Gereon Bollmann, September 29, 2022, Data Storage and Child Abuse

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/57, pp. 6274-6275.

Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen.

I think the course so far of the debate indicates that we all might be very well agreed on at least one point: That the sexualized violence against children is one of the most horrific of crimes. Actually, that is fairly clear. And that the fight against it is a policy goal of the utmost importance certainly is not in question. The data protection however is. And because it is, once again in the last weeks two governments have suffered shipwreck before the European High Court: The French and the German. Both governments once again did not sufficiently take into view the freedoms [Freiheitsrechte] of citizens. We therefore now require a careful assessment of legal interests – and no hasty reaction of the adherents of a surveillance state.

Now already three of four cases of sexualized violence against children can be cleared up. The American child protection organization NCMEC watches over nearly all internet activity in this direction. From this organization the BKA receives the necessary data, and indeed quite without retained data storage [Vorratsdatenspeicherung] in Germany. No one though can seriously reckon how high the clarification rate would be if all IP addresses were stored. There is thus no cause for an excessive hurry.

Perhaps at this point: Frau Lindholz, you have certainly opened the debate with your proposal. You are an advocate for family law. I was a judge in the family senate of a regional appellate court. You have of course cited the passage accurately. Yet at the same time, you have not addressed the conditions which are in the European High Court’s decision.

Günther Krings (CDU/CSU): Namely?

We have been referred to it by the colleague of the Linke, and also Herr Jacobi has basically made reference to it: It is admissible, although plainly just conditional.

Andrea Lindholz (CDU/CSU): Yes! Specifically in this case is it admissible! Exactly these cases have been explicitly singled out, Herr colleague!

What namely, Frau Lindholz, is in play? With your permission, Frau President, I cite another point. So listen well! Accordingly, the following is possible:

…traffic and venue data, which have been stored for ten or four weeks, can however be of very exact consequence to private lives of persons

            Günther Krings (CDU/CSU): Yet it’s not about that!

            Andrea Lindholz (CDU/CSU): It’s about IP addresses!

whose data was stored – perhaps on habits of daily life, permanent or predominant places of abode

            Andrea Lindholz (CDU/CSU): It’s not about that!

            Günther Krings (CDU/CSU): That is quite a different theme!

– it is nevertheless the consequence, Herr Dr. Krings – daily, or in other cycles, ensuing changes of place,

Andrea Lindholz (CDU/CSU): Yet that has nothing to do with our motion!

activities practiced, social relations of these persons, the social milieu in which they move – and especially, making possible the construction of profiles of these persons.

Günther Krings (CDU/CSU): We are already long since out! It is simply not the same!

Andrea Lindholz (CDU/CSU): Absence of theme!

Dear colleagues, it almost cannot be stressed abundantly enough that this would affect almost exclusively persons who have nothing at all to do with criminality. It further says in the decision that the fight against serious criminality is indeed of great significance, yet per se could not justify the necessity of a preventive measure of general and undifferentiated retained data storage.

I come to conclusion, Frau President. – On precisely these grounds we reject a storage of data without cause. Only with sufficient suspicion and – I stress – only with a judicial order are interventions in informational self-determination acceptable; not however by means of a legal free ride ticket.

Many thanks.

 

[trans: tem]

 

Christian Wirth, September 22, 2022, Free Speech and Sovereignty

German Bundestag,  Plenarprotokoll 20/54, pp. 5928-5929.

Frau President. Valued colleagues.

When one reads the words “Basic Law” in regards to a draft law of this government, one first receives a fright. In this case you have knocked over nothing; that you could not do. You in fact arrive late, although the digital announcement of laws on an announcement platform is right. On that account, here is nothing much to say.

Otherwise pertains the old saying: Hands off the Basic Law. It is already bad enough how government representatives and representatives of the parties, who in the best DDR-speak praise themselves as democratic delegations in the house, lay hands on the citizens’ basic rights.

Thus, the Chancellor – I cite: “If announcements are highjacked by extremists, Querdenkers and enemies of the Constitution, we do not accept that.” What are extremists and enemies of the Constitution? And whom does Scholz count as a Querdenker? Is an enemy of the Constitution he who demands the explanation of the Chancellor’s participation in a business scandal or does not want to lend credence to his memory lapses? Is a Querdenker he who in good time warned of a lockdown, a vaccination obligation or vaccination harms?

Helge Limburg (Greene): What has that to do with electronic announcement, Herr colleague?

Is the businessman or pensioner whose life’s work and existence goes to the dogs due to a failed energy policy an extremist? Since when is that? When may the state proceed against democratic basic rights under the pretense of wanting to protect those democratic basic rights? In regards the basic rights, no head of government of the Federal Republic has so blatantly played with fire.

Thus one is not amazed by Interior Minister Faeser’s plea that one’s opinion can be declared without at the same time gathering in many places. Where, please? At home in front of the mirror? This statement is an imputation of civil society.

The President of the Constitutional Court, Harbarth, also does not stop short of this. According to Welt, he said, “ that the use of the freedoms [Freiheitrechte] can also be adapted to the delegitimization of the Constitutional order.” And, cite: “ The strong constitutional state must be consistently opposed to the enemies of law and the state of law.” That is identical with the import of the cited Scholz quote: Freedoms are good so long as they are not used by any who are opposed to the government; since criticism of the latter is today defamed as delegitimization. Thus the Constitution Defense has created on the fly a new area of phenomena: Delegitimization of the State Relevant to the Constitution Defense. Here will be placed all citizens who criticize the actions of the government.    

The bird however has been shot down by the former hope of the bürgerlichen-conservative camp, Friedrich Merz who, last week amidst the howling of the so-called democratic delegations, explained to the AfD delegation that in case of emergency all parties will prevent with all power that the AfD brings into the street the problems which we have in Germany.

            Philipp Amthor (CDU/CSU): A correct proposal!

            Stephan Brandner (AfD): That is scornful of the basic rights!

We will do precisely that, Herr Merz and dear CDU. On October 8^th, we with the citizens will carry into the streets of Berlin our right of assembly and demonstration and right to the free expression of opinion.

            Johannes Fechner (SPD): Now for once on the matter!

And, Herr Merz, neither you nor the other parties will stop us.

            Johannes Fechner (SPD): Boring!

Since for you all it is not about the delegitimization of the state which you fear. You all delegitimize the citizens, the sovereign.

Many thanks.

 

[trans: tem]

 

Rainer Kraft, September 22, 2022, Energy Crisis and Insolvency

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/54, pp. 5954-5955.

Right honorable President. Valued colleagues.

I do not know how you come by the idea that we are screwing around with the security. The technical security aspects are certainly not affected by our draft law.

But let us cite someone: “Every kilowatt-hour helps in this situation”. The Green Economy Minister Robert Habeck said that.

            Stephan Brandner (AfD): How is that actually?

That is now since three months. At that time, the picture was still arranged for us that we are able to independently come out of this energy crisis in part caused by the government. Nevertheless, now at the beginning of the week, this pretense of the Economy Minister was given up as he surrendered Germany’s energy supply to the whims of wind and weather – coupled with the hope for a mild winter.

Meanwhile, sales of air heaters and kilns attained record returns. By the middle of this year, 600,000 air heaters were sold. Those are 600,000 motions of no confidence in the face of this government’s energy policy.

Even if Minister Habeck does not know what an insolvency is, more and more businesses nevertheless capitulate before the exploding energy prices. Villeroy & Bosch, Eschenbach, Hakle, Baren Board, Schlechtrimen, Dr. Schneider, Görtz, etc, etc. Traditional undertakings, which in part have withstood two world wars or two dictatorships, survive not a year under a Green Economy Minister. “Every kilowatt-hour helps in this situation”. Robert Habeck said that. Yet why does he not keep his own words?

            Bernhard Herrmann (Greens): Because he has a flu!

Isar 2, Neckarwestheim 2 and Emsland have the potential to deliver 96 million kilowatt-hours…independent of the weather and independent of the whims of Gazprom.

Seven months ago, Russia with war invaded the Ukraine. For seven months the Green Economy Minister refuses to recognize the facts. Seven months given away in which the Minister watched the rise of energy prices instead of doing what needed to be done; namely, to mobilize every kilowatt-hour of energy in Germany. Because: Every kilowatt-hour helps the businesses which then do not just go insolvent. Every kilowatt-hour helps the citizens who then need not spend their life’s savings for the next heating bill or in winter need to ask themselves: Do I want a warm dwelling or do I want to buy a meal at the supermarket?

Even if you are not here, Herr Minister, I say: Keep your word and give to the citizens and businesses what they want; namely, every possible kilowatt-hour.

The operators of Isar 2, PreussenElektra, say quite clearly: The most exigent duty now is to briskly lead the political discussion to a durable result. And who says “Every kilowatt-hour helps” can come to only a single durable result and that is the prolongation of the running time of the German nuclear power plants. The AfD’s draft law [Drucksache 20/2592] and our motion to amend [Drucksache 20/3586] make possible precisely that.

We thus confirm: The operators can and want to deliver, a majority of Germans want the prolongation of running time and, yes, there is in this house a majority of hopeful, responsible members who say no

            Vice-president Petra Pau: Herr member, please come to a conclusion.

to a big, green living lie and yes to nuclear power in Germany.    

 

[trans: tem]