“Smurf scandal” in court: German family hires police and school director over abuse of young girl accused of “right-wing” views | The Gateway expert

You’ve already heard of the “Smurf Girl” whose story The Gateway Pundit recently reported: 16-year-old Loretta had posted a TikTok video in which she referenced the right-wing German party AfD. The party’s signature color is blue, so they compared its rising popularity to the Smurfs by showing a blue map of Germany with the survey results in each state.

Sounds innocent enough, right?

One day, she was dragged out of the classroom by her principal and three police officers. They gave her a “formal police warning” because they had received an anonymous “lead” about her right-wing content. In short, this was a not-so-subtle police order to stop voicing her opinions or they will have to actually investigate!

It was later revealed that Loretta’s Smurf video was not the key ‘evidence’ the director had received. The “clue” consisted of screenshots from her social media accounts with patriotic content such as the German flag and the statement: “In Germany people speak German.” In addition, the clue giver had noticed that she was wearing a sweater with the initials HH on it. Could it be… Heil Hitler? No, it stands for the brand name ‘Hally Hanson’. Not a niche brand either, but apparently quite popular.

Now, The Gateway Pundit has reached out to Loretta’s mother to get her version of the story. Many critics have accused the family of pulling off a social media stunt with the Smurfs story. It turns out the family never wanted the attention. Loretta just assumed it must be her last Smurf video they came across. Because she is fully aware of the negative image that the systemic media has of the AfD.

To this day, Loretta has not shown her face and wishes to remain anonymous. The mother is very protective of her daughter and usually does not use social media at all.

This is what really happened behind the scenes:

After the story went viral, Loretta was devastated. Curious journalists gathered around her school and even interviewed random students. What if they didn’t like Loretta and portrayed her as the “Nazi” that resentful people want her to be? The mainstream journalists invaded the social fabric of TEENAGERS! That’s predatory behavior!

Loretta hid on her way home from school so she could escape nosy reporters. Her mother had to take a vacation from work to be there for Loretta. Sometimes teenagers would come and bang on the door and windows. The family turned off the doorbell. For a time they had lost all confidence in their freedom of expression. But they got it back!

Now the family is ready to confront the real criminals in this case and go to trial against the police and the school principal. According to Loretta’s mother, the lawyer was advised by someone of higher authority to dismiss the case (she doesn’t know by whom), but he said, “You can’t do that!”

It will be very interesting to find out how the director will defend himself. Because, as we discovered, the school had previously been instructed by the political authorities to take these measures and to involve the police in case there were signs of right-wing tendencies among students: it was reported that the director had claimed that he had an order from the Ministry of Education that had been distributed to all schools.

Who is responsible for this new policy that parents are not aware of? And why is there nothing about it on the ministry’s website?

And most importantly, who was really the anonymous clue giver? It remains to be seen whether we will discover the full truth in the coming trial.