INTERVIEW. A member from Sweden’s Nest 7 is interviewed about his trial and conviction following an incident at a public activity in Vetlanda.
On 27 January, Nest 7 member Jonas Jensmark was sentenced to prison for two months for reprimanding a hysterical and aggressive old woman during a leaflet distribution in Vetlanda last year. Immediately after the incident, the woman lied about what happened in the media and failed to mention that it was actually she who acted violently against political opponents. The Aftonbladet newspaper responded by nominating her for a Swedish Heroes award.
The court chose to believe the woman’s mendacious story, despite the lack of any evidence. Below follows an interview with Jonas about what happened.
Tell us a bit about yourself before we begin. How did you come to join the Resistance Movement?
I have been a nationalist since around the time I began high school. When I started college, I was in a group of about 10 people with similar views who used to hang out together. It was around that time that I became more and more interested in the National Socialist ideology and heard about the Swedish Resistance Movement. I followed the Resistance Movement for almost ten years before I decided to apply to join the organisation in the spring of 2017. I have been a member since then.
What happened in Vetlanda on 20 March last year? Tell us about the day.
Following the terrorist attack in Vetlanda on 3 March last year, we held a number of public leaflet distributions and town square meetings in the town, including one on 20 March. The day began with our arrival at a square in central Vetlanda, where I stood with a flag, while a number of comrades handed out leaflets and spoke with passers-by. The activity was going well, with many rewarding discussions with the people.
After about 30 minutes, a very upset lady appeared and walked directly over to me and told me that we didn’t have the right to be there and that we should leave immediately. I explained to her that we had a legal right to stand there and hand out leaflets. It was then that she realised our cameraman was standing a few metres away filming our conversation, which was when the minor disturbance occurred.
What does the woman say happened, and what really happened?
According to her, she tried to have a discussion with me calmly and sensibly, but claimed that it wasn’t possible, so she turned around and walked away. Then she claims the cameraman pushed his camera into her face. She told him she didn’t want to be filmed and asked nicely if he would stop and delete what he had filmed. When she was not successful in this request, she says she tried to push the camera away and that she hit either the camera or cameraman. She claims she then saw me, out the corner of her eye, drop the flag and charge towards her at full speed, before pushing her to the ground with both hands, giving her a bloody wound.
What really happened was that when she noticed the cameraman standing a few metres away filming our conversation, she demanded he stop and delete the video. We explained to her that we were allowed to film in a public place, and then she walked straight over and began hitting the camera, while the cameraman kept trying to back away from her. She made repeated lunges against both the camera (which is very expensive) and the cameraman.
After this had been going on a while and they were standing in front of me, I decided to step in to make her stop and go away. I took a step towards her and pressed her lightly on her chest. I kept hold of the flag with one hand and tried to stop her with the other. Somehow she slipped and unfortunately fell to the ground, splitting her eyebrow. It bled quite a lot, which made it look much worse than it was. Naturally, I didn’t intend for her to fall to the ground.
What do you have to say about the verdict?
I think the verdict is completely wrong and it’s clear I was convicted due to my political beliefs and for being a member of the Nordic Resistance Movement. The court’s justification is that the woman was subjected to abusive photography by the cameraman and therefore had the right to self-defence, and that I should have understood that she had that right. It is strange that the court believed the crime of abusive photography to have been committed, as no one was investigated or suspected of it. They also believed the woman’s story was corroborated by a witness, even though the witness stated that she didn’t see how the incident started and only saw the end of it. Furthermore, the witness testified that I never let go of the flag and only pushed the woman with one hand, which contradicts the woman’s story.
Are you going to appeal?
I am going to appeal the verdict with the hope that it can be changed and that I will be acquitted completely. As most people know, the district courts are a bit of a lottery and have a large share of politically appointed judges. As such, I believe there is the possibility of a change of verdict in the court of appeal.
How did the woman behave during the trial? Can you describe her personality?
She lied a lot during her testimony, which was proven by the independent witness and to some degree by herself. When my lawyer put questions to her, she argued and said they were not important, including one about whether she had struck the camera or not.
During my testimony, she sat and laughed, grimaced and gesticulated, which prompted my lawyer to interject and tell her to behave herself properly. She wanted to argue about that as well, but the judge also told her to stop it, which she finally did.
As far as I understand her, she likes to get attention and be in the spotlight, which she achieved after the incident, as she was featured on TV and in the newspapers. It should also be mentioned that she claims to be in favour of freedom of speech, but not for political dissidents.
Is there anything else you would like to add?
This verdict will not affect me. I will continue to stand on the streets and do everything I can in the struggle for our people’s survival. Join the struggle with us. Hail Victory!
