Volker Münz, April 21, 2021, Assisted Suicide

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 19/223, 28266-28267.

Herr President. Dear colleagues. Right honorable ladies and gentlemen.

In its judgement, the Federal Constitutional Court derives the right to a self-determined death, with the possibility of suicide assistance, from the respect for the dignity of people. I cannot agree to this thesis. I hold the opposite to be correct; namely, that human dignity commands the respect and preservation of every human life. This proceeds from the Christian conception of man [Menschenbild]. Albert Schweitzer designates this as “reverence for life”. Yes, no one wants suffering in death, for oneself or see others suffer, especially one’s relatives. Assisted suicide however can be no way out of the distress of suffering and death.

And a prior obligation of counseling, as separately proposed, can in my view be no solution. The resulting counseling would thereupon be a prerequisite to be able to end one’s life assisted by a third party, analogous to a termination of pregnancy; that is, the ending of the life of an unborn child. As there is no right to abortion, exactly so can there be no right to assistance in regards the killing of oneself.

Assisted suicide may not become a state-regulated form of dying. It may not become a normality. The danger is not to be out of hand rejected that old and ill people see themselves exposed to at least indirect pressure to prepare to end their life so as not to become a burden on their relatives.

We may not open Pandora’s box. It is already not only about the theme of assisted dying in regards terminally ill people, but also about those who, out of despair, no longer want to live. What then comes next: Assisted suicide for minors or homicide on demand? All of which there is already in neighboring countries.

We do not have too little suicide but unfortunately too much, certainly in times of Corona. The state, and thus also we in this sovereign house, should therefore improve the provisions that will aid people in apparently irremediable situations, that will take the pain as far as possible from fatally ill people, and that enables the dying to die in dignity and in the company of relatives. Thus must also suicide prevention, palliative medicine and hospice work be promoted. The organized assistance for self-killing may not become legal.

Many thanks for your attention.

 

[trans: tem]

 

 

 

Albrecht Glaser, April 22, 2021, Election Law Reform

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 19/224, pp. 28558-28559.

Herr President. I can hear and understand you. – Right honorable ladies and gentlemen.

We have with surprise taken note of the coalition’s motion of two days ago which shall constitute an election law reform shortly before the end of the 19^th legislative period. It can now no longer effect a damage reduction prior to the coming Bundestag election. According to the newest, not uncomplicated calculations, which are based inter alia on election forecasts, we hasten toward a mammoth Bundestag which will have between 750 and 900 members.  

This nevertheless is no surprise. For in the area of an overdue election reform, over which mock debates were protracted for over three years in this house, precisely this scenario was predicted by experts in case of an absence of reform. The loss of respect for democracy and this Bundestag, referred to many times by the Bundestag president and which in regards such numbers we will now feel shortly before the Bundestag election, was knowingly brought about by the coalition.

A good 100 public law teachers in the autumn of the last year publicly admonished that it will be seen in regards the central question of the size of the Bundestag whether one’s own shirt or the coat of the commonwealth is more important to the members. The outcome, ladies and gentlemen, is unequivocal.

Against this background needs be understood the coalition’s initiative. If it is now openly acknowledged that many hundreds of offices will organized for members and their co-workers, that many new drivers will be hired and that each additional member over the 598 foreseen by the legislature results in some 500,000 euros per year in direct costs for the Federal budget, then will the people’s rage let fly. It just has to do – quite incidentally – with 200 overpaid members, a sum of 100 million euros per year, 400 million euros over the legislative period, and this in times of a state of emergency.

The motion’s sponsors refer to the odd instruction of §55 of the Federal Election Law, introduced in September, according to which a “reform commission” shall be “immediately” formed by the Bundestag. Named in the law as individual themes were the following series: The voting age of 16, the “length of the legislative period”, and the “modernization of the work of the parliament”. The size of the Bundestag, which all professionals hold to be the prominent problem, does not at all appear as a matter of inquiry. That is pure arrogance of power and misuse of mandate, right honorable ladies and gentlemen. Subsequently appears the idea to examine whether the state should prescribe to the parties how they, from point of view of gender, would have to present their candidates lists, thus a quota parliament instead of an equal opportunity for each male and female citizen to become a member. That is the demand for a violation of the constitution, right honorable ladies and gentlemen.

It has taken seven months for the installation decision with its immediate effect. The time allowed for an interim report of the commission shall run some three to four months, extending over the pre-election summer and ending a few days after the Bundestag election. At least in the inquiry instruction appears the – I quote – “effective limitation of the growth of the Bundestag”, although in no way a reduction to the size previously foreseen by the law. Since the process is also still under the law of discontinuity, the intended proceeding is a farce. It will certainly illustrate – I come straight to conclusion, Herr President – why the present Bundestag has achieved no reform, and this even though the AfD’s signed draft, presented for a vote, solves the big problem perfectly.

            Vice-president Wolfgang Kubicki: Herr colleague, you must now please come                         to a conclusion.

To a farce, right honorable ladies and gentlemen, we do not lend our voices. We thus reject this law.

 

[trans: tem]

 

 

Gottfried Curio, April 22, 2021, Citizenship

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 19/224, pp. 28574-28575.

Right honorable Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen.

Now in deep night, the Federal government’s submitted draft law considerably widens the way to German citizenship. In a well meant restitution regulation were incidentally laid down a few cuckoo’s eggs of the most general legal mollification.

Generally, he who after eight years wants to be made a citizen must pass a language examination and a citizenship test. This test is besides a joke. One question reads: “What is the German constitution called? People’s Law, Federal Law, German Law or Basic Law?” Yet the next question reads: “What is not in the Basic Law of Germany?” – Or, “How many occupation zones were there in Germany after the Second World War?”

             Britta Haßelmann (Greens): Not any of which can probably be answered                                 by you!

In another question is read: How were Germany’s four occupation zones divided? Or: “In which year did Hitler become Reich Chancellor?” Yet then: What did the Nazis with Hitler establish in Germany in 1933? – Or: “Who built the Wall in Berlin?” And then: “When did the DDR build the Wall…?”And so it further runs. In comparison: For the driver’s license examination, one has already failed with two falsely placed crosses. For the citizenship test, one can falsely answer 16 of 33 questions. 

One could as yet shorten the eight years to seven by means of participation in a 100 hour integration course in German legal order, history, culture.

            Britta Haßelmann (Greens): Of which many of you might make use! I believe,                        200 hours!

With submissions of particular achievements in integration, a somewhat higher language cognizance, it could be six years. “Particularly good school performances” or “civil society engagement” already waive the seven or even the six years. No more 100 hour course – for that, there is too little inclination. “Civil society engagement”, what then is that? Perform refugee assistance with NGOs, demonstrate against a deportation, perhaps one’s own? Does it get more vague? And “particular school performances”, what will that become? Success at the Tramp-in-AG? To not remain seated? – Much is said to no purpose so as to guarantee: The applicant hears out of all only the Ja.

For the German test shall suffice hearing and reading at B1 instead of written language mastery at the B1 level. Writing? Unnecessary. To listen to the news suffices completely and entirely for the later markings in the voter booths.

Filiz Polat (Greens): Is the core component of the law, restitution in citizenship law, so difficult for you? It is difficult for you because otherwise you would not be making such diversionary speeches. Start quoting there, Herr Curio!

            Marianne Schieder (SPD): It is also difficult for him to do what is human!

Where possible, nothing more at all is wanted from new citizens. – Thus, the general goal: To make citizenship as easy as possible.

Does it get still easier? Yes. Quote:

A foreigner who has his accustomed residence in a foreign country can be made a citizen when ties to Germany exist which justify citizenship.

Earlier, this pertained only to life partnerships, to avoid double citizenship, to sufficient knowledge of the language. All of these prerequisites were removed.

            Britta Haßelmann (Greens): I believe group-referent inhumanity was named.

From strongly conditioned special cases to a vague, general opening.

In the German citizenship office, it is a Black Friday final sale, yet all year.

For whom this still does not suffice, he may read in the election program of the Greens that citizenship

            Britta Haßelmann (Greens): Nay, you need not read that!

can be claimed already after five years – according to the law or not – moreover even with an unclarified identity.

            Konstantin Kuhle (FDP): Now it’s coming!

That even this could still be topped is scarcely imaginable.

            Konstantin Kuhle (FDP): Now!

Yet the FDP instructs us in one more base: An election program reads, citizenship shall be possible after three years’ residence.

In the fight for the voters, does anyone here offer less? Citizenship for passing through? A German right to vote for all Europeans?

            Filiz Polat (Greens): That is the present legal situation!

Perhaps even quotas for climate refugees?

            Christian Dürr (FDP): Mein Gott!

Shall we soon see how Chancellor Baerbock leads her Interior Minister Laschet by the nose around the circus ring? One will then no longer be free of the spirit summoned up. So is this.

            Marianne Schieder (SPD): Frau President, for what have we deserved this?

Let us retain: Immigration is no human right. Citizenship is no human right. Conditions for immigration and citizenship

            Alexander Ulrich (Linke): I believe that really is enough. That’s enough!

are no discrimination or indeed attacks on human dignity. – Sound self-evident? Just wait for the green-black love match. Your wildest nightmares will be exceeded.

I thank you.

Christian Dürr (FDP): I am thinking if we are there. I am thinking, we here are the enemy, or what? The worst were nevertheless actually us! I have not understood this! This is just not logical, what he says. What an absurd speaker!

Britta Haßelmann (Greens): That also was enough of group-referent inhumanity!

 

 

[trans: tem]