Marc Jongen, December 17, 2024, Roumania, TikTok, Democracy

EU Parliament, Strasbourg, P10 CRE(2024)12-17(2-259-0000). 

Herr President. 

It cannot be conceived: Yesterday this parliament applauded the nullification of the democratic presidential election in Roumania. When the wrong candidate is in the lead, who does not suit the EU elites, then he obviously must go. We are on the way to a totalitarian system, ladies and gentlemen. And what is the reasoning? Manipulation of citizens on TikTok by foreign agents. 

You credit the citizens with so little discernment. You see the citizens as a manipulated mass. That is a declaration of bankruptcy. Following this logic, all elections in Germany need be nullified, since there the state media manipulates without end – but then nothing will be done. Yet when a 14-year-old posts something patriotic on TikTok, then in the morning the police are at the door. Where are we coming to? And following this logic, all elections could be nullified at will. Since how can the foreign influence ever be proved? 

Democracy enjoins accepting the will of the people, and even if it does not suit you. Respect that, if you want to be called democrats. 

 

[trans: tem]

Stephan Brandner, December 6, 2024, Lèse-majesté

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/204, pp. 26472-26473. 

Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen. 

I find that we are quite well set. When I look at the ranks of the other delegations, it appears quite good in regards to us. 

Let me begin with a pre-Christmas fairy tale. There was once a kingdom, let us call it Collapsistan, with all that pertains thereto. There was a king, let us call him Olaf the Forgetful, a prince, let us call him Robert Feeble-minded [Schwachkopf] the First, his beautiful but rather dumb consort princess Anna the Clueless, a wicked, gruesome, cunning stepmother, Marie-Agnes, and a court jester by the name of Karl the Confused. There were also dark, corrupt powers: The BlackRockers, led by Fritz the Babbler and Jens “Allow us a villa” Spahn. 

This Collapsistan sank into chaos for want of qualified leaders. It was not at all on this account chased from the castle, because the secret service, the police and the media protected it. The social and economic chaos was so great that the people were continually impoverished and enraged; whereas the rulers lived in unimaginable, lavish luxury, riotously, made horrendous debts due to deficient income, and, despite that, tossed off hundreds of thousands for castle photos in which they should appear in shining lights, for hairdressing, which in one day cost as much as what many poor people in Collapsistan did not have available in a month. They flew with luxury jets which the people needed to finance – who else? – to and fro through world history, made flights of a distance walked by other people. The state religion paid homage to the climate pharaohs for which insane gifts and sacrifices were prepared. 

The result is clear: The world laughed over this incompetent barn of corruption. And the citizens in Collapsistan were offended, insulted and mocked. Yet the rulers made no better policy, but demanded draconian penalties for critical statements. 

Ladies and gentlemen, thus far a fairy tale; nevertheless with a present reference. 

In Germany also chaos governs. The citizens are disquieted; by rustic, pointed expressions make themselves noticeable and vent their feelings. Yet those who govern here govern no better, but have critical citizens persecuted by the police by means of warnings and legal intimidations. Through the years, a denunciation and spying network has been laid over Germany like a mildew, and those who govern have created for themselves protective, special laws, like section 188 of the criminal code which is here on the table and which only particularly punishes the insulting of politicians, and indeed with two to three years custody. Three years! If a simple citizen is insulted, a penalty of merely one year threatens the perpetrator. 

In addition, the normal citizen needs to trouble himself and file a criminal complaint. For a politician, in practice, that follows automatically, as per section 194 of the criminal code. And so it can well be that, in the morning in the residence of a supposed critic of the government, as for example in mid-November of a former soldier with a handicapped child, officially stand the police who almost kicked down the door just because he shared a funny photo of Robert Habeck. 

This special law was created in 2021 as a measure against hate and agitation and rightist extremism by politicians who now profit therefrom. It reminds me personally, I need quite honestly say, of the anti-state agitation in the DDR penal code, or the statute against malicious attacks on the state and party from the year 1934. 

And precisely the politicians who created this statute now profit therefrom, and thus earn for themselves a cornucopia. Comically, start-up businesses were founded which do nothing other than warn blameless citizens, demand warning fees and then make fifty-fifty with the politicians. Something is thus just so transparent, ladies and gentlemen. Robert Habeck alone has filed 800 criminal complaints [Strafanzeigen erstattet] during his time in office, a total of a thousand criminal complaints by Baerbock, Strack-Zimmermann and as they all are called. They do not defend themselves by means of good politics, they defend themselves by means of harassing measures. Especially is the FDP at the fore, have I read. The FDP manages such warning unions, such warning start-ups, and is proud of it. 

Katharina Willkomm (FDP): No, no no! We have nothing to do with that. Those are private people.

Ladies and gentlemen, we politicians are not especially worthy of protection. Publicity is part of our jobs. We seek publicity. We wallow in publicity. We go with joy into publicity. And why should we be better protected by the criminal code than normal people? 

We politicians are not weaklings who require the special protection of the criminal law. We are no majesties, no kings, no princes. We are employees of the citizens who elect us and pay us. There thus needs be an end to that you of the cartel parties lift yourselves above the citizens, an end to the special law for politicians, an end to section 188 of the criminal code, the lèse-majesté of modern times which is nothing other than an expression of a repressive, authoritarian understanding of the state. 

Likewise, go our way! Section 188 out of the penal code! This here is only a current hour, yet the corresponding draft law is done and will be brought in next. 

            Axel Müller (CDU/CSU): Where is it, then?

Many thanks and Merry Christmas if we should no more see one another. 

 

[trans: tem]

Götz Frömming, November 13, 2024, CDU and Democracy

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/199, pp. 25915-25916. 

Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen. 

“…parliament is a deliberative assembly of one nation, with one interest, that of the whole; where, not local purposes, not local prejudices, ought to guide, but the general good...” [*] 

            Hendrik Hoppenstedt (CDU/CSU): Amen! 

            Patrick Schnieder (CDU/CSU): Claims for which you have never been fit!

So far Edmund Burke in his famous speech to the voters of Bristol in 1774. Ladies and gentlemen, let us compare the present situation of this parliament with the ideal of then. 

            Patrick Schnieder (CDU/CSU): You might need to get out!

This, what you have made of our parliament, is the exact opposite in comparison to what Burke described, ladies and gentlemen. 

Real deliberations, the struggle over the best solution for the good of the people, no longer take place. 

            Johannes Fechner (SPD): No self-evidently! 

            Patrick Schnieder (CDU/CSU): You’ve never done it!

SPD, CDU, Greens and FDP have come to an understanding for a trimmed daily order of the German Bundestag. Only urgently necessary points of the daily order shall spoken on. Initiatives of the opposition – the actual opposition – shall be set aside with or without debate. Ladies and gentlemen, that is unparliamentary, that is undemocratic, that is an assault on the heart of our democracy. 

It is evident, ladies and gentlemen, for you, the general good does not come first, but your party interests. We presently in fact have a minority government. That has been seldom acceded to in German parliamentary history, but is commonplace in other countries. There, one has no fear of the free struggle for the best solution. Minority governments, ladies and gentlemen, need not necessarily go along with a parliamentary standstill. They could be stellar moments of democracy. Yet for that is required authentic and courageous democrats. 

            Patrick Schnieder (CDU/CSU): Then you need to get out!

Of those, ladies and gentlemen, we have too few in this parliament. It also does not help that you yourselves always mutually dilute being democratic. Now, where it would come to that, you deny democracy, ladies and gentlemen. 

What then would be so bad if members for once really follow their consciences when a good motion achieves a majority only with votes of the opposition? Yet as I hear, you want no votes from the wrong side. Honored colleagues of the CDU, when it is about the good of our country, then there is no such wrong side. 

Patrick Schnieder (CDU/CSU): The level was already low, but now it becomes subterranean.

You then stand with your firewall on the wrong side. 

            Patrick Schnieder (CDU/CSU): You are always on the wrong side!

Following the frightful terror attack at Solingen on the 23^rd of August of this year, the CDU/CSU  delegation chairman wrote an urgent letter to the Chancellor. I may cite therefrom: 

“Release…the vote in the Bundestag on the the required laws…We want no participation in your government and no offices; we want that you fulfill your oath of office and avert harm from the German people. For that, with us you have a majority in the German Bundestag…” 

            Jürgen Braun (AfD): Aha! Hear, hear!

Thus far the Chancellor. In what concerns forgetfulness, Friedrich Merz in fact has a Chancellor quality, ladies and gentlemen. 

In fact in September the CSU/CSU brought in such a motion. Its content: To limit the migrant flow and begin with a return. Not by far enough, but a step in the right direction. And what have we experienced? Last week, precisely this draft law was on the daily order for a second and third reading. It would have been able to receive perhaps a majority with the votes from the ranks of the FDP and AfD. Yet precisely on this account it was withdrawn by the CDU/CSU. 

            Jürgen Braun (AfD): Ach, here, someone is afraid!

You were afraid that your own motion could pass, ladies and gentlemen. That allows a deep look and says much of your understanding of democracy. 

Who should at all still believe that your motion was seriously meant by you, which you previously presented and in which was written a bit in the AfD sound? Did you perhaps only present all of these motions because you know that they will be rejected, and now where you could receive a vote in favor, 

Hendrik Hoppenstedt (CDU/CSU): No, we want to pass them, only not with you! That is the only reason! 

you present no more such motions. 

The long since running secret negotiations on a new government with the Greens or the SPD should not be encumbered. Ladies and gentlemen, you have the entire time only simulated opposition. That is shabby. 

Ladies and gentlemen, the problem nevertheless is: Who votes for Merz, receives Habeck. How often have the two actually met for secret negotiations? 

            Till Steffen (Greens): What does secret mean? 

            Erhard Grundl (Greens): If you knew it, it’s not secret. 

            Sebastian Hartmann (SPD): What did you plan in Potsdam?

The citizens can vote for that they want, they receive always the same politics. Here, one need not be surprised by a political dissatisfaction. 

            Vice-president Aydan Özogŭz: Come please to a conclusion. 

Following the next elections, ladies and gentlemen, we will, in Edmund Burke’s sense, again make the parliament of our nation a deliberating and deciding assembly. 

Many thanks. 

            Gabriele Katzmarek (SPD): There, you contribute definitely nothing! 

 

[*] The Works of the Right Honorable Edmund Burke. 6 vols. London: Henry G. Bohn, 1854-1856.

[trans: tem]

Alice Weidel, November 13, 2024, Government and Politics

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/199, pp. 25840-25843. 

Right honorable Frau President. Right honorable Chancellor. Right honorable ladies and gentlemen. 

This government goes to an end as brainless and undignified as it has acted for three long years.

Even in leaving, you show neither insight nor responsibility. You indulge in self-pity, self-righteousness and mutual denigration. 

Humility would thereby be only appropriate; since what your government has done to this country and its citizens is unprecedented. This Ampel like no other previous government has destroyed prosperity and damaged our country. Your frantic policy of the green transformation drives Germany into de-industrialization, productive business out of the country and the Mittelstand to ruin. 

Hundreds of thousands of workplaces are already lost as a consequence of your policy. The number of insolvencies in October has reached a 70 years record. The bankruptcy rate is around two-thirds higher than just five years ago. Your e-auto planned economy ruins the German automobile industry and cuts a corridor of devastation through Mittelstand and service industries. 

You flood the country with illegal migrants while you likewise drive native and immigrant labor forces into emigration. You derange the social system and destroy the domestic security. Imported Judenhasser romp in the streets. 25 sexual assaults per day by immigrants are noted in one current statistic of the BKA. The financial consequences you press upon the citizens with record taxes and social duties, 

            Lamya Kaddor (Greens): Then what does the AfD do on the other hand? 

even though the total state income scrapes the one trillion mark, yet will erode because you have made business kaputt and put employees into the street.

You divide the country with the malignant spirit of the spying, the hotlines, with censorship measures, and grotesque Gessler cap laws like the self-determination law which makes the denial of biological facts a penalty-enforced duty. 

            Beatrix von Storch (AfD): Markus!

You, the tumbling champions [Umfallerhelden] of the FDP, have not only cooperated with all of this for three long years, but what’s more made it possible. The FDP has shared in every nonsense, like the heating law, building energy law, the ban on combustion engines and the disconnection of capable nuclear power plants, gender without end, toking for all and the change of sex once a year. This stain, Herr Lindner, will stay with you forever. Your attempt at the last minute to leave the sinking ship comes too late. The voters and your party will ban you from the Bundestag. 

For the Union. You want no political change for Germany, otherwise you would not hide behind your firewall, and quite openly speculate that this mismanaged SPD and the Greens may make you Chancellor, Herr Merz. What you have to offer in reasonable demands, you’ve meanwhile copied from us. Yet you want to implement simply nothing of that, but merely deceive your voters. You admit it quite openly: You are afraid of putting any motion for a migration policy; since you could pass it with our votes, and that, you do not want, Herr Merz. 

            Friedrich Merz (CDU/CSU): Nay!

With that, all should be said of the CDU, yet this for long has still not been: For even in this existential crisis, CDU politicians have nothing better to do than drive forward an anti-democratic banning procedure against us, the second largest power in Germany. And your party friend Haldenwang is the handyman for that, and abuses the domestic secret service, the so-called Constitution Defense, to criminalize citizens critical of the government, and the opposition in Germany, and for that shall be paid with a Bundestag mandate. These are the most wicked DDR methods of which you make use. 

Important immediate measures against Germany’s further decline – the withdrawal of the combustion engine ban, the re-entry into the nuclear power, the tightening of the right of asylum and the turning back at the border – we would have long since concluded, with or without the Chancellor’s confidence vote. 

But the Union does not want that. You have cowardly taken back all your motions and agreed to simply eliminate from the daily order central initiatives for a correction of this ruinous Ampel policy. You place the firewall above Germany. What an embodiment of democratic Unkultur! What a pitiful low point in parliamentary government! 

So spare yourself your talk of responsibility and respect, Herr Merz! With you, it’s quite alone about you, about your power, about partisan tactics, and primarily your vanity. 

            Friedrich Merz (CDU/CSU): This the righteous says!

With you as a Scholz replacement, Germany will not make headway. You can implement nothing of what you promise. You are no alternative for this government and for this Chancellor. You hardly can be, since the CDU is exactly so responsible as the Ampel for the existential crisis in which our country finds itself. 

As good as all the wrong decisions which are responsible for the downfall of Germany and our economy go back to the governing years of a Union Kanzlerin by the name of Angela Merkel; the best Kanzlerin which the Greens have ever had. The energy transition and the subvention nonsense about the so-called renewable energies, the hasty withdrawal from the nuclear power, the CO₂ duty, the planned economy war against the German automobile industry, the fight of the worldwide leading engine technology and an electro-auto planned economy, the euro rescue policy and the inflation arising therefrom: All of it Union. 

And the citizens have not forgotten how you of the Union divided the country just three years ago with defamations against the unvaccinated. 

            Enrico Komning (AfD): Right!

“No more unvaccinated in the office” from Friedrich Merz, “Lockdown for the unvaccinated” and “Vaccination as a moral obligation” from Markus Söder, and “The pandemic of the unvaccinated” and “Exclude the unvaccinated from public life” from Jens Spahn. All of it was supported and ushered in by you. 

Not to be forgotten: Opening of the German borders for unruly, illegal migration by means of the 2015 welcome putsch: The mother of all trespasses in our country. The rule of injustice in the migration policy which was driven to the heights by the Ampel government, was erected under a Union Kanzerlin, and not only that. The Union delegation supported most of the motions of the Ampel government. After 16 years of Merkel and three years of Merz, the CDU is no more the  counter-weight to the left-green ship of fools, but its willing collaborator. I can say to you: The people have enough of that. 

A Federal government with participation of the AFD in the first 100 days would thus implement the future plan for Germany. And it reads as follows – with the sub-heading that the CDU will prevent all of this: We want technology openness, to repeal the ban of combustion engines as well as of oil and gas heating, to lower income, consumption and business taxes, to abolish the CO₂ duty, to massively reduce energy taxes, to eliminate without exception the solidarity surtax, 

            Lamya Kaddor (Greens): How then all of it?

to get underway fundamental tax reform and tax simplification, to abolish the bureaucracy monster “supply chain law”, to eliminate subvention and promotion programs for climate protection and the EEG assessment, to bring in the end of the energy transition and the withdrawal from the EU energy policy, to again take functioning nuclear power plants into the network and to invest in future-capable, new generation reactors. 

We demand longer run times for coal power plants. Why? Because Germany has the most modern coal power plants worldwide. 

To completely close the borders, to turn back everyone entering illegally or without papers, and a clear announcement to the entire world that the German borders are finally shut. To convert provision of asylum applicants from money to benefits in kind, to eliminate social benefits for those without a right of residency and to organize returns in grand style, which simply maintains and implements the asylum law. Asylum is residence for a time and ends when the refuge basis is eliminated, local provision of refugees – they thereby do not initially come to Germany – immediately end turbo-naturalizations and the automatic claim to the German passport. And follow the model of the Netherlands and Hungary: Withdrawal from the EU asylum system. 

            Lamya Kaddor (Greens): Wow! That then remains for them, Frau Weidel?

The better, last: This is the AFD’s future program for this country so as to bring this country forward. Since you need to listen for once. It goes exactly so. 

And what we will do: Convert the Bürgergeld to an activating basic security, to confine it to state citizens and EU citizens legally present, and, for that, to take care that hundreds of thousands of employees capable of work again come into the labor market. 

We have already worked up many of the laws necessary for this. – Yes, because you rejected them. 

            Lamya Kaddor (Greens): They were all rejected!

It is a question of political will – which you do not have – of again giving hope to the Germans and to setting free the power for a comeback from the crisis. 

            Irene Mihalic (Greens): All those are competences which you do not have!

The Germans want normality, 

            Lamya Kaddor (Greens): No! The Germans are ashamed of you!

and they have a right to it. They want work. They want security. They want prosperity. They want to live by the fruits of their labor, to be able to start families and construct a livelihood. 

            Joe Weingarten (SPD): They want no AfD!

They want security in the streets, and they want a good education for their children. 

They demand a reliable and reasonable politics which creates the prerequisites for this and which does not meddle in the private life and in their freedom of opinion. The people in this country want primarily one thing: 

            Lamya Kaddor (Greens): No right-wing extremists in power!

They want freedom! They want bürgerliche freedom! This will be possible only with us in government responsibility. 

I am grateful. 

            Katharyn Dröge (Greens): You yourself need laugh over the madness! 

 

[trans: tem]

Stephan Brandner, October 18, 2024, Internet Censorship

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/195, pp. 25551-25552. 

Herr President. Ladies and gentlemen. 

Friday afternoon – important themes of freedom of opinion. The Federal Network Agency [Bundesnetzagentur] comes along with a modest name, scarcely anyone knows it, is thereby meanwhile in fact the commanding censorship authority in Germany. 

            Tobias B. Bacherle (Greens): That is just rubbish!

What is that for an agency? With the dissolution of the Postal Ministry, in 1998 founded as a regulatory authority for telephone and post, then also competent for gas and electric lines, later for the railway network. Meanwhile, it has almost 3,000 co-workers settled in the work area of green Economy Destruction Minister Habeck, and the chief is the Green party friend Klaus Müller who since 1990 is with the Greens, and since 2022 leads the Federal Network Agency, this censorship authority. He is now in fact the chief of the German commanding censors. He names so-called trusted flaggers. As a member of the German Language Union [Vereins Deutsche Sprache], it is clear to me: Who has something to hide, he speaks Denglish, or tries to with anglicisms, and precisely so is it here. 

Tobias B. Bacherle (Greens): As opposed to you, most people meanwhile understand that.

Trusted flagger is officially translated as trustworthy whistleblower [„vertrauenswürdige Hinweisgeber“]. At first, it sounds quite good. Yet for we citizens, they are plainly not trustworthy, but only for those rulers sensitive to criticism; wherefore in our view the better fitting translation is “digital block warden”, “thought police” or “government spy”; since that is what they are. 

Tobias B. Bacherle (Greens): You now again show that you do not manage the translations so good.

Here is driven another massive frontal assault on Article 5 of the Basic Law, the freedom of opinion, one of the most important basic rights, and core component of a living democracy. The idea of course is only illegal content shall be reported by internet spies and internet accusers equipped with exclusive access to the platforms. Yet the answer to the question, Who specifically shall that ultimately be?, leaves the worst to be feared. Who can become an internet accuser? Non-government organizations, civil society actors, religious pedagogues, trades union members, thus anyone who in fact emits the left-green thinking. 

And so no wonder that the first reporting office, in good Denglish manner, is named “REspect”, in which is sheltered one of the Islam teachers trained in the notorious and suspected Al Azhar University in Cairo. 

Tobias B. Bacherle (Greens): Herr Brandner, we’ve heard all that from Reichelt! What’s new?

The reporting office belongs to the Youth Foundation Baden Württemberg, is nursed with tax money and thus arises – we all know of it – from the left-green swamp. And this troop of, among others, religious pedagogues shall now be qualified to decide over which expressions of opinion are legitimate and which not. Actually inconceivable, or? 

Ladies and gentlemen, I do not believe to go too far when I say: If there had earlier been censorship authorities as presently – there were as is known some better – then would have been unthinkable showbiz greats like Thomas Gottschalk, Harald Schmidt or Rudi Carrell. 

            Beatrix von Storch (AfD): And Helmut Schmidt!

They would no longer be allowed on the screen. We of course live in an increasingly homogenized [gleichschalteten] television- and in an increasingly oppressed digital-world, which sets up instructions and limitations, instead of open, substantial discussions. Tutored thought everywhere from the public broadcasting. 

The internet was still a bit of a free space. It becomes ever more limited. The rulers are watching. All that is unsuitable is out. Thus alternative media in Germany will be blocked, oppressed and hindered. Trusted flaggers become still more active, and will judge whether something is hatred, fake news or illegal. The worst is to be feared. 

And the worst is: There is nothing in the Basic Law in this regard. The state precisely knows it may not censor. Yet so as to attain the opposite, it privatizes the censorship. It circumvents, so to say, the Basic Law’s command, and sets up a terror of unity opinion [Einheitsmeinung], instead  of variety of opinion. We of the AfD stand for the exact opposite. We stand for variety and for freedom of opinion, and not for the unity opinion terror. 

The FDP participates. It cannot be believed what the former free, liberal party is thus doing. Herr Kubicki, who as President sits behind me, distances himself a bit from that, yet in the end he will again be for it. We, ja, know him; he is something like the Rambo of the FDP, who now and then may blink right, but then is precisely in line. That does not make the matter better. 

Alone, the Alternative für Deutschland remains as before a guarantor for democracy, for law, for freedom and especially for freedom of opinion in Germany. 

            Stefan Gelbhaar (Greens): Blah, blah, blah!

We therefore demand with our motion [Drucksache 20/13364] – you’ve all read it – simply: The Federal government shall block financial grants to organizations which want to effect the deletion of user contributions which fall under the freedom of opinion. We want the Federal Cartel Office to be instructed to know, to look into: How do the arrangements for hate speech function? That would be a mission for the Federal Cartel Office. 

            Stefan Gelbhaar (Greens): The Federal Cartel Office should examine the AFD?

Herr President, I come to an end; I see it blinking here. – In addition, the censorship measures on the European level need to be abolished. 

            Vice-president Wolfgang Kubicki: Herr colleague, come to a conclusion.

And the trusted flaggers, the internet spies, may have no future in Germany. 

Many thanks. 

            Stefan Gelbhaar (Greens): On what censorship is, you need to read up again.

 

[trans: tem]

Barbara Benkstein, September 26, 2024, EU Data Act

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/188, pp. 24461-24462. 

Frau President. Right honorable ladies and gentlemen. Valued colleagues. 

We debate today a Union delegation motion for implementation of the EU Data Act. For a clarifying debate, it is nevertheless important to come to speak once again of the Data Act itself. This must by September 2025 be converted into the national law of the EU member states. 

Valued colleagues of the Union delegation, Frau colleague Hoppermann, in regards your motion, I see light as well as shadow. How do I come to this evaluation? 

Let us first look at the EU Data Act. As so often, the EU Commission also with the Data Act intervenes in the business and everyday life of the people. With the decree, it wants to break up the existing data oligopoly of the large tech concerns and facilitate the access of KMUs and start-ups to valuable, machine-readable data. From that, the Mittelstand also should profit. A thoroughly good goal! It remains to await how that actually in practice is implemented. 

Right honorable ladies and gentlemen, I want now to give attention to an important problem point of the EU Data Act. It remains unclear in regards the users’ right to the access of their data. Here should be distinguished between commercial and private users. Private users presumably rather have the interest that their data, when it is already uploaded, be stored only for a brief time. And thus the question occurs to me: Valued colleagues of the Union, will your motion, in view of these areas of tension, legislate the required implementation of the EU Data Act? 

Your motion for the implementation of the EU Data Act hides some of the Act’s deficiency; for example, the public emergency named in the text of the decree. By means of this, businesses can almost be compelled to make available their database to the pertinent authorities. 

Franziska Hoppermann (CDU/CSU): The Data Act has been decided. Nothing                       needs be hidden! 

I find this problematic in no place in your motion. 

The risk of an abusive data delivery in the name of a public emergency is not at all fabricated. Here is also required besides a clear definition of unmistakable enforcement regulations [Durchführungsbestimmungen]. 

Next critical point. Your demand to entrust the Federal Network Authority with the role of a data coordinator, we view critically. As a Federal supervisory authority, the Federal Network Agency belongs to the operating area of the Federal Ministry for the Economy and Climate Protection. Thus the independence is limited, despite all the bundled professional competence. We thus hold it better to create an autonomous office for data coordination, as for example is the case with the Federal Commissioner for Data Protection and Freedom of Information. 

            Franziska Hoppermann (CDU/CSU): Who is meanwhile a woman!

Right honorable ladies and gentlemen, a strengthening of the German digital economy’s innovation and competition capability is unquestionably important. This however is in direct relation with the performance capability of a modern society and also with the digital rights of the consumer. These are not appropriately valued by the Union’s motion, as well by the EU Commission. Valued colleagues of the Union, you in your motion thereby fritter away the possibility of at least partially removing the Data Act’s weaknesses by its implementation in national law. 

So far, I still see in your motion some shady sides which we in the digital committee can in common polish. 

Many thanks. 

 

[trans: tem]

Tino Chrupalla, September 11, 2024, Government without a People

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/184, pp. 23875-23876. 

Right honorable Frau President. Right honorable ladies and gentlemen. Dear countrymen. 

75 years Basic Law, 75 years German Bundestag – with the attempt of a celebration yesterday – and 75 years Federal Republic of Germany. The year of jubilees following the straining, successful years of construction in west and in east, after years of Cold War, the east-west conflict – and now 35 years after the fall of the Wall, the Ampel Federal government fights only for the hold on power, we again have war in Europe, and the people’s trust in the political leadership sinks incessantly. You can now again say: The AfD only pushes doom-saying and has no concept. – With that however, you would fall short of the necessary self-criticism. For I want to yet again state one thing: For the desolate situation in Germany, you alone on the government bench bear the responsibility. 

For a re-appraisal of the election results, let us take a look at the east of the Republic. In the 35^th year after the fall of the Wall, the  portion of the eastern Germans amounts to 19 percent, and the portion of eastern Germans in top positions in business, administration, science and media is presently at 1.7 percent. The economic situation still differs immensely, as well in regards to  pensions and incomes – and for women and men – as in regards investments in the economic area. That the lives of eastern Germans differ from those in the west, we know. Therefore has this Federal government again called upon an eastern commissioner, Herr Schneider. And here I ask myself, Herr Schneider – in this debate, it’s certainly about eastern Germany: What actually do you contribute to this debate? The citizens in the east are continually denigrated, tutored and not taken seriously. Herr Merz thinks more needs be explained in the east than in the west, and he gladly does this. Frau Esken does that every day on the television. You treat the people in the east like difficult to teach citizens, and actually understand nothing. 

The elections in the east thus have shown – and this you really should take seriously – eastern Germany is the thermometer of the Federal Republic. The denigration besides is related to the Green system. Massively punished by the voters in eastern Germany, you overtook not the least responsibility, but denigrate the opposition. Proposals even so as persons and parties are defamed and placed in the extremist corner. You also denigrate the voters and sympathizers. You thereby damage democracy. 

You no longer at all want to take up with or win over the people. What then are your goals? For you, what actually should Germany be in 10, 20 or 50 years? The current legislature still has exactly twelve months. Three-quarters of your time you have consumed so to drive our country into the wall and de-industrialize it with your mal-economic climate change policy. Your overflowing ideology intervenes in everyone’s private sphere, even when it is certainly not wanted. Your policy wants that we should all bathe less, heat less, eat less meat and drive less with combustion autos. 

            Anja Reinalter (Green): Perhaps more education!

You want to regulate with whom we meet – see the Corona times – and what we think. And when we do not obey, we are divided into good and evil. 

Your concept for the budget deficit is non-existent. Despite that, non-work and feedings will be ramped up. I ask myself: Why actually should the citizens still pay for all that? Moreover arrives a zero growth economy and special debts – in regards, named by you, “special assets” – inflation, price increases for consumer goods and for energy; end consumer prices decrease, if at all, slowly. The citizens are bound by contracts, and need for long to bear the high costs. Not to forget: There is an energy deficit as a result of a deficient supply of nuclear energy and advantageous gas from Russia. 

The infrastructure is exhausted for transportation – we’ve seen it early today in Dresden where bridges collapse – for education, for example in regards the lack of teachers, or for the healthcare system. The hospital reform shall be brought underway with all ministerial power, and be borne on the backs of the citizens, the contribution payers. Doctors continue to be missing. Contributions to the statutory sickness insurance, and also the added costs of wages, continue to rise incessantly. 

Lamya Kaddor (Green): Ask yourself why doctors are missing!

The reappraisal of the Corona time is for long not at all pursued; and, if so, then insufficiently. All of that is unacceptable. On the other hand, only our delegation and party concerns itself across parliaments. 

And I ask again: When finally will an audit be made? Since the beginning of this legislature, I remind for examination how much money we actually, concretely make available for which expenditures. Since we definitely have sufficient state income. Let us look at the numbers: In the year 2014, thus just ten years ago, tax income contributed 296 billion euros to state income. Just ten years later, we are meanwhile at 489 billion euros of state income. And nevertheless the money does not suffice: We nevertheless need to take up 50 billion euros in new debt, at the cost of our children and grandchildren. That is an absolutely irresponsible policy of this Ampel government. 

In addition to that, since 2015 around 300,000 people – good, well-educated skilled labor, Germans – have left our country; Herr Merz has correctly addressed it, he has nevertheless scarcely described the causes. Those are meanwhile almost three million people who in the last nearly ten years have gone. In this time, the CDU and CSU besides also governed. Immigration can never compensate for that. 

In addition, the costs for the state and taxpayer are higher when the immigrant persons initially need to be educated in language, culture and expertise. Primarily, I ask: By whom then? A successful and for both sides well done migration is of course not in the interest of the Ampel government. Your hyper-morality and your values compass have led you completely into error. Go into the States, simply speak with your party friends at the basis. Form a comprehensive opinion, and finally correct the expensive failures of your policy. 

It’s about Germany, our Heimat, and our citizens. We pursue a goal-directed immigration, but no immigration into the social system. The presently active, arbitrary and purposeless policy has not helped the German economy. On the contrary: You have even set and raised false expectations. 

Yet even to the people who come to Germany, the real skilled labor, you offer no perspective at all. In that regard, we certainly do not speak of asylum themes. Your policy enjoins violence and death. You have managed that migration not only has become the theme of the summer of 2024; much more, migration is connected with nearly all political fields: Domestic security and foreign policy, diplomatic relations, labor and social policy, economic and financial policy, etc. etc. 

In all named political fields, you can show since 2021 as good as nothing, no success. Germany and thereby the German Bundestag are after three years of Ampel government ridiculed in foreign countries, and in the country treated by our own people with more than great doubts. You are a government without a people. 

Nevertheless, humility and insight belong exactly as little to the great ones of this Federal government as does the honest dealing with Germany’s difficult situation. From economic leaders, Herr Habeck has made us into economic losers. Your attempts at policy have failed, Herr Habeck. The businesses run away and close the plants in Germany. 

You have overburdened this country, the businesses and the tradesmen. Obvious losses you take without further ado. Obvious gaps will be stopped up and plastered over with tax money, subventions, special debts. You and your policy offer the citizens in Germany no perspective. We require a conscientious dealing with all resources, with the people even so as with Nature. Your absolute and narrow-minded approaches and bans split the society, drive the citizens (those who can afford it) out of the country, and thereby destroy the social peace in your own country. 

It is the same with the Ukraine theme: Weapons deliveries, construction assistance, and no investments in a rapid end of the war, further escalation and a rhetorical fight for war and against peace. I therefore say to you: Continue to do it exactly so. Try to continue so indecently to hold fast to your power, and defame the opposition. Continue to play the master teacher, and denigrate the citizens in the east. Your credibility will further dwindle, day by day. You thus simulate policy for its own sake and against the citizens’ interests. We want in common to make policy for the citizens at home and for Germany’s interests. For we, the AfD, are the future. 

Many thanks. 

 

[trans: tem]

Alice Weidel, September 11, 2024, Economy, Immigration, Democracy

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/184, pp. 23858-23861. 

Right honorable Frau President. Right honorable Herr Chancellor. Right honorable ladies and gentlemen. 

Almost three weeks have passed by since the horrific, terrorist knife attack by a rejected Syrian asylum applicant in Solingen. Ten days have gone by in the country since the crushing election defeat in Saxony and Thüringen which has degraded your Chancellor party to a splinter party. 

You still want to make believe that the voters run away from you in droves because you did not well enough explain to them your policy. The opposite is the case: The citizens have quite sufficiently grasped that your policy means prosperity destruction, de-industrialization, mass migration, and loss of domestic security. You are the Chancellor of decline, Herr Scholz. 

For the erosion of Germany as an industrial nation also stands the decline of Volkswagen. For the ostensible climate protection, you destroy the German economy. Yet the Volkswagen disaster is only the tip of the iceberg. The statistics record 500,000, a half million unemployed since you overtook the government. That is a hundred thousand families, millions of people who need to fear for their future. 

It affects all branches, especially the automobile industry and all that depends on it. Supplier ZF eliminates up to 14,000 positions. At SAP, 10,000 jobs fall away, at Ford 4,600, at Bosch 3,760, at Bayer 3,200, at BASF 3,300, at Michelin 1,500, at Miele 1,300, at Continental 1,200. The most resonant names axe workplaces in Germany and remove them to foreign countries because they are no longer competitive here. 

Britta Haßelmann (Greens): Which of those which you have counted up have been threatened by Herr Höcke?

The list becomes daily longer. Thyssenkrupp’s steel branch proves to be unmarketable because it is uneconomic, and stands before the downfall. 27,000 workplaces are in danger. The number of insolvencies in July reached a ten-year high, 40 percent more than in the previous year. A dramatic balance, and it is your balance, Herr Scholz. 

Your Heat Pump Minister Habeck, whom I miss here today – where actually is Minister Habeck at this debate? – 

            Saskia Esken (SPD): He has Corona!

– wants to compel the threatened private households to pay for the politically demanded demolition of perfectly functioning gas networks. 

The budget which you have put forward after many vain starts is as dilettante and cobbled together as your entire coalition government. You take from the citizens tax money and duties in record sums, and despite that nothing comes. You pile up mountains of debt and for you it does not suffice. To say it clearly: This budget is an insolence and a frivolity not to be surpassed. 

While you seek to soothe the citizens with alibi politics and migration summits, everyday ever more knife attacks and rapes by migrants occur. 

            Lamya Kaddor (Greens): By rightist radicals, too!

You celebrate, shortly before the State legislative elections, an absurd luxury deportation of an entire 28 most serious Afghan criminals and on the way endow them with a princely pocket money of 1,000 euros. That is two years wages for an Afghan: 

            Götz Frömming (AfD): Unbelievable!

The pay for murder and rape and a further invitation for illegal migration. 

At the same time, the Federal Interior Ministry under Nancy Faeser finances a portal which in newspeak calls for tips and tricks against its own authority so as to elude deportations. This Federal government sabotages deportations in that, at the cost of the taxpayer, it allots residency permits for legal residence opportunities and creates additional legal assistance for those obliged to leave. The Solingen assailant could for months evade his return to Bulgaria because a Green Minister thwarted deportations and a CDU Minister-president indulged her. More than half the year, the taxpayer works for the state which entices illegal migrants into the country and robs the citizens of the security which it owes to them. 

The Solingen victims would still live and be uninjured, had those responsible acted according to law and statute. That is to say, first and foremost, not to just let illegal migrants into the country, but to close the borders and turn back everyone who wants to break into Germany without a legal claim and without papers – not temporarily, but forever! 

That is besides no option, that is a legal obligation which you have. Article 16A of the Basic Law clearly says: Those entering from secure third states have no claim to asylum. §18 of the asylum law states that the turning back of these illegals is not only permissible but ordered. No European legal obligations sets this regulation – 

Can you behind me speak a bit more softly? Yes, it does disturb. That, we do not do. 

            Dorothee Bär (CDI/CSU): How thin-skinned you are! 

            Ralf Stegner (SPD): You are screaming!

Thus: No European legal – 

With you, it’s the purest kindergarten, and the next election is coming! – 

For a third time, I begin so that you may know the law: No European legal regulation disempowers that. No sovereign state can be compelled to tolerate entries counter to its law and its intent. 

And then came a CDU Kanzlerin. This Kanzlerin nine years ago wiped away with a stroke of the pen this applicable law and established the rule of injustice which has ruined Germany. It is thus all scrap paper which the CDU tells you today, and Herr Merz will later tell. 

The CDU’s  Realpolitik we besides see in Berlin. Here, in CDU-governed Berlin, the number of naturalizations explodes. There are few rejections of those seeking naturalization: 60 percent more naturalizations in Berlin in the first eight months of this year than in the entire previous year. So looks the CDU policy! 

Mass migration and a migration policy renunciation of control have deadly consequences. We need the migration change, and indeed immediately! 

            Ralf Stegner (SPD): Yet you want deportations!

Non-Germans grab a knife six times more and commit sexual crimes seven times more than German citizens. Thus has the chief of the Federal Police, Romann, summarized the situation. 

Since 2017, as stated in the BKA numbers, more than 52,000 women are victims of a sexual crime by asylum migrants. The principal countries of origin: Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq. The numbers of gang rapes last year rose to 761, more than two of these horrific crimes every day. Of the 209 gang rapes in the State of Nordrhein-Westfalen are almost three-quarters of the suspects non-Germans or have a declared migration background. Around two-thirds of the suspects in criminal bands are non-Germans. What are you waiting for? Finally deport these criminals! 

Against exploding migrant criminality, only immediate, robust measures help: A strict moratorium for immigration, a stop of reception and naturalization of all migrants for at least five years and no naturalization of people who are dependent on our social system, a closure of the borders, a turning away of all illegals without exception, an immediate identification of all illegals and criminals, limitation of all financial, legal and social state incentives, benefits in kind instead of money, and finally the overhaul of the asylum law. That, a responsible, AfD-led government would do now. 

You all in the last years have driven forward the migration policy failures of the state. Still more: You have stamped out the way of reason and instead divided society. You have systematically defamed critics and, with noxious comparisons and wicked scatological and Nazi language, dehumanized and set the secret service on them. Herr Hofreiter of the Greens, with his demand to ban the platform X, has shown the hateful grimace of the totalitarian malignant spirit which you command. 

That is also to say: You hold freedom of opinion to be more dangerous than the boundless import of murderers and terrorists. Instead of seeking in fair arenas the best solution, 

            Britta Haßelmann (Greens): Fair? That doesn’t go together with the AfD!

you rob the opposition of important parliamentary rights. To this day, you deny to us due positions in the Bundestag praesidium, in decisive bodies, in the committees. You thereby rob six million voters of their full parliamentary representation. You are those who truly scorn democracy and the state of law. 

With threadbare manipulations, your comrades in Saxony and Thüringen want to continue this election fraud and, with all means, keep the power, to which a third of the voters have given a quite clear mandate, away from the government and its rights. Your democratic middle, which you constructed for that, is as democratic as the middle D in the DDR. In the election campaign, the CDU copied from the AfD, yet rejected all of our motions – comical – and after the election they close ranks with the leftist unity front. 

Yet that changes nothing of our resolution, in the interest of our country, to put a stop to this grotesquerie, and at the latest in the next election period which hopefully does not just begin in a year. 

            Britta Haßelmann (Greens): Where? In Switzerland or here?

Since Germany can no longer wait so long for reforms, and so long may our country no longer endure it [und so hält das unser Land auch nicht mehr aus]. Who wants authentic change and reforms, votes for the Alternative für Deutschland. 

I am grateful. 

 

[trans: tem]

Stephan Brandner, July 4, 2024, Voting, Escrow and Shakespeare

German Bundestag, July 4, 2024, Plenarprotokoll 20/181, pp. 23593-23594. 

Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen. 

It is, so to say, the Shakespeare of the AfD who now again has the word. A pleasant good evening, I wish you. Yet an exciting point is on the daily order for today’s debate. It is a high point, and a high point of every Berlin trip – this goes for the guests in the gallery – when one can occupy oneself at 2240 with the professional law of the registered professions – notaries, attorneys-at-law, patent attorneys and the tax consultants. Thus it crowns each day. 

            Jürgen Coße (SPD): 2236!

2240, I said. It is 2236. You can still read the numbers, in contrast to me. That distinguishes you, and you are with the SPD. Congratulations that it functions! 

Thus, it is about allowing possibilities, which there were during Corona; for example, of being able to hold principal proceedings [Hauptverhandlungen] in hybrid or virtual form. Do you now continue to count, or can I continue talking? 

            Jürgen Coße (SPD): I’m listening, even if it’s difficult.

Okay. Or, there is the possibility to continue mail-in voting or also to bringing about decisions by means of the post office. That, we find quite good. I say, there can be nothing against that. 

Nevertheless, we look critically upon the possibility of conducting virtual or hybrid association assemblies [Kammerversammlungen]. It is also undemocratic in regards associations if they can or must be held exclusively. As a result, we therefore reject that. In regards the conduct of the assembly, the flexibility should indeed be strengthened, and be given the possibility to lower the threshold of being able to participate; in the lived, German practice – you all know the construction of our networks – those affected may expect all possible forms of technical imponderabilities which can and will make impossible the orderly conduct of assemblies. You all know of software problems, connection and network problems, to the point of a complete break of connection. All is conceivable in Germany. Everyone knows that who more or less regularly takes part in such on-line conversations. 

It should not remain unmentioned that you – God be thanked – have turned a corner concerning the originally planned possibility to scour without cause attorneys’ escrow accounts and so be able to massively encroach upon attorney privilege [Mandatsgeheimnis]. 

            Otto Fricke (FDP): Collective accounts, Herr colleague! 

            Jürgen Coße (SPD): Otto, he’s not familiar with that!

It would have been a systemic break. There would have been considerably more administrative expense. It’s therefore nice that you in the last meters have managed to eliminate that from the law. 

All in all: You now previously from here have heard a comprehensive, Shakespearean weighing of the pros and cons of this law. 

            Marianne Schieder (SPD): I believe you have never read Shakespeare.

We have wrestled with it, we have debated, and as a result come to the view: We unfortunately cannot vote in favor. That will not prevent this law, it also should not; we will with absolute vigor abstain. 

I thus for the AfD delegation dispatch or release, on a nice evening, you and the guests above in the gallery into the Berlin nightlife. 

Many thanks. 

 

[trans: tem]

Fabian Jacobi, July 4, 2024, The German Language

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/181, pp. 23455-23456. 

Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen. 

With associations, it is so a matter: What in regards a new item of business comes to one spontaneously, often appears accidental and then proves to be of little help. In the case put forward, my thoughts certainly turn back more often in further course to the matter which this draft law for me initially called to mind. The famous sociologist and economist Max Weber expressed it in his entry speech at the University of Freiberg in the year 1895, and he said: 

“Big businesses which are only to be maintained at the cost of German nationality, from the standpoint of the nation are worthy of perishing…”

Now, the circumstance to which this matter referred – it was about the collapse of the noble estates in the Prussian agrarian areas – has well nigh sunk into the fogs of history. And the verbal characteristic of Weber’s speech for us today has become foreign. Yet it would be decadent arrogance to believe on that account alone we could easily do without the insights and thoughts of earlier generations. 

You, ladies and gentlemen, want by means of the law which you today are deciding “to strengthen Germany as a venue of justice [Justizstandort Deutschland]” The expression reveals the authors’ world view. It is a view which we do not share. 

The German state is no business firm which has to compete for a share of the market. The German state is, if so desired, the worldly form [weltliche Gestalt] of the German nation the continuation of which it has to serve. To this belongs that the language of this Republic is and remains the German language. 

            Stephan Brandner (AfD): Exactly!

You want to strengthen the justice venue in which German courts further conduct proceedings in the English language, and no longer pronounce sentence in the name of the people in the language of the people. 

This shall initially apply only for a specific category of judicial procedures. It would  nevertheless be naïve to suppose the matter will thereby rest. The FDP, the minister of which is responsible for the law, demands introducing quite generally the English language as an official language of the German state. We recognize here the first step of a classic salami tactic: Once the salami begins to be cut, it is only a question of time until it is completely consumed. 

Ladies and gentlemen, we experience for long already the downfall of our language. The loss of its earlier importance beyond our borders needs not be mourned; yet it might be explained as a consequence of two destructive world wars. Meanwhile long since also occurs the decline in its own land. 

Martin Plum (CDU/CSU): In the Legal Affairs Committee, also with you!

Ever more often it happens that in businesses the staff are urged to communicate with one another not in German but in English. Universities hold teaching events in the English language, even if all participants are native German speakers or are fluent in German. 

Carsten Müller (CDU/CSU-Braunschweig): You as a member speak English in committee!

And now also shall a core area of our state, the justice, begin the process of the suppression of our language. If we open this door a crack, so will it tomorrow be completely pushed open. It should remain closed. This applies all the more as the implications disturb not only the national but also the democratic character of our polity. 

In the pre-democratic ages, the feudal ruling class spoke to one another in French, despised the German language as a language of farmers and domestics. This situation was overcome by the bürgerlichen and democratic revolution of the 19^th Century. The German national state which grew out of that revolution would be entirely perverted; in the 21^st Century, it wanted to set about abetting a revival of such a social division [Der deutsche Nationalstaat, der aus jener Revolution erwuchs, würde gänzlich pervertiert, wollte er sich im 21. Jahrhundert daranmachen, einem Wiederaufleben solcher gesellschaftlicher Spaltung Vorschub zu leisten]. I began this speech with a citation, and with a citation I also close: 

            Erhard Grundl (Greens): The main thing, to end! 

“We hope that what always distinguishes and will distinguish the nation from other nations…our beautiful language, will not become dry and common, but will renew its nobility, and with it all that finds its expression in words. If that not be done, what would all recovered great power and seeming power then help us?”

Golo Mann wrote that as a closing sentence of his Deutschen Geschichte. And if my speech will surely have no influence on today’s vote, may it still be taken to heart by one or another for his future work in this house. 

Many thanks. 

 

[trans: tem]

Alice Weidel and Tino Chrupalla, July 16, 2024, Compact Magazine

AfD Kompakt, July 16, 2024.

The ban on the Compact magazine is a serious blow against freedom of the press. We view this proceeding with great concern. To ban an organ of the press means a refusal of discourse and variety of opinion. A ban is always the most far-reaching step. Federal Interior Minister Nancy Faeser thereby abuses her competences so as to suppress critical reporting. We demand of the Minister to respect the freedom of the press.

 

[trans: tem]

Michael Kaufmann, June 13, 2024, The Communication of Science

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/175, pp. 22653-22654. 

Frau President. Honored colleagues. 

Science is when a phenomenon is unclear and contested. Everything else is textbook-learning. The result of a scientific study applies until it is disproved by the next study. 

            Götz Frömming (AfD): Right!

It is beyond question that this characteristic of science as a conflict of differing positions and interests is much too little communicated. Much more are supposedly scientific facts used as clubs so as to defend political decisions. 

            Götz Frömming (AfD): Clearly!

Who thus proceeds, he not only abuses science but also damages its authority [Ansehen]. And yet no man can live in a modern society without taking into consideration scientific knowledge in regards his own decisions. A communication of science which puts the people in the position for that requires two prerequisites: First, the mature, enlightened and sufficiently educated citizen and second, a non-valuating, non-selective conveyance, open to result, of all scientific standpoints. Neither are posited to a requisite extent. The education level finds itself in free fall. Before we speak on a successful communication of science, the rapid downfall of the education system needs to be reversed. 

            Götz Frömming (AfD): Ja!

Yet much more questionable is that we nevertheless experience a selective communication in regards to many themes like Corona, climate, yes, even in regards biological facts, which more strongly reflects the present government’s agenda than the factual scientific debate. 

            Götz Frömming (AfD): It is precisely so!

Who clearly contradicts will be delegitimized and thrown out of the public discussion. 

Inquire for once in that regard of the Netzwerk Wissenschaftsfreiheit which you have deliberately kept out of all debates on the themes of the communication of science. 

            Götz Frömming (AfD): Yes! Indeed why?

Let us take the Corona crisis as an example. This you bring up as a fine example of a communication of science. Yet the opposite is the case, which we most lately knew from the RKI [Robert Koch Institute] protocols. Who then warned, which was also discussed by the RKI interns, that namely school closings, the isolation of people or continual wearing of masks, are followed by serious harms, was defamed as a Corona denier. That was no communication of science, that was a dictatorial suppression of a scientific discourse. 

            Rupert Stüwe (SPD): Whom do you now reproach for living in a dictatorship?

Yet where possible, is exactly that wanted; exactly that is wanted. Karl Lauterbach, in any case, pleads for that in his book, Bevor es zu spät [Before it it too late], 

            Götz Frömming (AfD): Gott!

in case of an emergency, to place at the rear democracy, 

            Beatrix von Storch (AfD): Hear! Hear!

and establish a dictatorship of science. That is not only scientifically blank nonsense, 

            Bruno Hönel (Greens): That is a calumny!

it would be a violation of the constitution. 

            Götz Frömming (AfD): Defend the constitution! Stop the Greens!

You demand in your motion a plethora of instruments and formats for the communication of science. To what end? We have the public broadcasting, so esteemed by you. Therefore, commit yourself to that is fulfilled in your education mission, instead of fighting the opposition. 

With Scicomm, you recruit a new instrument to protect scientists from hostilities. There, I have good news for you. This instrument already exists; it’s called police and justice. Contradiction supports the threshold of culpability, whereas any grown man may persevere – just so in science, where dispute and discourse are the norm. 

Thanks. 

            Götz Frömming (AfD): A very good speech!

 

 

[trans: tem]

Martin Sichert, May 16, 2024, WHO Pandemic Treaty

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/169, pp. 21744-21745. 

Valued Praesidium. Ladies and gentlemen.

 “Bill Gates decides what is healthy”. Thus the Southwest Radio in 2019 captioned the WHO [World Health Organization]. Eighty percent of the WHO’s means comes from donations. The biggest donor is Bill Gates who also acquires distinct influence on the decisions. 

Yet not only the influence of lobbyists is a problem. For China also, the WHO has a quite special affinity.

             Johannes Fechner (SPD): You’re in good company, there.

China deserves the world’s thanks and respect for its conduct in the Corona time, says the WHO general-secretary Tedros. China, which brought Corona into the world, which forbade people access to their own dwellings, which from the beginning systematically mis-used Corona 

            Tina Rudolph (SPD): From China, you get your money!

to re-educate its own people. China wants to be a model for the WHO – or also for you, as you here demonstrate in interruptions; but as a free democrat, I defend myself against Mao’s spiritual descendants deciding over German policy. 

With the pandemic treaty shall be created international, unified procedural means during, following and primarily between pandemics. Thus essentially always. Against this is Article 20 of the Basic Law: “All state power proceeds from the people.” Not China, not Bill Gates, not Tedros, are to decide on Germany’s policy, 

            Johannes Wagner (Greens): What are you really saying here? Such rubbish!

but solely and alone the German people. 

Essential components of the planned WHO agreement are control of information and surveillance. Similarly, two basic rights are opposed to this: Article 3: “No one may be disadvantaged on account…of his political views.” Article 5: : “Each has the right… to freely express his opinion…A censorship may not occur.” Who loves freedom of opinion, needs to vote against the pandemic treaty. 

What’s more, the WHO wants to establish international digital evidence in healthcare. That is a massive intrusion in the basic right of informational self-determination which we decisively reject. Briefly stated, in regards the pandemic treaty, it’s about that sovereignty will be surrendered, freedom of opinion curtailed, and the transparent citizen [gläserne Bürger] established. 

            Johannes Wagner (Greens): That’s not right.

That is a storm assault on the free, democratic basic order which every informed member needs to oppose. 

Where is the Bundestag’s commanding war-monger, the howitzer of the FDP, the self-named “Grandma Courage”? Where is Frau Strack-Zimmermann when it’s a matter of defending against a real attack on the free, democratic basic order? 

Johannes Wagner (Greens): “Where is Petr Bystron”, I ask you. Where is Herr Bystron? I thought he wanted to speak this morning! 

Here, it’s quite easy. Instead of positioning oneself against the pandemic treaty, the kids all over the country prefer to terrorize with their gruesome placards. 

You designate yourselves ever again as democratic parties. Today you can for once show how democratic you really are. Democracy is put together from the words “Demos”, the people, and “Kratos”, the rule. 

            Johannes Wagner (Greens): You are paid by China and Russia! 

Democracy is thus the rule of the people. Any conveyance of power to international organizations is hostile to democracy, because it disempowers one’s own people. 

            Dirk-Ulrich Mende (SPD): Such nonsense.

It is entirely enough that we here have politicians like Karl Lauterbach who in all seriousness planned to forbid access to business for those not vaccinated, and wanted to compel injections for people. In other countries, people with such criminal energies sit behind bars; for us, on the government bench. 

            Heike Baehrens (SPD): That is an atrocity.

The Federal government is burden enough for Germany. We also do not need a conveyance of political influence to a marionet in the grasp of lobbyists and autocratic regimes like the WHO.   

            Johannes Wagner (Greens): You are paid by autocrats!

We today make a vote by name so that each of you shows whether he is for the German people, for sovereignty, democracy, freedom and data protection, or is opposed. 

            Tina Rudolph (SPD): That is awful. 

You remember each year on July 20 one of the famous German Resistance fighters. Vote today in the sense of his last words: „Es lebe das heilige Deutschland!” 

            Dirk-Ulrich Mende (SPD): That you are not ashamed!

 

[trans: tem]