“There is a need to look with special suspicion at any law that disadvantages a group of people, especially when those people are not proportionately represented in legislative decision making or executive decision making.”

Ruth Bader Ginsburg

28. April 2017 Georgetown University, April 28, 2017
(from 300 Statements der berühmten Supreme Court Richterin, S. 35)
Response to a student’S question

What this is about

We must ensure that people living here in Germany are protected from discrimination and from prejudice.

In Germany, this protection is granted to employees and civil servants in employment and in private contractual relationships in mass transactions by the General Equal Treatment Act (AGG).

Berlin is the first federal state to ensure effective protection of citizens against discriminatory actions by public authorities through a state anti-discrimination law and to facilitate taking legal action against discrimination. We also need such regulations in the other federal states and at the federal level to protect against discrimination, e.g. at school, at university or on the part of the police and authorities.

We need clear legal foundations to implement the values of our society: this is why we demand an anti-discrimination law for everyone.

Newsletter

Our newsletter contains interesting material all around the topics of discrimination, diversity and anti-discrimination laws. The newsletter is free, you can subscribe here.
Vielen Dank für Ihre Newsletter-Anmeldung
Es geb ein Problem mit der Anmeldun. Versuchen Sie es bitte zu einen späteren Zeitpunkt erneut.

The Petition

On May 3rd, 2021, Rabia Küçükşahin, a German law student, started a petition against a new law regulating the physical appearance of civil servants. Rabia is a student at the Law Faculty of the Goethe University in Frankfurt and had called on the members of the Bundesrat (Federal Council) to vote against the “Gesetz zur Regelung des Erscheinungsbilds von Beamtinnen und Beamten sowie zur Änderung weiterer dienstrechtlicher Vorschriften” (Law regulating the appearance of civil servants and amending other civil service regulations) in the session on 07 May 21. The law makes it possible to ban federal civil servants in all federal states from exercising their profession because they wear a headscarf, a yarmulke or a beard, on the dubious grounds that this is objectively likely to impair confidence in the neutral exercise of their duties. Within a week, more than 170,000 people signed the petition.  The Bundesrat nevertheless voted in favour of the law, which came into force on June 28th 2021. It is now up to individual public authorities to decide whether they want to make use of the possibility of a ban. Many federal states already have corresponding state laws.

The premise that religious dress is incompatible with neutrality is simply wrong and discriminatory. In a pluralistic democracy, the civil service must reflect the diversity of the population. The law allows candidates to be banned from access to civil servant status because of their affiliation to a religious community and the expression of this affiliation, e.g. through a beard or head covering. Such discrimination is grist to the mill of those who have been pursuing exclusionary policies for years.

This result is almost bizarre, since this law goes back to a decision of the Federal Administrative Court, which instructed the legislature to enact new regulations in response to a police officer in Berlin who wore visible swastika tattoos. This has now become a law that could prohibit a headscarf-wearing Muslim woman from becoming a civil servant or a judge. It is highly problematic that the Federal Administrative Court’s ruling has now led to a law equating right-wing extremist anti-constitutional symbols with religious symbols such as turbans, kippas, headscarves or the habit of a Catholic nun.

Background Information

Discriminatory laws are unfortunately not uncommon. The laws on official attire in several federal states prohibit religious dress or imply that it inherently compromises neutrality. The premise that religious attire is inherently incompatible with neutrality must be categorically rejected. Here are some examples of such problematic regulations in the judiciary:

In Baden-Württemberg

§ 21 AGGVG 

Official attire, neutrality

(1) Professional judges, commercial judges, representatives of the public prosecutor’s office, persons who perform the duties of a judicial officer incumbent upon them or assigned to them, and clerks of the court’s office shall wear official attire at the court sessions convened for the purpose of hearing a case or pronouncing a decision, unless the court is of the opinion that in individual cases a different arrangement is required in the interest of finding justice. For other judicial acts as well as for hearings outside the courtroom, the official attire shall be worn if this appears appropriate with regard to the reputation of the administration of justice; the decision on this shall be taken by the court.

(2) The Ministry of Justice may, by statutory order

  1. extend the obligation under subsection 1 to other persons who are authorised to appear as authorised representatives, advisers or defence counsels before the court,
  2. allow exceptions from the obligation under paragraph 1,
  3. determine the nature and form of the official attire.

(3) Any person who performs judicial or public prosecutorial duties incumbent upon or assigned to them at a hearing or in official acts outside a hearing at which participants, witnesses or experts are present may not wear any symbols or items of clothing which, when viewed objectively, express a particular religious, ideological or political view. The special prohibition according to the first sentence shall not apply to lay assessors and other honorary judges.

(4) Paragraphs 1 and 2 shall also apply in proceedings before the courts in bar cases, the magistrates’ service courts and in proceedings assigned to the Regional Court or Higher Regional Court under the Federal Code of Notaries or the Tax Consultancy Act, and shall also cover honorary judges in these proceedings. Paragraph 3 sentence 1 shall also apply to professional judges in the proceedings pursuant to sentence 1.

In Bavaria

Art. 11 BayRiStAG

Official attire, neutrality

(1) Judges, public prosecutors and state public prosecutors shall wear official attire as determined by the highest administrative authority.

(2) 1 Judges may not wear any visible religious or ideological symbols or items of clothing that could cast doubt on their independence, neutrality or exclusive adherence to the law in hearings or in any other official public acts. 2 Sentence 1 shall apply accordingly to public prosecutors and state public prosecutors. 3Further-reaching provisions shall remain unaffected.

In Hesse

§ 45 HBG

1 Civil servants must behave in a politically, ideologically and religiously neutral manner in the course of their duties. 2 In particular, they may not wear or use items of clothing, symbols or other signs which are objectively likely to impair confidence in the neutrality of their official conduct or to endanger political, religious or ideological peace.  3 When deciding on the fulfilment of the requirements according to sentences 1 and 2, due consideration shall be given to the Christian and humanistic Western tradition of the State of Hesse.

In Lower Saxony

§ 31a NJG

Any person who performs judicial or public prosecutorial duties incumbent upon them or assigned to them at a hearing or at another official act at which participants, witnesses, experts or listeners are present may not wear any visible symbols or items of clothing that express a religious, ideological or political conviction.

In North Rhine-Westphalia

§2 JNeutG NRW

Prohibition of religious, ideological or political symbols and clothing

(1) Employees and honorary judges may not wear any perceptible symbols or items of clothing during court proceedings which, when viewed objectively, express a particular religious, ideological or political view.

(2) Even outside court hearings, employees may not wear symbols or items of clothing of the type referred to in paragraph 1 when carrying out the sovereign activities assigned to them, if they are regularly seen by third parties during these activities.

Join us

We need legal foundations to implement the values of our society: support our demand for “anti-discrimination laws for everyone”:

01
Share our website
www.adg-fuer-alle.de
02
Sign and share the petition
Go to Petition
03
UN CEDAW

Talk about our alternative report on the discrimination of Muslim women in Germany and the UN CEDAW Committee’s recommendations

04
UN CERD

Talk about our alternative report on anti-Muslim racism and UN CERD recommendations