Frauke Petry in Landau Speech And Discussion Afd Bayern Tv

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen Thank you very much for showing up in such great numbers... and you will now have to make do with someone not from Bayern I think you'll be able to endure that, though, I'm glad to have had such engaging speakers speaking before me and I'm glad the protesters couldn't discourage you from coming here. Now, I just have to check my pockets... because I know it wasn't just counter-protests taking place here... but there also was a small note being spread here apparently... which I'm going to read to you. Some may already know it. And maybe those who have spread it... now have the courage to stand up for us. I quote: They believe a woman's place is in the home, they are opposed to protecting the environment, they are exhibiting homophopic, xenophobic and far right characteristics. You've come to the right party. Thank you for your vote. It must have been really brave and well-informed citizens... who could have written something like this... and maybe those responsible should simply come to the stage... and tell us how they came to this view, so we can discuss them. Now THAT would be a good idea! Ah well, when you're not courageous enough, just remain seated. Remain calm and just sit down again. It's just nice to know where those responsible are seated. They are welcome to stay, you might even learn a little something here tonight. That's very kind of you. Perhaps you can tell me why you think the AfD wants women back in the kitchen. I think you're very brave, thank you for doing this. Most people wouldn't have the guts. Here's a microphone, so you can explain in a few words why you think women belong in the kitchen. It's ME who thinks that women... ? Turn around, so people can see you. It's not me who thinks women belong in the kichen, of course... but apparently, some of you here do. How so? No, let him speak! Thank you for the insult. Very kind of you. No, just let the boy speak and just get to the point, please. Thank you very much. I'm slightly nervous, but... apparently you did say that, that women belong in the home, not in such a crass way, of course, but... in some way you have. So what exactly is your reasoning? You're just repeating the hypothesis, which is good, but where do you see evidence of this? Do you know the AfD policy when it comes to family? Yes, you've already mentioned something about it and... it seemed to me a bit like women should go back to the kitchen. That's just my opinion, I took it that way. Please remain calm. First of all, I respect the fact you're brave enough to repeat all that here. I'd just like to add it wasn't me who spread these notes. Well, apparently you did spread them and when you do, you really feel this way. Of course I feel this way. I might not support all of it, but... I suggest you read our policies on family, which says we're in favour of choice: Women and families can decide for themselves whether they want to stay at home for the first 3 years... or if they want to have their children in day care. What is retrogressive about that? That's completely ok, of course. Right. So your reasoning seems to be rather flawed then. It's all right. Maybe one of your friends can defend the next claim, why we're against the protection of the environment. That would be fascinating. No, please remain calm. Please, sit down. We're not going to stoop to the level of those outside. There are still some normal people in here. Well, hello all. So for the first three years you want women to... No, please talk about the second claim now. You've just admitted women should just remain at home with their child for the first three years. Listen for a second. Political rallies have certain rules, just like in school... and I've asked your friend here to defend the first claim, because we're not going to let you speak all evening. So could you, or one of the ladies, explain why you think we're against protection of the environment? The party programme states CO2 is no danger to the environment or to people. So how do you explain the many deaths resulting from pollution in China? All the while your manifesto... No, no, please let the young lady speak. I think it's brave that... hey, just take a deep breath, like we say in Saxony: "wusa" (?). Just remain calm and relaxed. I think it's really fascinating, because what these youngsters are doing... most people wouldn't dare do; all they do is stand outside and shout. Right, an applause was merited there indeed. And before I let you talk... When I look at what's written in our text books, what our children are being taught, it's really no surprise... this is what they believe. In that area there's a mountain of wrong information. How are these young people supposed to know better when this is all even the large newspapers are writing? We have to give them a bit of time and I would like to answer the question now, if there's nothing else. So CO2 is one issue... Yes, you can give your answer. I'd like to ask you a question first. Apart from the fact smog in essence doesn't consist of CO2, but rather of sulphur oxide... and nitrous oxide. No, excuse me, that which actually makes the smog are sulphur and nitrous oxide. I'm a chemist, believe me, I know. It's not CO2. When it comes to CO2. Can I ask you a question back? Which grade are you in? In grade 12 (USA: High school senior) Great. So you have a couple of years of chemistry and physics under your belt... I hope. I had chemistry in my Abitur (~ GCSE or Matura). Excellent. In that case you can probably tell me what happens when you dissolve CO2 in water and the temperature rises? No, the audience shouldn't tell her. It's a specific question. When the temperature rises, will more or less CO2 dissolve? More Completely wrong.I don't want to make you look foolish, but I recently asked the same question to a student in Neuburg and I got the same wrong answer back. When one dissolves a gas in water and the temperature rises, less will dissolve. Best example: Heat up some carbonated water and check how many bubbles are still in there? Fewer, right? If you leave open a bottle of sparkling water, particularly in a warm kitchen, the amount of sparkles remaining is less after a day, right? Are you addressing my question with this? No, I'm trying to explain to you what the deal is with CO2 and because we normally try to reason based on scientific facts... I suggest we stick to those. Hence my question just now. So, when we're in agreement about the fact that less CO2 dissolves when the temperature rises... and also take into account how much of the planet is covered in water and how much CO2 is dissolved in our oceans: a whole lot. Some of it is stored by trees by way of photosynthesis, growth of plants, etc. There are two phenomena in the planet's history: one of them is the warming, there are warm periods, that much we can agree upon. The only question is: is the current warm period caused by people or not? That's the only relevant question. And there are two hypotheses: One that says the CO2 was there first and the rise in temperature came later. And the other one says: First there was the warming, then the rise of CO2 levels, which is more logical, because we know that CO2 doesn't stay dissolved when temperatures rise. And that's the fundemental question, when it comes to climate change, about which there's no concensus... even when you read the books written by environmental scientists, who believe we are the cause, even those can't answer the question of the chicken and the egg, we just don't know which was there first. And that's the problem with this entire debate, and that's why I'd like to advise you to think critically about... whether man is really responsible for it, which I think he isn't. I've concerned myself with that issue enough already, thank you. If you can say that, then that's a-ok. You have your Abitur, after all. I'd really like to address the third issue now. Oh, you have more on CO2 or the environment?! Turn around, so people can see you. I'm a physicist and what you're saying is not.... there only few *rest hard to make out, probably dialect* No, I've only said it's a hypothesis, that's all, it's not been proven yet. It's an established scientific opinion, an accepted opinion, that CO2 has an effect on the environment, a negative effect. Which is? Which is? What's the negative effect on the environment? That's right, there are cycles of... No, what's the negative effect of CO2 on the environment, that's what you wanted to say. Let me finish, please. There are cycles... you are right about the cold and warm periods, and you can't really say if it's caused by man or not. Thank you. We don't know, that's the thing. That's all I was saying. But you as a chemist have to admit and stress that from a scientific point of view it's [the warming] probably mainly due to CO2. That what is caused by CO2? That the rise in temperature is caused by CO2. You've just contradicted yourself with two sentences. First it's not proven, then it is proven. It's not been proven, that's the thing. But the assumption... The hypotheses, that which is not proven, exactly. And as long as a hypothesis hasn't been proven yet, it's just a hypothesis. Can we agree on that at least? Right. And we can just accept that and for lower CO2 emissions... We have to watch the time. But actually you wanted to say something about the harm to the environment. We can establish the following: It's always a good approach to save energy and avoid contaminating the environment. But to base a completely new energy policy on a hypothesis is simply unscientific, nothing more. Right, I'd like to listen... we'd like to hear something else now. Why are we homophobic, xenophobic and apparently far right as well? Perhaps someone has the guts [to answer that]. Homophobic, exactly. You're saying that the islamists would never come to Germany (?). No, we're talking about "homophobic". Do you know what "homophobic" means? So why are you saying "xenophobic" then? No, I asked about "homophobic". Can we stick to the order? Ok, then start with "xenophobic", if that's more to your liking. If you say that the islamists would never come to Germany... What's xenophobic about extremists not belonging in Germany? Why are saying that islamists who *too fast, too much Bayrisch dialect* And you can't blame all islamists when a coloured person does something to a girl, however terrible it is to say even... but when something like that happens, you can't say all islamists do stuff like that. Christians would never do something like that, of course. Just look at the church, the *** priests who are raping children. And then you say all islamists do is *** little girls. Can we please separate islam from the issue of xenophobia? The AfD has absolutely no issue with integrated foreigners, but we do with illegal immigrants from countries where the word "democracy" doesn't exist. Which is not their fault. Hold on, you can speak in a bit. I just want to make our position clear, because I think you don't really know it. The AfD does actually have support from integrated foreigners in Germany. The results of the regional elections in Freiburg showed that more than 36% of foreigners and migrants, those in possession of a German passport... voted AfD, a number clearly higher than among all other parties. They didn't vote SPD (social democrats), CDU (christian democrats) or Grüne (green party). So when those people had an issue with us, they wouldn't vote for us, would they? And I can tell you why: the foreigners who came to Germany, fleeing from dictatorship and persecution, know what it means to have European and German law. They don't want to go back to the Middle Ages; they want to live in a country... in which democratic rules apply and it's mostly those people coming here who have issues with the rules of islam, c.q. sharia. And there are a lot of Christian refugees among them, who are now being persecuted for their religion by their own countrymen in German refugee centres. These people are best protected when we make sure those, who don't have the right to be here, don't stay here. That's a proper asylum policy.