German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 19/228, pp. 29124-29125.
Right honorable Herr President. Ladies and gentlemen.
This draft law describes a further step in the direction of
a total surveillance of society. What is sold here as an ostensible reaction to
the present incidence in the area of rightist terrorism is the pretext for
taking into view targeted, individual persons in ways simpler than hitherto. In
German, that means: Anyone can now, in simpler ways short of criminal prosecution,
come under the surveillance of the Constitution Defense.
Since the Constitution Defense was to be at least what its
name pretends to be: An authority which defends the Constitution; that is, the
free, democratic basic order. Until the undignified departure of Hans-Georg Maaßen,
it was even on the whole still possible to affirm this. Meanwhile however the Constitution
Defense has been reduced to purely a government defense. Its activity consists
inter alia of spying on opposition politicians, denouncing opposition parties
and in playing along with the media in supporting defamation campaigns.
Thereby will be found criteria unforeseen by the law; as for
example, the declaration of a party as a test case. With his first appearance
as the new president of the Federal Office, Herr Haldenwang, the chief defender
of the Constitution, nevertheless showed what he thinks of the German order of
law: Legal, illegal, it’s all the same – the main thing is to pacify the
service head, Herr Seehofer. The Administrative Court at Cologne then needed to
intervene and, at the motion of the AfD, put a muzzle on Herr Haldenwang and
his people on account of these violations of the law. It showed that the
Constitution Defense plainly does not operate neutrally and independently, but
is incorporated into the sphere of the Federal Interior Ministry and is openly
ready to deliver what is there desired, Herr Seehofer.
If an over-1,000 page opinion is needed to be able to
inscribe a party as a case of suspicion, then – like a former justice, I must
say –
Benjamin Strasser (FDP): The emphasis is on “former”!
there speaks a presumption that there is not much in the
suspicion; otherwise, this bulk was not needed.
Since the time Herr Haldenwang leads the Federal Office, the
mask has fallen away. The Constitution Defense has forfeited its legitimacy,
its reputation, and gambled away the trust invested in it. It has decayed into
an instrument of oppression.
Benjamin Strasser (FDP): Who began the proceeding against you? Was it not Herr Maaßen, Herr colleague Maier?
This can be particularly clearly recognized in connection
with the Querdenker.
The Constitution Defense is thereby developing, step by
step, in a direction which we in Germany, but primarily in the former DDR,
already once had. We of the AfD therefore say: A fundamental reform of the Constitution
Defense, and its reduction to closely limited core duties, is needed. There
must be an end to the political mise-en-scène of the Constitution Defense. There
must be an end to the abuse of the trust invested in the Constitution Defense
and to the destruction and hazarding of the reputation of decent people for
reasons of political favor.
As long as things are as they are, one cannot recommend a
draft law such as this, which foresees additional authority for the Constitution
Defense.
Thorsten Frei (CDU/CSU): Maaß-los!
The reading of messaging services through the so-called Quellen-TKÜ [sources of
telecommunications surveillance] means that for citizens who use Whatsapp or
something similar, the Constitution Defense can now, and at best with
permission, read along. The telecommunications providers even need to take care
that the service is able to connect its surveillance equipment directly beside
their servers.
The boundary for the on-line searching through of smart
phones and computers is thereby passing away. For in the planned alteration of §11
of Article 10 of the law, it is foreseen that not only the current
communication will be surveilled, but also the content of the communication,
which from the time of the order would have been able to be recorded but had
not been recorded. That is nothing other than a reading of information which
lies in the past but which has been stored. In the result, that is not only a Quellen-TKÜ but already an on-line
searching that we hold to be disproportionate. We therefore reject it. In
committee will here be some things still to be discussed.
Many thanks.
Gabriele Katzmarek (SPD): But not with you.
