Fernandes vs. Ulmen: Real Allegations, Planned Campaign — and a Professor Who Derails

The Allegations Are Real. The Campaign Too. And Homburg’s “Floozy” Comment Says More About Him Than About the Case.

#

On March 19, 2026, Der Spiegel published a cover story: “You Virtually Raped Me.” Collien Ulmen-Fernandes raises serious allegations against her ex-husband Christian Ulmen — deepfake pornography, identity abuse, psychological violence. On the same day, Ulmen’s lawyer Christian Schertz sends out a press-law information letter [1][2].

Both sides were prepared. That is no coincidence. But it is also no proof of a conspiracy.

What Is Established

#

The allegations are based on a criminal complaint Fernandes filed in Spain in late 2025 — deliberately there, because Spain has stricter laws against digital and domestic violence. Spanish preliminary investigations are underway [1].

According to Der Spiegel, Ulmen allegedly admitted: “That was me, I did that.” The allegations in detail [1]:

• Fake porn profiles using Fernandes’ identity
• Hundreds of men contacted under her name
• Phone sex under her identity
• Psychological, emotional, and physical violence

Multiple independent media outlets report consistently — Spiegel, tagesschau, Zeit, Frankfurter Rundschau. The presumption of innocence applies.

What Stands Out: The Campaign Structure

#

The Timing

#

Within 72 hours: cover story, opposing lawyer, political demands, NGO campaign, TV appearances, rally. This is not an organic news cycle — this is a planned publication date, coordinated between Fernandes and Der Spiegel.

What This Is — and What It Is Not

#

This is normal investigative journalism combined with advocacy. Fernandes made a deliberate decision to go public. Der Spiegel investigated the story and chose the timing together with her.

This is not a conspiracy. It is a PR strategy. And it is a legitimate question whether the political instrumentalization — demanding new laws within 24 hours — helps or harms the actual issue.

The Campact Comparison: Gisele Pelicot

#

Campact explicitly draws a parallel to Gisele Pelicot — the French woman who in 2024 publicly exposed her rapes by her own husband [3].

The framing was prepared: Fernandes as “the German Pelicot.” That requires lead time. Campact does not write a 2,000-word article overnight.

What Homburg Says — and Why It Is the Wrong Thing

#

Stefan Homburg, mathematics professor and prominent COVID critic, commented on X:

“Picking a floozy of all people for this campaign was about as smart as Lauterbach’s idea back then to present Margarete Stokowski, visibly ravaged, after her booster.” [4]

The Stokowski Reference

#

In October 2022, Lauterbach’s ministry organized a Long COVID campaign featuring Stokowski, who had developed Long COVID after her booster. The campaign backfired — many saw it as confirmation of vaccine injuries. The Berliner Zeitung wrote: “The campaign featuring Stokowski has already failed.” [5]

What Homburg Is Doing

#

Homburg is not wrong in his structural observation — there is a political campaign. But instead of analyzing it, he reaches for the oldest weapon of delegitimization: sexual morality. “Flittchen” [floozy] is not an argument. It is the decision to discredit a woman through her private life instead of examining her allegations.

This is the same method used to silence COVID critics — just with the signs reversed.

Cui Bono — Who Benefits?

#

The Elephant in the Room

#

While Germany mobilizes in 72 hours from cover story to TV appearances to a rally at the Brandenburg Gate — over deepfakes of a B-list celebrity — another question remains unanswered:

Jeffrey Epstein’s guest lists have been public for years. Princes, presidents, billionaires. Documented visits to an island where minors were abused. No rally. No Spiegel cover story. No legislative initiative in 72 hours.

Both cases are real. Both deserve investigation. But the weighting shows where the priorities lie — and where they do not.

The Moral Authority

#

Before the ink on the Spiegel cover story is dry, Dunja Hayali steps in front of the camera. ZDF presenter. Professionally produced statement: “Violence is violence. Analog and digital.” She calls on men to become “allies.” German legislation must “finally take this more seriously” [9].

The statement sounds right. It is right — deepfakes need legal consequences.

But the messenger undermines the message.

Dunja Hayali in 2021 paraded unvaccinated people on her ZDF show. She defended 2G. She framed critics of COVID measures as Querdenker. Where was her statement when:

• Millions of unvaccinated were locked out of public life?
• People lost their jobs because they wanted to make a medical decision for themselves?
• Children sat in classrooms with masks for months?
• An 81-year-old woman was removed from the Enquete Commission by four armed officers on March 19, 2026 — because she applauded?

That was also violence. Structural violence. State violence. Social violence. Millions of times over. And Hayali stood on the side of those who exercised it.

Now she moralizes about deepfakes. On the same ZDF that re-elected its director Himmler without an opposing candidate.

One final irony: Hayali calls on men to act with “open visor.” Her own X account with 480,000 followers? Set to private. Bio: “This account is not related to ZDF” — while publishing statements in ZDF production [10].

Open visor for everyone. Closed door for herself.

The Actual Question

#

The Fernandes/Ulmen case has two levels that must be kept apart:

Level 1: Are the allegations real? All signs point to yes. Spanish investigations are underway, Der Spiegel researched for months, Fernandes is taking the greatest possible risk by going public.

Level 2: Is the case being politically instrumentalized? Also yes. Demanding new laws within 24 hours, organizing a rally in 72 hours, Campact with a ready-made article — that is advocacy.

The answer to Level 2 does not invalidate Level 1. The fact that a story is politically exploited does not make it untrue.

Homburg conflates the two levels — or he conflates them on purpose. And his choice of words disqualifies him from the debate.

Update 23 April 2026: The victim narrative turns into her own statements

#

A little over a month after the Spiegel cover and the simultaneously launched Campact/HateAid campaign, Fernandes gives an extensive interview to the Süddeutsche Zeitung [16][17]. Two statements from that interview made it into the Bild tabloid — and they read in exactly the chronology this article originally sketched:

“I was doing better before filing the charges than now.”

— Collien Fernandes, SZ, as quoted in Bild and t-online [16][17]

“I experience this as gross psychological terror.”

— Fernandes on the response of Christian Ulmen’s lawyer [16][18]

The statements speak for themselves. They are — there is no kinder way to put it — the after-the-fact admission that a publicly staged criminal complaint is not the same as a criminal investigation without media pressure. If you run a campaign, you get a campaign. If you make a criminal complaint public on the very day a matching law is being debated in the Bundestag, you get the political second-order effect, including the backlash.

None of this changes that the allegations must be taken seriously and that Fernandes — independently of the campaign question — is living with real consequences. It does, however, change the self-description: someone who had agency before the complaint and is a victim after the complaint was, at the moment of the complaint, an actor. That is not a moral judgment — it is a sober description of the sequence of events.

The Abendzeitung quotes Fernandes saying the past weeks have been “terribly straining” [19]. That is credible. It is also exactly what one should expect when becoming part of a media-political acceleration machine whose speed is not one’s own. The machine keeps running even when the main witness no longer wants to. That is not a malfunction of Campact, HateAid and their campaign economics — that is their operating mode.

The original thesis of this article — that the allegations are real and that the campaign is politically instrumentalized at the same time — is not refuted by the SZ interview. It is confirmed, from the side one would have least expected: from the woman who filed the complaint.

Sources

#

[1] Spiegel (19.03.2026): “You Virtually Raped Me” — Fernandes raises serious allegations against ex-husband Ulmen. spiegel.de

[2] kress.de (20.03.2026): Schertz takes action against Spiegel. kress.de

[3] Campact (21.03.2026): Deepfakes as a societal problem. campact.de

[4] Stefan Homburg, X/Twitter, 21.03.2026.

[5] Berliner Zeitung (17.10.2022): Long COVID campaign featuring Stokowski has failed. berliner-zeitung.de

[6] tagesschau.de (21.03.2026): Fernandes on tagesthemen. tagesschau.de

[7] t-online.de (21.03.2026): Fernandes/Ulmen — Schertz’s dual role. t-online.de

[8] ZDF (Dec 2024): The Lead: Deepfake Pornography — Abuse Online. zdf.de

[9] Dunja Hayali, ZDF — public statement on deepfakes and digital violence (March 2026).

[10] X/Twitter @dunjahayali — account set to private (~480,000 followers), bio disclaimer: “This account is not related to ZDF.”

[16] t-online.de (23.04.2026): Collien Fernandes: “I was doing better before filing the charges than now” — summary of the SZ interview. t-online.de

[17] Süddeutsche Zeitung (April 2026): Interview with Collien Fernandes on reactions after the complaint. Paywall; secondary via t-online, Watson, Abendzeitung.

[18] Watson (23.04.2026): Collien Fernandes: «I was doing better before filing the charges than now» — report on the SZ interview and the “psychological terror” statement regarding the Ulmen lawyer’s response. watson.ch

[19] Abendzeitung München (April 2026): “Terribly straining”: Collien Fernandes on the past weeks. abendzeitung-muenchen.de

The allegations deserve an investigation. The campaign deserves an analysis. And a professor who writes “floozy” deserves neither one nor the other.