of Denmark.
DR starts the propaganda article as follows:
“It is a most sensational verdict that has been handed down by the Copenhagen City Court this afternoon. Not so much because a 30-year-old woman has been convicted of inciting violence against police during a demonstration against coronary restrictions. But because the punishment is double the normal. ” It is in this way that they make the readers accept that Nanna is guilty, even though that is exactly what the debate should be about now. The case is the worst judicial murder in recent times. Even committed against a young mother of two small children.
May the culprits of the police, the prosecution and the district court be ashamed and punished by the negative karma that their intentions and actions in this case must inevitably have brought!
Translated from Danish
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Featured image is from Inga – stock.adobe.com
Disclaimer: The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article.