German Bundestag, January 29, 2026, Plenarprotokoll 21/56, pp. 6782-6785.
Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen.
Frau Wegge, in regards to what you have just said: The frontal attack on democracy certainly proceeds from Herr Spahn. Not without a reason is his place probably now free. Ladies and gentlemen, freedom, before all, freedom of expression of opinion, is for us of the AfD of supreme importance. We were therefore already against the intensification of this gag order or lèse-majesté paragraph 188 StGB [penal code] in 2020, besides being the only sole democratic delegation here in house. The others find the persecution and criminalization of citizens either good – so like SPD, CDU and CSU – or they were indifferent – like the Greens or the then still existing FDP. It is said – Frau Wegge has referred to it – local politicians should be better protected. Yet already in 2020 was that a transparent cover-up of the true intentions. In truth, it is and was about, for your no more to be called old parties cartel of self-named quality democrats, your own protection from criticism and satire by criminalization of citizens and the instrumentalization of state prosecutors and the courts.
Johannes
Fechner (SPD): That is just such rubbish! You yourself don’t believe it!
And then it precisely so came: Thousands of criminal proceedings by notices from Habeck, Baerbock, Strack-Zimmermann,
Axel Müller
(CDU/CSU): …Weidel! Alice Weidel!
Fritz Merz and many other political powers.
Marcel
Bauer (Linke): And Stefan Brandner!
Around 1,400 proceedings in year 2022, 2,600 proceedings in year 2023,
Sonja
Eichwede (SPD): You speak of your own matter, ne?
4,500 proceedings in year 2024.
Lena Gumnior (Greens): How many proceedings are there against members of your party?
Thus explosive growth and massively absurd investigations, accusations and sentences fully unworthy of a state of law.
Rasha Nasr
(SPD): Hundreds of notices from the AfD!
I name only for example the crusade of the judiciary – this compliant judiciary –
against Stefan Niedhoff on account of the Habeck-Schwachkopf case, or the persecution of the chief editor of the Deutschland Kurier, David Bendels, on account of a fully harmless and substantially correct photo montage of the then still mighty, meanwhile Gott sei Dank slowly falling into oblivion Interior Minister Faeser.
Helge Limburg (Greens): What then did Frau Weidel say to your speech and your draft law? She who is, ja, not here, the Frau Weidel?
There followed upon these harmless acts of criticism and satire house searches and complaints.
Axel Müller
(CDU/CSU): “Compliant judiciary”?
Draconian prison sentences on account of criticism and expressions of opinion; that, one needs imagine, and that in your democracy in Deutschland in which you have so conveniently established it.
Helge
Limburg (Greens): Is it true that Frau Weidel has made a three-figure number of criminal complaints under
§188? What then does she say to that?
This system, hostile to freedom and citizens, functions exactly so as you previously planned it. We of the Alternative für Deutschland want to change that
Sonja
Eichwede (SPD): Nein! You want to
weaken the state of law!
and therefore put forward already in September of last year a draft law – this draft law [Drucksache 21/652] – which foresees the abolition of the §188, this special criminal law favoring the politicians.
Axel Müller
(CDU/CSU): Do you doubt the independence of the judiciary?
Our conception of freedom and equality is namely what? Equal rights for all, quite simple. And because to all apply the general paragraphs on insult, slander, malicious defamation – §§185 to 187 StGB – no special penal law is required.
We brought it in. Yet what was there in the first reading? Hate, agitation, meaningless vulgarity
Helge Limburg (Greens): Yes. But only from you!
Carmen
Wegge (SPD): Everything covered by the freedom of opinion, ne?
from the old parties crowd against our draft, up to the colleague Wiegelmann of the CDU – whom I still hear – who in substance actually was in favor, who however today may not speak. Herr Wiegelmann, what have you done here?
President
Julia Klöckner: Herr member, do you permit an interim question?
If you pause the time which continues, gladly.
President
Julia Klöckner: Remain calm. I also can add and subtract in my head.
Ja. – Now probably comes a question for Alice Weidel and the supposed criminal complaint from her, or?
Here, we of course need to differentiate, Herr colleague.
Carsten Müller
(CDU/CSU-Braunschweig): That is not your strength!
We are not, ja, inclined – like you, obviously – to generalizations.
Sonja
Eichwede (SPD): What then have you plainly done?
But it needs be quite precisely looked at. When I for example look at the proceeding against David Bendels at the Bamberg police court [Amtsgericht]: That was simply an activist justice [Gesinnungsjustiz] which took place. Embarrassing for any state of law!
I also say of every function: The higher the court, the less so the march through the institutions has taken place. When I for example look at many of the higher administrative courts [Oberverwaltungsgerichte]: There, judgment will be rendered rightly according to law and statute, and not according to ideology.
Konrad
Körner (CDU/CSU): That sounds like “Make a Wish”, Herr Brandner!
When I for example look at many of the appeals boards [Berufskammern] at the State courts: There, it might be similar. At the Higher Regional Courts [Oberlandesgerichten] it is still not that his leftist-green ideology is enforced. Thus, there one needs to differentiate.
Helge
Limburg (Greens): This defamation of the judiciary is unbearable! It shows that you
are a real opponent of the state of law. That, you emphasize with this answer! That is
outrageous!
Yet this left-green-woke march through the institutions, which persists, ja, for decades, has naturally not stopped short of the judiciary. And if you take a look at who in recent time, for example in State governments in which the Greens have participated, are nominated as Justice Minister, you may only shake the head. Earlier, it was not completely absurd to proceed on the basis that Justice Ministers should perhaps be jurists, and not anyhow quota women, quota men, quota queers who need a job. Yet in the meantime, the judiciary in Germany in fact has degenerated into a feed barn [Versorgungsstadel].
Carmen
Wegge (SPD): Thanks for the material, Herr Brandner.
Thus, look at it precisely. There is in fact activist justice. And you of the old parties of course make it very simple in that you create the corresponding laws.
President
Julia Klöckner: With that, the question is answered. Thanks.
I had herein indicated: Hate, agitation, and vulgarity against our draft law. Suddenly, Jens Spahn arrived and said: Nee, §188 StGB must go. – I thought, I do not hear correctly. We said: That makes us happy. We bring it into committee. If the CDU then cooperates, we may do it. – Suddenly, you in committee were again against it. What then is with your CDU/CSU delegation? The chief said: Hyah! You make: Whoa! I believe Jens Spahn is at the political firing post, or not?
Ladies and gentlemen, it is thus not only about the abolition of a paragraph of injustice, but about the Union’s overall credibility. Pinocchios, con men, charlatans, mud-slingers;
Helge
Limburg (Greens): Do you speak of your own delegation?
here, to whom does not immediately occur CDU or CSU names? Guttenberg, Merz, Schavan, Weimer, Günther, current Professsor Dr. plag. Mario Voigt. Thus, if you want to carry on with this chain, then reject our draft law.
President
Julia Klöckner: So now the time is truly up. You have greatly exceeded the time.
If you want to make honest Politik, want to be credible, then vote in favor of our motion.
President Julia Klöckner: I plainly gave a signal. Otherwise, I turn off your microphone.
Many thanks, Frau Klöckner, for the generous handling of the time.
[trans: tem]
