Christian Wirth, November 5, 2020, Anti-Terrorism

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 19/189, p. 23885.

We agree to the here put forward draft law of the coalition. The unbelievable pictures of Monday evening from the Vienna Innensatdt make it once more clear that, without intelligence services and the means of technical surveillance, we unfortunately may no more manage. Yet the question is not that we no more may manage without these means of surveillance, but why we may no more manage without them.

To combat terrorism it is necessary that the problem be looked at honestly. It is however a matter of consideration if a law which was meant to be directed at the struggle against Islamist terror, to certify the reasoning now put forward, shall be extended to meet the challenges of international and rightist terrorism. In the first place, it makes a unique impression if, instead of “international Islamist”, the wording is glossed over as “international”. Secondly, it is unrealistic to present rightist terrorism, which we all condemn, as a serious threat to the existence of the Federal Republic of Germany.

            Uwe Kekeritz (Greens): We are of a quite different opinion!

No, ladies and gentlemen, the reprehensible individual acts – wait! – of the desperadoes of Kassel, Halle and Hanau cannot threaten our state. These people, thank God, lack social support.

And in terms of the numbers, according to the information from Europol, rightist terrorism plays a subordinate role. In the yearly report for 2019, while 26 leftist terrorist and 21 jihadist attacks were conducted, 6 rightist terrorist attacks were accounted – naturally too many. Those who in fact threaten this state are of the leftist terrorism; that is, the attacks of the Antifa, those in the street fighting in Berlin, Hamburg, Leipzig and elsewhere. It is significant that the leftist terrorists were named “activists”. Also significant is that the AfD’s motion to ban Indymedia, on the website of which serious crimes were called for and criminal acts celebrated, was yesterday by all parties, even the CDU/CSU, rejected in the Interior committee.

“The state shall be de-stabilized”, said Hans-Georg Maasen, who must go because the left part of this house demanded his head.

            Benjamin Strasser (FDP): Yet Herr Maasen initiated the test proceeding                                against you!

It is the swamp of a leftist radical society, abundantly irrigated by so-called government dough, out of which grows up the hateful plant of leftist terrorism. Those responsible for that also sit in this house. Also part of the problem is that the media indignation machine simply does not run if leftist terrorists lay waste to our cities.

And what in fact endangers this state is the Islamist terror which has been routinely cultivated. For so earnestly must we now take this menace: These barbaric people could not become dangerous to us if we had not in every imaginable respect paved the way for them, if the Federal government had not formally summoned them to us. The support of radical Islamic associations by the Federal government and the Federal states has led to, following the attacks in Nice, Dresden and Vienna, that radical Islamists could celebrate these attacks on our streets and in the social media. Where were the demonstrations of the moderate Moslems? Right, they are already for long silenced in this country in which radical Moslems long since set the tone and real refugees meet their torturers and rapists in the reception camps and on the streets of Germany.

It is human and, yes, what is more, understandable that the Union in the grand coalition flatters the leftist opinion and media monopoly. Thus will one then be suddenly dealt with much more indulgently in the media. And this unholy collaboration today extends to the leftist parties in this house. The Union must free itself from the Babylonian captivity of the leftists.

            Kerstin Kassner (Linke): Which was good!

Otherwise, our state has no future or only a dreary one. The danger threatens from the left and from Islamism. The citizens will hopefully not first understand that when it is too late.

Many thanks.

 

 

[trans: tem]

 

 

 

 

 

Götz Frömming, November 5, 2020, Students’ Social Situation

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 19/189, pp. 23878-23879.

Right honorable Herr President. Right honorable ladies and gentlemen.

Dear colleague Gohlke, you have complained that the minister left the plenary hall before the debate. On one point, I can well understand her; since in your motion there is really just nothing new. It is the same plate which you already have set here many times.

            Nicole Gohlke (Linke): All the worse that we must set it yet again!

You again preach redistribution, equalization, and put forward a socialist, comprehensive coverage mentality which we of the AfD do not share.

Ladies and gentlemen, not only that: Your motion also contradicts itself: You complain that it was so bad for the students that they scarcely had anything to eat, that they knew not where to live – in brief: They were in a “precarious situation”, as it is stated in your motion.

            Nicole Gohlke (Linke): Do you actually read much? That is even in the numbers!

How then, together with that, does it happen that we presently have a record number of students – 3 million young people studying – and it becomes ever more? Presently there are 500,000 in the first semester, by 2030 is forecast an increase of 100,000 to 600,000; you yourself name that number in your motion. How can it then be that if it is so bad to study and to be at the Uni, that ever more people strive to be there? So then it cannot be quite so bad.

What now do the Linke concretely require? They want to create more dormitory places. So far, so good. They do not, however, consider that in the last twelve years the capacity of dorm places has been built and indeed, for all that, 16,000 places; we presently have 240,000 dorm places nationwide. Interestingly, all of the new dorm places are to arise not in the east of the country, thus not in the states where the Linke had or has governing responsibility, but in the west of our country.

            Kirsten Tackmann (Linke): Mein Gott!

If we peek at that precisely, we may ascertain that it becomes still more interesting. In Berlin, ja, you co-govern. There, the accommodations rate lies at a modest 5.8 percent. Similarly in Bremen: 6.6 percent; Linke in the government. In Saxony, ladies and gentlemen, we have 15.4 percent accommodations rate, in Baden-Württemberg, for all that, 13 percent. What have these states in common? Right: There, you are not in the government. It is, ja, interesting.

In addition, you once again demand BAföG [federal education assistance] for all; so to say, a basic income for students. It shall naturally be independent of the parents;

            Nicole Gohlke (Linke): Such junk! You really have not understood it!

the FDP meanwhile also adheres to that.

            Kirsten Tackmann (Linke): Then in which place is that?

How, please, is that socially fair? BAföG independent of the parents means nothing other than that the daughter, the son, of a well-to-do dentist, or a well-to-do Linke member, can be eligible. Ladies and gentlemen, that is not socially fair, that is socially most unfair.

            Jens Brandenburg (FDP – Rhein-Neckar): Self-reliant, grown-up persons!

It naturally happens that you want to abolish the age limit; so to say, study until pensioned. And naturally shall all foreigners be able to draw BAföG. You even demand BAföG for the Geduldete, thus people who actually must leave our country, for whom deportation has been merely set aside.You fail to recognize however that that has long since been regulated in the BAföG: §8 paragraph 2a. That can naturally be criticized; but it is long since in there. Please look it up. You may see also in this place: Your motion is handiwork of the worst sort.

In sum, ladies and gentlemen: Study is not an occupation. Schools and universities are not factories and are not social offices. They are places of improvement and that also is good. Quite briefly in conclusion is that which we actually ought to place at the center: We must construct performance concepts [Lesitungsgedanken]. We need more performance stipends. We should also construct dual studies; that is a sensible arrangement. And we should finally stop the inflation of the right to college admission. The Abitur, ladies and gentlemen, must again become an authentic proof of performance.

I thank you.

 

[trans: tem]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Volker Münz, November 5, 2020, State Benefits to Churches

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 19/189, 23839-23840.

Herr President. Dear colleagues.

For over 100 years there has been a constitutional mandate to end the so-called Staatsleistungen [state benefits] to the churches. To this day, this mandate has not been implemented, even though the Weimar constitution’s religion articles are a component of  the Basic Law. This constitutional mandate, in existence since 1919, should finally be implemented, ladies and gentlemen. Staatsleistungen are presently payments by the Federal states of around 550 million euros per year to the Catholic bishops and to the Evangelical state churches. Essentially, these benefits go back to the compensations for the expropriations of church goods in the year 1803. It is not about the church taxes [Kirchensteuer] – since that is a member’s contribution – or about church renovations, diaconates, kindergartens and such like. Of the total income of the churches, the Staatsleistungen make up around 2 percent.

For 217 years, payments have been made to the churches which should have been ended 100 years ago. It finally becomes time to do this, ladies and gentlemen. Since it is here about the credibility of the legislators and of the churches. It is about the divestiture [Entflechtung] of state and church, or as was demanded by Pope Benedict, about the un-worldliness [Entweltlichung] of the Church.

            Hermann Gröhe (CDU/CSU): First ask the AfD!

Thus, for example, the EKD supports a gender institute and a ship in the Mediterranean which brings migrants to Europe.

            Philipp Amthor (CDU/CSU): And that during the debate!

            Konstantin von Notz (Greens): Embarrassing!

Both Amtskirchen [official churches] vigorously meddle in politics. A concentration on the essentials, the proper duties of the Church, on preaching and the care of souls, would be to the advantage of the faithful, ladies and gentlemen.

            Martin Rosenmann (SPD): Perhaps Christian conduct as well!

My delegation’s draft law, which was already mentioned, foresees that the Staatsleistungen will be paid only until December 31, 2026; that is still around 3.3 billion euros. Thereby is provided sufficient planning security. The draft of the other opposition delegations foresees that a sum of 18.6 times the present yearly benefit will be made as a one-time payment or as installment payments. That would be around 10 billion euros. We hold that to be excessive, not least on account of the strained budget situation of the states which must come up with the payments. The factor of 18.6 originates from the real property assessment act and thus from tax law. Nevertheless, that is not applicable here.

The question of whether and in which amount a severance contribution is to be made is contested. We associate ourselves with the legal interpretation that the state with its now more than 200 years performance of payments has already completely compensated the churches for historical expropriations. We will further clearly advise this in the committees. I hope the coalition delegations will give up their blockade so that this for long open constitutional mandate will finally be fulfilled.