Gottfried Curio, September 24, 2026, Stasi 2.0

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/96, pp. 11786-11787.

Right honorable President. Ladies and gentlemen.

The essential content of this secret service reform may be easily summarized:
To position the state as criminal offender exempt from punishment. The 
blessed old Kanzlerin would well have said: To make injustice legal. And the 
former interior minister, her party colleague, would have quite appropriately
named it "The Rule of Injustice". - That you want to pull this through is a 
scandal. That you believe these kinds of measures to be required, that allows
a deep look. You obviously no longer proceed according to the state of law. 

Dear citizens, the Constitution Protection shall in the future covertly break 
into your dwelling and surveille and take note of the events in your private 
sphere. Later, it shall intrude into your laptops and handys, and interfere 
there - inclusive of deletions and falsifications of information. In addition, 
the use of fictitious documents or deceptive identity in general legal 
proceedings shall belong to the state toolbox. And so-called trusted persons
shall use close, personal relations for state extraction of information. When
those are not measures forming trust! You do not drip the poison of the 
informer state into society. You pour out the entire bath over the baby, 
ladies and gentlemen!

And further: Data on minors shall be created which shall be deleted just 
after two or five years. Conversely, 16 year olds shall be infiltrated into 
terrorist associations for logistical assistance - exempted from criminal 
prosecution. 16 year olds will be made useful criminals in terrorist gangs. 
The author of this draft law with its instigation of criminal acts by minors
should definitely not be exempted from criminal prosecution. 

Here will be diligently torn down the border between covert, secret 
service detection and operational police intervention to ward off dangers. 
Such arrogated self-empowerment is to be rejected. When proceedings 
achieve intervention relevance, police and state prosecutors are to be 
questioned. We already have the means. What is not required is your secret
police [Geheimpolizei]. 

And then your deletion and falsification of intelligence as well as the 
preparation  - that is to say, active performance - of false information!
This state falsification of information contradicts state law securing 
evidence

Alexander Hoffmann (CDU/CSU): Yet the AfD can 
also do that!

and citizens' rights of information. The Constitution Protection with 
the license to counterfeit devalues the truth in general, and there where 
it never lays a finger. Thus evidence is devalued. You write on the 
computers what you then wish to utilize [...] No Geheimpolizei, no 
police state could more resolutely invent it.

It is more than the total surveillance state. The goal is the state of 
the lie, secured by statute, the state as fraudster and secret manipulator.
Following Gestapo and Stasi, this government now plans to 
systematize violations of the Basic Law, to manipulate, to sabotage, 
to deceive. With these disintegration measures, the Constitution 
Protection will be re-built for Stasi 2.0. 

Sebastian Fiedler (SPD): You know what's what 
with that!

Affected citizens shall learn nothing of the state trickery. That makes 
sense: Who does not know that he is surveilled and manipulated 
can also not defend himself in court.

Günter Krings (CDU/CSU): Inconceivable! That has 
nothing to do with this draft law, what you are telling 
here!

With the accompanying music of targeted panic-making is prepared 
the encroachment on private property and the citizens' intimate 
sphere. Article 13 of the Basic Law says quite clearly: "The dwelling 
is inviolable." This basic law protects the private sphere of the 
citizen from state encroachment and surveillance measures. Yet the 
secret entering of the dwelling shall now become a legitimate work 
tool. 

And the Putsch against the state of law obtains a just so exact 
headway when pseudo-concepts like disinformation become 
accepted political currency. Disinformation, in the sense of the 
government, is any divergent political opinion which endangers its 
own narrative. Thus is the whole adapted for a systemic shutting-off
of every opposition, ladies and gentlemen. 

That these measures have been agreed to by the newly installed 
independent control council conveys nothing at all. It is 
hand-picked specifically from the parliamentary control board 
which in turn is dominated by the government. There are then 
installed adaptable party friends. One may thereon consider
that the highest German court is armed [bestückt] with proven 
political thought comrades from an old-party clique in an internal 
process according to the party books!

Ladies and gentlemen, the state as perpetrator - where previously
secret services gather, observe and pass on their knowledge to 
police and judiciary for clarification before a court. The separation 
order was the lesson from the German dictatorships. Now shall the 
state Geheimpolizei falsify intelligence and distribute false
information. Planned is nothing less than the state lie as a sanctioned
system. 

This government no longer knows to otherwise help itself. It needs
the state which is allowed to lie, and needs not say to us when. Ladies 
and gentlemen, one needs know nothing more of this government. 

[trans: tem] 

Christian Wirth, September 10, 2026, Constitution Protection Office

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/93, pp. 11497-11498.

Frau President. Herr Minister. Valued colleagues.

In the year 2016 - ten years ago - the addition in the Federal budget for the 
Federal Office for Protection of the Constitution amounted to some 260 million 
euros. Since then, the Constitution Protection clearly receives almost every year 
a growth of means. In the year 2025, the means already amounted to 577 million 
euros. In the present budget for the year 2026 we have reached 690 million euros. 
In the budget plan for the year 2027, it is as per the government draft 860 million
euros, again an increase of some 25 percent in comparison to the previous year. 
What have the taxpayers received for that as a return? Since the CDU-led Federal
government under Merkel opened the borders, numerous Islamist terror attacks 
have been thwarted. Some unfortunately could not be prevented. In nearly all 
thwarted cases, if not even in every, single case, the decisive evidence came 
from secret services of our foreign partners. The Federal Office for Protection of 
the Constitution is blind. 

Why is that so? For one, the Federal Intelligence Service and the Federal Office  
for Protection of the Constitution [VS] lack authority and, for another, the 
German secret service for years is misused for criminalizing unfavored opinions 
of citizens and the opposition. A unique proceeding among democratic states!
The Federal government now wants to work on the problem of the absent 
authority, yet with its planned reforms clearly goes too far. For Interior Minister
Dobrindt has overtaken from his predecessor the partisan political narrative that
the greatest danger proceeds from the extreme right. 

Instead of, at enormous expense, gathering crimes of opinion and construing an 
unconstitutionality beneath the threshold of criminal culpability, the VS should 
apply itself to the actual threats to our free, democratic basic order. Those are 
espionage, terrorism and violence-prone extremism.

The Constitution Protection shall however in the future not only observe, 
evaluate and report, but itself covertly intervene in the reality. Among other 
things are foreseen the access to private IT systems, entrances of domestic 
dwellings, interventions in data connections, as well as the deletion or 
falsification of stored information. Those affected, under circumstances, could
never come to know of such measures. 

Especially alarming is the planned possibility of recruiting of 16 and 17 year olds
as confidantes. Minors would thereby be made paid informers of a domestic 
secret service. This is no harmless instrument of inquiry, ladies and gentlemen, 
but an attack on trust, family, school and social cohesion. A state, Herr Minister, 
which makes spies of minors tends not to freedom but to denunciation. 

Still more heavily weighs that the Constitution Protection's draft shall enable 
diverting or altering data streams, providing false information and deleting or 
falsifying stored data. The secret service thereby from observer becomes actor.
And the control is not convincing. An independent control council is indeed 
foreseen. In urgent cases the authorities' administration shall nevertheless be able
to immediately carry out measures. The control then follows subsequently, while 
a report on the Mebrofenin [radioactive tracer] can be permanently omitted. The 
control board in addition shall be elected by the parliamentary control board on 
which the largest opposition delegation, the AfD delegation, is denied a seat on 
partisan political grounds, even though it is legally entitled [rechtlich zusteht].

Konstantin von Notz (Green): You will not be elected! In a 
democracy elected! You are entitled to absolutely nothing!
[Ihnen steht gar nichts zu!]

The obviously partisan political misuse of the Constitution Protection now certainly
becomes public when party politicians of all colors strike an alarm shortly before 
a possible AfD-led State government. The State Office for Protection of the 
Constitution may in the end be accountable to an AfD interior minister. Hear, hear!
Involuntarily comic and self-revealing!

The chief of the Thüringen Constitution Protection Office and SPD member 
Stephen Kramer wants in the future to withhold from the Sachsen-Anhalt 
colleagues, for example, information from the Constitution Protection association,
and have specific agents and sources withdrawn and overtaken by other authorities.
Many citizens may ask themselves in regards such plans what then is actually sought
to be hidden with such measures. 

Ladies and gentlemen, the AfD stands for a domestic secret service which occupies 
itself with the actual threats. 

Sebastian Fiedler (SPD): Say for once something on Russia! I'm
listening! What do we do with Russia?

Those are terrorism, espionage and violence-prone extremism. Here, we extend the
hand, Herr Minister. 

Many thanks and Glück auf!

[trans: tem]

Stephan Brandner, July 9, 2026, Surveillance State

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/89, pp. 10939-10940.

Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen. 

One aspect so far comes up somewhat short, namely, the activity of the 14 state
media institutions financed from compulsory fees, the duty of which is to secure
the variety of the offerings and of the opinions, to protect the media freedom and 
supervise private broadcasters.  It should be thought, with that, these institutions 
were used to capacity. Yet a couple of days ago we read what these institutions 
may still put out. By means of artificial intelligence, they uninterruptedly 
rummage through the internet, thus without cause spy on all citizens and pass on 
the knowledge thus gained to those of the so-called Constitution Protection 
Office, the domestic secret service. And what they thus thereby put out, can be 
imagined in one’s darkest thoughts.  

With a software which bears the nice name of KIVI, media guardians sift
through the internet. How, what, where, exactly how gathered remains
a secret. We nevertheless know: From 2022 until today, KIVI has identified
nationwide over 130,000 alleged violations of the law. These offenses were
automated and reported to the Federal Criminal Office. Contact data, photos, 
audios, videos, data, region, reactions, religious and ideological convictions, 
political opinions, data on sexual orientation – these state media institutions 
filter all of that from the internet. One needs imagine what is loose there, 
ladies and gentlemen. 

The good George Orwell once accordingly expressed himself, cite:
“To need live in belief every noise made was heard, every movement
observed.” – Dark words of Orwell from the novel 1984, which meanwhile 
are sadly a mournful reality. 

The state surveillance apparatus grows and flourishes, ja, it routinely blooms. 
The compulsory financed public broadcasting serves in fact the uncontrolled 
manipulation of opinion and the propaganda. The state media institutions
on the other side overtake the surveillance on the internet. How precisely 
and with which consequences remains in the dark. The intimidation 
apparatus unfortunately functions very well in Germany. 

And not only that: Free podcasters will in addition be blocked by the state 
media institutions intervening for statements thought to be false, and these 
are immediately presented or classified as not true. Otherwise in the blather 
shows and news bulletins in the state broadcasting at ARD and ZDF: 
There, lies and propaganda can be spread unfiltered and unpunished. Never 
have I understood that Lanz, Hayali and consorts were requested to contradict 
falsehoods with moderation, or keep to the truth. Two different standards! 
And that is scarcely communicable [vermittelbar], ladies and gentlemen.

Freedom of opinion ends there where the over-reaching state begins, and there 
we are already too far. The state media institutions make themselves a part of 
this apparatus for accomplices and for a Zenzurapparat. They all know as of  
September Leif-Erik Holm in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern and our friend Uli
Siegmund in Sachsen-Anhalt will clean up and this construct will be brought to 
a collapse. For that, we work dawn to dusk, ladies and gentlemen.

Many thanks. 

[trans: tem]

Leif-Erik Holm, July 9, 2026, Public Broadcasting

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/89, pp. 10933-10934.

Dear citizens. Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen.

The theme of public broadcasting [öffentlich-rechtlicher Rundfunk, ÖRR]
affects very many people. They are rightly discontent with an extremely 
expensive broadcasting which we all need to finance and which at the same
time often reports without balance. When over 40 percent of the citizens no 
longer trust the ÖRR along the path, then is clear: We need to change 
things, and that we will do. I personally will also do that in my 
homeland in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern if I should become the next 
minister-president.

The question is: Is in the digital age still at all required so large a public 
broadcasting? The media supply is meanwhile gigantic; there are many 
free providers on the internet. And that is thus good. In this place, I thank 
all who are active on the internet, for thus has been developed a corrective
for a public broadcasting very close to the state. I say in addition not 
everything on the internet pleases me. Yet there is a distinction to public
broadcasting: I need not pay for it. 

Martin Renner (AfD): So it is!

And exactly that is it. While we need pay for everything on the ZDF, even 
for a dose of poison like Böhmermann, things can be freely received on the
internet. I can really understand anyone who no longer wants to finance 
the format like “Böhmermann” and Co. 

Maik Brückner (Linke): I don’t want to finance you!

That of course goes for me exactly so. Unfortunately, there are too many 
examples of it.

It is ever again the problem in the public broadcasting: It plainly does not 
report as it would be in its contract, objectively and balanced, but it ever 
again has a slant. We see that in the talkshow invitations, in the ever again 
tendentious reporting. For example, it was asserted in the NDR, in regards 
me in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, our government program had a völkisch-
nationalistischen keynote – completely absurd!

Everyone who has seen the program sees it. Even other journalists shake 
their heads over it. Or it is seen in the “Correctiv” fairy tales, or in the attack
on Elon Musk, he had called for a hunt of migrants. That completely
by-passes the truth. On that account: The ÖRR need not complain about its
loss of trust.

The citizens do not want to pay 9 billion euros so as to then receive 
curated [betreutes] television. They want an honest service provider which
says to them what is, which shows them the entire picture in a debate so 
that the people themselves can form an opinion. And here the public 
broadcasting ever again fails. 

Maik Brückner (Linke): Just don’t scream so!

In addition, the costs run out of control. When intendants earn more than 
the Federal Chancellor – over 400,000 euros per year – that can be 
explained to no one. We will change that. 

We need also end the power of parties in the supervisory boards. I find 
it an unequalled impudence that in regards to me in Mecklenburg-
Vorpommern, the Minister-president Schwesig deployed two active State
legislative politicians in the NDR broadcasting council. I find that simply
not suitable.

One thing is clear, ladies and gentlemen. If the AfD in the autumn 
overtakes responsibility in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, then there will be 
reforms. For the broadcasting clearly needs to become cheaper. It needs 
to guarantee a balanced reporting. And the partisan clique at the 
broadcasting and administration council needs to stop.

Therefore, my promise: As minister-president, I will directly after 
overtaking office cancel the NDR broadcasting contract

Vice-president Josephine Ortleb: Your speaking time is 
at an end. 

because it is necessary. 

[trans: tem]

Markus Bucheit, April 8, 2026, EU Speech Codes

EU Parliament, Brussels, Question for written answer  E-001432/2026. 

Internal company emails released to the US House Judiciary Committee reveal that major platforms perceived participation in the Code of Practice on Disinformation and the Code of Conduct on Hate Speech as ‘effectively mandatory’, with agendas ‘set under strong impetus from the EU Commission’ and ‘consensus’ achieved under heavy regulatory pressure, especially once the Digital Services Act (DSA) was in sight. 

1.         How does the Commission reconcile its public claim that these codes are purely voluntary self-regulatory instruments with the reality that companies understood non-participation as exposing them to heightened enforcement risks and future DSA sanctions of up to 6 % of their global turnover? 

2.         Does the Commission acknowledge that using the threat of future binding legislation and severe fines to steer ‘voluntary’ commitments can create a chilling effect on lawful political speech and incentivize platforms to over remove controversial but legal content, particularly on migration, COVID-19 and gender ideology? 

3.         Will the Commission publish all its guidance, instructions and meeting readouts related to these codes, so that citizens and Parliament can assess whether its conduct remained within the limits of content neutral regulation, or whether it effectively dictated substantive editorial lines for private platforms?

Siegbert Droese, February 9, 2026, Digital Euro and Inflation

EU Parliament, Strasbourg, P10 CRE-REV(2026)02-09(1-0107/0115-0000). 

Frau President. Frau President Lagarde. Honored colleagues. 

We debate today the year’s report of the European Central Bank. This report shows primarily one thing: A central bank which is ever further removed from its actual mandate. The monetary policy of the last years has led to noticeable inflation. Millions of citizens, savers, pensioners daily lose purchasing power. Instead of clearly reappraising these failures, the ECB already plans the next profound intervention – the digital euro. 

The digital euro was sold to us all as a harmless modernization project. In truth, it is a political project which deeply intervenes into the citizens’ financial freedom. The digital euro solves no real problem, nevertheless creates numerous new risks. It is a great experiment. A digital euro creates the very concrete danger of step by step driving out cash. It makes possible the state tracking of payments, and opens the long-term possibility of taking influence in how and for what citizens may use their money. Who believes this instrument would never be politically mis-used ignores the experience of history. 

Yes, President Lagarde, you seek to pacify us today, in which you announce the third series of euro banknotes. Yet: The Alternative für Deutschland, the ESN delegation, demand a clear return of the ECB to price stability, transparency, and adherence to mandate. No digital euro without unlimited preservation of cash, no further power increase for an institution without democratic control. Stable money and freedom go together. Both today are on the daily order, both today are in play. 

[…] Herr colleague, many thanks for your speech. You speak of the ECB’s duty: Currency stability, price stability. The ECB president today here admitted in parliament there supposedly had been in the past only 10.8 percent inflation. Now the inflation is again at a normal level. The question to you: Do you believe that the ECB heads, Frau Lagarde is here present, that the ECB heads realistically estimate the social consequences of inflation? 

 

[trans: tem]

Ruben Rupp, January 15, 2026, TTPA and Freedom’s Advocate

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/53, pp. 6312-6314. 

Right honorable President. Honored members. 

The CDU Minister-president Daniel Günther just a few days ago quite openly declared the press to be an enemy. He spoke of censorship, ja, even of a ban of free media – statements which, let us be honest, had they been used by an AfD minister-president 

            Bettina Hagedorn (SPD): Happily, there are none!

would have immediately led to demands for a party ban proceeding. They will now by the Union be relativized and applauded, dear colleagues of the CDU/CSU. If you have the decency, then distance yourself here and today from such authoritarian fantasies of the minister-president. 

            Maja Wallstein (SPD): You speak like the blind man of color. 

            Stephan Brandner (AfD): Wow! Can the next speaker do the same?

Especially handy for Günther and his supporters is that the European Union meanwhile delivers precisely this tool suitable for his authoritarian dreams from the Digital Services Act, which the coordinating office for digital service in fact degrades to a censorship authority 

            Konrad Körner (CDU/CSU): That is false!

by the planned EU chat control which shall make possible an unfounded mass surveillance of citizens, up to a so-called decree on “transparency and targeting of political advertising”; in short: TTPA. And before you, as so often in these debates, respond to our motion [Drucksache 21/3609] with over-reaching allegations: 

            Ronja Kemmer (CDU/CSU): Mimimi!

Just because we want to cancel the TTPA is not to say we are against transparency or would tolerate foreign influence in elections. 

            Anna Luthmann (Greens): Ach so!

These fairy tales of the AfD as a supposed foreign marionette are simply untrue. Possibly you are simply envious because you yourselves scarcely still have international contacts. In short: This marionette card is in all cases the cheapest propaganda, and I am sure you will again today unpack this propaganda, because you have no arguments against the AfD and against this motion. 

            Sonja Lemke (Linke): We have quite good arguments against the AfD!

In fact, this decree is an attack on the opposition and freedom of the press. Yet in turn you come along. 

Ostensibly, the TTPA theme comes as so often with an apparently plausible reasoning: No influencing of elections! Yet it’s only about transparency. That this decree for transparency is not necessary is shown by the state of the social media prior to the introduction of this decree. 

I myself have connected digital advertising on Facebook. I needed to quite clearly specify who financed the advertisement, needed to authenticate it with the personal statement, and much more. That was transparent, that was sufficient. 

What now does the TTPA do beyond that? Expensive compliance, extremely difficult targeting, massive legal insecurity for platforms. What now exactly is political advertising? And at what point is it political advertising? – And a high risk of compensatory fines for the smallest mistakes! The result: The effective withdrawal of almost all large platforms – Meta with Facebook and Instagram, Google with YouTube. Since October 2025, political paid advertising in social media is de facto no longer possible. 

And whom does that harm? Not the governing parties, not the established media houses, 

            Johannes Schätzel (SPD): So far from the reality!

not ARD and ZDF. Harmed will be new parties, opposition forces, critical associations, candidates and think tanks. And yes, quite especially Germany’s strongest party, the AfD, will be harmed. Since we are present in the digital spectrum, because we enjoy no favorable, continual coverage by large publishing houses, or by public broadcasting media, like all of you here. 

What thus here is in fact happening is the targeted shutdown of a political competitor under the pretense of an ostensible transparency. I say: Away with this undemocratic, junk decree of the European Union! 

And if you now ask: Yes, AfD, what then is your solution for the influencing of elections? Quite simple: The fight against foreign influence is a duty of the security authorities, among others, the Federal intelligence service [BND, Bundesnachrichtendienst]. This ought to be strengthened. Since in the secret service work, we are meanwhile near completely dependent on the U.S.A. – and that because you in the area of security- and key-technologies have slumbered for years. That is your responsibility and your failure. 

Nevertheless, you are especially disillusioning in this debate – and this I cannot spare you, Herr Digital Minister Wildberger – with your cabinet draft law for political advertising transparency, the national ensuing legislation for the TTPA. This draft in regards so-called advertisers, thus parties, associations, business and political candidates, expressly enables house searches and seizures on account of ostensible violations of transparency. We are here quite quickly into criminal law. Who works politically needs in the future to thereby figure that he receives a house search. 

            Johannes Schätzel (SPD): Such rubbish!

And just retroactively can he defend himself against that. You thereby clearly create an intimidation effect. I ask you: Is that your idea of freedom of the press and fair, democratic competition? Ours is quite clearly not. 

And it becomes still worse. In regards danger in delay, house searches shall even be possible without legal writ. What may we then imagine of that? Does that mean that the successful pay videos, critical of the government, from Alice Weidel or from Nius chief Reichert are a danger in delay? The video is uploaded – danger in delay – and directly there are house searches on the initiative of the coordinating office for digital services which is controlled by the Digital Ministry? Need we imagine it? 

            Johannes Schätzel (SPD): Nein!

That something so is at all in a cabinet draft is incomprehensible. On this account, I say: Without delay, take back these regulations, Herr Digital Minister. 

If you do not believe me: It is in black and white in §6 and §7 of the cabinet draft. I myself have again taken a peek. I yesterday questioned the minister in committee. He disputed all of these problems which I listed here, designated the criticism – by analogy – as disinformation. 

            Konrad Körner (CDU/CSU): You too! 

            Johannes Schätzel (SPD): You too!

Herr Minister, here is the last opportunity to set it right. 

I expect here and today a clear statement of the Federal government. Take back this cabinet draft! Or do you adhere to seizures and house search even without a judicial decree? Yes or no? It cannot be so difficult to here clearly declare. 

Regardless of how the Digital Ministry positions itself, the AfD remains now and in the future the advocate for freedom. 

            Bettina Hagedorn (SPD): Hahaha!

You can be sure of it. 

Many thanks. 

 

[trans: tem]

Christine Anderson, November 17, 2025, Digital Omnibus

EU Parliament, Brussels, November 17, 2025, P-004565/2025 Commission. 

Written Question. 

The Commission has signaled that the forthcoming Digital Omnibus may introduce changes to concepts of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) such as compatible use, purpose limitation and secondary processing. Since the GDPR forms the legal foundation for the European digital identity wallet, digital travel credentials (DTCs) and other identity and biometric systems, any modification of these concepts could materially affect the guarantees on which these systems were legislated. 

1. Will the Commission explicitly confirm that any expansion of ‘compatible use’ under the omnibus will not enable personal, identity-linked or biometric data collected under the revised Electronic Identification and Trust Services Regulation (eIDAS 2.0) or for DTCs to be repurposed for analytics, AI training, or security or intelligence objectives? 

2. How will the Commission ensure that identity or travel-related data cannot be further processed beyond the purposes that were originally authorised by sectoral legislation, even if the horizontal GDPR framework becomes more permissive? 

3. Does the Commission commit to maintaining strict purpose limitation for all identity and authentication systems irrespective of any omnibus-related GDPR adjustments?

Ruben Rupp, October 9, 2025, Chat Control and Child Abuse

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/31, pp. 3285-3286. 

Right honorable Frau President. Honorable members. 

I am proud of what we have done this week. 

            Konrad Körner (CSU/CSU): You have done nothing! 

For in common with the critics of the planned EU chat control, we have so built up a massive pressure that the Federal government has given way. They now want to vote no in Council at the vote for a possible baseless mass surveillance. I say one thing quite clearly: Yesterday was a great victory for the citizens, a great victory for the AfD, and a great victory for the freedom – You there laugh, I know. 

            Siegfried Walch (CDU/CSU): That is a joke!

The theater – and now listen closely, colleagues of the Union – up to this week on the theme of EU chat control is a disaster for the Federal government. It shows how disunited you are, as before, on the question of baseless mass surveillance. For long, the Federal government held itself to be covered on the theme of chat control so as to be able, in an expected clandestine ballot in the EU Council, to vote for chat control. 

            Siegfried Walch (CDU/CSU): What rubbish!

Otherwise, why for weeks have you not been concerned for clarification? You would have been able to do that. How so just now, shortly before the vote, a no of the Justice Minister? Where is the Chancellor’s no? That, I miss in place. 

            Götz Frömming (AfD): He’s not at all here!

No, you let it run, managed it up to the close in secrecy. And even in the Digital Committee yesterday, you refused to discuss this point publicly. We know quite precisely why: Because all the world would have seen how divided this Federal government is on this question. 

            Konrad Körner (CSU/CSU): That is just not right! 

            Armand Zorn (SPD): That is not at all right!

Since while the Justice Minister in council openly expressed herself for a no, Chancellor Merz clarified yesterday on X – I cite: 

            “The police protect us all. For that, they require the use of drones and a                              preventive telecommunications surveillance.” 

Quite obviously Chancellor Merz himself wants this mass surveillance of citizens, just so as the Interior Ministry. 

I say one thing to you: If it is not so as I here say, then position yourself here as Federal government – the Chancellor and his Vice-chancellor – and clearly declare that in the entire legislative period it will never come to a vote of this government on chat control!

If you want to do it honestly, do it now and here! We will therein measure you. And of course Chancellor Merz and the Vice-chancellor are again not in the hall. 

I say to you: It scares the citizens – me too – to know that the Chancellor personally and the Interior Ministry continue to want this chat control. 

            Konrad Körner (CSU/CSU): That’s not right!

And it is foreseeable that you will again start such an attempt when the time is ripe. Should you again take a run at this initiative – this I say to you – and dare the first great step for an authoritarian state which, utterly without basis, surveilles the citizens, then you will encounter bitter resistance from the side of the AfD delegation. We will exhaust to the maximum all political and judicial means so as to prevent the surveillance state. You can be sure of that. 

            Günter Kirings (CSU/CSU): Does Putin see it so? 

            Peter Boehringer (AfD): That is so embarrassing! Violations of basic rights!          

            Siegfried Walch (CDU/CSU, indicating speaker): He is embarrassing!

And no, the baseless mass surveillance does not effectively protect our children from disgusting pedophile perpetrators, from child pornography and child abuse. Since even the German child protection union rejects this EU madness as disproportionate and ineffective. And you quite precisely know: The AfD is sometimes the toughest when it is about the fight against child abuse. 

While the leftist bloc up to parts of the Union preferably wants to re-socialize the perpetrators, we want deterrence. 

            Siegfried Walch (CDU/CSU): Yes, madness!

We declare war on cuddling with the perpetrators, for our motto is “protection of victims, instead of protection of perpetrators.” 

Yet for you here in any case it is not about that. Since in regards the EU chat control, it is as with the Digital Services Act: As a reason advanced for a show window. You’ve even said: “We want to block illegal digital content” – okay – and: “The digital area is not allowed to be lawless” – okay. Yet then it was again expanded to disinformation, hate and agitation, and now the EU censors the free opinion. No, we want no state censorship apparat and no baseless surveillance. Exactly therefore needs be again abolished even so the Digital Services Act. The citizens’ freedom is not negotiable. 

 

[trans: tem]

Michael Kaufmann, September 11, 2025, Research and Economy

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/21, p. 2096. 

Right honorable Herr President. Right honorable Frau Minister. Honorable colleagues. 

I have the impression that the governing delegations have placed this extra theme on the daily order in the current hour because they have nothing else to present. But let us look more closely. In your Hightech Agenda is initially one positive thing: You finally admit that we in many areas of research and innovation no longer stand at the top of the world, and that we in many fields are in danger of losing the connection. That is honest, and that distinguishes you from earlier governments which ever only spread the rally cry of carry on. Only he who unsparingly describes the starting point can at all achieve improvements. 

But then: Much paper, little plan. Your Hightech Agenda is full of programs, roadmaps and hubs, yet without clear measurable goals. Who wants to, can lose himself in this wasteland, but it does not indicate the way to the future. Just quite at the end, there will be a few more concrete – for all that – yet too few. Explanations of intention are no strategy. 

I do not want to contest that you have good intentions. Yet your euphoria I share not at all; for all of your predecessors have promised one thing: Dismantlement of bureaucracy. And what has happened each time? The opposite. Each year new prescriptions, new formulas, more bureaucracy. You, Union and SPD, have shown in the last 20 years that you cannot do bureaucracy dismantlement. Why should it this time suddenly be different? And, hand on heart: Have you ever dared in Moloch Brussels to defy a new bureaucracy? 

            Holger Mann (SPD): Come still to the theme?

And in regards the financing, there remains disillusionment. The means in the core budget stagnate for years, and a couple of billion euros of special debts alter nothing of that. You speak of a “big heave”. Yet where is it? With the 2025 and 2026 budgets, half of the legislature is already committed. 

            Florian Müller (CDU/CSU): Ja!

Thus when does the game-changer come? In the second half, or not at all? 

You yourselves speak of deficits in regards transfer from research to the economy – fully right. Yet you conceal the origins: Research in Germany, yes; foundings, no. In Germany, research still pays, but foundings long since no longer pay. The highest taxes, ruinous energy costs, bureaucracy without end. So long as it remains so, value creation emigrates to foreign lands. So long as you change nothing of that, your technology transfer remains an illusion. 

The fact is: Our research landscape is exploited so as to create value elsewhere. This is no longer allowed to remain so. You talk of gigafactories in Germany. But you tell me: Where actually is the announced megaplant for chips in Magdeburg? Not even the sponsored 10 million euro subvention could move Intel to this investment. 

            Holger Mann (SPD): You wanted it just so not!

And now gigfactories for giga euros, only with billions from the pocket of the taxpayers. Under today’s conditions, no energy-intensive plant comes to Germany. 

Without fundamental reform, your promises remain illusions. A change of the economy with you, honored colleagues of the CDU/CSU, is not for the making. That, you showed yesterday as in regards TOP 5 – Economic Change for Germany – precisely five CDU/CSU members sat in the plenary session. The Hightech Agenda should be your business plan for the future. Yet quite frankly: Would you approach a bank for credit with this paper? Ich nicht; since explanations of intention replace no concrete measures; vague sketches are no strategy. We need no colorful roadmaps. You need an authentic plan, and which I do not see here. 

            Stephan Albani (CSU/CSU): You need only use the eyes!

You’ve recognized many problems. That is the first step. But now you need to deliver; otherwise, our country’s future is in danger. And, for that, you bear the responsibility. 

Thanks. 

 

[trans: tem]

Volker Schnurrbusch, October 8, 2025, EU Digital Rules

EU Parliament, Strasbourg, P10 CRE-REV(2025)10-08(3-0217-0000). 

Frau President. Valued colleagues.

The core of the EU is the Common Market. Yet what does this Commission do? It builds one hurdle after another. It would be nice if we too had a Silicon Valley. Yet instead of complaining that a few U.S. firms dominate the tech market and the platforms, it would be the duty of the EU to promote the entrepreneurial spirit which first made this dominance possible. Why does the risk capital flow to California and Texas and not to Germany and France? Why do IT professionals emigrate from Asia to the U.S.A. and not here? Why do we experience the emigration of our programmers? 

Because this Commission is hostile to business and growth; because it constructs ever higher bureaucratic hurdles; because it understands the market not as the exchange of ideas but as something un-regulated which is to be surveilled. Thus it invents tools like the Digital Markets Act and the Digital Services Act. The EU wants to control, it blocks entrepreneurial freedom, and it wants to censor freedom of opinion on the internet so that only its own propaganda will be spread, as in Roumania, as in Moldavia, as in Georgia, and lastly also in the Ukraine. We reject that. 

 

[trans: tem]

Sergej Minich, July 10, 2025, Digitalization and CDU

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/18, pp. 1807-1808. 

Right honorable Herr President. Right honorable ladies and gentlemen. 

The Federal government has created a new ministry for digitalization and state modernization. The plans sound great: Less bureaucracy, more tempo, finally digital, the lean state as a goal. 

Yet how exactly should that be implemented? Citizens shall surrender their data just once, the so-called Once Only Principle. That means once I report my address or my income to the office, then the state itself should then pass it on – sounds logical, sounds good. The truth however is: The authorities have different standards. I still need to give it multiple times: Once for the taxes, once for parents funds and once for housing funds. That is no digitalization, that is data ping-pong. And it costs us, according to internal estimates, over one billion euros every year because everything runs in duplicate and triplicate. 

Digital administration – such a nice theme; it was mentioned – promised for years, that all can be settled on-line: Building permission, Kindergeld, re-registration. And what have we today? Instead of on-line service, many citizens receive a pdf for printing. That is like “say digital, but deliver by stagecoach.” Only around 100 of over 500 benefits are really digital. The goal was ruinously missed. And hundreds of millions of euros were put into advisors, platforms, projects which scarcely anyone uses. 

The same with bureaucracy deconstruction – it was mentioned today. The new Minister says: We make the administration simpler. How shall that go? New projects, new platforms, new rules, yet no real simplification. A start-up in Berlin requires 26 forms and five office visits. In Estonia: One click, 15 minutes, done. In Germany, one application lasts a week – with luck. 

And then there’s the matter of the money. The State Modernization branch has been approved for 150 new posts. 

            Ronja Kemmer (CDU/CSU): Those are not new!

Many of them are still unoccupied. And where positions are unoccupied, external consultants are retrieved for a lot of money. After months, there are also interim bureaus. By the time you become able to act, we have the next election, and you again have achieved nothing! 

            Ronja Kemmer (CDU/CSU): Such rubbish!

It was desired to set up a new IT concept. Cost: Over four million euros. Result: It is not practical. The consultancy firms rejoice; they earned four million – for nothing. That is not progress, that is a squandering. 

The fiberglass construction should by the end of the year, thus 2025, reach 50 percent. We can gladly wager on whether you still reach it. We have a Ministry which wants much, but does little; a Ministry which wants to save, yet incinerates money; and a Ministry which wants to modernize, yet remains clinging to an old bureaucracy. “State Modernization” is not allowed to remain a slogan. We require clear data standards, mandatory [verbindliche] goals and, before all, consequences if things don’t work. For the state belongs to the citizens – you are only service providers – and they deserve something better than your expensive promises without effect. 

Herr Wildberger, perhaps just a small tip: In this coalition, you simply have not a chance. Previously, all of this coalition’s election promises were broken. Why should it be different with you? 

Dear Union, you act as if you were for the first time in government. In that regard, you however are guilty: In the Merkel years, you turned Germany into a digital developing country. 

Many thanks. 

 

[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]

Barbara Benkstein, June 28, 2024, Artificial Intelligence

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/179, pp. 23264-23265. 

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

After a good nine months, we here in plenary session again deliberate on the Union motion for a strengthening of Artificial Intelligence as a key technology for Germany. After nine months, it certainly can be expected that a new thought or a new idea will be born. Yet unfortunately, despite a thorough, orderly description of the problem: A zero return in your motion. 

Ladies and gentlemen, what becomes clear here, and what is it actually about? It’s about no more and yet no less than Germany’s role in the AI and data market. So as to bring it to three points: First, start-ups and KMU [Kleine und Mittlere Unternehmen, small and mid-sized business] require free development possibilities without sprawling bureaucratic impediments. Instead is required, second, more innovation and knowledge transfer, and with that, third, a durable business model with scaling perspectives. 

The 2024 Federal Research and Innovation Report, which here yesterday in plenary session was already presented, lays the finger in the wound. In regards the themes of data and AI, the Federal government neglects the necessary computing infrastructure. It does not do to rebuke the without question splendid achievements of German research institutions in the AI area. 

We in Germany have no recognition or knowledge problem when we speak of AI. Yet, right honorable ladies and gentlemen, what is lacking is a secure, stable computing infrastructure so as to train the algorithms of quite promising start-ups and KMU. For that, these so far need to use the services of large hyperscalers, with the real risks that their training data does not remain exclusively with them. The local supercomputers, for instance in Jülich, Garching or Stuttgart, are primarily computers for science which are only at limited disposal for young business customers. 

There continues to be lacking in Germany a securely financed AI infrastructure. The AI-Federal Association LEAM [large European AI models] initiative figures the construction costs of one such at around 300 million euros. The Federal government, which so gladly styles itself as progressive coalition, has so far kept from view this practical stimulus. To name this refusal is the duty of a constructive opposition. 

The coalition, continues to appear to be, ja, of good cheer to decide in the coming weeks in cabinet the draft budget for 2025. For the digital, data and AI policy, the budget is allowed to become a tragedy: Reductions here, eliminations there, minimal investments. How, with that, valued ladies and gentlemen, shall be strengthened Germany’s role in regards the key technology of AI, remains a secret. 

            Otto Fricke (FDP): The AfD wants to expend more money! Always good!

And the once loudly announced digital budget was in the meantime well buried. Or will the government still apply itself, valued Herr colleague Broadcasting Kaiser? 

As was already adhered to last autumn in this place: Your motion, valued colleagues of the Union, aims in the right direction. It nevertheless is lacking in exactitude and consistency. We therefore will abstain. Our offer, after the coming Bundestag election in a coalition of the reasonable to deal with the AI theme with corresponding priority, stands as before.

Many thanks. 

 

[trans: tem]

Beatrix von Storch, March 21, 2024, Internet Censorship

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/160, pp. 20448-20449. 

Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen. 

The DDG [Digital-Dienste-Gestez] implements the EU’s Digital Services Act: EU-wide internet censorship. The Ampel has decided that for this censorship the Federal Network Agency is responsible and coordinates it. No joke: The officials, who hitherto have regulated the transmission and competition in the gas and electricity network, are also responsible for on-line censorship, 

            Tabea Rössner (Greens): A lie! Impudent! 

instead of, for example, the Federal Justice Ministry. 

At the top stands Klaus Müller, former Green minister from Schleswig-Holstein, exactly so as his Green chief, Robert Habeck. Green clique! Yet before the law is at all in effect, Herr Müller openly threatened in January 2024 – cite: 

“When I catch anyone the second or third time…then I need to say with all distinctness: The Digital Services Act then has very sharp teeth.” 

            Britta Haßelmann (Green): That’s right!

The threat is not a fabrication. Herr Müller or the coordinating office at the Federal Network Agency can impose penalty payments against on-line platforms which do not sufficiently censure. 

            Britta Haßelmann (Green): Are you nervous on that account?

Six percent of the worldwide daily revenue, millions of U.S. dollars in penalties – without being imposed by a court. Ergo: The platforms will censor, and the Green coordinating office will therein no doubt give rise to what is to be censured. 

             Tabea Rössner (Greens): Such idiocy I’ve never heard!

For a brutal deletion practice by the platforms suffices this danger of penalties in the millions. 

Yet the coordinating office may do much more than what a judiciary or police in a state of law may do: Conduct investigations, gather evidence, hear witnesses, examine witnesses, inspect places of business without a court order, seize property up to three days without court authorization. And for support, the coordinating office is allowed to name civil law organizations for so-called trustworthy whistle-blowers [Hinweisgebern] whose indications of censorship [Zensurhinweise] are to be preferably implemented. We all know who that is. Stasi Kahane for laughing no longer sleeps. This army of leftist on-line denouncers shall cull and report disliked opinions, and the data of people of wrong opinion will then be passed on to the BKA [Federal Criminal Office]. 

            Britta Haßelmann (Green): So that you cannot thereby spread all your hatred!

This law paves the way to a digital police state. 

            Detlef Müller (SPD-Chemnitz): No smaller does it get now!

For that, the Ampel now massively arms the BKA. Money is there, but not for the fight against organized criminality, clans or terrorism, but so as to persecute expressions of opinion on the internet. The number of officials in the reporting office shall be increased more than ten times from today’s 39 to 430. And the BKA states on page 64 of the proposal, Herr colleague Mordhorst, 

            Maximilian Mordhorst (FDP): Preamble, Frau von Storch! That is not the text                        of the law! 

that the test cases [Prüffälle] will increase by more than a hundred times, from 6,000 to around 720,000. The overwhelming majority of test cases will affect blameless citizens who have been denounced by the left-green on-line Stasi. 

Who on Facebook insults Habeck’s heat pump is – Schwupp – a test case for the BKA. Hundreds of BKA officials need to occupy themselves with that. 

You use this proposal from Brussels for your ideological fight against all and anyone who is not left. The more its backing in the population dwindles, the more the Ampel employs surveillance, intimidation and repression – see the Democracy Promotion Act. 

            Renate Künst (Greens): You need to pay attention that the features do not slip!

This state has lost every measure, writes the NZZ [Neue Zürcher Zeitung]. With this coordinating  office, it creates a Green species of directed censor officials; and proudly writes, they are completely independent. That means, they are without any democratic control. This censorship monster belongs in no democracy. On that account, all democrats will today reject this attack on our free democratic basic order. 

Many thanks. 

            Irene Mihalic (Greens): What do you want then?

 

[trans: tem]