Rüdiger Lucassen, March 25, 2021, Bundeswehr in Afghanistan

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 19/218, p. 27565.

Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen.

The Afghanistan debate for long no more revolves around Afghanistan. It is about the questions of how the Federal government conducts foreign policy, how the Federal government deals with the Bundeswehr on foreign missions and how the Federal government commits the lives of our servicemen [Soldaten]. The answer is: It does this without purpose or plan, and indeed for 20 geschlagenen years.

Ladies and gentlemen, in regards the question of the Afghanistan mission, there are two categories of people in Germany: The Dumb and the Knowing. The Dumb ever believe in the fairly tales of civil reconstruction, of a partnership with Afghan security forces, of the German responsibility for Afghanistan, and of the success of the international community. The Dumb even allow themselves to be persuaded that the Afghans would wait for the Pashtun version of the Basic Law – all of it only feel-good babble, recited so as to lull the red-green coalition partners and conceal the truth from the voters.

No reproach can be made of the Dumb, since they are, ja, dumb. Much worse is the second category of people: The Knowing, those who, despite all knowledge of the situation in Afghanistan, speak of “success”; those who, instead of a withdrawal strategy, preach palaver of sticking it out; those who thus, despite an assured ineffectuality, continue to send Soldaten into harm’s way in Afghanistan. And these people sit here on the government bench.

The truth is: All participating states in Afghanistan – even the Americans – want out; but none want to say it openly. One of the the last of the Federal government’s arguments is fidelity to the alliance. And naturally there is something in that. To simply get out would naturally be, like the Federal government ever warns, a sign of unreliability.

Permit me an interim remark. In regards NATO’s core duty, the defense of the countries and of the alliance, the Federal government for years proves itself to be of maximum unreliability. Is it their idea to adhere to their promises in Wales in connection with the defense budget so there be no need to simulate reliability in Afghanistan?

In addition, there already is a good example of a withdrawal: Canada. The Canadians left Afghanistan already in 2011 – not “simply so”, but in consultation with the allies – and today are as ever in NATO.

I have a daring idea for the Federal government. Do what normal governments do and make a normal policy for our country. Your job of course is not to wait for a call from Washington so as to learn what shall happen next. Take the initiative in the Afghanistan policy. Start with the withdrawal from the endless war, and assert yourselves with this international approach [und setzen Sie sich mit diesem Ansatz international durch].

Thank you.

 

[trans: tem]

 

Stephan Brandner, March 25, 2021, Freedom of Opinion

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 19/218, pp. 27589-27590.

Herr President. Ladies and gentlemen.

The political hygiene in Germany has deteriorated. It is a deterioration which is related to the cases of corruption in the old parties: Almost daily new cases of insatiable old-party careerists, amounting in the past to dozens of cases. The political hygiene however has also deteriorated where it concerns freedom of opinion, one of our central basic rights. And these two problems we of the AfD take up with our draft law [Drucksache 19/27772].

Quote: “I guarantee the freedom of speech, but not the freedom after the speech.” This statement has been attributed to the African despot Idi Amin. The statement – quote: “ You actually can say anything in Germany. Then sometimes the consequences need to be reckoned with”, originates from an increasingly ineffectual sports moderator of the compulsorily financed German broadcasting.  Both statements or threats are related to the state of freedom of opinion in Germany. This state of freedom of opinion in Germany is bad. It is damned bad.

Our Basic Law in Article 5, paragraph 1 formulates – quote:

Every person shall have the right freely to express and disseminate his opinions in speech, writing and pictures…There shall be no censorship.  

Despite this, how can it thus be that social media are deleted, censored and blocked, that the skin cracks, that even speeches of members of the German Bundestag will be deleted and blocked and that worldwide over 100 million opinions per year, some 20 million in Germany, fall victim to the deletion massacres of Facebook, Twitter, Instagram & Co., the increase of which recently progresses at an exponential rate?

How are these deletion orgies thus to be brought into harmony with the clear constitutional position which I have directly cited with Article 5 of the Basic Law? Quite simply: Our Basic Law binds only the state, and not perchance Facebook & Co. And since our state knows this, it has out-sourced the censorship, that is to say, privatized it. Facebook & Co. gladly participate in this, in any case support, by means of the weight of billions and tax money financing, the rainbow programs of the multi-colored Civil Society, the Amadeu Antonio Foundation and other dubious actors.

“Hate” and “agitation” are the censorship tools of today and yesterday. “Agitation” is presently experiencing a renaissance. One might be acquainted with it from the Gott sei dank downfallen DDR. There was the boycott agitation and the anti-state agitation – ever again gladly used as a vapid fighting term against critical spirits and against the opposition. And “hate” – be it fond of nothing nice – is not forbidden in Germany, particularly as each defines it differently.

Ladies and gentlemen, we of the AfD have recognized this massive censorship and constitutional problem. We want to return to the free roots of the social networks. Originally – we remember back some 15 years – the social networks should serve so as to gather together opinions – without censorship! For that, they received a privilege: They were not liable for what was disseminated on them. Nevertheless, today these networks have developed themselves into a medium of censorship: They intervene massively in the variety of opinion and are no longer platforms. And therefore their liability privilege also is no longer timely.

We thus want that the social media decide for themselves whether they are a platform and permit all; under “all” naturally does not fall what is relevant to criminal law. On the contrary, steps must be taken against that, I think we are all of us agreed. They thus need to decide for themselves: Are they a platform and are to permit all that is not relevant to criminal law, or do they want to be a medium which censors what does not please them, which censors what does not please the state and which only serves to disseminate feel-good phrases?

How do we of the AfD now approach the problem? We propose two changes to §7 of the Tele-media law:

First, a clear decision by social networks: Do they want to be a platform? Then there is the liability privilege. Or do they more want to be a medium? Then there is no longer a liability privilege.

Secondly is put forward that platforms with a market dominant position in the sense of §18 of the GWB [Act against Restraints of Competition] need to delete exclusively what is relevant to criminal law, failing which – and this is also a further innovation – they make themselves obligated for replacement of damages and compensation.

Ladies and gentlemen, with both of these changes, we should all of us succeed in taking a decisive step in the direction of freedom of opinion, thus back to the roots of a free internet. The opinion and censorship massacres must be stopped. Our draft law shows a good way to that and I therefore from here request a vote in favor. And I request that it be noted that I am done five seconds before the time.

Many thanks.

 

[trans: tem]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lothar Maier, March 24, 2021, Piracy

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 19/217, p. 27398.

Right honorable Herr President. Ladies and gentlemen.

Operation Atalanta was successful; it has achieved the goals advanced for it. It deserved and further deserves our support. This, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to be able to say of the operations in Mali, in Niger – of Afghanistan, it is safer to be quite silent, where the goals have not only not been approached but are far distant. Yet, for all that – we first of all persist in the mission in the Horn of Africa – : Germany’s freedom was certainly not defended in the Hindu Kush, but it was defended in the Horn of Africa and this with good result.  

The numbers for the first phase of this operation are frightening. In the time period from 2008, as Atalanta began, until 2012, there were, believe it or not, 571 armed attacks on ships. Many of these had been repulsed, many of these had been deterred by the sudden appearance of warships, but much too many were plainly successful, leading to the capture of the ships, taking the crew hostage, which often extended over many months until by payment of ransom the crew could be freed.

This then continually improved: In the time period of 2013 to 2017, there were only ten such attacks, in 2018 two, in 2019 one, and no more in the past year; quiet now rules there. Yet this is no guarantee that quiet will continue to rule. The deterrent effect of such an operation will need to be maintained for a long time.

The Navy with larger units participated in these operations, and with a considerable number of servicemen [Soldaten] who by replacement have ever again taken part and could collect good experience which will in the future be of use to them. So far, the positive balance. Yet no if without but: It has taken twelve years to arrive at this point. On that account, there was also a lot of early criticism of the much too hesitant appearing preliminaries. For fighting piracy, it simply cannot be sufficient to assault only the ships which carry the pirates and make possible their attacks, but not their bases and resources; the entire history of piracy teaches this.

We are experiencing a form of asymmetric war: On one side, brutal pirates fight against forces which on the other side must act strictly according to the legal standards of their countries. And if one looks at what has happened with the pirates who have been captured, who in part have passed through judicial procedures in Germany: That is not impressive. Most of them after a few years have again been set free and – it is terrifying, what State Minister Annen has said in this regard – can now continue to be active as smugglers, drug dealers and human traffickers [Schlepper], and what there otherwise is in this way of fine vocations.

            Alexander Ulrich (Linke): What would you have done then? Shoot to kill,                                or what?

In any case, that is no deterrent.

It must be asked: What comes next? Need we now participate in the missions in connection with the piracy of West Africa, in the Straits of Malacca, etc.? We need to attempt to learn from the problematic practical experiences which we obtained from Atalanta and to avoid them in future operations.

I thank you.

 

[trans: tem]

 

Albrecht Glaser, March 26, 2021, Germany as Investment Venue

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 19/219, pp. 27774-27775. 

Right honorable ladies and gentlemen. 

Actually, the draft law has a very loose text. As I read it for the first time, I had thought in regards the “cross border sale of organisms” [„grenzüberschreitendem Vertrieb von Organismen”] that it was perhaps about trade in animal organs or some such. Yet that is not at all the case. 

The purchases of citizen resistance against the windmills are, so far, still not in the draft law, Frau State Secretary. That is a completely new viewpoint which, so far, is certainly still not on the agenda. 

Right honorable ladies and gentlemen, it is actually about the opportunities for capital investment in Germany. This is an articled law with over 100 specific numerals; to be able to thoroughly discuss this in four minutes, this is certainly no problem. 

It is asserted that the German venue, in European comparison, may remain behind and it would not lose its potential. Barriers should be built, everything should somehow be made better for the purpose of a sustainable increase of economic growth. Whether that thereby happens, we leave undecided; it is clearly better than conducting a debts policy which is quite clearly opposed to economic growth. Yet whether this goal is attained with what we have here on the table is questionable. We however being surprised, we before all things want to wait for the hearing. One naturally cannot hold aloof from the goal as such. Which we will face with benevolence. 

An additional major theme is the taxation promotion of co-worker participation in small and mid-sized businesses. Politically, this is in fact an interesting point. The doubling of tax-privileged participation in assets – from 360 to 720 euros – is planned, as well as the introduction of downstream [nachgelagerten] taxation of these participations in the case of new businesses. Right honorable ladies and gentlemen, the tax-free amounts which are called for here are as ever still far less than the western European norm, before all in comparison with our neighbors in Europe where it is about one thousand euros. We could put before us a far higher co-worker participation in businesses. In regards this opportunity, we should go that way and not anticipate only so hesitant an increase as from 360 to 720 euros. Figure it out, figure it at an earnings lifetime of 30 years; look what you then have for capital and what you can thereby attain at your age. That is small time. More courage would be good. 

The downstreaming of taxation is right, the tax payment will thereby be initially drawn out if the co-worker actually realizes a loss from the sale of his holdings. That should be done. Despite that, in regards the dovetailing of pay and capital assets, great care is always to be advised so as to prevent the carrying effects [Mitnahmeeffekte] and that the payment of wages as participations in assets is not concealed, sold, relabeled.   

Whether innovative forms of participation will be promoted with this law, as it is stated in the draft law’s foundational text, we will first need to discover in the arena of the public hearing. 

At the moment, we cannot ascertain that. This pertains also to other questions, as for example: 

How can a co-worker participate in businesses, not only by corresponding contributions by the employer, but also with regards to his own money? A most interesting aspect, which needs be called to the occasion. 

How can co-worker participations be promoted in businesses which are not joint stock companies? Even in most cases, this might be if the number of co-workers is looked at. Thus, there must somehow be found a solution which functions outside the world of the joint stock company. 

Need the tax-privileged participations be offered to all co-workers in the same way or by that means is the flexibility of small business directly restricted? A very sensible and very ticklish question. Which needs to be neatly solved. At the moment, we do not see that. 

Why does the downstreamed taxation pertain only to businesses which are not older than ten years? This is not at all accessible to us. 

Exactly as we support asset accumulation in the area of housing real estate, so naturally also lies close to our hearts asset accumulation in the area of participation in businesses. With private engagement, to do something real for one’s own provision for old age is a lofty goal. We should do everything so that we may effectively achieve that. In this sense, we will continue to take part in the consultations. 

Hearty thanks. 

 

[trans: tem]