This Danish sentence against an 18-year-old native Greenlander – reported in the press on September 8, 2025 – is unequivocally barbaric in broad daylight.
A girl’s newborn child was taken away „because a psychologist concluded” that she would be unlikely to cope with raising the child, even though she wanted to keep it and raise it. In fact, her own fetus – her own child – was stolen from her – the author believes, stolen, kidnapped, immediately after she gave birth, violating a mother’s fundamental right to care for her child.
The only thing they had the right to do, and perhaps should have done, was to provide her with support, some possible material and social security; that’s what the Danes have probably already achieved in the course of their state and social evolution throughout history. –
– She said she wanted to care for and raise her child!
So, official actions based on a psychologist’s opinion, cruelly and ruthlessly severing a mother from her newborn child, are certainly—it has clear signs of usurpation, a manifestation of placing the bureaucratic and official machinery above the fundamental rights of the mother, a human being, and her humanity. This child was taken from its mother, separated immediately after birth, violating all the natural instincts of both mother and child. There also seems to be a precedent for society, at least in Denmark in general. Is this a manifestation of authoritarian, bureaucratic, and totalitarian conditioning of society and social feelings?! This is a precedent for an „official,” officially justified atrocity—according to the author, criminal, outrageous—with attempts to justify and explain that she wouldn’t be able to cope. It’s fundamentally and appears to be an attempt at utilitarian overreach, based on and in the form of authoritarian-totalitarian action, placing this authoritarian-totalitarian violence above and beyond the law, fundamental human rights, civil rights in the category of humanist democracy, and fundamental natural rights.
This girl did not commit a crime, and the officials’ actions were a judgment contrary to fundamental law, the fundamental laws of democracy, and the laws of logic. Those officials who took the child from her mother should be subject to preventive measures!
By definition, in democratic law, there is no justification or place in a democracy for authoritarian-totalitarian power of the state or its institutions over citizens!
This event bears the hallmarks of creating an image, a precedent, a situation where Danes are more satisfied with trusting the system, its authority, a picture where the state’s care, the protection provided in advance by a so-called „expert,” is stealing a child from its mother as/supposedly its protection? This is a precedent inconsistent with fundamental law, because it is in accordance with nature that a woman gives birth to and cares for a child, and the manipulation or drilling by so-called „experts” is, unfortunately, an imposed, harmful secondary effect, placed first. This is—in this situation—a precise analogy of the macabre image, with its terrifying impact, of Roman Polanski’s film „Rosemary Baby.”
The very nature of the data and the sentence for the removal of a newborn child from its mother—supposedly, this 18-year-old woman did not meet the conditions for custody of her child, and indeed, to her child—because she can only see her child for an hour every week or two—in the context of the entire article, indicates that the sentence bears the hallmarks of cruelty resulting from institutional abuse of this citizen (and supposedly Danish, but a Greenlander through and through!), and bears the hallmarks of bureaucratic perversion and abuse of naturalness—this girl was dominated, robbed, and isolated from her child by bureaucrats in a rather mafia-like manner, considering the phenomenal sequence and circumstances of the events!
The essential characteristics and context of the situation include the separation and isolation of the mother and her newborn child against her will, in a manner or context of abuse against the mother’s fundamental right to a child, against her rights and natural instincts. The invocation of the law clearly indicates that she did nothing wrong, and that instead of supporting her, specialists and officials impoverished her. Their actions, as a result of their actions, did not exploit favorable circumstances for her, but quite the opposite. This is not an application of the law favorable to her or her child, and they could not have had the right to exaggerate that she had no right to the child. The state did not support her, but impoverished her! It seems that she was perhaps given the advantage of giving birth in a hospital, but on top of that, she was subjected to some additional „censorship” (!), as a result of which her child was taken away from her, even though she had committed no crime or offense. She was handed over to a so-called „specialist”!
The opinion and authority of the official psychologist’s decision are an expression of authoritarian-totalitarian, usurping, and brutal, essentially harmful abuse of an imaginative and persuasive nature. They may be associated with a hidden method of child abduction, child trafficking, or the construction of a supposedly democratic but corrupt system, which may even be intended to condition people and society into authoritarian respect for the system, official actions, etc.
The precedent of this event in Denmark suggests comparing the nature of this event to Putin’s actions, who kidnapped and stole Ukrainian children from Ukrainian families after his invasion of Ukraine and took them to Russia, giving them to Russian families, Russians in Russia. Here, the differences between the Danish and Russian events are perhaps only quantitative and spatial; only the framing of the essence of these two phenomena differ.
The author of this article/post, from another country, can currently only ask for citizens’ attention to the event described above and the media’s attention, and requests that the topic be raised: „To wrest power from corrupt phenomena and maintain them, regarding law, logical laws (including, by definition, log.-def.*), due at least in a democracy, in democracies.”
* – refers to the study recommended by the author of this article, entitled „On Law and Laws in General…”, posted on the author’s website: https://bryzy2.com, which is innovative and short for the topic, comprehensive and in-depth, as a basic, starting point, and synthetically formulated, which—don’t laugh: IT MAY EVEN SAVE THE WORLD!—the author has identified, located, and formulated a logical justification for the essential content and benefits of such law, etc.
In addition, there are several other articles, studies, and posts on this subject, concerning several specific topics and issues. You can familiarize yourself with them here. by visiting the website indicated above.
MM (September 10, 2025)