German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 19/190,
pp. 23954-23955.
The essence of a democracy consists of the citizens making
the decisions. We may have our doubts about that. As is known, justice is increasingly
concerned with Corona protective measures because these are not based on legal
grounds but are put through by decree [Verordnung].
To obviate this, the coalition wants to insert a §28a into the infection protection law. This planned
supplement by means of §28a contradicts the concepts of freedom and the state
of law, and it solidifies the discontent of the citizens. This paragraph makes
possible unprecedented restrictions of personal freedom. Especially can it
provoke the violation of the most personal places of retreat, the security of
one’s own dwelling – this has been plainly addressed – , spiritual harm; yet
also resistance.
Furthermore to be expected are psychic burdens or illnesses
as a consequence of isolation, pressure on account of compulsory measures such
as concern for occupational-economic livelihood. Economic life and the
protection of health cannot be seen to be in contradiction to one another – as it
often appears to us. In a functioning civil society, both are indispensable and
conditioned upon one another.
This year’s Corona preventative measures have already
produced major health effects. To this also pertains the lack of adjustment on
account of restrictions on sports and in the cultural area.
Instead of now enforcing new restrictions of basic rights,
it would have been necessary for the government to earlier concern itself with
the problems of care-giving. These failures are now clearly having effect.
The common position paper of Science and the Medical
Profession [Wissenschaft und Ärtzeschaft]
of October 28, 2020, in which the factual situation was presented clearly and
with understanding, is on the other hand beneficial and surprising. Behind it
stand more than 50 signers, professional associations and professionals. This
paper was formulated on the basis of an objective estimate of the situation.
The withdrawal of one signer, ladies and gentlemen, can be attributed to a
social-political pressure which meanwhile has taken on forms unworthy of a
state of law.
Measures, which you decreed as panacea to the citizens, were
considered in the declaration to be inexpedient; for example, the pursuit of
contacts. Here also in this regard is the demand to employ insight instead of
prohibitions. According to this paper, the principle of medical practice was to
minimize serious lapses, yet not to allow the rise of new harms.
Our motion, “Personal Responsibility instead of Prohibition
and Compulsion – Prevent Medical and Economic Collapse and Avoid Collateral
Damage”, presents the demand to direct attention to the defense of the persons
who are in fact endangered. I was here once already reviled as an enemy of
mankind because I demanded this. It is now, oddly enough, customary to demand
it, ladies and gentlemen.
That calls for an inversion of the argument: We cannot drive
an entire country to ruin but we must concentrate on the people who are in fact
endangered. Instead, establishments were condemned to close with convoluted
concepts of hygiene, by decree, without logical basis, such as restaurant
establishments which are not even allowed to work in the open air.
It is also absurd to prescribe the wearing of masks under
the open sky. Ladies and gentlemen, that is completely crazy; it cannot be said
otherwise.
We demand in our motion measures such as rapid tests for
visitors to establishments for elders, support of endangered persons, the
introduction of a nationwide “traffic light” system, no retention of critical
operations so as to hold onto bed capacity.
The health hazard emanating from Covid-19 is evidently not
greater than that from other viral illnesses. The further spread of the virus, in
Germany and worldwide, is not to be hindered. The effect of the lockdowns is in
no justified proportion to the damages thereby caused in reference to the state
of law, healthcare and economic life, ladies and gentlemen.
Angst is a bad counselor as, for example, Professor Streeck,
along with the shocking pictures which the media initially showed us. The virus
is dangerous for a few, like other viral illnesses. And Streeck, for example,
clearly contradicts the assumption that there is a rapid, exponential increase
in the infection numbers; this is a scientifically untenable assertion which is
nevertheless often repeated.
We, ladies and gentlemen, are not passing through a serious
crisis owing to this new virus –
President
Wolfgang Schäuble:
Herr colleague.
– but owing to the disproportionate political measures
against it.
Thank you very much.
[trans: tem]
