National Council concludes discussions on referendums
Vienna (PK) – Three citizens’ concerns from the areas of national defense, internal affairs and equal treatment were at the beginning of the agenda for today’s National Council meeting. While the approximately 197,000 proponents of the “Immediately deport asylum offenders” initiative are committed to returning asylum seekers who have committed criminal offenses to their respective home countries, the constitutional affirmation of Austria’s permanent neutrality is the central concern of almost 117,000 citizens who do so signed the referendum “Austria’s Neutrality Yes”. 154,000 people supported the “anti-gender referendum” and are calling for an end to discrimination against people who do not use gender-appropriate language.
During the debate on the referendum, the FPÖ in particular expressed security concerns, as around 20 to 30 activists had gathered for a rally in front of parliament. National Council President Wolfgang Sobotka stated that there was no danger to the House. Members of Parliament and staff were allowed access to Parliament at any time. Access for groups of public visitors was interrupted for around an hour.
“Austria’s neutrality yes”: Different ideas about neutrality among MPs
Exactly 116,832 Austrians have signed a referendum calling for an official reaffirmation of Austria’s permanent neutrality. Austria should therefore once again declare that it will not join any military alliance “in the future” and will not allow the establishment of military bases by foreign states on its territory. In addition, the proponents are calling for another corresponding constitutional law.
The “logic of the Cold War” has returned with Russia’s attack on Ukraine, stated ÖVP mandate Friedrich Ofenauer. Against this background, neutrality alone is not enough to protect the country. This must also be “credibly defensive” in order to be able to defend itself with all available means. Ofenauer therefore welcomed the increasing investments in the armed forces and advocated strengthening comprehensive national defense. Austria’s neutrality has developed further since joining the EU, explained Ofenauer, and Reinhold Lopatka (ÖVP) saw this as having strengthened it even further. Nobody questions the neutrality, Lopatka pleaded with the FPÖ not to further unsettle the population.
Robert Laimer (SPÖ) explained that neutrality is not a sufficient condition for peace, but it has helped to avoid “senseless sacrifices” several times in history. He referred to surveys and spoke of an “exorbitant trust” among Austrians in neutrality and a growing concern about its “eroding”. However, the SPÖ will not allow this, said Laimer. His parliamentary group colleague Rudolf Silvan introduced a motion for a resolution on a “committed neutrality policy in times of crisis”, which, among other things, calls for the obligation to equip the Austrian armed forces with modern equipment, the tightening of export controls on war material and a strengthening of Austria’s mediating role in conflicts. The motion remained in the minority.
“The world needs neutrals,” FPÖ MP Susanne Fürst quoted the President of the International Committee of the Red Cross as saying. If everyone takes sides, it is important to enable a constructive dialogue with both parties to the conflict. To achieve this, neutrality should not be reduced to its military core, but must also include the political dimension, said Fürst. She spoke of a “shameful defeat” for the EU, which had not managed to play a constructive role and thus help people, but was doing the opposite – with the help of Austria. In this context, Dagmar Belakowitsch (FPÖ) vehemently opposed French President Emmanuel Macron’s consideration of sending ground troops to Ukraine.
The biggest threats to neutrality are those who exploit the term and are on Russia’s side, interjected David Stögmüller from the Greens. Austria must find a neutrality that has arrived in the 21st century and does justice to the principles of solidarity and human rights. According to Stögmüller, “bunkering down” is not the right way.
Douglas Hoyos-Trauttmansdorff (NEOS) also didn’t believe in “pulling up castle walls” and spoke out in favor of an open discourse about Austria’s security policy orientation apart from neutrality as an “empty word”. In order to take the “European peace project” to a new level, he called for the vision of a common European army. Helmut Brandstätter (NEOS) was outraged that €10 billion had flowed to Russia as part of gas deliveries in the last two years and called for an exit from Russian gas. Vladimir Putin should not win this war because he would “move on” after a victory over Ukraine.
“Deport asylum offenders immediately”: Debate about the effectiveness of the federal government
Asylum is temporary protection for people who have to fear for their lives in their home countries, is stated in the justification for the referendum “immediately deport asylum offenders”, which was initiated by Gottfried Waldhäusl, Second President of the Lower Austrian state parliament, and was signed by 197,151 people. However, it cannot be the case that the safety of the Austrian population offering protection is itself threatened by criminal asylum seekers. According to the referendum, national law and international agreements must therefore be adapted so that their deportation can be carried out. Asylum seekers who have become criminals should not be “fed” in Austrian prisons, but rather serve their sentences in their respective home countries, according to the reasoning.
The deportation of asylum seekers who have committed criminal offenses has the highest priority and will be implemented consistently, stated Ernst Gödl (ÖVP) and provided corresponding figures. In 2023, 12,600 people would have left Austria due to negative asylum decisions. 53% of them left voluntarily, 47% were forcibly deported, which corresponds to 5,900 people, as Gödl explained. 2,600 of them had committed a crime. The fact that nothing is happening in this area is a “fairy tale” from the Freedom Party.
“With all appreciation” for the strong support for the referendum, Reinhold Einwallner (SPÖ) saw the initiative as part of the FPÖ’s election campaign strategy. It offers simple solutions to complex problems that the FPÖ does not want to solve. Einwallner criticized it and asked who could guarantee that the deported criminals would also have to serve their sentences in their home countries. Maximilian Köllner (SPÖ) saw the great support for the referendum as a “clear signal” of a feeling of insecurity among the population, and discussed cases of human trafficking in Burgenland. Laws must be enforced, otherwise democracy would be weakened and extremist forces would be strengthened, said Köllner.
With regard to Einwallner’s vague formulation regarding criminality, FPÖ mandater Hannes Amesbauer made it clear that any form of crime must lead to an end to the stay “under the guise” of asylum. He referred to the case of the Afghan asylum seeker who killed three women the previous week and called for him to be brought to the Afghan justice system – “regardless” of what happened to him there. Cases like this are generally just symptoms. The reason lies in the “illegal mass immigration” through which such criminals come to Austria in the first place, according to Amesbauer. Christian Lausch (FPÖ) discussed the effort that criminal asylum seekers placed on the justice system, among other things.
For Georg Bürstmayr (Greens) it was “foreseeable” that the FPÖ would abuse the victims of violence for its “propaganda”. He understands the “reflex” of the supporters of the referendum. However, it is the task of politicians not to react reflexively, said Bürstmayr. According to him, an outdated image of masculinity and women is the root cause of violence against women among all men in Austria.
Many people have the feeling that asylum seekers are not held responsible for crimes like this
NEOS MP Stephanie Krisper explained that the numerous signatories of the referendum would demonstrate. However, that is untrue. Deportations would take place “wherever possible” for criminals. Interior Minister Gerhard Karner must inform the public more transparently, as the Freedom Party would “profit” from uncertainty.
“Anti-gender referendum”: Plenum disagrees about the usefulness of gender-equitable language regulations
People who do not use gender-inclusive language should not suffer any disadvantages, demand the 154,102 signatories of the “anti-gender referendum”. The initiators emphasize that it must be up to each person to decide whether he or she has gender or not, be it in offices, at universities, in business or in other areas. Specifically, based on the demands of the “Academic Freedom Network”, they name scientific publications, official correspondence, university committees, websites, courses, academic examinations and application procedures.
Women have fought for equal treatment and status across all party lines and this should also be expressed in language, explained Elisabeth Pfurtscheller (ÖVP). Language is always a “mirror of society” and there are still many structural disadvantages that need to be combated. Gudrun Kugler (ÖVP) showed understanding for the polarization that the topic triggers. Many have the feeling that gendering is politicizing language and that social change is being imposed “from above”. Equality doesn’t just need words, but also actions, says Kugler.
Gendering alone will not eliminate gender-specific injustices, said SPÖ MP Sabine Schatz. However, studies confirm that language creates awareness. One should not get involved in a “right-wing culture war” regarding this issue, as Mario Lindner (SPÖ) was also convinced. The only ones who constantly problematize gender are the Freedom Party, who have already introduced 13 parliamentary initiatives on the subject in the current legislative period.
The 14th initiative for this was provided by Rosa Ecker (FPÖ) in the form of a motion for a resolution on “Gender Stop”, in which she calls for a ban on mandatory gender language in educational institutions or in public administration. The motion did not receive a majority. Ecker pointed out that a large part of the Austrian population rejected gender, that it had no measurable effects and that it disadvantaged people with hearing or visual impairments. Alois Kainz (FPÖ), following the German writer Uwe Tellkamp, described gender as a “rape of the German language”, which Green MP Meri Diskoski saw as a “mockery of rape victims”.
For Disoski, every person has a right to linguistic representation and the use of the generic masculine is exclusionary. The fact that the majority of the population spoke out against gender was not a valid point for them, because with this argument women’s suffrage could never have been implemented.
Henrike Brandstötter from NEOS advocated a “relaxed approach” to gender and cited the ORF as an example of an institution in which “hard-working genders” but nothing is done to combat structural inequality. For example, cases of sexual harassment are not sufficiently punished there. (Continuation of the National Council) wit
NOTE: Meetings of the National Council and the Federal Council can also be followed via live stream and are available as video-on-demand in the Parliament media library.
Questions & Contact:
Press service of the Parliamentary Directorate
Parliamentary correspondence
Tel. +43 1 40110/2272
press service@parlament.gv.at
www.facebook.com/OeParl
www.twitter.com/oeparl
#Neutrality #deportation #asylum #offenders #gender #plenary #debates #polarizing #topics
