German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 19/204, pp. 25686-25687.
Right honorable Herr President. Ladies and gentlemen.
All illegalities concerning the proceedings at the Capitol ought to be strictly punished. Political argument is to be conducted exclusively with peaceful, democratic means. Yet what a show! In the U.S.A. a demonstration escalates, and in Germany one hastens to state that here a similar mob agitates. Good, we in Germany plainly had no comparable occurrence, for instance in front of the Reichstag. While at the Capitol a heap raged for hours, here within a few of minutes the troop proceeded to its selfies on the steps – no break-ins, no injuries, three police officers having sufficed. Yet a shamelessly false comparison is drawn so as to incite with horror pictures the German populace against critics of the government policy.
Timon Gremmels (SPD): You are nevertheless the instigator!
That is hate, that is incitement against a democratic opposition minority.
Why were critics of the government vilified? Henceforth, when they are placed almost beyond the pale of opinion and it is desired to ostracize them, it is to thereby show that with the critics, perhaps of excessive lockdown preventative measures,
Timon Gremmels (SPD): The AfD as victim!
there is not need to argue, since they in any case are thought criminals. The government wants nothing more than that the opposition radicalizes. Where that fails to appear, it is simply to be fantasized, like the Bavarian Word Rambo with his Corona RAF; since the opposition is no more to be met with the power of better arguments – where the ice would be thin – but one can style oneself as a force for order against law-breakers. Who is thus a driver of social division, who a provocateur of hysteria? It is the government itself which continually presents its requirements as being without alternative and ostracizes those who think otherwise.
Should Trump be a bad loser, what would it then be for Germany, where a Chancellor declares an election result unpardonable and announces it ought to be rescinded? Who here has a distorted relation with democracy, ladies and gentlemen?
Agnieszka Brugger (Greens): You!
And in regards defense of the constitution, how is it to be considered when, according to the former chief of an authority subordinate to the government, there is political pressure to unconditionally observe a specific party, when a press conference is held which was subsequently categorized as unlawful? Must the Constitution Defense itself perhaps be observed?
Yes, democracy in Germany is in danger. Following an AfD complaint, many state constitutional courts must stop the unconstitutional parity law, against the wishes of its supporters Giffey, Barley, Lambrecht, Widmann-Munz. The Federal Constitutional Court recognized, quite in the sense of the AfD, that the illegal financing of states by means of the ECB’s loan purchases was unconstitutional. Democracy, which lives on freedom of speech, is also in danger when even the use of a single word shall be sanctioned – Volk, Nation – and when anyone is not of the government line, the same endangers unity, even though difference of opinion and the dispute over means are still the way of democracy.
Increasingly will divergent opinions be punished with social proscription, media vilification and loss of job. Who does not play along with the government’s reconstruction plans for this country will be attacked, blocked, cancelled. Even the apolitical area will be brought into line, from the writer to the cabaretist. According to a survey, a majority of Germans prefer to hold back their own opinion instead of saying openly what one thinks. Since what disturbs will be clarified as a non-opinion, declared to be hate, removed from the protection of basic rights.
Timon Gremmels (SPD): The AfD styles itself as victim! Mein Gott!
An official truth is laid down by which doubt is named incitement and conspiracy so that even opinions will be forbidden.
The actual assault on democracy is the instrumentalization of the excesses at the Capitol so as to establish a widespread censorship. The cancellation orgies on the internet daily drum up a march to digital totalitarianism. It is desired to bring all critics to silence – a book-burning on a gigantic scale, ladies and gentlemen.
Timon Gremmels (SPD): That is no historical comparison! Book-burning? Take that back! Unbelievable!
The state of law is thereby endangered by those who command striking violations of the basic rights without actually weighing the suitability. Those endanger democracy who think the populace can be deceived, on which can even be palmed off a liability and financial union by the opportune means of a health crisis
Ulli Nissen (SPD): The comparison with 1933 is false!
or the robbery of a three-figure sum of billions by means of a supposed reconstruction fund.
Variety of opinion is still a prerequisite of democracy. Yet politics and media will not justify the order to overhaul every expert voice, to deconstruct all opinions. Instead there is a one-page, uniquely valid requirement – ARD and ZDF as vaccine centers for the Ministry of Truth.
If anyone in Germany endangers democracy, then it is a government which issues its actions as being without alternative, which withdraws itself from debate and which from the outset wishes to discredit all opposing voices. Therefore, the Alternative für Deutschland is most certainly a defense of democracy in Germany.
I thank you.
[trans: tem]
AfD in English 