[ad_1]
Protests outside, AfD provocation inside the Bundestag and many criticisms of the government’s action: the new Infection Protection Law is a done deal, but many remain uneasy.
By Wenke Börnsen, tagesschau.de
At first glance, it doesn’t seem like a serious, factual debate. Outside the Bundestag, the police are just beginning to break up the demonstration against the federal government’s crown policy, while within the AfD they complain about a so-called “health dictatorship.” The bill is an “authorization for the government that has not existed since historical times”, and yes, the AfD is the only democratic group in this country because it rejects this law.
Heated mood
The debate takes less than 30 minutes. The mood: heated. The leader of the AfD parliamentary group, Alexander Gauland, has just spoken, back in the square he will be celebrated by his group.
It is the SPD MP Bärbel Bas who, with her first sentence, lets the provocations of the AfD go nowhere: “Let’s get back to the facts,” she says, and begins to enumerate. For example, the fact that the new Infection Protection Act replaces the previous “general clause” and thus restricts the scope of the government in the crown pandemic. In the future there will be a specific catalog of possible restrictions.
“Good and necessary”
In fact, with the new law, some things will be more specific. It endorses the measures of the crown that have been promulgated by ordinance and names them. Until now, the Infection Protection Act has generally only referred to “necessary protection measures” that can be taken by the “competent authority”. With the amendment to the law, a new paragraph is now inserted that specifically lists the possible protection measures taken by governments and state authorities.
It is a “good and urgently needed law,” says the health policy spokesperson for the Union’s parliamentary group, Karin Maag. And no, “we are not expanding the government’s room for maneuver, we are reducing it.” According to the draft law, the Executive can only order certain measures if the Bundestag determines that there is an epidemic situation of national importance, emphasized the CDU politician. “You have never seen such a misunderstood law.”
Many MPs are still dissatisfied
What follows is an intense debate on fundamental rights in times of pandemic and the role of parliament. It is also clear that despite government amendments, many parliamentarians are not satisfied with this reform of the Infection Protection Law. For example, FDP leader Christian Lindner: The planned new regulations do not give governments any security barriers, but rather give them “a free ticket.” “We as Parliament” have to guide the decisions of governments when fundamental rights are interfered with.
In the opinion of the Left Party, any interference in fundamental rights and freedoms requires the approval or rejection of the Bundestag. Unfortunately, this is not planned, so the law is rejected. Left-wing politician Jan Korte also harshly criticizes the prime minister’s meetings with Chancellor Angela Merkel: they have “monarchical features”. This is how acceptance among the population is played. Korte warns that the Corona crisis could turn into a progressive democratic crisis. “Then we would have a double problem.” However, this “is not a law that leads to dictatorship”, it turns against fundamental criticism of the AfD.
The Greens are also struggling with the grand coalition draft. “We want more,” says Manuela Rottmann. Name a comprehensive reporting obligation for the federal government. However, there are also positives. In the case of certain restrictions, such as visits to nursing homes, more stringent requirements will apply in the future, “contact details can only be used to trace chains of infection” and all restrictions now would have to be limited in time . The Green politician stresses that these are “great improvements.” The new regulation creates “a legal framework for the necessary violations of fundamental rights”, which is why they support the project as a whole.
Spahn has to wait a moment for the AfD
When Health Minister Jens Spahn takes the lectern, AfD MPs briefly hijack attention with a poster campaign. They hold white signs that read “Basic Law” and a black ribbon with the date “11/18/2020”. Actions of this kind are not allowed in the plenary hall: the President of the Bundestag, Wolfgang Schäuble, briefly intervenes and the signs disappear again. The episode only lasts a little over a minute.
Spahn speaks of the pandemic as a “catastrophe of the century” and the difficulty of making the right decisions. “No matter what we do or do not do, there is damage: economic, health, social.” The government must weigh and weigh. “No virologist can do that for us.” And governments needed powers to act and decide.
No, there is no mandatory vaccination
The CDU politician also remembers the purpose of all the measures. There should not be excessive demands on the health system, which would cause a lot of suffering, he said. Germany has weathered the crisis relatively well so far, and with relatively mild restrictions, he says, with a view to neighboring European countries. “What other country would you rather be in?” He tells the AfD parliamentary group.
And no, there will be no mandatory vaccination, Spahn also makes it clear to the AfD. “Stop saying that.”
In the afternoon, the new Infection Protection Law was passed with a large majority. 415 deputies vote for this. There were 236 votes against and eight abstentions. The Federal Council also passed the law shortly after. The demonstrations in the government district, despite the use of water cannons, are not yet over at this time.
