Beatrix von Storch, July 5, 2024, Pro-Life and Criminal Law

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/182, pp. 23698-23699. 

Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen. 

The left-greens can primarily do one thing: Discover ideological fighting words. Today, a new one: Sidewalk harassment [Gehsteigbelästigung], discovered by gender ideologue Ulrike Lembke. 

Filiz Polat (Greens): What rubbish is this, then?

All forms of relevant harassment are nevertheless today culpable, or are a violation of an ordinance. 

            Christina Baum (AfD): Right!

Thus why now Gehsteigbelästigung? An Orwellian newspeak. 

You want to demolish basic rights of Christians and defenders of life. For you, it is not about climate clingers who block hundreds of thousands of motorists, or about tens of thousands of leftist extremists seeking to prevent with violence an AfD party day, and also not about Islamists who in their fighting prayers conquer our public space. You find all of that to be fantastic or democratic or acceptable. Yet when Christians and defenders of life make use of their right to freedom of opinion or freedom of assembly, then you hollow out [drehen Sie hohl]. 

The Federal Administrative Court on 23 May 2023 clearly held that defenders of life may demonstrate in front of pro-family abortion centers. 

            Filiz Polat (Greens): What then is that for a term?

I cite: 

“There is in a pluralistic society no right to remain entirely exempt from the confrontation with divergent religious presentations or opinions.”

With that, all is said. 

You present in your draft law the assertion that, by means of sidewalk harassment, counseling offices and abortion clinics would be hindered in their activity, or those pregnant restrained from entering them. 

Canan Bayram (Greens): No, the women are hindered in their counseling possibilities. You need to read it correctly, Frau von Storch!

A dumb thing, that is a dumb thing! You know that. For that, there is no statistic, there is no survey, there are no police reports, there is simply nothing. You discover a problem which does not exist so that you have a reason to proceed with state repression against Christians and defenders of life. 

It is little surprising that the preparation for this comes from the Heinrich Böll Foundation, which in 2021 published an evaluation with the title, “Possibilities of Statutory New Regulation in the Conflict Field of Sidewalk Harassment”. The author: Sina Fontana. And here it becomes interesting, since Frau Fontana has written another evaluation with the title, “Universal Women’s Rights and Islamic Law”. 

            Götz Frömming (AfD): Oh! An interesting alliance!

Fontana therein wrote that the Scharia is quite wonderfully compatible with women’s rights. That is the Greens: Criminalize Christian prayers because against women’s rights, but praise and extol Scharia because good for women’s rights. 

            Christina Baum (AfD): Unbelievable!

The central point: Who like the Greens and the Linke defend Scharia, for them it is not about women’s rights, but for them it is about the fight against our culture.           

Canan Bayram (Greens): You have a Scharia fetish, Frau von Storch!

And in this culture war, the green Verbot parties want to silence critics, naturally with friendly support of the FDP. One prayer or the protest of defenders of life: 5,000 euro fine. Here in the Bundestag, to name a specific first name in a specific context: 1,000 euro fine. The Green catalogue of fines for forbidden expressions will soon become very long. 

            Gero Clemens Hocker (FDP): Expensive for you, Frau von Storch!

This law is unconstitutional and breathes the spirit of a totalitarian Green ideology. 

Canan Bayram (Greens): A court still decides, and not you, what is compatible with the constitution!

And the CDU wants to forbid the prayers, but thinks for that the right of assembly suffices; you have indeed said it, and Frau Breiler also on Wednesday in committee. Alone the FDP – not alone the FDP is responsible, but it shares in all of this. 

            Lukas Köhler (FDP): Your confusion is noted.

Alone the AfD stands for defense of life and freedom of opinion. 

Ladies and gentlemen, to me you will not forbid prayers, and also not the expression of the male name of Markus. 

 

[trans: tem]

Fabian Jacobi, July 4, 2024, The German Language

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/181, pp. 23455-23456. 

Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen. 

With associations, it is so a matter: What in regards a new item of business comes to one spontaneously, often appears accidental and then proves to be of little help. In the case put forward, my thoughts certainly turn back more often in further course to the matter which this draft law for me initially called to mind. The famous sociologist and economist Max Weber expressed it in his entry speech at the University of Freiberg in the year 1895, and he said: 

“Big businesses which are only to be maintained at the cost of German nationality, from the standpoint of the nation are worthy of perishing…”

Now, the circumstance to which this matter referred – it was about the collapse of the noble estates in the Prussian agrarian areas – has well nigh sunk into the fogs of history. And the verbal characteristic of Weber’s speech for us today has become foreign. Yet it would be decadent arrogance to believe on that account alone we could easily do without the insights and thoughts of earlier generations. 

You, ladies and gentlemen, want by means of the law which you today are deciding “to strengthen Germany as a venue of justice [Justizstandort Deutschland]” The expression reveals the authors’ world view. It is a view which we do not share. 

The German state is no business firm which has to compete for a share of the market. The German state is, if so desired, the worldly form [weltliche Gestalt] of the German nation the continuation of which it has to serve. To this belongs that the language of this Republic is and remains the German language. 

            Stephan Brandner (AfD): Exactly!

You want to strengthen the justice venue in which German courts further conduct proceedings in the English language, and no longer pronounce sentence in the name of the people in the language of the people. 

This shall initially apply only for a specific category of judicial procedures. It would  nevertheless be naïve to suppose the matter will thereby rest. The FDP, the minister of which is responsible for the law, demands introducing quite generally the English language as an official language of the German state. We recognize here the first step of a classic salami tactic: Once the salami begins to be cut, it is only a question of time until it is completely consumed. 

Ladies and gentlemen, we experience for long already the downfall of our language. The loss of its earlier importance beyond our borders needs not be mourned; yet it might be explained as a consequence of two destructive world wars. Meanwhile long since also occurs the decline in its own land. 

Martin Plum (CDU/CSU): In the Legal Affairs Committee, also with you!

Ever more often it happens that in businesses the staff are urged to communicate with one another not in German but in English. Universities hold teaching events in the English language, even if all participants are native German speakers or are fluent in German. 

Carsten Müller (CDU/CSU-Braunschweig): You as a member speak English in committee!

And now also shall a core area of our state, the justice, begin the process of the suppression of our language. If we open this door a crack, so will it tomorrow be completely pushed open. It should remain closed. This applies all the more as the implications disturb not only the national but also the democratic character of our polity. 

In the pre-democratic ages, the feudal ruling class spoke to one another in French, despised the German language as a language of farmers and domestics. This situation was overcome by the bürgerlichen and democratic revolution of the 19^th Century. The German national state which grew out of that revolution would be entirely perverted; in the 21^st Century, it wanted to set about abetting a revival of such a social division [Der deutsche Nationalstaat, der aus jener Revolution erwuchs, würde gänzlich pervertiert, wollte er sich im 21. Jahrhundert daranmachen, einem Wiederaufleben solcher gesellschaftlicher Spaltung Vorschub zu leisten]. I began this speech with a citation, and with a citation I also close: 

            Erhard Grundl (Greens): The main thing, to end! 

“We hope that what always distinguishes and will distinguish the nation from other nations…our beautiful language, will not become dry and common, but will renew its nobility, and with it all that finds its expression in words. If that not be done, what would all recovered great power and seeming power then help us?”

Golo Mann wrote that as a closing sentence of his Deutschen Geschichte. And if my speech will surely have no influence on today’s vote, may it still be taken to heart by one or another for his future work in this house. 

Many thanks. 

 

[trans: tem]

Rainer Kraft, July 5, 2024, Energy Policy

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/182, pp. 23642-23643. 

Right honorable President. Valued colleagues. 

The draft law put forward by the government serves the purpose, cost what it may, of attaining the EU’s planned economic intentions for renewable electricity generation. And to this purpose you subordinate everything – apparently motivated by an eco-mania. You strive for no less than a comprehensive industrialization of the German ocean areas and in your blind mania toss all sensibility overboard. 

            Renate Künast (Greens): Blah, blah, blah! 

If you would interest yourselves with the same élan for the citizens of this country as for the EU’s planning target – in regards the latter, your wet dream becomes true – I would need not stand here today, Frau Künast. You skew German planning, environment and conservation law as you would lead the Bitterfeld chemical combine or a sweatshop in Bangladesh – all in the name of the eco-socialism for an establishment of the green world order. 

You endanger international shipping by which you negligently shorten the clearance of the monster wind parks through the shipping routes. 4,200 meters does not correspond to the requirements of modern shipping. Your ignorance of safety aspects thus endangers human lives and increases the danger of shipwrecks with consequent disastrous environmental catastrophes. Just three years ago, you forbade balloons to the children and replaced plastic straws with paper straws contaminated with perfluorooctanoic acid. Now you want to take care that we release into the sea each year hundreds of tons of microplastic abrasions per windpower park – each year, hundreds of tons of microplastics. Your double morality will here be exceeded only by your economic incompetence, since a customer or circuits for your electricity and your hydrogen on land – that simply does not all exist. 

Let us remain with hydrogen, for which you plan offshore generation. In times in which the German industry cites the energy costs as emigration and insolvency reason number one, you want to establish the hydrogen from offshore electricity as a new energy carrier. Okay, let’s look for once at what that costs. For one kilowatt-hour of hydrogen is needed around three kilowatt-hours for the electrolysis. One kilowatt-hour from your monster park costs for the generation around ten cents per kilowatt-hour. 

            Renate Künast (Greens): Can you speak somewhat more lightly? We are                                    not listening!

We would thus already be at 30 cents in energy costs per kilowatt-hour of hydrogen – pure  energy costs. The production and write-off costs of the electrolysis installations in the midst of the corrosive ocean environment are still not figured in. Just to recall: This government, this coalition, introduced a cap on gas prices of 12 cents per kilowatt-hour so that the gas prices not lead to the impoverishment of the people and the ruin of the German economy. And the same government with the same coalition wants to establish a future energy carrier for which today alone we need to contribute 30 cents per kilowatt-hour in energy costs. Thus, dear coalition, he who needs to use this hydrogen of yours, he can toss the money roll directly into the oven. 

Yet the economy nevertheless still only plays a subordinate role in the Economy Ministry. In the law’s statement of purpose it is quite openly named – cite: 

“The changes are adopted to align Germany’s entire line, its entire climate, energy and economic policy, to the 1.5 degree climate defense path…”

Aha, the German economy, the motor of our prosperity, is for this government only a hindrance which needs to be overcome on the way to the red-green Utopia. This government deliberately incinerates umpteen billion euros in tax money for the construction of a deformed energy system which robs this nation of its entire ability to compete. And the only profiteers will be foreign states, multinational investors and additional subvention appendages. 

To sabotage the output power of our economy by means of over-expensive and scarce energies endangers our prosperity, the future of our children and the social security of our nation. A fundamental change of course in the German energy policy is thus absolutely necessary, and in place of the fulfillment of socialist planning, a cool, virtuous reason needs again to enter. Yet there is this change of course only with the Alternative für Deutschland. 

 

[trans: tem]

Barbara Benkstein, June 28, 2024, Artificial Intelligence

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/179, pp. 23264-23265. 

Frau President. Right honorable ladies and gentlemen. Valued colleagues. 

After a good nine months, we here in plenary session again deliberate on the Union motion for a strengthening of Artificial Intelligence as a key technology for Germany. After nine months, it certainly can be expected that a new thought or a new idea will be born. Yet unfortunately, despite a thorough, orderly description of the problem: A zero return in your motion. 

Ladies and gentlemen, what becomes clear here, and what is it actually about? It’s about no more and yet no less than Germany’s role in the AI and data market. So as to bring it to three points: First, start-ups and KMU [Kleine und Mittlere Unternehmen, small and mid-sized business] require free development possibilities without sprawling bureaucratic impediments. Instead is required, second, more innovation and knowledge transfer, and with that, third, a durable business model with scaling perspectives. 

The 2024 Federal Research and Innovation Report, which here yesterday in plenary session was already presented, lays the finger in the wound. In regards the themes of data and AI, the Federal government neglects the necessary computing infrastructure. It does not do to rebuke the without question splendid achievements of German research institutions in the AI area. 

We in Germany have no recognition or knowledge problem when we speak of AI. Yet, right honorable ladies and gentlemen, what is lacking is a secure, stable computing infrastructure so as to train the algorithms of quite promising start-ups and KMU. For that, these so far need to use the services of large hyperscalers, with the real risks that their training data does not remain exclusively with them. The local supercomputers, for instance in Jülich, Garching or Stuttgart, are primarily computers for science which are only at limited disposal for young business customers. 

There continues to be lacking in Germany a securely financed AI infrastructure. The AI-Federal Association LEAM [large European AI models] initiative figures the construction costs of one such at around 300 million euros. The Federal government, which so gladly styles itself as progressive coalition, has so far kept from view this practical stimulus. To name this refusal is the duty of a constructive opposition. 

The coalition, continues to appear to be, ja, of good cheer to decide in the coming weeks in cabinet the draft budget for 2025. For the digital, data and AI policy, the budget is allowed to become a tragedy: Reductions here, eliminations there, minimal investments. How, with that, valued ladies and gentlemen, shall be strengthened Germany’s role in regards the key technology of AI, remains a secret. 

            Otto Fricke (FDP): The AfD wants to expend more money! Always good!

And the once loudly announced digital budget was in the meantime well buried. Or will the government still apply itself, valued Herr colleague Broadcasting Kaiser? 

As was already adhered to last autumn in this place: Your motion, valued colleagues of the Union, aims in the right direction. It nevertheless is lacking in exactitude and consistency. We therefore will abstain. Our offer, after the coming Bundestag election in a coalition of the reasonable to deal with the AI theme with corresponding priority, stands as before.

Many thanks. 

 

[trans: tem]

Alexander Gauland, July 4, 2024, NATO, Russia and Ukraine

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/181, pp. 23422-23423. 

Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen. 

Yes, NATO is a success story. It has bestowed peace and security on its members for 75 years. And yes, we need NATO still today. With the Gorch Fock, Germany’s trade and seaways are not secured. Germany is not in the position to defend itself. NATO guarantees us protection and security. 

This should nevertheless not prevent us from putting a couple of questions. The collapse of the Warsaw Pact had offered the possibility involving an all-European security system with Russia. The opportunity was wasted. 

            Sara Nanni (Greens): By whom, then?

Instead – and honesty is in order to state this – we sought to drive Russia in a weak phase out of Mitteleuropa. That might have been a geostrategic aim of the U.S.A. – it did not serve European peace. 

Ladies and gentlemen, in this house it is fairly senseless to recall that in the reunification negotiations declarations had been delivered – I name now only one – like that of the British Foreign Minister Douglas Hurd, which maintained – cite:

“There was no plan in NATO to admit in any form the countries of eastern and middle Europe into NATO.” 

I could continue the list with James Baker and with our former Foreign Minister Genscher – I know, the CDU contests this and ever again was heard, all of that is not right. 

            Joe Weingarten (SPD): You can stop! The remittance from Moscow comes!

Therefore I have also used this citation. 

I of course also know that the Warsaw Pact then still existed and corresponding developments lay in the future. Yet the question needs be allowed whether it would not have been smarter to include Russia in the changes taking place. 

President Bärbel Bas: Herr Dr. Gauland, do you allow an interim question or                            an interim remark?

No, I do not now allow that. 

The present war in the Ukraine has a long, previous history, and which also – and not in the least measure – has to do with the eastern expansion of the alliance. It is therefore important in this moment to recall: NATO is a European Atlantic alliance of defense. The Ukraine is not a part of NATO, just as little as, for that matter, Taiwan. 

            Joe Weingarten (SPD): Er tut mal für sein Geld!

NATO is thus not responsible for the integrity [Unversehrheit] of non-member states nor does it have duties to fulfill in the Indo-Pacific area. And, ladies and gentlemen, it is also no ideological bulwark of democrats against autocrats. 

We should always keep in view – and for this too is honesty in order – that the world’s largest democracy, India, does not share our viewpoint on the Ukraine conflict. In the world of Ranke’s Die Grossen Mächte, NATO is insurance coverage for Germany, and it is very good for that. It should not be an ideological spearhead in a fight against Russia, if we want to live in a peaceful world. 

I am grateful. 

 

[trans: tem]

Alice Weidel and Tino Chrupalla, July 16, 2024, Compact Magazine

AfD Kompakt, July 16, 2024.

The ban on the Compact magazine is a serious blow against freedom of the press. We view this proceeding with great concern. To ban an organ of the press means a refusal of discourse and variety of opinion. A ban is always the most far-reaching step. Federal Interior Minister Nancy Faeser thereby abuses her competences so as to suppress critical reporting. We demand of the Minister to respect the freedom of the press.

 

[trans: tem]