Naomi Seibt, the 19-year-old anti-Greta from Germany whose climate-skeptical Youtube videos have gone viral, needs your urgent financial help. Without a hearing, German officials have fined her and demanded costs on the ground that in her devastatingly effective videos she has dared to question the Party Line about what officialdom profiteers by presenting as “dangerous” manmade global warming.
As a result of this arbitrary and capricious prosecution and conviction without trial, Naomi has had her earnings cut off. Please donate securely and directly to her Patreon account at https://www.patreon.com/naomiseibtmy. May I suggest at least $10 per month? That would be a real life-saver, and would enable Naomi to continue her valuable work.
Naomi was the star of the show at last year’s climate conference held in Munich by EIKE, the European Institute for Climate and Energy. She is an internet influencer with her own popular YouTube channel – so popular, in fact, that the totalitarian censors at YouTube have shadow-banned her channel, cutting her potential income from it by nine-tenths.
James Taylor of the Heartland Institute met Naomi in Munich and invited her to speak at the Heartland Conference in in December 2019 during the U.N. Gaia-worship haj in Madrid. Her five-minute speech attracted ten times as many YouTube hits as mine. Naomi has since been showing the Heartland Institute how to increase its internet presence.
Naomi recently received a letter from a functionary at the State Media Authority for North Rhine Westphalia, the region where she lives. The letter informed her peremptorily that, without a hearing, she has been found guilty of the alleged offence of exercising her right of free speech about the climate on YouTube in a manner that the letter described as not being “climate-friendly”.
What was such a value-laden term doing in an official letter from a public authority to its teenage victim?
In a subsequent letter, the Authority demanded a fine of about $400 and costs on top, and instructed Naomi that she must not mention the Heartland Institute in her videos. The insubstantial ground for this attempt at silencing Naomi was that such mentions constituted unlawful product placement under a recently-enacted law of the North-Rhine Westphalia region.
However the letter makes it clear that a video is held to contravene the new law if it does two things at the same time: it advocates any policy position unacceptable to the Gau (such as opposition to Germany’s crippling Energiewende) and, in the same video, to mention a named product or entity associated with that position (such as the Heartland Institute).
The Authority listed three videos by Naomi that it considered unlawful. In fact, the list demonstrates that the charges against her are false. The Authority trumped them up, inferentially at the behest of “climate-friendly” activists.
In the first of the three specific videos of which the Authority complains, Naomi made plain her opposition the Party Line, but did not break the law because she did not mention the Heartland Institute. At the time she made that video she had not even heard of it.
In the second video Naomi announced to her followers that she was collaborating with Heartland, but did not break the law because in that video she did not advocate any policy position, whether on climate or anything else.
In the third video, Naomi again expressed opposition to the official position on climate, but did not break the law because she did not mention Heartland.
On the facts, not one of these three videos offended against the law as the correspondence from the Authority chartacterizes it. The prosecution had no rational basis in fact or in law.
This is yet another instance of a traditional totalitarian tactic: to enmesh all who have publicly and effectively challenged the Party Line on climate in complex and costly legal wrangles, however ill founded, in the hope of muzzling them and cowing everyone else into silence.
Just ask Professor Peter Ridd or Dr Susan Crockford or Dr Tim Ball or Mark Steyn or countless others thus harried and bullied by the lavishly-funded watermelons.
Naomi would also be entitled to report the Authority to the police for the criminal offenses of fraud and of demanding money with menaces. For I have written twice to the Authority explaining that its prosecution of her is itself unlawful and that it should at once withdraw its impertinent and unlawful demand for the fine and costs it has levied without trial. However, I have received no reply to either letter.
Though Naomi could both sue and prosecute the polished Lederhosen off the Authority, the funds that will be raised by your kind and generous donations directly to her Patreon channel at https://www.patreon.com/naomiseibtmy are for her personal use. She may or may not decide to spend the money on legal fees. If not, your kindness will support her videos.
The Authority knows from my letters that it is not entitled to the sums it has demanded. It persists in its unjustifiable and unlawful demand nonetheless. Therefore, its refusal to withdraw its menacing demand once it had been told exactly why that demand was unjustifiable establishes mens rea, the intent to do what is known to be wrong – in this instance, blackmail.
The Authority’s misconduct also satisfies the two tests for fraud. First, did it intend to deceive? Yes, in that it stated in writing that Naomi had committed offenses when it knew from the three videos on which its prosecution was founded that not one contravened its law. Even if it had originally erred, its failure to correct its error when I twice wrote drawing its attention to the error of its ways is compelling evidence of its fraudulent intent to deceive.
Secondly, did the Authority intend to profit for itself or to cause loss to its victim by that deception? Yes, in that it demanded a fine and costs to which it knew – once I had explained the matter to it, even if not before – that it was not entitled. Yet it has not withdrawn its demand.
Since it has failed to respond, I have written to the German Ambassador in London as follows, with copies to the Landesregierung (regional government) of North Rhine Westphalia and to the Bundeskanzlei in Berlin:
Suppression of free speech by German officials
HM Government is becoming increasingly concerned at attempts by certain political factions, here and worldwide, to circumscribe freedom of expression. It has come to my attention that the Landesanstalt für Medien Nordrhein-Westfalen (the State Media Authority in the North Rhine Westphalia region) has recently written a letter to Naomi Seibt, a 19-year-old citizen of that region, unlawfully announcing that it has tried her without a hearing and found her guilty of offences arising from her exercise in YouTube videos of her right to free speech. The Authority can be proven to know that her remarks in the three specific videos of which it complains are not constitutive of any offence.
I do not represent Fräulein Seibt: I write as a citizen concerned that, yet again, free speech is being brought to an end in Germany. I have written twice to the Authority requiring it to cease and desist from its campaign against Fräulein Seibt, and asking it to clarify its understanding of the law of the Land, since Fräulein Seibt and I propose to make a series of videos on the climate question, and eventually a movie as well. But I have had no reply. Therefore, I should be grateful if Your Excellency would now act as follows:
1. Please invite the Authority to reply promptly and properly to my letters and to answer my questions about its interpretation of the law, and inform the Authority that, in the absence of any reply, I shall take it that the Authority now accepts that Fräulein Seibt is entitled to mention any legal person or opinion she wishes in her videos, whether or not those persons or opinions are regarded by the Gau as “climate-friendly”.
2. Please pass on to the Authority this my freedom-of-information request for the names and addresses, ages and occupations of all members of the governing board and senior staff of the Authority, specifying all potential conflicts of interest that they may individually or collectively possess, such as corporate or personal membership or contacts with environmental or other suchlike activist groups.
3. Please pass on to the Authority this my freedom-of-information request for all its internal and external correspondence or conversations in relation to this affair.
4. Please draw the attention of the Landesregierung and of the Bundeskanzlei to this international scandal.
I recommend that the Landesregierung should give Fräulein Seibt immediate, full and unreserved apology on behalf of the defalcating Authority, together with substantial compensation – I suggest $10,000, with $2500 costs – for the distress and alarm to which its misconduct has unjustifiably subjected her and her family.
The Authority’s ground of action, insofar as any such pretext can be discerned from its extraordinary correspondence, is that, under a recently-enacted law calculated to remove the right of free speech from those who disagree with State-sanctioned opinion, Fräulein Seibt has expressed opinions contrary to the official Party Line on the climate question.
It is a matter of profound regret that, once again, your nation is no longer safe for those who wish to speak their mind without being forcibly and unlawfully menaced, punished and silenced by the State for no better reason than that they have dared publicly and efficaciously to disagree with it.
The Authority’s letter flagrantly mischaracterizes Fräulein Seibt’s opinions on the question of global warming in a manner that is not only deeply offensive to her and lacking any rational justification in fact or in law but is also indicative of unlawful prejudice and even malice on the part of the Authority.
In particular, the Authority has seen fit to base its criminal allegations against Fräulein Seibt on its opinion that her contributions are essentially characterized by the statement that there is no scientific evidence of climate change caused by human behaviour. That is not and has never been Fräulein Seibt’s opinion: nor has she ever expressed any such opinion.
The Authority lists three viral YouTube videos made by Fräulein Seibt as being unlawful in that they call for the adoption of a particular policy (described in the letter as not being “climate-friendly”), and that they also mention the Heartland Institute by name, thereby offending against the law’s prohibition of product placement in broadcast material.
However, only one of the three videos mentions the Heartland Institute, and in that video Fräulein Seibt does not advocate any policy position, whether on climate or anything else. She merely reports to her followers the fact that she is working with the Institute. The other two videos do advocate policy positions uncongenial to the Gau, but they do not mention the Heartland Institute. Therefore, none of the three videos contravenes the law.
The Convention (Art. 6) obliges the Authority to inform Fräulein Seibt, promptly, comprehensibly and in detail, not merely of the legal characterization but also of the factual particulars of any offences that she is imagined to have perpetrated. Yet the Authority’s correspondence is woefully lacking in factual particulars, and such few factual particulars as it does furnish are demonstrably inaccurate, manifestly irrelevant and self-evidently not constitutive of any criminal offence.
The Authority culpably neglects to explain on what scientific grounds it regards the opinions that Ms Seibt has stated in her YouTube videos on climate change to be contrary to what it regards as “climate-friendly”. Where is the proper, balanced consideration of the scientific literature on the part of the Authority that is mandatory in such circumstances? There is none.
Worse, the Authority’s use of the term “climate-friendly” indicates that it has taken a policy position on the climate question, and has acted to silence Fräulein Seibt – at least in part – because it has foolishly adopted that position and finds her contrary opinion uncongenial. But the Authority is surely forbidden to found upon its own political prejudices in reaching its decisions on whom to prosecute – or, rather, to persecute.
The Authority mentions, as an accusation, that Fräulein Seibt’s opinions are “in contrast to those of today’s climate activists”. Is opposition to far-Left political activism now once again a criminal offence?
The Authority says Ms Seibt sees herself as “the voice of those who oppose socially-imposed rules of thought”. Is the Authority partisan, then? Surely it is supposed to be impartial? If Fräulein Seibt opposes the passive acceptance of whatever Party Line is currently fashionable, is that now, once again, a criminal offence in Germany?
The Authority says Fräulein Seibt mentions climate activists and their doings. Is it once again a criminal offence in the New Germany to criticize far-Left, anti-free-market activism?
The Authority characterizes Fräulein Seibt’s opinions as “ideological and political”. If she has a political ideology, is it not her right under the Convention to have one? Or is it now once again a punishable criminal offence in Germany publicly to disagree with the State?
The Authority says that, because the climate question concerns human living conditions, Fräulein Seibt’s views are characteristic of a “concrete worldview”, whatever that may be. Is it wrong to ask scientific questions about what the Authority naively and erroneously believes to be the settled science advanced by those with whom it takes sides in describing them as “climate-friendly”? Is the scepticism at the heart of the scientific method now once again a criminal offence in Germany?
The Authority says there is sufficient evidence that the inclusion of climate-related topics in Fräulein Seibt’s contributions to her own homepage “aims, as does the Heartland Institute, to strengthen the freedom of the individual and limit the influence of the State”. If that is the case, is it now once again a criminal offence in Germany to speak out for freedom?
The Authority says the Heartland Institute deals, among other things, with energy policy issues. Is energy policy a criminal offence?
Is mentioning the Heartland Institute a criminal offence? Or has the new law once again shut down free speech in Germany in flat contravention and wilful repudiation of the Convention to which Germany is a signatory?
The new law in Nordrhein-Westfalen, being defiantly incompatible with the Convention, is itself unlawful. The Convention expressly defends freedom of thought (Art. 9), of expression (Art. 10), and of assembly and association (Art. 11), as well as freedom from discrimination on ground of any opinion (Art. 14). The Authority’s prosecution offends directly, materially and flagrantly against all these Articles, as well as against Article 6 (Right to a fair trial).
Since my letters to the Authority have explained to it that it is acting unlawfully, and since the Authority has not only failed to reply but failed to withdraw its unlawful demand to Fräulein Seibt for a substantial fine and costs, the Authority and its relevant personnel appear to have committed the serious imprisonable offences of blackmail and of fraud.
If by the end of this week the Authority has not withdrawn its action against Fräulein Seibt, I shall write again inviting Your Excellency to pass the papers in this case to the Federal investigating authorities, who should then in my submission prosecute the Authority and its relevant personnel for blackmail and fraud. But let us give the Authority the chance either to redeem itself by withdrawing its action or at least to explain itself.
I look forward to hearing from Your Excellency by the end of this week. In view of the urgency of the need to bring this scandal to an end, I am making this letter public.
I remain, Your Excellency,
Your Excellency’s obedient servant,
Monckton of Brenchley
Please donate at least $10 a month to Naomi at her Patreon account: https://www.patreon.com/naomiseibtmy.
To add insult to injury, Naomi has just received a package from the Bundeszentrale für Politische Bildung (the Federal Agency for Political Re-Education). Inside the package were two magazine-style propaganda tracts rebarbatively regurgitating the Party Line on global warming.
Another misleading passage says:
“Methane is mainly produced in the stomachs of ruminants such as cows – which is why our meat consumption noticeably amplifies climate change – but also in rice cultivation, on waste dumps and in sewage treatment plants.”
Actually, the largest methane sources are likely to be abiogenic. Leaks from various Soviet-era Russian gas pipelines have quite a bit to answer for. And the largest biogenic source of methane is not what Congressman Sensenbrenner bluntly calls “cow farts”. It is termite ants.
Surely the Bundespropagandaamt has heard of the Greenpeace campaign to Save The Planet by eliminating all termite ants? Er, no, wait a minute …
Worse, the propaganda pamphlet’s assertion that “our meat consumption noticeably amplifies climate change” is wrong on the math and wronger on the medical science.
As to the math, about five-sixths of our influence on climate comes from CO2. Even if we pretended that methane accounted for all the rest, and even if we assumed that all of the five-sixths of a degree of warming since 1950 was our achievement, one-sixth of that five-sixths of a degree is a sizzling one-seventh of a degree. Pass the Factor 18 and give the punkah-wallah a prod, Jeeves.