Gereon Bollmann, April 21, 2023, Vaccination Harms

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/98, p. 11809. 

Frau President. Dear colleagues. Ladies and gentlemen in the tribune. Good morning!

It composes 22 pages, the concluding report for the health effects of Corona on children and youth. One should thus actually expect a comprehensive and complete clarification. Yet to me appears noteworthy is not what the report describes but what it keeps quiet. One perhaps recalls the 17 year old gymnast who, after the second BioNTech shot, needed a year in hospital. Valued colleagues of the CSU, here it is about the well-known Markus Söder shots and about vaccination harm. The theme of vaccination harm simply imposes itself.

Yet if the reader now leafs through these 22 pages so as to learn what the Federal government plans to do to clarify and comprehend the vaccination harms in regards children and youth, what it plans so as to at least prevent in the future the current harms, what it plans so as to compensate children and youth for vaccination harm, one is left thus disillusioned as to what was actually expected of you. Since of that is found simply nothing.

Now then, dear colleagues, I for once explain to you. – Listen well! Clarification never harms! – The Paul Ehrlich Institute up to February of this year registered 3,227 suspected cases of serious vaccination harm for 12 to 17 year olds. Even this horrific number does not describe the true extent. The doctors indeed need to report vaccination harms. Yet for that a doctor requires more than 30 minutes and that is still without fee! A clear legislative failure – a rogue who thinks it evil [ein Schelm, wer Böses dabei denkt]. Professor Werner Bergholz – also known to you as an evaluator – has recently referred to the vaccination of 266 dead children in Europe and to over 15,000 serious side-effects. To be added of course is the large gray area.

A study published in the U.S.A. this year of 8,000 students from 12 years who received the second vaccination with the Pfizer preparation – I know that the numbers do not please you – yields for example a 17 percent indication of diverse kinds of heart damage; that is nearly every fifth child. With reference to the 12 to 17 year olds and their vaccination rate in Germany, this yields some 260,000 cases. That would be of the highest alarm – and the government turns away and even cloaks the shrill alarm clock with a mendacious concluding report.

Nein, it does not suffice, Herr Rix, that you have three times referred to the failures, to what has happened. These are no more than crocodile tears. We need clarification. Nothing is to be hushed up, hindrances to an understanding of vaccination harms must be removed, and the victims must be appropriately compensated. It’s bad enough that I here at all need to mention this.

            Leni Breymaier (SPD): You need not!

            Emilia Fester (Green): You could have spared yourself!

 

[trans: tem]

Gereon Bollmann, September 29, 2022, Data Storage and Child Abuse

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/57, pp. 6274-6275.

Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen.

I think the course so far of the debate indicates that we all might be very well agreed on at least one point: That the sexualized violence against children is one of the most horrific of crimes. Actually, that is fairly clear. And that the fight against it is a policy goal of the utmost importance certainly is not in question. The data protection however is. And because it is, once again in the last weeks two governments have suffered shipwreck before the European High Court: The French and the German. Both governments once again did not sufficiently take into view the freedoms [Freiheitsrechte] of citizens. We therefore now require a careful assessment of legal interests – and no hasty reaction of the adherents of a surveillance state.

Now already three of four cases of sexualized violence against children can be cleared up. The American child protection organization NCMEC watches over nearly all internet activity in this direction. From this organization the BKA receives the necessary data, and indeed quite without retained data storage [Vorratsdatenspeicherung] in Germany. No one though can seriously reckon how high the clarification rate would be if all IP addresses were stored. There is thus no cause for an excessive hurry.

Perhaps at this point: Frau Lindholz, you have certainly opened the debate with your proposal. You are an advocate for family law. I was a judge in the family senate of a regional appellate court. You have of course cited the passage accurately. Yet at the same time, you have not addressed the conditions which are in the European High Court’s decision.

Günther Krings (CDU/CSU): Namely?

We have been referred to it by the colleague of the Linke, and also Herr Jacobi has basically made reference to it: It is admissible, although plainly just conditional.

Andrea Lindholz (CDU/CSU): Yes! Specifically in this case is it admissible! Exactly these cases have been explicitly singled out, Herr colleague!

What namely, Frau Lindholz, is in play? With your permission, Frau President, I cite another point. So listen well! Accordingly, the following is possible:

…traffic and venue data, which have been stored for ten or four weeks, can however be of very exact consequence to private lives of persons

            Günther Krings (CDU/CSU): Yet it’s not about that!

            Andrea Lindholz (CDU/CSU): It’s about IP addresses!

whose data was stored – perhaps on habits of daily life, permanent or predominant places of abode

            Andrea Lindholz (CDU/CSU): It’s not about that!

            Günther Krings (CDU/CSU): That is quite a different theme!

– it is nevertheless the consequence, Herr Dr. Krings – daily, or in other cycles, ensuing changes of place,

Andrea Lindholz (CDU/CSU): Yet that has nothing to do with our motion!

activities practiced, social relations of these persons, the social milieu in which they move – and especially, making possible the construction of profiles of these persons.

Günther Krings (CDU/CSU): We are already long since out! It is simply not the same!

Andrea Lindholz (CDU/CSU): Absence of theme!

Dear colleagues, it almost cannot be stressed abundantly enough that this would affect almost exclusively persons who have nothing at all to do with criminality. It further says in the decision that the fight against serious criminality is indeed of great significance, yet per se could not justify the necessity of a preventive measure of general and undifferentiated retained data storage.

I come to conclusion, Frau President. – On precisely these grounds we reject a storage of data without cause. Only with sufficient suspicion and – I stress – only with a judicial order are interventions in informational self-determination acceptable; not however by means of a legal free ride ticket.

Many thanks.

 

[trans: tem]

 

Gereon Bollmann, April 7, 2022, Equal Treatment Law

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/28, pp. 2451-2452.

Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen.

We are occupied today with an alteration of the general equal treatment law. Yet if the draft law is for once looked at more precisely, the disillusionment is great; since – colleague Wolf has already made mention of it – it is not about content, it is about an appointment to positions.

            Kaweh Mansoori (SPD): The content comes in a second step.

The appointment of the anti-discrimination leadership positions was lately many times – we have already heard from Herr Lehmann – challenged by a competing action. Yet it now does not somehow affect a lawful selection decision, though the posts were left vacant for four long years, and now the legislature should rule as quickly as possible. The applicant shall no longer be named by the Family Minister upon the proposal of the Federal government, but he shall be elected by the Bundestag.

            Ulle Schauws (Greens): Ja! Then you also can vote. That is just super!

Yet how nice that a suitable applicant can be now heaved into office without needing to fear a disagreeable competing action!

            Irene Mihalic (Greens): Oje!

Dear colleagues, daily in the public service numerous posts will be bestowed. Just because the Family Ministry is not in a position for a lawful selection process, nevertheless no law need be changed, Herr Lehmann.

Ulle Schauws (Greens): It also has to do with the theme’s higher value and importance! If for once you made yourself aware of it!

Simply suffices the strict adherence to the best selection. Here for once take remedial aid! Naturally this does not work if one wants to unconditionally assist a political favorite into this position. Nevertheless, give a bit more effort to the objections!

According to the draft law, the applicant shall be elected by the Bundestag. Yet behind the scenes the decision, as before, abides with the executive; since without a proposal from the Federal government, an election simply does not take place. It is thus a fairy tale. The leadership positions certainly do not obtain a higher value as a result of an election proceeding.

            Ulle Schauws (Greens): Just!

Since the executive still holds in its hands the decisive threads as before.

            Ulle Schauws (Greens): Naturally is that a higher valuation!

Ja, you think so.

In addition, the new regulation contradicts a central determination of our constitutional law, namely the separation of powers principle of Article 20, paragraph 2, line 2, of the Basic Law. – Take a look, just for once, Herr Rix. – According to this principle, the Bundestag has to limit itself to legislative activity and the control of the government. The appointment to a service post in the public administration is however neither legislation nor control.

            Filiz Polat (Greens): You want to be a lawyer and have no idea!

And this cannot be compared to the election of the Chancellor; since the election of the Chancellor is an exception, and exceptions are always to be handled on a limited basis.Thus the Bundestag elects neither the Ministers, the State Secretaries or other applicants for the higher service in the Federal officialdom. The recruitment of personnel is on the contrary the highest duty of the executive.

            Ulle Schauws (Greens): Crying does not make it better!

And even if we here elect no minister: Why should it then be right with regards to the separation of powers to appoint to an administrative post within a ministry by means of an election? This in any case is not disclosed to me.

            Stephan Brandner (AfD): To me neither.

            Irene Mihalic (Greens): You need not vote!

Once again, a draft law of the coalition disregards our Basic Law. It is somewhat pitiful to again need to look at how carelessly fundamental and unchanging pillars of a free, democratic state of law will be dealt with, which such outstanding thinkers as Aristotle, John Locke or Montesquieu have developed to stabilize a state by means of the separation of powers.

We reject election by the Bundestag for the service posts. We will watch with close attention how many remaining friends of our Basic Law this sovereign house indeed still has.

Many thanks for your attention.

            Katja Mast (SPD): Old, white men!

Ulle Schauws (Greens): That was incompetent! Child-men! You have understood simply nothing!

Filiz Polat (Greens): What an uncultivated man you are! Where did you have your upbringing?

 

[trans: tem]