Mariana Harder-Kühnel, June 11, 2021, Women’s Quotas

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 19/234, pp. 30302-30303.

Right honorable Frau President. Right honorable ladies and gentlemen.

The Bundestag election casts its shadow. In one of the last draft laws of this legislative period shall be prescribed to the boards of directors of businesses how they in the future need be composed.

Ulli Nissen (SPD): And that is good, too!

            Leni Breymaier (SPD): You do not fix it!

If the board of directors of a firm listed on the exchange consists of more than three members, at least one of them must be a woman. The Groko [grand coalition] thereby not only shamelessly interferes anew in the business freedom, but again paves the way in the direction of socialism. The decisive criterion, qualification, no longer in the future plays a role. Solely the sex decides the composition of business leadership. With such an interference, a strengthening of Germany as a business venue is scarcely to be expected.

That the Union in that regard is to be reckoned an accomplice is also no surprise. You thereby fraternize with your future coalition partners; for according to the election program, the Greens have committed themselves to the goal of the establishment of a feminist government.

Once again is it clear: He who votes black, he receives green. He who on the contrary wants freedom instead of paternalism, he should vote blue, ladies and gentlemen.

Women’s quotas are a means of coercion. They most deeply interfere in the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of property [Eigentum] in Article 14, in the freedom of occupation [Beruf] in Article 12, as well as in the equality of man and woman in Article 3, paragraph 2, line 2, of the Basic Law. Notable constitutional lawyers therefore reject them. It is simply not constitutionally justified to obligate businesses, in areas in which there are no sufficiently qualified women, to hire unsuitable personnel.

One sees that the entire debate over women’s quotas causes only chaos and contradiction. And it has been coordinated for the abolition of fundamental legal principles like freedom of contract and private autonomy in favor of a feminist planned economy; for here it is a question of nothing other. Quotas regulations and sanctions for those not in compliance are not reconcilable with the principles of the market economy and a free society.

Actually here the FDP also needs to remonstrate with what has shifted business freedom into reverse. Yet what you, dear Free Democrats, demand in your motion, that lets the jaw drop. You propose a ban on works meetings after 4 pm. You strive for more sexual variety at leadership levels and you fantasize of diversity as a success factor. That is an accommodation to the cultural Marxist Zeitgeist.

That women can be brought into levels of leadership, quite without coercion, quite without ultra-feminism, quite without genderism, is besides shown by the allegedly oh-so reactionary-conservative, oh-so arch-Catholic Poles. There, mothers and housewives are not degraded to second-class people by a leftist mainstream. There will not be propagandized by an intrusive state which roles man and woman have to play in family and vocation. The result: In Poland, the portion of women in leadership positions is at 44 percent, as opposed to colorful, diverse Germany at only 28 percent. If you thus want to bring as many women as possible into management positions, then please take remedial instruction in women’s policy from our eastern neighbor.

But in no case, as in the submitted, should be set up means of coercion. Women’s quotas are such a means. Women’s quotas produce quota women. Believe me: No woman wants to be characterized as a mere quota woman. We of the AfD say quite clearly: Strong women require no quotas.

            Josephine Ortleb (SPD): Strong women require nothing from the AfD!

Many thanks.

 

[trans: tem]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bernd Baumann, June 10, 2021, Integration and Culture

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 19/233. Pp. 29962-29963.

Herr President. Ladies and gentlemen.

A great uproar lately in France.

            Vice-president Petra Pau: Herr Baumann, that was a slight misunderstanding.

How please?

            Vice-president Petra Pau: A Präsidentin is actually sitting here.

Ach, so. I begin from the start.

Frau Präsidentin. Ladies and gentlemen.

A great uproar lately in France. A threatening letter, a warning. A thousand senior officers, among them 20 generals, have the courage to openly name the failings of integration: Quite distinct cultures and mentalities meet one another, irreconcilable and ever more violent. Civil war threatens France. Verbatim: “The violence increases from day to day.” Who ten years ago would have thought that teachers would be decapitated in front of their schools?

With us, the problems are not much less, only here no one dares to openly speak of it. In surveys, 78 percent of the Germans say that they would be afraid to speak openly on critical themes like migration. Almost 80 percent!

            Ulla Jepke (Linke): Then whose fault is that?

That is your fault! You kindle a climate of intimidation. You are demolishing our democracy.

Worse still: Researchers here in this country no longer dare to investigate negative consequences of integration. One of the leading migration researchers in Europe, Ruud Koopmans of the Humboldt University, Berlin, now complains – verbatim – : “The research to be promoted is that which is politically desired.”

When it is about integration problems, only politically correct questions may be asked. Questions then run: Where are migrants discriminated, marginalized, excluded from participation? Mostly guilty then are the Germans. Not to be researched are cultural value concepts and behavior patterns which migrants bring from their lands of origin and which can even prevent integration. Finance for such research is to be dried up; since – as per Koopmans – the ability to integrate foreign cultural elements into this country may not be doubted. Thus in Germany are research and free science suppressed because all of you here are afraid of the answers, because they do not suit your left-green distorted view of the world, ladies and gentlemen.  

Necla Kelek, the sociologist from Turkey, warns: The massive cultural distinctions are so great that they – verbatim – cry out to be empirically researched. She is right. Much in Germany plainly evolves dramatically. Kelek refers to women who seek protection in women’s homes from their men, and of these, 80 percent are coming from a Moslem cultural circle. An additional example is the mutilation of the genitalia of women and girls. In this country, 70,000 women and girls have experienced this torture, often without anaesthetic; add to that untold thousands of forced marriages, child marriages, consanguineous marriages, honor killings; in Berlin alone, 6,000 forced marriages a year.

All of this, the old parties do not want to acknowledge. Here appears completely different pictures of people. This is the dirty side of Multikulti. You hide all of this so as to continue to hold onto your Utopia, ja, your religion of colorfulness and variety, and this cannot so continue, ladies and gentlemen.

It is similar with the immigrated oriental clans. They meantime terrorize entire neighborhoods of almost all of the major German cities, pocketing extortion money, dealing in drugs, women, weapons. All of these people bring their culture with them. The police speak of ethno-cultural criminality. The NRW [Nordrhein-Westfalen] State Criminal Office said, verbatim: Patterns of behavior passed on from the countries of origin will continue to live in Germany. – Thus clans arise not as a result of discrimination and marginalization but by means of the accompanying culture. We need to better research this background. You obstinately stand against it  because you simply do not want to acknowledge the reality on our streets, ladies and gentlemen.

And the culture can affect economy and labor market, say experts like Wolfgang Horst Reuther. He was with the United Nations for 38 years, many years as a UNESCO director in Arab countries. There he learned: Behavioral culture and mentality can also limit economic development in the oriental large family culture. Things like loyalty, trustworthiness, and a good working together are mostly only within the family associations; beyond that, it becomes problematic. Trust, team formation, precision work together – in Western firms, taken for granted – are possible only with difficulty. Thus Reuther’s quote also pertains to work cultures: Both worlds are scarcely compatible. – Finally take cognizance of that! Labor market problems need not from the outset be the consequence of discrimination. They could also have a cultural background which we can change only with great difficulty. We need to better research that.  

A similar picture in our schools. Researchers for example posit that students of Vietnamese origin very quickly make the jump to the Gymnasium. 64 percent do that, five times higher than students of Turkish origin – five times higher! In that regard, the migrants start with similar pre-conditions, with even as little knowledge of German, come from similarly modest social classes, and have at the outset a similarly small level of education as do those who are from Turkey. And here it is a matter of the respective education result being based – thus the researcher, word for word – on the distinctive ethno-cultural traditions. – So can all areas of society be gone through.

The world’s most renowned migration researcher, Professor Paul Collier of Oxford University, says, verbatim: There are, as disturbing as this may be, substantial cultural distinctions which shape important aspects of social behaviors and migrants bring this culture with them. – Thus, Collier. And parts of this accompanying culture prevent not only the integration of the emigrants with us. Worse: With persistent mass emigration, they threaten to change our German and European culture, our identity, our cultural self – in a direction which we do not want and which the majority in Germany and Europe do not want, ladies and gentlemen.

 

[trans: tem]

 

  

           

 

René Springer, June 9, 2021, Poverty and Wealth

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 19/232, pp. 29877-29878.

Frau President. Right honorable ladies and gentlemen.

There is on the website of the Federal government:

            At the determination of the German Bundestag, the Federal government is                            required to regularly submit in the middle of the legislative period a poverty                            and wealth report as an instrument for examining political measures…

The middle of the legislative period is a year and a half past and the Federal government has still submitted nothing. This leaves us only one conclusion: The Federal government wants to get the parliamentary confrontation out of the way. The AfD delegation however will not let that pass, and on that account we have requested this debate. Since the public has a right to be told that in Germany every fifth child grows up in poverty, that 69 percent of all single parents are in danger of impoverishment, that, as the skilled labor shortage is deplored, we have however 2.1 million young people under 34 who have no occupational certificate, that in Germany the chances of rising are worse than in the 80s, that every fifth is working in the low wage sector and that many of them, after deductions for rent, electricity costs, gas money and the cost of a visit to the zoo for the children, have less in the pocket than one of approximately 2 million foreigners drawing Hartz-IV, of whom many have never paid a cent into our social system.  

The public should be told that for years old-age poverty increases, that 1.3 million pensioners need to work on the side and that ever more pensioners take their meals at the Tafel. For the Federal government’s policy, all of this is a testimony of poverty.

It is in our view the highest time for exactly the effective measures which we with our motion [Drucksache 19/30403] here submit, and it begins primarily with a stop to the looting of the contributors [Lesitungsträger] in our country. We demand the writing into the Basic Law of an obligatory brake on taxes and duties. We demand the abolition of the Renewable Energy Law apportionment so that electricity is again affordable. We demand the enabling of asset accumulation by means of real property ownership. We demand the support of younger families  with a marriage starter credit and a fiscal family-splitting. We demand a stop to wage-dumping by means of illegal mass migration and the EU’s freedom of movement. And we demand an end to the asset-annihilating zero interest rate policy of European Central Bank. We need all of this.

What we do not need is Work ‘til you drop [ein Arbeiten bis zum Umfallen]. And on that account is the debate on the pension at 68 fundamentally false. I personally know masons, painters, gas and water installers, drywallers and scaffolders who are in pain at 50, work hard and go to bed in pain. They are happy when at 60 years they are still able to work. A pension at 68 for this group means in fact a pension cut and ja, das ist asozial.

The demand for a longer working lifetime is besides no demand from the ivory tower of science, but a demand from the middle of the CDU. I recall just the appeal of Christoph Ploss, the CDU chairman in the Hansestadt of Hamburg. What do we know of him? Abitur, civilian service, Bachelor, Master, press advisor, Bundestag. Occupations for the sake of which the man has never held a brick in hand, yet nevertheless wants to say to those who everyday move thousands of bricks and carry the two-ton levelling to the fourth floor that they should work longer. Ladies and gentlemen, one is not at all to be astonished when the people out there no longer desire this politics. You here need not wonder when the political sulk increases and the loss of trust grows. Herr Ploss besides goes – like all of us here in the German Bundestag – after four years in the Bundestag, if he then goes, with a pension claim of 1,000 euros; that is more than what the average pensioner in Germany receives.

Ladies and gentlemen, we demand an abolition of the politicians’ pension and an inclusion of politicians in the statutory Pension Insurance. And we demand something else, namely that the priorities be set correctly. The Federal government transfers billions in Kindergeld [child subsidy] to foreign countries in Europe. We pay 23 billion euros per year in refugee costs. We will transfer to Brussels this year 44 billion euros. From there, it will be distributed to countries where the pension level is higher and the working lifetime and pension entry age are lower. Stop telling the people of this country that there is no money for the pension.

            Vice-president Claudia Roth: Please think of your speaking time.

I come to conclusion. – The money is there, but the priorities of the old parties, of the Federal government, are falsely set. Our priorities lie with the contributors and with their families. We stand for a social, sustainable, a child- and family-friendly Germany.

Many thanks.

 

[trans: tem]