Saxony to Empanel a Parliamentary Committee of Enquiry over Covid
Yet, don't get your hopes up, for Brandenburg had two such forums and there were few results other than obfuscation, equivocation, and politicos™ tripping over their own lies
As always, translation, emphases, [and snark] mine.
BSW votes with AfD: An Untersuchungs-Ausschuss on the Corona Pandemic is Coming
Via MDR Sachsen, 25 Oct. 2024 [source]
The AfD has passed its motion in the state parliament [Landtag] with the necessary number of votes. The [far-leftist/old labour] Bündnis Sarah Wagenknecht (BSW) also voted in favour and failed with its own motion on the topic. The CDU and SPD, on the other hand, see an Enquête [the equivalent of a Blue Ribbon] Commission as a better means of dealing with the coronavirus [if you’re asking WTF is the difference—an empanelled Untersuchungs-Ausschuss has subpoena powers while an Enquête is a glorified chattering forum does not].
A committee of enquiry [orig. Untersuchungs-Ausschuss] of the Saxon state parliament will look into possible abuses in politics and administration as well as possible misconduct by politicians during the coronavirus pandemic in Saxony. A motion filed by the AfD parliamentary group received sufficient approval in a special session of parliament—with the votes of the AfD parliamentary group and parts of the BSW parliamentary group.
BSW had also requested a committee of enquiry on the same topic. However, as the parliamentary group only has 15 MPs, it was unable to set up such a committee on its own; all other parliamentary groups voted against [incl. the AfD, it shall be said].
AfD: Examine Culpable Behaviour
During the debate, Saxony’s AfD state leader Jörg Urban said that there were still doubts about the legality of many coronavirus protection measures. Among other things, he mentioned school closures, the 2-G rule in retail, and the 15-kilometre exit radius [people were forbidden fro travelling more than 15km distance from their official residence]. According to Urban, it is not just about lessons for the future: ‘It must be examined whether there was culpable behaviour on the part of the state government.’ [hear, hear]
BSW Criticises AfD
The head of Saxony’s BSW, Sabine Zimmermann, emphasised that society must be reconciled. At the same time, she criticised the actions of the AfD:
The party had four years to react. It was only when the BSW made a committee of enquiry into the coronavirus pandemic an election campaign issue that the AfD came around the corner with its own motion.
[a fair point, but it also applies to BSW, and perhaps doubly so as they were in power in neighbouring Thuringia during the faux Pandemic™…]
CDU and SPD Want a Forum Instead of a Tribunal
The CDU and SPD, with whom the Sahra Wagenknecht alliance is currently talking about forming a possible governing coalition, want to take a different approach to dealing with the coronavirus pandemic. They have submitted a motion for a commission of enquiry, which the state parliament will discuss at a later date.
‘A commission of enquiry has the idea of a forum, a committee of enquiry has the idea of a tribunal’, said Sören Voigt, Parliamentary Secretary of the CDU group in the Saxon parliament [now, that’s both true and false at the same time as the former cannot refer witnesses to the judiciary]. A commission of enquiry could involve scientists and citizens, deal with other issues that arise, and publicise its work [as if politicos™ on such enquiry committees won’t chat with journos™…]. A committee of enquiry, on the other hand, consisted only of members of the state parliament, has a clearly defined remit, and largely did not work in public [but they may hold public hearings that are broadcasted].
The parliamentary secretary of the SPD , Laura Stellbrink, pointed out that such committees of enquiry had been discontinued in other federal states without any results [this likely refers to the major events that occurred in Brandenburg where the AfD had empanelled two such committees and it witnessed lied, obfuscated, and sought to ban the public; fun fact aside, in Brandenburg, BSW also voted for such a committee, much to the chagrin of its potential governing partner, SPD; oh, lest I forget, BSW has now filed a motion to pass a law and declare an amnesty for all those who infringed on the Covid mandates—let’s wait a bit and see if the implications also reach the courts: why an amnesty if the laws and regulations proscribing the Covid mandates weren’t themselves illegal and their pushers worthy of prosecution?]
Greens in Favour of a Commission of Enquiry to Discuss Mistakes
[that’s a true header, believe it nor not] The Greens were also in favour of a commission of enquiry. It was important to talk about mistakes and wrong decisions. However, it is much more important to draw the right conclusions for the future, said Valentin Lippmann, legal policy spokesperson for the Greens. ‘In a situation like this, a committee of enquiry is as suitable as a folding spade or a hammer and sickle for the morning shave.’ [please don’t ask me about why Mr. Lippmann uses this kind of language; as an aside, if the Greens want to ‘talk about mistakes’, well, here are my two cents: I fear that that’s also their approach to parenting, and while important, wanting to talk doesn’t really teach children about right and wrong]
The Left has constitutional concerns
[small and dying, successor of East Germany’s Communist uniparty] The Left expressed constitutional doubts about both motions [note that The Left™ had no such concerns during the faux Pandemic™, which tells you everything you need to know about them]. The AfD’s motion lacked clarity in terms of content; moreover, it already anticipated findings that should actually be made by the committee of enquiry, said MP Rico Gebhardt. In his opinion, the BSW motion lacked any reference to Saxony. The Left Party wanted to refer the AfD’s motion for a committee of enquiry to the main committee of the state parliament for review. However, this was rejected.
Bottom Lines
The comparison to esp. the Brandenburg committees is so stark that it boggles the mind: not only are there two such enquiries but a formal Enquête Committee is apparently also agreed upon, as reported by the Ärztezeitung:
In Brandenburg, there is to be an Equête commission to investigate the coronavirus pandemic. This is one result of the exploratory talks between the SPD and the Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance (BSW).
The commission should work out ‘how state interference in civil liberties can be minimised under the principle of proportionality, how our healthcare system can be set up to cope with pandemics’, it says.
As to Brandenburg’s Untersuchungs-Ausschuss, I’ll leave you with a few choice quotes from the Nordkurier’s reporting (dated 19 Oct. 2024):
The majority of the red-black-green coalition in Brandenburg has backed the state government’s pandemic policy in the first half of the year as a result of the coronavirus investigation committee...
The state parliament debated the coronavirus policy on Thursday. The parliamentary committee had completed its work after more than three years, 21 meetings and 31 witness interviews.
Committee chairman Daniel Keller (SPD) saw no ‘cause for massive criticism’: ‘The state government of Brandenburg has essentially responded appropriately to the still largely unknown challenges of a global pandemic with its own authorities and institutions during the investigation period,’ said Keller [note that this is a MP from the gov’t coalition who absolved the government’s emergency decisions]. He criticised the AfD, which had requested the committee. The committee of enquiry had cost 2.5 million euros and the knowledge gained in the middle of the pandemic was limited. The question was whether it was ‘not also a bit of a waste of money’.
That is a good question, although the committee investigated whether the curtailment of civil liberties was proportionate and/or illegal. Don’t be fooled by these empty boilerplate lingo in support of the gov’t:
SPD health [sic] politician Björn Lüttmann [another spear-carrier for the gov’t] said it was ‘probably the most superfluous committee of enquiry in Brandenburg's history to date’. In future, the population must be better informed about protective measures on an ongoing basis [so, all was done well, and the main problem, according to the gov’t, was too little gov’t-sponsored ‘communication’ as to why there were measures in the first place]. The three opposition parliamentary groups made their own comments via special votes to criticise the committee.
AfD parliamentary group leader Hans-Christoph Berndt accused the state government of having ‘harmed the citizens’. According to the AfD, there was no reliable data basis for the measures. According to the final report, far-reaching restrictions on fundamental rights had been imposed. They ‘should no longer have been necessary, or at least no longer proportionate, since April 2020 at the latest’.
This is what the state gov’t calls ‘useless’, a ‘waste of money’, and ‘superfluous’.
Brandenburg’s Health Minister Ursula Nonnemacher (Greens) defended the government’s policy [with yet more empty words]: ‘An even more serious spread of the coronavirus could only be prevented by the fact that we, as the state government, reacted to the infection as quickly as possible with appropriate dynamism and determination in our decisions.’ [note how Ms. Nonnemacher weasels herself out of addressing any of the AfD’s charges of inappropriate, un-proportionate, and perhaps illegal measures by offering a bit of Kamala-esque word salad]
The AfD parliamentary group filed various complaints with the Constitutional Court during the committee of enquiry, but was unsuccessful in most cases. Brandenburg’s highest court, for example, rejected requests by the AfD to question the then Chancellor Angela Merkel, and the then-Minister of Health Jens Spahn (both CDU) as well as Bavaria's Minister President Markus Söder (CSU).
Well, we’ll see how this all ends—with the sectoral vaccine mandate for health care workers headed back to the German Constitutional Court, it might well be that its re-assessment by the High Judges triggers a far-reaching judicial review:
Perhaps a few things might change, but if I had to guess, ‘politicos™’ will likely ignore any findings and/or verdicts and claim that they acted upon information available at the time.
Everybody knows this is a sham (except for the true believers, many of whom work in legacy ‘journalism™’), and if election results are any indication, many voters are exceedingly frustrated with that kind of politicking and behaviour.
In neighbouring Austria, about a third of the Freedom Party’s ‘new’ voters chose them because of their anti-mandate stance, among others:
Germany’s next federal elections are in less than 12 months. While I doubt a strong anti-Pandemic™ gov’t will emerge, note that there are strong shared interests in the multi-faction Uniparty™ that has no interest in doing anything about it.
German politics has formally entered the W. Bush state of mind:
There’s an old saying in Tennessee—I know it’s in Texas, probably in Tennessee—that says, fool me once, shame on—shame on you. Fool me—you can’t get fooled again.