Bavarian Landtag, Protokoll 18/60, pp.
50-52.
On February 26, 2019, the Administrative Court in Karlsruhe
declared it illegal to declare the principal opposition party in the German
Bundestag, namely, the Alternative für
Deutschland, to be a so-called test case for the Constitution Defense. This
decision showed the considerable danger for the equal opportunity of parties,
for democracy and thereby for the free, democratic basic order, that proceeds
from political abuse of the Constitution Defense. The Constitution Defense was
instrumentalized in the Federal Republic of Germany to silence all citizens and
organizations who say no to illegal mass immigration, no to Afro-oriental
settlement, no to multiculturalism, no to Islamism, and thereby a conclusive no
to the downfall of the European West.
The illegal conduct of the Constitution Defense officials
and countless additional violations of the Constitution – I refer in this place
to the illegal flooding of Germany with ostensible asylum-seekers since 2015 – of
which the Söder-Merkel
rule is clearly revealed to be one: The Constitution must primarily be defended
against those who have used their political power to oppress the opposition and
thereby ultimately to the harm of Germany. Finally, with the Interior Ministry’s
Bavarian Constitution Defense information for the first half of 2019, and with
the Constitution Defense report for 2019, portions of the opposition party “Alternative
für Deutschland”
were proscribed. They shall now even be spied upon and infiltrated with secret
service means. Observers already speak of the Constitution Defense undertaking
recruitment efforts among simple members. From the texts of AfD politicians
were derived absurd theses and interpretations which must serve for an
ostensible hostility to the Constitution. For example, a speech by Björn Höcke was cited, in which
he spoke of a “Schleusenzeit” and demanded
a “Selbstbefreundung”. The Bavarian
State Office for the Defense of the Constitution from that proceeds to the
terms “Selbstbefreundung” and “Schleusenzeit” functioned in a new right
context as euphemisms or figures for extremist aims and strategic concepts. –
Ladies and gentlemen, what we read here is no Constitution Defense report, this
is embarrassing and unworthy of a Bavarian official. We find additional evidence
of the Constitution Defense’s abuse in the Constitution Defense report for the
year 2019 which in its printed edition is no longer in circulation. The reason
is quite simple: The Constitution Defense report is false and so may no longer
be published. The 2019 Constitution Defense report mentioned specifically the Zeitgeschichtliche Forschungsstelle
Ingolstadt, named in brief ZFI. This has made it its duty to survey
historical research firmly on a basis of scholarly truth-finding and independently
of the political Zeitgeist. To the
state government, that apparently is not right. Yet I ask: Which historical truths do you fear, if you must to
such an extent observe and restrict scholarly freedom? The ZFI appeared before
the Administrative Court and was not only right but there also came into its
own. The Court held in its decision that the research office was unjustly
designated as extreme right. The corresponding passage in the Constitution
Defense report must be blacked out. Which effect the illegal mention had is
also here indicated. Scarcely had the the Constitution Defense asserted that
the ZFI was extremist, than the city of Ingolstadt revoked its lease with the
association and forbade its use of local communal premises. Something like
this, right honorable ladies and gentlemen, ought not to be in state of law.
Ladies and gentlemen, the evident abuse of the Constitution
Defense makes it imperative to engage in considerations so that the authority and
its tendentious Constitution Defense report can be reformed.
A first step now is our draft law. We today thereby demand
not the abolition of the Constitution Defense as such, because the authentic
enemies of our German states must indeed be fought most intensely. For the
interventions of the officials and for mention in the so-called Constitution
Defense report, we nevertheless wish to lay down comprehensible standards in
the Bavarian Constitution Defense law. We therein demand the following changes:
First. The state office to take notice of whether the equal opportunity of
political parties in this state was impaired. Second. That the state office
analyze the legal reasoning of the Bavarian Administrative Court in decisions
in which the illegality of their own official conduct has been established. Third.
We want the standard of an observation to be made objectively comprehensible by
means of a legal definition in terms of the free, democratic basic order.
Fourth. Should an official in fact come to the conclusion that an observation
is justified, the affected person or organization is to be afforded a statement
[Stellungnahme]. This corresponds to
the realization of a claim to a legal hearing and for administrative procedure
in a state of law should not be placed in question. Ladies and gentlemen, how
often already has the law been broken by Bavaria’s political secret service? Junge Freiheit, Republikaner, Zeitgeschichtliche
Forschungsstelle and many more were already victims of this practice in
Bavaria. The politically abused Constitution Defense is in urgent need of
reform. This draft is a first step. Bavaria is not a police state, but a Free
State.
First Vice-president
Karl Freller: Please observe your time.
Bavaria has mature citizens who require no political care
and feeding. In the further course of deliberations, it will now be shown
whether the governing majority and the other opposition parties here in the
state are ready to take seriously democracy and the state of law.
[trans: tem]
