Speeches

Madam President, I would like to inform you that there is some glitches with the translation. We can hardly understand what’s being said. This is unacceptable.

Mr President! – a type of passport designed to ensure access to the labour market for those who have acquired green and digital knowledge. It is expressly stressed that this initiative is not geared to the needs of the labour market, which must be met. Glad we talked about it! Because anyone who knows how the EU works knows that what is explicitly denied is exactly what is being pursued. The fact that this initiative is not subject to EU regulatory competence is illustrated by the fact that the Commission is called upon to implement a strongly motivating instrument that requires Member States to tolerate this non-contractual presumption of competence. The rapporteur himself seems to notice this when he incorporates the blend grenade of voluntary implementation as a precautionary measure. Hence today's quote: The EU subjugates the Member States not with the whip, but with the illusion of voluntariness. Well, bravo!

Mr President! Today, the European Parliament is concerned about the well-being of Ukrainian women refugees. Despite Poland's enormous efforts to provide safety, shelter and care to Ukrainian refugees, this resolution is of course being used to denounce Poland for its attitude to human life at all stages. But that's not enough. Under the pretext of wanting to protect fleeing Ukrainian women as victims of sex trafficking, they must of course be offered an abortion immediately after their arrival. Because of human rights and so on. However, if many women in Ukraine have for years been degradingly reduced to comparatively low-priced walking incubators by the most privileged strata from all over the world, taking advantage of their precarious economic conditions, the Ukrainian legal system largely leaves these desperate women without rights, because only the interests of the buyers of the ‘good baby’ seem worthy of protection, you hear nothing, nothing at all, from the EU Parliament. ‘Ware Baby’ has long since become Ukraine’s export hit. And with the help of the Ukrainian legal system, these mothers are not only rendered completely lawless; For the sale of their bodies, they are often fed with a few hundred euros, while the brokered baby trading companies earn tens of thousands of euros. Insofar as something goes wrong with the delivery, it is not uncommon for the acceptance of the delivery to be refused. The European Parliament is upset about everything and everyone. But the EU Parliament is silent on these inhuman processes, which cry out to heaven, as if the consideration of interests worthy of protection had shown that the human rights of ordinary Ukrainian women fall behind the lifestyle wishes of the privileged layers. So please stop claiming in your misleading paper that the refugee women from Ukraine must be helped above all through easier access to abortion! This is a distraction from truly dramatic circumstances.

Mr President, dear colleagues, you might not be aware, but the abolition of democracy by the global elites continues. On 3 March, the EU Commission was authorised by the Council to renegotiate the Treaty with the World Health Organisation on behalf of the Member States. Under the guise of improving global pandemic response, the plan is to allow the WHO to seize executive governance powers of the Member States in the case of a pandemic. Granting governance powers to a non-elected body is the exact opposite of democratic recourse and takes away any possibility for the people to hold officials accountable. This amounts to no less than disenfranchising the people. We, as elected representatives by the people for the people, must not allow this to happen. I am imploring you: do what you were elected to do. Look into this and protect the rights of the people; the people you were elected by to act in their best interest. And to all the people in Europe, I would like to say, start acting now, write to your MEPs, let them know you will not tolerate to be stripped of your rights to democratic recourse, let them know that any MEP supporting this or voting for this will not ever get your vote again. You, the people... (The President cut off the speaker)

Mr President! The EU therefore wants to promote civic education for citizens. I'm just afraid: What you want is to politically indoctrinate the citizens. The task of elected representatives in a democracy is to implement the political will of the people and not to dictate to the people what will they have. Nor is it our task to persevere in misguided politics, which only needs to be better explained to the people, as former Chancellor Merkel – like a defiant child – once tried to justify her disastrous decisions. Politics must confine itself to objectively explaining to the citizen the various alternatives under discussion, from which he can then freely choose. But that's the problem. To your Brave new worldThere must be no alternative to the agenda. This House in particular is constantly working on states such as Hungary for its alleged hostility to democracy. And yet Viktor Orbán, so hated by you, has only just been re-elected by an overwhelming majority, for which I am sending him my most heartfelt congratulations from this point, just as you have certainly all already done, haven't you? So if anyone here has blatant lack of political education, it is you, ladies and gentlemen. They have a disturbed relationship to concepts such as popular rule and state sovereignty of free, self-determined peoples and regard citizens as stupid, naughty children. Here is a lesson: In a democracy, citizens are free, self-determined and empowered decision-makers whose will you have to respect and implement. Anything else would be a dictatorship. No one wants that here, right?

Madam President, on 21 August the world witnessed the result of 20 years of Western intervention in Afghanistan: the complete and immediate takeover of the country by the Taliban, and a spectacular rollback of what little achievements had been made in favour of Afghan women and the population in general. And here we are, the EU Parliament once again virtue—signalling and being appalled by the way women are treated in Afghanistan. But instead of clearly identifying the cause of this dehumanising treatment of Afghan women, politicians like Sawsan Chebli deal Afghan women yet another blow by insisting their systematic denial of human rights had nothing to do with Islam and putting the blame on men in general. No, ladies and gentlemen, the reason why women in Afghanistan are treated the way they are has everything to do with Islam. For God’s sake, take a look around, there isn’t a single Muslim country in the world in which women are not victimised by the so-called religion of peace. If you truly want to improve the situation of women – and could you please make sure I get to finish my speech, President , thank you – in Afghanistan, call the devil by its name and stop using apologetic terms to downplay the true nature of the most despicable and horrific ideology women suffer from worldwide. But not only are you not doing this, you are now eager to establish the practiced gender apartheid of Muslim countries right here in Europe, while shamelessly claiming to call it tolerance, respect and diversity. You are concerned about the women in Afghanistan? Seriously, who are you trying to kid anymore!

Madam President, based on Article 195 [inaudible] that it would have been more appropriate for Mr Trudeau, Prime Minister of Canada, to address this House according to Article 144, an article which was specifically designed to debate violations of human rights, democracy and the rule of law, which is clearly the case with Mr Trudeau. Then again, a Prime Minister who openly admires the Chinese basic dictatorship, who tramples on fundamental rights by persecuting and criminalising his own citizens as terrorists just because they dared to stand up to his perverted concept of democracy, should not be allowed to speak in this House at all. Mr Trudeau, you are a disgrace for any democracy. Please spare us your presence.

Mr President, dear colleagues, the Gender Action Plan III report is full of big concepts and ideas, but we could break it down to the real and biggest issue: submitting the bodies of millions of poor women across the world to surrogacy, using their vulnerability to blackmail them into selling themselves off to the desires of clients from the most privileged parts of the world and then having the audacity to call it ‘sexual rights’. Under the threat of taking away humanitarian aid, Members of this House are ready to mould Third World countries into a copy of what they fantasise Europe to be, without any regard for the right to self-determination, especially the one of women they claim to defend. While insisting to be the home of human rights, embracing diversity – lifting it as a banner just to show the world how great we are – we are about to vote in favour of enslaving women from all over the world under the pretence of saving them from sexual violence. Yes indeed, we have lost all sense of shame. You claim you want to fight gender stereotypes, yet you are reinforcing those stereotypes by repeatedly referring to women as a vulnerable group. Please spare the women your hypocritical pity. Instead of empowering women to be strong and self-confident, you degrade them into helpless beings in dire need of the administration’s help. Surely you couldn’t be any more misogynistic than that. And here, too, for the record, out of the 705 Members of this House, only 17 are currently present. That is a shame in and of itself.

Mr President! The FEMM Committee, euphemistically referred to as the "High Level Group" in the report, once again wants to enforce gender parity in politics and elsewhere, but of course only on the executive floors, but never in road construction, waste collection or among sewer workers. The fact that the FEMM Committee does not even submit itself to its own 50 per cent gender quota, which is repeatedly loudly demanded – 35 of the 37 members are women – shows once again that it is precisely in this committee that one mistakenly believes that hypocrisy replaces competence. But everywhere else, you just have to get the odds. In Germany, electoral laws have already been amended accordingly in some federal states in order to be immediately declared null and void by the state constitutional courts and to be certified unconstitutional by the Federal Constitutional Court. Normally the story would end at this point. But where would we go if the all-knowers gathered here, clattering on the high horse of their moral superiority, allowed their beautiful new world, built on ideological nonsense, to be destroyed by constitutional principles. Forward always, backward never has so many other sham democracy broken the backbone. What would actually help to promote women in politics would be to simply dispense with blatant misoccupations such as Ms Angela Merkel, Ursula von der Leyen, now brand new Annalena Baerbock. The extent to which these ladies have contributed to the consolidation of traditional role models can never be recaptured by the EU Parliament with any report, be it of the thousand. Which, again, would not be so bad. Today again, this Parliament impressively demonstrates the importance that Members attach to the importance of this Parliament and its work. Of the 705 full members, exactly 13 are present.

Mr President! No one may be discriminated against or favoured because of their gender, descent, race, language, homeland and origin, faith, religious or political beliefs – according to Article 3 of the German Basic Law, to which I am fully committed, and similar to Article 21 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. But this House now has a rather disturbed relationship with fundamental rights. If necessary, they apply more or less or are completely withdrawn. Today, an extensive report with proposals to combat racism is being presented here, while only last week in this House a renaissance of racism, which was not believed possible, was celebrated. In a resolution adopted last week, this House explicitly welcomed sanctions against Russians in the fields of culture and sport. In Germany, Russian opera singers and conductors have already been dismissed and Russian athletes suspended. Putin's invasion of Ukraine is to be condemned in the strongest possible terms, but punishing Russian athletes and cultural workers for their origins is racism in pure culture. With your vote last week, this report is absurd. In any case, this report does not provide a basis for combating racism. Ladies and gentlemen, with identity politics One does not overcome racism, but leads us directly back to precisely those tribal societies that are the breeding ground for all that you pretend to want to fight here. Those who say no to racism must also say no to racism. identity politics say. And how seriously we take the fight against racism in this House can be seen: Out of 705 members, no 25 are present. That's shameful!

Madam President, Millions of people worldwide take to the streets, and as in 1989 in the GDR today again for freedom and democracy. And rightly so! In Germany, the blanket ban on demonstrations by the action-critical clientele revives the totalitarian claim to interpretative sovereignty of the state security of the GDR. Federal Minister of the Interior Ms. Faeser tweets that you can also express your opinion without gathering, and simply wipes away the guaranteed right of assembly. And when freedom, democracy and the rule of law are threatened in the middle of Europe, it is not worth a single debate in this House. How shameful! In any case, I am not prepared to talk about whether and, if so, under what circumstances citizens can be given their freedom back. Ladies and gentlemen, you can talk about freedom – or you have it. Everyone has the freedom to walk with whom and wherever at any time. Walks in the fresh air are also healthy. And Monday night, I hear, you're supposed to meet a lot of nice people. See you on a walk. I invite you all!

Mr President, I was looking forward to welcoming us all back to Parliament, but I can’t do that now because the access of MEPs to the EU Parliament has been restricted. In Western democracies this is an unprecedented attempt to discriminate against and harass elected representatives of the people. President Sassoli, you are violating the European people’s rights by denying them their parliamentary representation. With all due respect, Sir, you are an anti-democrat – a tyrant, no less – who does not seem to understand how democracy works. Well, let me explain. It is not you who grants me access to the EU Parliament. I was granted access to the EU Parliament by the German people. If you are indeed the democrat you are so desperately trying to pass yourself off as, I strongly recommend you either respect that or otherwise step the heck down.

Mr President! “The European Education Area: a common, holistic approach” is the title. In addition to the usual ideological nonsense, it is of course also about the further appropriation of competences. Interesting but is: The aim is to improve critical thinking among citizens. Well, we should perhaps use critical thinking again in this House before we want to teach it to others. Yesterday in Germany we celebrated the 32nd anniversary of the demise of a state that wanted to control its citizens completely, educate and shape its citizens through constant indoctrination, which forced unconditional obedience of its citizens. A state whose existence depended on its citizens being blind to government and submitting to ideological nonsense. However, a free, democratic state under the rule of law must grant its citizens freedom and regard them as free and responsible individuals, who are left to decide for themselves what is right for them. In a liberal democracy, the media would report neutrally, without ideological and manipulative coloring. In a liberal democracy, everyone could form their own opinion freely. In a liberal democracy, the political opposition would not be oppressed or deprived of parliamentary participation. In a free state, everyone would be heard, and a free discourse would take place. In a free democracy, that would be the case. Unfortunately, we are in the EU.

Mr President! The EU wants to help the cultural sector, which has been severely affected by the coronavirus outbreak, get back on its feet financially. It was not Corona itself, but rather the hopelessly exaggerated Corona measures, to which my conclusion is: I'm not afraid of Corona. I am afraid of governments that are becoming more and more invasive and downgrading fundamental rights to privileges. But as is so often the case, this is not about the cultural sector. It's about the EU's agenda again. The EU wants to use the cultural sector as an expression of humanity and democracy to create a common European identity, to pave the way for an ever closer European Union, and even thinks of itself as the creator of a European public - what a hubris! An EU that believes that it has to educate citizens like underage children, and therefore wants to create a new person, is inhumane. An EU that undermines the principle of popular rule through ever-increasing presumption of competence is anti-democratic. An EU that intends to dissolve the cultural identities of the European peoples in favour of a European identity of unity is trampling on the free right of peoples to self-determination. Do you know what word does not appear in the report at all? Freedom of movement! Not once. But who's surprised? There can be no freedom under the Brussels dictates of the beautiful new world. Freedom would be the end of this world. Well, my choice is clear: I choose freedom.

Mr President! This report is another example of how the EU is ostensibly addressing an important issue, but it is only ostensible. It is about measures to combat domestic violence against women. What was intended as a political, correct and important signal against domestic violence once again turns out to be a mere hanger for another fantastic commercial of an entire potpourris of ideological nonsense. The fact that the EU does not even shy away from using the alleged fight against domestic violence to curtail the state sovereignty of the Member States is hardly worth the excitement. But instrumentalizing violence against women to implement ideological absurdities can only be understood by victims of domestic violence as the very slap in the face that the EU Parliament claims it wants to prevent. So it takes more sex education, and for it to work properly, it's best to start with three-year-olds. The consequences of the degrading shame-boundary violations of children are accepted as too cheap collateral damage. Furthermore, the so-called hate speech, which enjoys increasing popularity as an all-purpose weapon in the fight against unwelcome political opinions, must of course be prevented, constitutionally guaranteed freedom of expression back or forth, according to the motto: We already guarantee freedom of speech, but not freedom after speech. In addition, for reasons of cultural sensitivity, it is not enough to highlight many relevant facts in the context of partner violence. It is a consequence of the disastrous migration policy. Nearly 70% of women in women's shelters have a migrant background. There are now two gang rapes in Germany every day. The women are so massively physically maltreated that they are often physically drawn for a lifetime in addition to the mental injuries. And the perpetrators, ladies and gentlemen, are usually the ones who have not lived here for so long. It could be that simple. Probably the most cruel violence against women in Europe could be prevented. A significant contribution would already be made if only the illegal border crossing of millions of young violent men were to be prevented – the safeguarding of one's own territory, until recently the natural right of every sovereign state. Of course, this is not what the EU comes up with. No, this most effective protection of women must lag behind the tolerance of the world improvers gathered here. But, dear abandoned women, helplessly exposed to this imported violence, please do not despair. The EU Parliament will certainly again explain to you next year in celebrated speeches of concern how it does not intend to protect you.

Madam President, this Parliament is the epicentre of good intentions. But as they say, well meant is usually the exact opposite of well done. This Parliament claims concern for our low demography, yet it just voted to accelerate this process by declaring abortion a human right. It claims commitment to reversing the demographic change, but all it can think of is the marginalisation of next-generation Europeans by subjecting them to the negative impact of mass immigration. It claims to support women in their choices, but all it does is look down on women who choose to prioritise family life over career. It claims to stand for people’s rights, but in truth, above all else, the EU seeks to meet the demands of the labour market. And this, ladies and gentlemen, is what we are really talking about – the demands of the labour market and nothing else. Shame on you, EU.

Mr President! Yes, ladies and gentlemen: There are still regulatory gaps in the fight against child abuse in 2021 – what a testament to poverty! The Action Plan against Disinformation ensures that politically unwanted opinions are censored on social media. An app tells me if there is a person around me who is allegedly infected with corona, according to a completely useless PCR test. I have the right to free movement to prove with the digital vaccination passport. But protecting children from abuse is not something the EU can do. Maybe we also hope that the problem will be solved by itself. After all, once the EU has exhausted itself on the playing field of ideologically motivated pseudo-problems and its colorful, gender-friendly, climate-neutral multicultural Trallala world is established, then perhaps all children have already fallen victim to the human right to abortion anyway.