Enlarge image
Federal Health Minister Karl Lauterbach (SPD) in the Bundestag
Photo: TOBIAS SCHWARZ / AFP
The planned infection protection law of the traffic light government has caused a heated debate in the Bundestag about the right way out of the pandemic.
The law is to suspend most of the previously applicable rules from Sunday.
Only the mask requirement at selected locations and a test requirement in certain facilities would then remain.
A so-called hotspot regulation is intended to enable the federal states to make regional tightening possible.
There was disagreement about the right level of action.
Federal Health Minister Karl Lauterbach (SPD) defended the Infection Protection Act as a “compromise”.
The pandemic is “unfortunately not over yet”, so further protective measures are needed.
However, the majority in the country should no longer be restricted at the expense of a minority that does not take the corona virus seriously - the new law is therefore intended to create "a balance", according to Lauterbach.
Lauterbach ruled out any termination of all measures.
"We're not at the point where there can be a Freedom Day," said the SPD politician.
There can only be a real end to the pandemic if the Bundestag decides on compulsory vaccination.
"It's the only safe way out of the pandemic," says Lauterbach.
A majority of Germans, on the other hand, would like stricter rules to be maintained: Read the results of the current Civey survey for SPIEGEL here.
»Bad craftsmanship«
Tino Sorge (CDU), health policy spokesman for the Union faction, criticized the traffic light law.
Taking away almost all the instruments from the countries and just relying on a hotspot regulation would create “a single mess”.
Sorge referred to a revolt in the federal states from the previous day: At the Prime Ministers' Conference there, all 16 state heads had expressed their displeasure with the Infection Protection Act in an unprecedented protocol statement to Chancellor Olaf Scholz (SPD).
The law dismissed Sorge as "poor craftsmanship."
It is unclear whether and how the reduced measures can protect against overloading the hospitals.
The left also criticized the easing.
Lauterbach, who is otherwise the "eternal admonisher", has bowed to the "freedom party" FDP, said MP Susanne Ferschl.
Abolishing the mask requirement is not freedom for everyone, but only “freedom from solidarity and consideration”.
Vulnerable groups are no longer adequately protected.
The Greens politician Kirsten Kappert-Gonther also criticized the Infection Protection Act, saying her party had also wished for the mask requirement to be maintained extensively.
However, her party agrees to the Infection Protection Act for the sake of the “traffic light peace” – weakened measures are still better than no measures.
"On the one hand, we protect, but we make sure that we get back to normality as much as possible," FDP MP Lukas Köhler defended the relaxation.
People are now being given more responsibility for themselves.
»The mask requirement also applies to heckling!«
The AfD caused unrest – which wants all measures to be abolished.
Members of the parliamentary group repeatedly questioned scientific findings on the pandemic in heckling.
In his speech, AfD MP Stephan Brandner described Lauterbach as a "vaccinationist" and "liar".
His scenarios about the pandemic would not come true.
He himself, said Brandner, is living proof, since he was neither vaccinated nor died of the virus.
Lauterbach refused to be called a liar and accused the AfD of "incredible mockery of the victims".
In the past two years, the AfD has not made “a single constructive contribution” to combating the corona virus.
Bundestag Vice President Petra Pau finally had to pause the debate.
She logged "multiple violations on the right side of the house."
Individual AfD MPs had removed their masks when they spoke.
Pau sent a warning to the hecklers: "The mask requirement also applies to hecklers!"
Mr
