Anti-Greta Going to Jail? Teen Climate Skeptic Faces Jail Time For Her Opinions

Published on May 27, 2020

Written by Paul Homewood

You will probably be aware of Naomi Seibt, the 19 year old from Germany who has been making a name as the anti-Greta lately. Her common sense messages about global warming have not gone down well with the climate establishment, who prefer the hysterical outpourings of Greta.

But the campaign against her took a disturbing turn last month. Lord Monckton takes up the story:

To all the kind and generous readers who have donated to the appeal for Naomi Seibt, I should like to say how very grateful she for your support. Thanks to your contributions to her Patreon account, she now has $1600 a month in income, and skeptics everywhere are spreading the word. Stefan Molyneux, who has interviewed Naomi in the past, has just retweeted it. Latest news is that Naomi has been threatened with imprisonment.

Naomi, who will be writing a personal thank-you as soon as she has time, will be devoting your donations to continuing her gallant fight not only for freedom of speech about the climate question but also for freedom from jail.

It is not just about the money, life-saving though it is. She felt very much alone when she realized that the power, the might and the wealth of the State were – for purely political reasons – being aimed directly at her. The warmth of your support has been a very great comfort to her at this difficult time.

She was not happy to receive a letter from the State Media Authority in North Rhine Westphalia, where she lives, telling her that three of her YouTube videos on the climate question were against the law because she had expressed views that were not, in the Authority’s opinion, “climate-friendly”, and because she had mentioned the Heartland Institute in those videos.

Such non-“climate-friendly” mentions of Heartland, the letter said, constituted unlawful product placement.

At the time when that first letter arrived, Naomi was not well. A letter went to the Authority on her behalf, asking for more time so that she could respond properly in due course. The Authority did not give her more time. It went right ahead and issued an “administrative act”, a quasi-judicial decision against her. The act gave her just three choices:

  1. Take down two of the three videos the Authority had originally complained of; or
  2. Pay the Authority 1000 euros plus 200 euros costs for each of the two videos (total $2640 at today’s exchange rate); or
  3. Go to prison for up to 14 days in respect of each video: total up to 28 days.

Naomi made the first of the three videos five months before she even knew the Heartland Institute existed. Unsurprisingly, therefore, that video – video 1 – did not mention Heartland at all. The Authority has now backed off and accepted that video 1 could not by any stretch of the most insanely malevolent bureaucratic imagination constitute product placement for the Heartland Institute. That leaves videos 2 and 3.

In video 2, just a couple of minutes long, Naomi announced to her 88,000 YouTube followers that she was now a member of the Heartland Institute, and said that she would be working with it to take a rational and non-alarmist approach to the climate question. All she was doing was telling the truth. But in her homeland it seems it is now again unlawful to tell the truth if the State does not like the truth. That should worry all of us.

In law, that mention of Heartland does not constitute unlawful product placement because Naomi stated her connection with Heartland explicitly, right at the beginning of video 2. For that was the whole point of the video: to tell her followers, openly and honestly, that she was now with the Institute. In civilized jurisdictions, for good reason, it is only undeclared product placement that is unlawful.

In any event, the Authority says such mentions are only illegal if in the same video one advocates policy prescriptions. But the 280 words of video 2 contain no policy recommendations at all.

Video 3 did not mention Heartland even once. It was a video of a speech Naomi had given to a German audience. The event had been arranged long before I had introduced her to the Heartland Institute. Heartland had absolutely nothing to do with it, and it had absolutely nothing to do with Heartland. It beats me how anyone could imagine for a single instant that video 3 could possibly constitute product placement.

Yet the Authority – inferentially anxious to find fault with more than just one short and harmless video – persists in pursuing Naomi for video 3 as well as for video 2, even though I have written to it twice directly and once via the German Ambassador in London to warn it to cease and desist’

On the facts, no reasonable, independent and impartial public authority exercising a quasi-judicial function could possibly regard any of videos 1-3 as constituting unlawful product placement.

Remarkably, the Authority manifests its prejudice in this affair by using the words “climate-friendly” to describe its own viewpoint on the climate question, not only in its initial letter but also, far more seriously and far more culpably, in its quasi-judicial administrative act…….

Monckton goes on to demolish the legal aspects of the State’s case, before concluding:

The Authority is wrong in fact, for it is manifest that neither of the two videos it complains of constitutes unlawful product placement. And it is wrong in law, for it has acted contrary to natural justice by judging itself, by expressing open prejudice in the judgment and by failing to allow Naomi time to respond substantively before it judged her.

Its crude attempt at silencing the freedom of thought, of conscience, of expression and of association of a 19-year-old YouTuber against whom it has chosen to discriminate on the stated ground that she is not, in its words, “climate-friendly” is now justifiably attracting worldwide condemnation.

As a result of the appeal, Naomi not only has enough money to keep body and soul together, but individual donors have come forward so that she can engage a senior administrative lawyer to fight her corner in the Verwaltungsgericht (the State administrative court).

Even the Left-leaning media hacks who had previously given Naomi a hard time for daring to question the climate-Communist Party Line are now increasingly on her side. They are shocked at the Authority’s heavy-handedness.

The Authority, now visibly desperate, has issued an imprudent and mendacious press statement falsely stating that it had given Naomi a fair chance to put her side of the case. The courts will not like that.

An appeal against the Authority’s kangaroo-court misconduct has been lodged. In due course a proper judge will hear not only the Authority’s side of the case but Naomi’s as well – the case that the Authority scandalously refused to hear before it issued its quasi-judicial administrative act.

One question the judge will be asked to rule upon is whether the Authority must answer Naomi’s request to be told which of its “climate-friendly” fellow-believers told it about her videos.

On her behalf, a copy of an email from a third party to the Authority about Naomi’s videos was requested and provided, but the Authority redacted the name of the sender without having declared the redaction. That failure to declare that a document furnished in court proceedings had been altered from its original state is a serious breach of process. The Authority has thus put itself in contempt of court. The offense is imprisonable.

The question arises whether the Authority and its “climate-friendly” clerks, in demanding money from Naomi with menaces even though it knows perfectly well – for it has been plainly, fairly and repeatedly told – that it has no legitimate grounds whatsoever to make those demands, has committed the serious, imprisonable criminal offences of blackmail, fraud and misfeasance in a public office.

I shall be referring the case papers to the German Ambassador with a formal complaint to be forwarded to the police and investigating authorities in Münster, where Naomi lives, and in Berlin.

The international news media are already planning to be present in the Verwaltungsgericht. This will be a battle royal for freedom of speech against the over-mighty State. Thanks to your generosity, the State will crash and burn, and freedom of speech will win. It will not be Naomi that goes to jail. Thank you all again. Let freedom ring!

Monckton sent a copy of this draft article to the State Media Authority, with the following cover letter:

I refer to previous correspondence in this matter, to which I have had no reply. I now attach a draft of an article that is to be published globally via multiple outlets. If by close of business on 26 May 2020 I shall not have received any corrections on questions of fact from or on behalf of the State media “authority”, I shall take it that the “authority” is content that the facts are as I have represented them in the article, which will thereupon be published.

A copy of this letter and its enclosure goes to His Excellency the German Ambassador in London.

Yours faithfully,

Viscount Monckton of Brenchley

As he notes, no such undertaking has been received.

It is frankly quite astonishing that a young girl can be locked up for politically incorrect views. After all, this is not China we are talking about.

Forget about the nonsense of “unlawful product placement”, which Monckton destroys anyway. Why would a State media authority even be aware of such a minor video, never mind go to the lengths of legal proceedings over such an inconsequential technicality? The very words “climate friendly” tell us all we need to know.

But it is even more concerning that, apparently, laws exist in Germany to allow this to happen.

Clearly darker forces are at work here, determined to shut down any criticism of the climate establishment.

We live in strange and worrying times.

If you would like to contribute to the cost of Naomi’s court case, just click on the link below: