Right honorable Frau President. Right honorable ladies and
gentlemen.
For nearly ten months, the Senate has issued incisive legal
decrees in the fight against the supposed Corona pandemic. The first decree was
issued on March 14, 2020, yet even at that time this parliament made clear that
a decision over serious infringements of the basic rights required a steady, continual control by the
parliament.
Diverse amending decrees have followed. At the present time
we have arrived at over 27 decrees. For a long time, it was rejected that these
decrees be put in due time before the parliament. In most cases it was scarcely
possible for the standing committee to undertake in due time an examination or
to demand amendments or a replacement of the decrees in parliament. “Duly noted”
[„Zur Kenntnisnahme“] reads the
parliament’s decision in regards almost all decrees: An indictment.
The rapid pace of legal decrees in parliamentary practice
has shown that the assignment of legal decrees to the committees presents an
unsuitable means of examination since, besides these decrees, the committee
must also occupy itself with the daily business. Generally, nothing results
from the referral of these decrees. Our submitted motion [Drucksache 18/3092] now takes aim at this – in a special committee.
This shall occupy itself exclusively with the Covid-19 legal decrees and be
able to present to parliament by means of timely treatment a recommendation
concerning passage. Its meeting shall be flexible. It is long since overdue to
put these decisions and the debate over the measures into the hands of the
elected representatives of the people and not to leave it to a central
committee, extraneous to the constitution, of the Chancellor and the
Minister-presidents.
For these in their self-empowerment have meanwhile developed
fantasies of omnipotence and lost every measure and mean. And the unspeakable
third population defense law, which was passed by the Bundestag to post facto
legitimate the preventative measures, only intensifies this difficulty. This
perhaps not approximately recalls a law of dis-empowerment, that of the Weimar
presidential cabinet. A consideration of the the basic rights no longer occurs.
The basic right to health and life will be raised to a super basic right to
which all other basic rights have to defer. Freedom of movement, to be free to
move about on Federal territory – set aside. The freedom of assembly to
protest, without limit of number, against the preventative measures of the
government – set aside. Freedom of occupation for restaurateurs, artists,
sports managers, exhibitors and many more – set aside. The basic right of
families to visit members – set aside. Equality before the law means no unequal
treatment of those essentially the same. The First Bundes League may play,
regional leagues not – set aside. Inviolability of a dwelling: If more visits
are received than foreseen by the decrees – set aside. The right to information
self-determination – set aside. The basic right to free development of
personality – set aside. In brief: The Basic Law has been set aside.
A regime by decree is an imputation against democracy, and
the longer this situation lasts, the greater the damage to our free-democratic
state of law. My appeal is thus to all elected representatives of this
parliament, independent of party colors: Let us in common finally show this
government its boundaries! Let us contend in parliament over which scientists
and experts shall be heard. Let us speak in parliament of the many fateful assaults
on independent businessmen, artists and employees who do not know how they shall
feed their families because they for months are only in a reduced way or even
no longer at all allowed to work because they were not considered to be system relevant. Let us speak of the youth who want to go unhindered through the
world, as is their right, and not feel themselves threatened by Corona. Let us
speak of the old, the weak, the ill, how we can protect them without at the
same time restraining every social contact.
Let us dispute under open skies the suitability of a mask
obligation!
Vice-president Manuela Schmidt: Do you consent to an interim question from member Walter?
Yes.
Vice-president
Manuela Schmidt: Please.
Sebastian
Walter (Greens): Many thanks. – I have still not understood two things. One is:
You already would have been able to do
all of what you say. In that regard would have been required, i.e., motions
from your delegation to amend something pertaining to the decrees and not only
to take notice of it. Why so far has that not followed? All that would have
been able to be done. How so is a committee still required? Of that, you still
have said nothing at all, but have spoken in general of Corona. It is for me
not understandable why the motion is needed.
Herr colleague. I see for once that you had not noticed that
we in the special session of November 1 had submitted amending motions on the
legal decrees which were immediately voted on in parliament during the brief
light lockdown which allegedly should last only four weeks. I also see that you
do not know that we of the AfD delegation on the Legal Affairs Committee had in
any case some months previously presented amending motions which you however
rejected.
Independent of that, I see before all things that the other
delegations have presented almost no amending motions at all to the legal
decrees, the CDU not a single one. It must for once be put forward, that is the
opposition here in this house. That is really a disgrace. On that account, let
us by means of a special committee focus on the work, let us attain acceptance
and democratic legitimization for the preventative measures, for otherwise we
may drift into an authoritarian-led regime by decree which takes from the people
every joy of life and perspective and the consequences of which can be much
more destructive than the virus itself.
Vice-president Manuela Schmidt: Do you consent to an interim question from member Woldeit?
Yes, please.
Karsten Woldeit (AfD): If the colleague of the Greens delegation did not notice that the respective motion to amend had been presented in the Legal Affairs Committee, then that is naturally his affair. – Herr colleague Vallendar, do you agree with me, or have the same impression as I, that for all communications – duly noted – , all confinement decrees which, for example, pertain to the Interior Committee, it was not at all desired that these be debated but really only duly noted, preferably to be voted on with a scrap of paper, so that the parliament in fact should not participate?
Yes, Herr colleague, that is absolutely correct. The only committee of which I am a member which twice concerned itself with the legal decrees was the Legal Affairs Committee. It debated on that once. Once there was also a slight amendment which the coalition had brought in regarding places of religion and assemblies. That however is completely correct in regards 27 decrees throughout one year; that really is an indictment. We as a parliament must nevertheless ask ourselves: Who actually governs us? – Yes, the government. And do we at the moment control it? – At the moment, we do not control it. That is plainly and simply the case.
On that account, I say: Let us
please vote for the way of freedom. Let us set up a special committee.
Many hearty thanks.
[trans: tem]
