Markus Wagner, November 12, 2020, Deportation

Nordrhein-Westfalen Landtag, Plenarprotokoll 17/106, pp. 8-10.

Herr President. Ladies and gentlemen.

Dresden, Paris, Vienna – Islamists move murderously through our cities. Beheadings, bombings, knife attacks – the deadly danger can, indeed shall strike even the quite normal citizen.

I say here as at the beginning: This Islam, by which the murderers have been motivated, does not belong to Germany. For me, this Islam will never belong to Germany, ladies and gentlemen.

The other European countries, even the left-liberal French President Macron, are waking right up. It becomes time that we now begin to defend freedom – clearly, decisively and with all the means of the state of law.  

It becomes time that we in no place give way – not before terror and bombs, nor when abruptly at the day-care in St. Martin the Festival of Lights is to be celebrated and no Santa Claus will be made, and in fact for the reason that Moslems do not celebrate Christmas.

Ladies and gentlemen, we do not give up our culture, we do not give up our values, we do not give up Europe, we do not give up Germany.

We shake hands with women and do not cover them up in burkas. We laugh at caricatures or we are annoyed, but we do not on that account kill innocent people. Certainly if we wish to be open – and we do want that – a self-aware conduct is required; neither exaggerated nor radical, and certainly not aggressive, but really self-aware and sovereign. We have every right in a calm way to be proud of our country. For that very reason though do we want so much, simply because it is better here. And for that very reason, I do not want that we do away with this, that we do away with ourselves, ladies and gentlemen.

If we do not want, out of fear of terror, to furtively surrender our rights of freedom by means of more surveillance, more Merkel barriers, more police, if we do not want to furtively lose our freedom because we no longer use certain routes at certain times because…young men or…the Party Scene hang out around there, then must we now act; calmly and sovereign, yet clearly, decisively and unequivocally.

When it concerns that action, I ask you: What today does the SPD have for that? Nothing. No motion, no draft law, nothing. The Greens never have anything for this theme anyhow. The CDU and the FDP at least demanded an hour of debate so as to speak. Yet a motion, a legal initiative? Not a sign.

To speak, ladies and gentlemen, is too little. We have thus done our legislative duties and put forward a six-page motion [Drucksache 17/11667] with extensive measures.

It is clear: We must reduce this threat by the numbers. According to the Constitution Defense, we already have 28,000 Islamists in the country, of whom alone are 2,060 a terrorist potential.

What is the origin of Islamists in our country? That is what you do not wish to hear; that is what you do not wish to see; that of which you do not want to speak. It is naturally the migration from these countries.

The first command: We must finally again protect our borders, as is normal for civilized states. We ultimately do not take the front door off the house and simply let anyone in. We thus must stop the inflow of those posing a threat.  

The second command: Just as we must stop the inflow, must we also increase the outflow; thus, deport.

For those of us of the AfD delegation, I say: Any foreign citizen who attracts notice as the result of a serious criminal act, extremism or a threat of terrorism, has forfeited his visitor rights. He must go, and indeed without exception, ladies and gentlemen. That we in Nordrhein-Westfalen under Armin Laschet have 375 of those posing a threat of Islamist terrorism and related persons among us, and of those in this year a total of six – literally, six – have been deported, is a scandalous deportation failure.

We have people here in this country who ostensibly fled the conditions at home and now want to enforce their crude world-view here; some, like many Moslem associations, without violence; others, with terror.

I say: Nein, we do not want that. I do not want that.

What on the other hand I do want is that, under your false policy, people with whom we feel ourselves united do not suffer. I speak of the well assimilated people of foreign origin living here. They are our colleagues and friends; those whose good name suffers because you do not throw out the criminals. I speak of enlightened and former Moslems who suffer in that, from the Greens into the ranks of the CDU, criticism of Islam is designated as Islamophobic or as racism or is denounced with other lethal language.

You leave in the lurch people like Hamed Abdel-Samad. Your policy endangers the freedom and lives of these courageous men and women, they who still actually take seriously the values of Europe.

        Berivan Aymaz (Greens): Stop speaking of freedom [Hören Sie auf, über                                Freiheit zu reden]!

And where in fact are we with the left-green buzzword “Islamophobic”? Ask for once Persian or Iranian friends, in so far as you have them. The Stone Age Islamist Ayatollah Khomeni defamed unveiled women as Islamophobic.

I ask you: Which agenda do you actually have if you label sceptics of Islam as Islamophobic? Is that simply only Islamic green behind the ears, or is that simply only stupid, ladies and gentlemen?

We must now finally cease to promote the agenda of the domestic Islamists from our own country – promoted by a vulgar tolerance, promoted by self-disavowal and extenuation.

When we implement border protection, deportation and a sovereign manner, we can do that. When we govern, we will do it.

I thank you.

 

[trans: tem]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Marc Jongen, November 27, 2020, Racism

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 19/196, pp. 24773-24774.

Herr President. Ladies and gentlemen.

Anti-racism is one grievance to which I stand opposed. No other judgment can be arrived at if one reads the debate pursued here today and the utterly hysterical and in any case hypocritical bills of the Greens and the Linke. You wish to attain a “peaceful and equal opportunity life together”. In truth, you nevertheless divide society

            Ulle Schauws (Greens): Says the righteous!

into the allegedly wicked, racist native inhabitants and the allegedly purely good, oppressed migrants and minorities.

             Ulle Schauws (Greens): Have you just not listened?

This simple, black-white thinking is not sustained out of love for mankind, as you yourselves and the publicity put forward, but from a deep-seated, anti-German resentment and from cultural self-hatred. You thereby ever more deepen the ethnic fault lines, the existence of which you deny.

We are already experiencing the consequences of your racism mania. The police, who are routinely denounced by you as racist, will be abused, spat upon, and in fact assaulted. Criminal bands of migrant youths lose any respect for the them and feel themselves to be legitimated by you. Citizens do not dare say one word of this because they may see themselves denounced as racist and inhuman by the ruling ideology. That you often positively refer to the openly violent and aggressive anti-white movement Black Lives Matter, which besides has massively harmed blacks, speaks volumes and demonstrates your radical left conviction.   

The French-Jewish philosopher Alain Finkelkraut has designated the ideology of anti-racism as the “communism of the 21^st Century”.

             Ulle Schauws (Greens): Yes exactly!

Under the pretense of equality, this ideology strives for the destruction of European civilization. The proof of that we see in the streets of the U.S.A. and also already to a horrifying degree here in this country.

It is indeed interesting that the racism of non-white actors, of before all the Arab-Islamist anti-semitism, will be completely omitted from the anti-racist ideology.

             Stefan Keuter (AfD): Hear, hear!

Not a word of that in your motions! You provide ideological legitimization for a migration policy which hauls en masse a genuine anti-semitism into the country. The Jews are the first victims of your anti-racism. Your speeches against anti-semitism are thus pure hypocrisy.

Similarly, you now wish to erase the word “racism” from the Basic Law…Just as sex in the gender ideology, and all other natural distinctions between people, are to be only a wicked social construct.

             Franziska Brantner (Greens): What nonsense!

It can nevertheless be discussed whether the term “race” today is still appropriate. Yet it does not make seeing and naming natural distinctions racist; what is racist is a claim to superiority from which is to be derived an oppression. We must return to this proper sense of racism, ladies and gentlemen.

It has already been said: It was the fathers and mothers of the Basic Law who, before the background of the Nazi barbarism, turned themselves against any discrimination. And who were assuredly better democrats than you.

             Ulle Schauws (Greens): What?

             Franziska Brantner (Greens): Oh!

Your world-view is daily disproved. If Germany is as racist as you assert, how is it then that hundreds of thousands of migrants demand admittance here and for that pay the smugglers thousands of dollars? In truth, we nevertheless live in the least racist Germany of all time. That is also indicated by the many well integrated immigrants.

             Marianne Schieder (SPD): That does not please you, or?

That is the real contrast to your grotesque nightmares.

The government however is unfortunately not one bit better than the leftist radicals in this house. While all around, Islamists cut off heads and leftist extremists lay waste to entire streets, the cabinet the day before yesterday decided on a catalog of measures against racism

            Petra Sitte (Linke): That is just absurd, that comparison! Completely absurd!

and an additional billion for the fight against the right; among others, for the “Stasi-Antonio-Foundation”, for the Antifa. That is a regular re-education program for the population.

If you – I come to a conclusion – really wish to de-toxify the climate in this country, then stop the national action plan against racism, stop also these programs,

              Franziska Brantner (Greens): We stop you and nothing else!

and concern yourselves with the real problems of this country.

Many thanks.

 

[trans: tem]

 

 

 

 

 

Roman Reusch, November 26, 2020, Patent Court

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 19/195, p. 24664.

Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen.

Thus, Frau colleague Dr. Scheer, you now have really very much startled me; for to be quite honest: That was not us. We ourselves have not had recourse to the Constitutional Court. That was a constitutional complaint. When the law was passed, at which time it was first ratified, we were not even in the Bundestag. Just the opposite: At the last debate on the ratification, we had moved to repeal the law which you had ratified so as to spare the Bundestag this disgrace which was then entered into.

For that it has come to this, you quite alone are responsible. Had you listened to us, all of this would have turned out with more moderation.

            Nina Scheer (SPD): Then you stand behind the complaint.

Now it should be supposed that one learns to fear the flame. Yet apparently that has not happened here; undeterred, it will be continued. So far, there has still been no hearing on this matter in the Committee for Legal Affairs. We in the Committee for Legal Affairs hold all possible hearings on, for example – how is it called? – containers for foodstuffs, yet not on highly complex questions such as this. Since the beginning of the project “European Court of Patents”, considerable attacks against it have been conducted in the literature: EU legal incompatibility, unconstitutionality, it shall be completely superfluous, so it is called, antipathetic to the Mittelstand. All of these attacks from people who are to be taken seriously ought to have for once been listened to in the Legal Affairs Committee so as to reach an informed decision. 

That has not happened. Yet last Wednesday, all delegations have rejected our motion in the Legal Affairs Committee for the holding of an experts hearing.

In addition, owing to Brexit, we have a fully new state of affairs. According to my information, there were two countries the courts of which, as per previous practice, had something of a leading function for all the others. Those were the German and English patent courts. Owing to Brexit, the English are now gone; thus now it is the German courts which could engage in a leading function. Where is the problem? On which account must a European court still be installed?

Yet even if reasons are sought and found to do that, there is still another problem that results from Brexit: One seat of this patent court should be in Great Britain. That has been omitted. It is a German interest to now retrieve it for Munich; yet there are no arrangements whatsoever that are not long since in the bag. And now we here wish to ratify that and thereby surrender out of hand the single trump card we still hold to safely retrieve the thing for Munich. Does Söder Markus know how Bavarian interests are being dealt with here? I think for once, Bavarian members may now do good today in not voting for this law.

Then the Federal government would still have an opportunity to repair this. We will not vote for it. To the others, I wish a happy trip over the Bodensee – eyes firmly shut, as you gladly do it [Augen zu und durch, wie Sie es gerne machen].

Thanks for the attention.

 

[trans: tem]

 

Marc Bernhard, November 26, 2020, Eviction and Housing

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 19/195, pp. 24627-24628.

Herr President. Ladies and gentlemen.

You of the Linke today demand ostensible repairs in the protection of renters.

            Pascal Meier (Linke): That’s the fact!

Na, it cannot, for all that, be quite so important for you; since even though you already in May 2019 had drawn up the motion, for a year and a half you agree to let it be lost in the hopper. Either you yourself are not sure in regards the quality of your motion, or it quite clearly indicates your hypocrisy and for you it is not at all about really helping the people out there.

After rent control, rent limitation, rent index simulation, rent cap, you today attempt an ostensible renter protection. Thereby all, and really all, of your socialist, planned economy instruments always only have one, single result: That fewer dwellings are built and fewer dwellings are rented. Your rent cap alone has led to that here in Berlin 12,000 urgently required dwellings were not built. Your ostensible social policy thus leads to that an additional 12,000 families find no affordable housing.

Today you want to introduce a protection against personal need eviction for those over 70 years. That sounds sozial in the first instance. Yet to what does that really lead? To what does it lead?

            Pascal Meier (Linke): To that those over 70 years are protected! To what else?

In Germany are 24 million people of pension age. And you with your motions push precisely these people out of the housing market. It thus leads to that no one will still rent to a 70-year-old from fear of not being able to give notice in case he himself will in fact at some point urgently need the dwelling. With your proposal, you would thus attain nothing other than a de facto discrimination against old people.

The reason for the housing policy catastrophe in Germany is however not the landlords, so hated by you, but a decades-long failure of the government, failed housing targets, a burdensome bureaucracy, and before all a state which is the largest driver of construction and housing costs. Your motion would itself and alone lead to that even fewer people would enter into the risk of construction.

What we however do need is an authentic housing offensive, one which assists the people to build housing. For that, must the real estate sale tax be reduced, the real property tax be abolished, and the bureaucratic rules be salvaged.

            Daniela Wagner (Greens): What then shall the local authorities say to that?

For to assist against the housing emergency, it is only and alone to build, build, build, and yet again build, right honorable ladies and gentlemen.

Hearty thanks.

            Ulli Nissen (SPD): Good, that speech is over!

            Daniela Wagner (Greens): How shall the local authorities replace that?                                    Artful dodger!

Yet you are in the government! What have you so far achieved? Nothing!

 

[trans: tem]

Joana Cotar, November 25, 2020, Digitalization and Pandemic

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 19/194, pp. 24536-24537.

Frau President. Worthy colleagues.

It occurs to me a bit like before: „Und täglich grüsst das Murmeltier” [And daily greets the groundhog/marmot]. Once again we discuss a FDP motion on digitalization. The government shall “take the pandemic seriously as a wake-up call” – so far, so good. We of the AfD have here associated with five motions – for one, the demand for a digital ministry for the bundling of competences and for a structured procedure concerning digitalization in Germany. We daily receive evidence that this is urgently required. Yet the government actually appears to shut its eyes to this so that it need not see it. Otherwise, the inactivity is not to be explained. Instead, endless discussions between the Union and the SDP: The ministry is coming, the ministry is not coming. – It is the same chaos in regards digitalization. No wonder that here nothing happens.

We moreover demand the commitment of artificial intelligence in public administration for the deconstruction of bureaucracy and so as to form it more efficiently. The government up to now does not once put forward a complete overview of all uses and pilot projects for administrative AI and it also has not yet obtained this overview for itself. AI applications are the future, whether you want that or not. Not to make Germany ready for that is a gross negligence, ladies and gentlemen.

We want the start-up assistance in the lockdown crisis to be distributed fairly; the present package of measures was unsuited to the real market conditions and causes a distortion of competition in favor of well provided risk investors. Moreover, we of the AfD are of the opinion: The state is not the better businessman. It has to create the parameters and otherwise keep out.

Our motion [Drucksache 19/23347] for digital aid for families and youth in the crisis was implemented as part of the law for the digitalization of administrative procedures in regards the guaranteeing of family benefits. And though the coalition delegations self-evidently rejected our previous motion, I say: Thanks for the rapid implementation – the AfD works!

Later here will also be discussed our motion for a national mortality register which has already been rejected in the committees. Certainly in times of Corona, I hold that to be absolutely  irresponsible. The death rate in Germany must be better and faster collected. Such a register would considerably facilitate a timely identification and awareness of groups at risk. Moreover, thus would be achieved a quick understanding of pre-illness factors on the risk of death. Initially in June, the Leibniz Information Center for Economics demanded the synthesis of such a register. For long, the Council for Social and Economic Data expresses itself for that. And the Federal Commissioner for Data Protection also recommends such a statutory regulation. All speak in favor of our motion, and you also know that. To reject it for the usual reason, that it comes from the AfD, harms Germany, ladies and gentlemen.

            Florian Toncar (FDP): What is bad for Germany, is good for the AfD,                                    I once have heard!

And thus we are again at Groundhog Day, or at Berlin’s Greatest Show. For once let us be honest: The government parties on principle reject the motions of the opposition, no matter how good they are. Some, you yourself take up, like the one demanded by the AfD for the completion of the NIS [Network Information Service] and its obligatory implementation: The motion rejected here in April, to conclude precisely that here last week.

             Mathias W. Birkwald (Linke): Ja, so functions the opposition!

It is clear to me, sooner or later the mortality register will again emerge here in plenary session and will be passed – not, when all is said and done, under the AfD logo.

Yet we also know the little games of the opposition parties. Thus the FDP rejects in committee our motion for a digital ministry,

             Patrick Schneider (CDU/CSU): (To the FDP) You do what? That is horrible!

yet demands, in this motion put before us today, precisely this digital ministry. What shall that be? What does not agree with you?

 Franziska Brantner (Greens): Don’t you know the difference between                                        ministries and authorities? My goodness!

Dear colleagues, this play-acting can no longer be taken seriously. You appear to have forgotten why at all you have been elected here to the Bundestag: To make the best policy for Germany. It becomes high time that the welfare of our country and the welfare of our citizens were placed above partisan tactical games, ladies and gentlemen.

            Martin Rabanus (SPD): Thus speaks the righteous!

Good motions are good motions, no matter from which party they come.

            Patrick Schneider (CDU/CSU): Good motions just never come from you!

The quicker they are implemented, the better for us! So long as that does not occur here in the sovereign house, is what we contrive here more appearance than substance [mehr Schein als Sein].  

            Patrick Schneider (CDU/CSU): Yes, in regards to you!

            Vice-president Claudia Roth: Please consider the speaking time.

That, the citizens out there truly do not deserve. In that sense: The motion of the FDP demands in many places what is right. We are to discuss all of that in committee.

Many thanks and good evening.

[trans: tem]