The Story about the little Boy and the Emperor with no Clothes on!
The little boy who is the only one brave enough to say out loud that the emperor has no clothes is a good analogy for how fascism works. The king steals from the people through taxes and duties and distributes some of this wealth to the private sector, which in turn helps him keep the people in check.
Early in 2020, a great deal of documentation emerged showing that the WHO and the vaccine industry were using dirty tricks, that politicians and the press around the world were behaving in a strangely coordinated and uniform manner, that face masks were largely ineffective against viruses, and that the COVID-19 tests were inaccurate and were in fact the reason why infection numbers were being artificially inflated. So, by the beginning of 2021, the average critically thinking Dane already had access to the necessary information and documentation to see through our government's exploitation of the coronavirus situation to gain more power through hastily passed laws.
Nevertheless, the madness continued, and 2021 was marked by the coronavirus from the outset. I had been involved in organizing demonstrations in front of the Danish Parliament, Christiansborg since the summer of 2020, and on November 13, 2020, as mentioned earlier, around 6-7,000 people gathered in front of Christiansborg, where politicians gave in to public pressure and rejected the epidemic law. Even the Social Democrats did not vote for their own proposal for a new epidemic law.
It turned out that the health policy situation worsened further in 2021, and as demonstrated in the previous chapter, this happened in the most vulgar possible way.
Parliament Act 150 - Danes as guinea pigs
In January 2021, the Ministry of Health requested DKK 48.5 million from the Danish Parliament's Finance Committee for a research project to conduct a national clinical study on the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccines. The request is set out in the document entitled “Aktstykke 150”, or in English “Parliament Act No. 150”.
At that time, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) had granted conditional marketing authorization for Pfizer-BioNTech's and Moderna's mRNA vaccines. Another approval was on the way for AstraZeneca's rDNA vaccine, which was also approved shortly thereafter on the same terms as the mRNA vaccines, but AstraZeneca's vaccine was later withdrawn from the market in Denmark. Although this so-called vaccine was quickly withdrawn from the market, it still accounts for a relatively large proportion of the reported suspected side effects from COVID-19 vaccines in Denmark.
Parliament Act 150 literally shows what a huge gamble was taken with the launch of COVID-19 vaccines around the turn of the year 2020/2021. There was simply a lack of basic knowledge about the vaccines, and the scandalous conditional marketing approval is in a category all its own: a huge medical experiment in which the entire Danish population participated as guinea pigs!
Here are some excerpts from the four-page document, Parliament Act 150:
“The European Medicines Agency (EMA) has provisionally granted conditional marketing authorization for two newly developed vaccines against COVID-19: BioNTech/Pfizer's vaccine and Moderna's vaccine.”
“It is further expected that AstraZeneca's vaccine will receive conditional approval on January 29 and that additional vaccines may be approved and used in the first half of 2021.”
“Denmark has begun vaccinating against COVID-19.”
“However, knowledge about the effectiveness of the various vaccines in terms of, among other things, the degree of immunity and the time horizon for immunity is limited.”
“The COVID-19 vaccines are being approved by the EMA based on clinical studies in which the vaccines’ effectiveness and side effects have been monitored for a period of approximately two months after the second injection of the vaccine.”
“The EMA has assessed that the documentation for the two vaccines is sufficient for conditional approval.”
“The long-term efficacy of the vaccines is unknown.”
“Based on the clinical trials that form the basis for the approval of the approved vaccines, there is only evidence that the purchased vaccines provide immunity for two to three months, as this is the duration of the large clinical trials.”
“The expectation is that the immunity will last for a longer period, but this has not yet been proven.”
“Several of the new vaccines are based on new technologies – these new technologies have not previously been approved and widely used in the population. The long-term effects can be monitored in a study such as the one proposed.”
“The Danish Medicines Agency, the Danish Health Authority, and the Statens Serum Institut assess that the proposed study is the only real opportunity to monitor whether the vaccines work as intended.”
I hope that the above excerpt from Act 150 gives the reader an impression of what was happening at that time in Danish history: the government, with the support of the Folketing, had turned the entire Danish population into guinea pigs in a huge medical and biological experiment.
If you would like to read the full text of document no. 150, you can find it on the Danish Parliament's website as a permanent reminder and warning (however, I had to confirm three times that I was human before I was granted access to the document when I last tried). (1)
Away with the Constitution and bring on the Epidemic Act!
Do the government and parliament have the power to mislead the population and get away with disregarding the Constitution?
The answer is both yes and no. Yes, because that is precisely what happened with the two epidemic laws passed in 2020 and 2021. The full text of both of these epidemic laws can be found on Retsinformation.
But I would also argue that the answer is no, because according to the Constitution, it is the royal family that formally holds power, and the regent who presides over the Council of State. No new laws can come into force without the signature of the sitting regent and a sitting minister.
However, it is the prime minister who is the visible part of the more invisible power structure, which very few Danes are interested in. The prime minister is merely a puppet figure, tightly controlled by what we might euphemistically call ‘the establishment’, ‘the shadow state’ or ‘the deep state’. In the next chapter, I will return to Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen, who formed a new government in December 2022 after a month and a half of negotiations as the appointed royal investigator. But let's just focus on the Epidemic Act for now.
It is typically the ministers responsible for the various areas of government who propose the bills that are later passed and, I would argue, in many cases violate the Constitution. Former Health Minister Magnus Heunicke was just such a minister, who in less than 12 months put forward no less than two epidemic law bills that violate the Constitution. For obvious reasons, Magnus Heunicke only served as health minister by the grace of the prime minister, or the royal family, if you will. The most remarkable thing is that Magnus Heunicke got away with it, almost without any of the many official political commentators saying anything about a referendum. The few who do mention it are not given any airtime in the media. This is an interesting fact that is truly astonishing and should raise the eyebrow of any Dane who thinks he or she lives in a democratic state!
But it only becomes really interesting when such an epidemic law proposal is passed through first two of three parliamentary debates by an almost unanimous parliament. Still not a word about the violation of the Constitution and/or a referendum. Or almost not. Because I participated as both organizer and co-organizer of the many demonstrations that undoubtedly contributed to the fact that not even the Social Democrats voted for their own bill on a new epidemic law on November 13, 2020. On that day, the epidemic bill fell during its third proceeding in the Parliament, as no one voted for it. Not even the Social Democrats who had proposed it! (2)
I would like to take this opportunity to send a special, warm and appreciative greeting to each and every one of the freedom fighters who demonstrated against the Epidemic Act in 2020, and especially to the 7,000 people who, on November 13, 2020, were able to celebrate one of the only real victories that this freedom struggle has been able to offer during the coronavirus pandemic. I have no doubt that this brave group will all be part of the story of Denmark's future when we have broken free from the iron grip of global fascism. There will come a day in the future when the question will be:
Where were you, Grandma/Grandpa, when global fascism had to be fought back in the 2020s?
Unfortunately, the large group of government coronavirus critics was completely divided between the great victory on November 13, 2020, and February 27, 2021. As a result, the demonstrations that took place in January and February 2021 were more sporadic and fragmented, giving politicians more peace and quiet to carry out their unconstitutional work. I have described he division that arose in the coronavirus critic community in my Danish book “Illusionen om Danmark - Del 1 - De 3 Tabte År” (not yet translated into english), but now I will finish commenting on the criminality that I believe has taken place in connection with this Epidemic Act. (3)
Human rights and the Epidemic Act
It does not require a basic education to see that the current Danish epidemic law disregards the basic human rights of the people and renders elements of the Constitution inoperative. Of particular relevance are personal freedom under Section 71 of the Constitution, the protection of the home under Section 72, and the right of assembly under Section 79.
The correct legal name for the current Danish epidemic law can be found, for example, by looking up the service Retsinformation. It’s called LAW no. 285 of 27/02/2021. It was passed shortly before the sunset clause in the temporary epidemic law, which the government rushed through in the days after the pandemic was declared by the WHO. Both versions of the Epidemic Act involve violations of human rights and, in particular, the above-mentioned civil rights as defined in the Constitution. The former is perhaps more obvious than the latter, because we are used to talking about human rights in the context of the UN and the Council of Europe. Nevertheless, I believe it is important that we refocus on the civil rights as defined in the Constitution. But who should react when legislators in the Danish Parliament bring out the heavy artillery against human rights and civil rights?
It comes as no surprise to me that Louise Holck, director of the Danish Institute for Human Rights (IfM), felt compelled to write an op-ed in Berlingske about human rights and COVID-19 in April 2021. The op-ed is reproduced on the Institute's website.
I understand that Louise Holck has to ‘make some noise’ when she is the director of the institute that has taken on the task of promoting and protecting human rights in Denmark. On the institute's website, you can read that they believe they have a mandate to promote human rights. I have asked them what this mandate entails, as it does not immediately appear that their mandate has carried much weight in connection with either of the two epidemic laws. As chair of the executive committee of a political party, I have contacted the IfM, and their response to me was a reference to a law (Act on the Institute for Human Rights – Denmark's National Human Rights Institution), where I apparently have to read the answer myself. However, this law only mentions ‘mandate’ once (Section 11(3)), and it is not in connection with the legislative work of the Folketing that ‘mandate’ is mentioned. On the contrary, it refers to certain rights and obligations, as IfM receives its annual subsidy from the state and is therefore expected to provide advice and analyses to, among others, the Danish Parliament. However, there is no mandate that requires IfM to be consulted more than other organizations, for example, in consultation responses during the creation of new laws. We saw an example of this with the epidemic laws. Although the laws border on violating some basic human rights, there is no mandatory process that requires IfM to be consulted. Of course, like everyone else, they have the opportunity to submit a consultation response. If it is an emergency law, as epidemic laws tend to be, we can all kiss human rights goodbye. In addition, the IfM is allowed to receive grants from private foundations, so if you have enough money, it would be relatively easy to buy influence over the IfM's work. Not that I am claiming that this happens, but it is a possibility. The law that IfM Chief Advisor Andreas Klitgaard Bojsen refers to in his response to me is called “Law on the Institute for Human Rights – Denmark's National Human Rights Institution” and can be found on Retsinformation. (4)
I am incredibly disappointed that Louise Holck is not more direct in her criticism of the handling of the coronavirus and the epidemic laws. In several areas, she is decidedly backward in her approach to ‘promoting and protecting’ human rights. Firstly, she begins her column by falling over herself about how dangerous the coronavirus is. She could have gotten away with this to some extent if it had been in the first month after the WHO declared a pandemic, when there was a great deal of confusion and misinformation. But she is writing the column more than a year later, at a time when there is a great deal of available knowledge about how insignificant the health effects of the coronavirus outbreak actually were. It is appalling that she begins with such an emotional and exaggerated introduction when she herself later has to defend human rights against this serious social and political situation. It gives the impression that she is deliberately excusing herself before she has even begun. The quote should almost go down in history as the most vague statement ever made by a human rights activist in Denmark.
"– and for all of us who did not live to experience the war, COVID-19 has become the major event of our time. It trumps the oil crisis, the financial crisis, and 9/11. And I wonder if this will be the period we will look back on in 20 years and say: ‘We who experienced—and survived—corona’?"
Louise Holck, Director of the Institute for Human Rights
In her column, Louise Holck acknowledges that a large group of sceptics has emerged who also believe that IfM should be more critical than it has been. However, she glosses over this and rushes to conclude that there is light on the horizon, because the third wave of COVID-19 appears to be less severe than the previous two. Holck then positions herself to end the column on a positive note. She concludes her column as follows:
"But experts warn that new pandemics may arise. Fortunately, the experiences of the past year have taught us that it is possible to take decisive action while protecting human rights. This requires dialogue, responsiveness, and holistic thinking, and as a nation we are better at this now than we were in the first wave.
Therefore, I believe and hope that together—that is, the government, the Danish Parliament, the population, and civil society—we will be able to agree with even greater certainty on the balance between rights and intervention in the future.
In any case, COVID-19 has made human rights a matter of public concern, and that is an important first step."
Excuse me, but what she is spouting is complete nonsense. There has been no indication that the single-party government or the three-party coalition government that has been in power since December 2022, both led by the Social Democrats, have developed a greater desire to ask the population before stealing from us. Whether it is in the spring of 2021 or today, and whether it is human rights or the blatant theft of labor. The abolition of Great Prayer Day demonstrates this clearly. The rhetoric of government politicians is still markedly characterized by fear-mongering, which is imposed on the population, who are simply expected to do as they are told. And COVID-19 has not made human rights a popular issue, unfortunately. The few who try to fight for the human rights of Danes are censored and shamed by the government and mainstream media and ignored, even opposed by the director of IfM himself.
It seems that Louise Holck is aware of where society is heading and that she does not want to have anything to do with those in power, who are ultimately her employers and to whom her position as director is subordinate. The IfM website states that they consider themselves to be “an independent state human rights institution.” This is a curious use of words, where “independent” and “governmental” seem a bit odd together. But it suggests that Louise Holck has chosen her position for the coming period, and unfortunately, it appears that she is consciously choosing the role of whitewashing the government's human rights abuses against the population. In the case of the aforementioned column, this is done in a propaganda-like manner by using a sensational headline to indicate that Louise is critical, but that she lands in a cozy and soft place where there is no need to stir up more controversy than is necessary on the surface. This is reassuring for the average Dane, who can now continue reading their morning Berlinger.
Louise Holck took over the position from Jonas Christoffersen in 2020, who had been director of IfM for 11 years, and Jonas Christoffersen is certainly not uninteresting in this context. Unlike his successor, he has expressed considerable criticism of the government's handling of the coronavirus pandemic. In a debate interview with Berlingske on October 10, 2020, his criticism is particularly harsh, and he explains how the crisis rhetoric had already taken hold in the fall of 2020. The attentive reader will note that even after the change of government in December 2022, the government has never abandoned its crisis rhetoric but continues to keep the country in an iron grip, as Christoffersen put it more than two years earlier. And here I note that Jonas Christoffersen believes the exact opposite of what his successor as director of the Institute for Human Rights, Louise Holck, apparently believes. Christoffersen's debate interview was even published more than six months earlier than Holck's government-whitewashing column.
Just like the polarization in the population, it is also clear that there is a large polarizing distance between the two successive directors of the IfM. And there should be no doubt that I am on Jonas Christoffersen's side in this matter. In the article, he is quoted as calling himself a Rasmus Modsat, who, as a citizen, is critical of simply being told how to do things:
“I have a fundamental tendency to be skeptical about what is presented as mainstream. When I hear something and people become very indignant or enthusiastic, or people are very much on one side, I think that it can't be right. Where are the holes in the argument? Where are the counterarguments? In that way, I am skeptical as a person and as a lawyer. I can have a tendency to be Rasmus Modsat.
I think it was extremely difficult as a citizen to determine whether the government's intervention was well-founded, because we were not given any information. We were given conclusions, but no intermediate calculations. That is why I sat in private gatherings early on and said to people: I simply do not know what to think, because I cannot figure it out. I do not like being steamrolled in this way and, as an informed citizen, being told that you just have to do it this way.
The coronavirus crisis is clearly an eye-opener for Jonas Christoffersen, as he expresses in another quote from the debate interview in question:
A frightening ‘Deadline’ broadcast
There was a very heated debate in April about why the government did not present more data. And then I heard Minister for Industry Simon Kollerup on ‘Deadline’ – it's a programme I'll probably never forget because it was so frightening. There was a discussion about whether the Ministry of Finance had made an economic calculation of the consequences of their aid packages. He was asked whether it would not be a good idea to disclose the data on which the government bases its decisions, and he replied something along the lines of, “Your question assumes that we have done something wrong, and we have not; we have done the right thing, because the infection rate has fallen.”
I was shocked!
Here is a minister in the Danish government saying that because he has done the right thing, we should not have a public debate. It is so authoritarian, and I don't think he really understood how authoritarian it was. That is what is so frightening about it. The basic premise of a democracy is precisely that when a politician makes a decision, it must be discussed so that politicians can explain why they did it and on what basis. I shuddered and thought, “This is dangerous.
I completely agree with him that it is dangerous. However, I believe that there are so many examples of the government's abuse of power that the above unfortunately gets somewhat lost in the context, which he certainly cannot be blamed for. In the same article, Jonas Christoffersen also comments more directly on the government's changing coronavirus policy:
The other thing that was extremely thought-provoking was the way in which the political objective changed around Easter. They started by saying that we had to avoid a collapse of the healthcare system, which they then changed to saying that we had to reduce the infection rate as much as possible. So in a situation where the whole country is being shut down to avoid disaster, after Easter the decision was made to keep the country very much shut down. Not to avoid disaster, but to achieve an infection-free society. This policy change was not accompanied by a change in resources. Pretty much the same tools were used to achieve a different goal. I spoke with members of parliament who simply did not realize this. They maintain a crisis rhetoric, they keep the country in an iron grip, and they thus also maintain a policy that has major economic and health consequences for citizens without saying that they have a completely different objective. And now we are hearing the same rhetoric this fall: disaster is imminent, and therefore we must show decisiveness.
He concludes the article by expressing concern about the negative consequences of pursuing crisis policies and using emergency rhetoric to justify them. And now, in retrospect, it is clear that things have only gotten worse, aided, of course, by a war in Ukraine that is unfortunate for all parties involved.
As I see it, Christoffersen had already realized back in October 2020 that our government and the press, to which the government distributes DKK 5 billion, often impose their views on the population without allowing for proper debate on the issues. As both a lawyer and a Rasmus Modsat type, I can only regret that he has not gone further in recognizing the legal fictions on which everything is based, from the Constitution to European human rights and everything on the periphery of these. But I hope that these books about The Illusion of Denmark can help inspire Christoffersen and others and spark debate. I am not a lawyer myself, but I have familiarized myself with how law school manages to brainwash good people like Jonas Christoffersen. In the first semester of the program, you first have to read the Constitution, then an interpretation of the Constitution, which, incidentally, has no source references, and then, of course, you have to take an exam.
But it is not an examination of the Constitution, it is an examination of the interpretation of the Constitution! The rest of the law program is built on this foundation, which is in fact an interpretation of the Constitution written by Supreme Court Judge, Professor Dr. Jur. Jens Peter Christensen, with help from a journalist. In 2022 Professor Dr. Jur. Jens Peter Christensen was announced as the President of Supreme Court. The rest of the law program is structured around the understanding of the Constitution as set out in this interpretation of the Constitution. There are no references to why we should interpret the Constitution in relation to what is written in the original in black and white. Just a lot of admonishing words about how it used to be, but it is no longer so. How can it be that there are no references to Supreme Court rulings, adopted laws, or other important social events that can explain this ‘interpretation’? The Constitution was revised in 1953, and if there was any uncertainty about anything at that time, I think the skilled lawyers of the time would have sorted it out. I would very much like to know when interpretations of the Constitution occurred after June 5, 1953, and from what dates the various interpretations of the various sections occurred. I have tried to discuss this with the lawyers at the Ministry of Justice's Office of Constitutional and Human Rights, but they are unable or unwilling to answer my questions. The conversations end with them asking me to send an email, which they either do not respond to or simply send back an irrelevant ‘non-response’. You can read the interpretation of the Constitution on the Danish Parliament's website, where it has been given the name ‘My Constitution’. Note the lack of source references for interpretations, which therefore appear to have been ‘pulled out of thin air’.
HERTIL!!!
After all this praise for Jonas Christoffersen, I unfortunately feel compelled to add a drop of wormwood to the cup. For while he appears to be the only one who really cares about human rights in Denmark during the coronavirus pandemic, he is also the one who ends up doing the final whitewashing in relation to the hastily passed epidemic law, the one with the sunset clause, and transgresses the human rights and civil rights granted in the Constitution. He is hired by the think tank Justitia to prepare a report with the working title “The Rule of Law and COVID-19.” The report appears to be a thorough piece of work and is well worth reading if you are interested in the subject.
Unfortunately, the report ends up being used by K-News, a Karnow Lovsamling news media outlet, to exonerate the government, wrongly in my opinion, for violating human rights and civil rights. In June 2020, K-News published an article about the Justitia report, with the concluding headline “Justitia concludes: The government's handling of the coronavirus was not in violation of the Constitution.”
In this article, K-News is very lax with the facts, as the article concludes by conveying (mis)information about the Justitia report's recommendations:
* A new epidemic law that is better equipped to handle future health crises without ending up in a crisis for democracy or the rule of law. This applies, for example, if Denmark were to experience another wave of Covid-19. The report contains a long list of specific proposals for legislative changes.
* Better procedures for urgent matters, which make it clear when something is actually urgent and ensure that the relevant parties are involved, regardless of how little time is available.
* Restore the balance of power between the Folketing and the government, preferably through the establishment of a special Covid-19 committee, which the government must both consult and obtain consent from.
It is a very creatively written summary of the Justitia report's recommendations, which does not do the report justice. Let me just give one example here, which underscores the point. K-News' conclusion that the handling of the coronavirus pandemic was not in conflict with the Constitution stands in stark contrast to a sentence in the summary section on page 8 of the report:
"...but that the Folketing is already beginning to prepare a new epidemic law so that Denmark can be brought out of the state of emergency that political life has effectively been in since March 2020, when the Folketing handed over power to the government."
Incidentally, this was a recommendation that the Social Democratic government completely ignored and instead postponed negotiations until the very last moment, while retaining all of its powers, which may even have been illegal.
Despite my belief that K-News is misusing the report, I myself have a number of objections to it and believe that its criticism is not clear enough. Unfortunately, the report ends up contributing to Danish society generally turning a blind eye to the government's violations of the constitution. I will only give one example here, although I believe there are many others that support this point. It also concerns a power that, in its application, is the worst violation of human rights imaginable. The Minister of Health was given the power to forcibly vaccinate the population, and Jonas Christoffersen and Justitia comment on this in the report's conclusions on page 107:
“The right to force vaccination to stop the spread of disease under Section 8 of the Epidemic Act should be scrapped, and if it stays, the conditions should be stricter.”
It talks about forced vaccination “and if it's kept, the conditions should be tightened up,” which doesn't really address this illegal use of forced vaccination. Jonas Christoffersen became a Knight of the Order of Dannebrog in 2018, which is a title that the royal family can take away from him. Whether it is such pressure or more subtle peer pressure that causes Christoffersen to fail in this way is irrelevant. He has failed the Danish people, who were suddenly subject to the whims of a health minister who, with the Epidemic Act in hand, had the power to forcibly vaccinate the population.
In my book in Danish, Illusionen om Danmark - Del 2: De 3 fiktioner, the first chapter, “The Democratic Fiction”, contains a more thorough examination of the significance of human rights for the Danish democracy, or perhaps more accurately, for the lack of democracy.
I am left with an impression that I cannot shake off. An impression that the government, or rather the dark forces that control our changing governments at all times, deliberately threw two epidemic law proposals on the table within six months. Both proposals were completely over the top, so that everyone in the kingdom would breathe a sigh of relief when the government finally threw the third one on the table, the wording of which differs significantly from the first two. What really distinguishes the last epidemic bill that was passed is its significantly different wording. In addition, there are some inflated parliamentary convolutions about an epidemic committee, and otherwise we, the citizens, just have to fall over ourselves about how nicely they arrange the words in this now adopted epidemic law. The fact is that all the coercion that was included in the epidemic bill that the Social Democrats themselves rejected (after nine days of constant demonstrations in front of the parliament, Christiansborg) is still largely part of the epidemic bill that ended up being passed at the end of February 2021. It is just more subtly defined, but fortunately, direct compulsory vaccination is not an option under the current epidemic law, even though such measures can be authorized in individual cases.
The Danish Illusion is a reader supported publication.
If you do not feel like becoming a paid monthly subscriber, but want to support my work, you can buy me a cup of coffee for aprrox. 5 USD/35 DKK(click HERE!):
Links:
* Parliament Act 150 on the Danish Folketing’s homepage:
https://www.ft.dk/samling/20201/aktstykke/Aktstk.150/2325034.pdf
* The Epidemic Act with “sunset clause” reproduced in Legal Information, Act No. 241 of 19/03/2020 (the scrapped one!):https://www.retsinformation.dk/eli/lta/2020/241
* The current Epidemic Act in Legal Information, Act No. 285 of 27/02/2021:https://www.retsinformation.dk/eli/lta/2021/285
* Act on the Institute for Human Rights – Denmark's National Human Rights Institution, Act No. 553 of 18/06/2012https://www.retsinformation.dk/eli/lta/2012/553