‘We Are Not Angry Enough’: The Collien Fernandes Case and the Question of Accountability

The allegations made by Collien Fernandes against her ex-husband Christian Ulmen have been widely reported and discussed. At the center of the case are claims of long-term digital impersonation and manipulation: Fernandes alleges that fake profiles were created in her name over several years, through which men (including individuals from her professional environment) were contacted and drawn into intimate exchanges under false pretenses.

According to her account, these actions were not isolated incidents but part of a sustained pattern. The allegations extend to serious legal accusations, including identity theft, defamation, and forms of psychological and sexualized harm. But one decision stands out beyond the facts themselves. Fernandes chose not to pursue the case in Germany. She filed her complaint in Spain, where she currently lives, based on legal advice and the assessment that the chances of accountability are higher there.

That decision is the key to understanding what this case reveals.

‘We are not angry enough.’ That phrase resurfaces in moments like this, often dismissed as rhetorical or emotional. But what if it is neither? What if it is just the right diagnosis?

Because the problem is not only a lack of outrage (especially from men) in the moment and the days after. The problem goes way deeper. It is the speed at which attention fades. The ease with which cases are absorbed into the background noise of “another incident,” “another allegation,” “another debate.”

And most importantly: the questions we avoid asking. What does it mean when someone does not turn to their own legal system first? What does it say about a system when accountability is expected to be more attainable elsewhere? And how many similar decisions are made quietly, without public attention, based on the same calculation?

These are not abstract concerns. They point to a structural imbalance.

Legal systems like Germany’s are built to protect the rights of the accused. That is not a flaw, it is a principle. But principles have consequences. Especially in cases that are complex, prolonged, and difficult to prove, cases involving digital manipulation, coercion, or psychological harm, the threshold for accountability becomes extraordinarily high.

The result is a system that functions according to its own logic, but not always according to lived reality.

And that is where the discomfort lies.

Because taken together, these questions lead to a more direct one: why does the system still protect perpetrators more effectively than victims?

Not necessarily in theory, but in outcome.

If accountability depends on where a case is pursued, then justice is no longer evenly accessible. It becomes conditional and unevenly distributed.

And once that perception takes hold, it changes behavior. People have to start asking themselves where something can be proven. Where it will be taken seriously. Where it might actually lead to consequences. 

That shift is quiet, but it is fundamental.

‘We are not angry enough’ is not only a call for louder reactions. It is a recognition that something deeper has settled in: a gap between what systems promise and what they deliver.

Photo: Peter Rigaud