Coalition members defend the law after a law was passed that “regulates the appearance of civil servants.” It is not directed against the helmet of Muslim women. “It simply came to our notice then There is no change in the legal situation “and there is no ban on public headphones as feared as part of the media Lars Castellucci, Spokesman for the SPD Parliamentary Committee on Churches and Religious Communities, Togespegal. Since civil servants are allowed to present themselves, it is one thing to determine the “basis of accreditation” for regulations:The relevant terms must comply with the strict requirements of the Federal Constitutional Court in the future, according to which a restriction or prohibition, for example, features of origin with religious or ideological meanings, will be allowed only under strict conditions. “Castellucci was quoted as saying:” The words of the Interior Ministry representative on the committee, according to the lawA headphone barrier through the back door or through the front door. “
But this is exactly what critics and Muslim activists expect. The “Muslim Women’s Action Coalition”, which has been campaigning for years against the professional exclusion of women wearing helmets, said in a statement that only free access to public service and qualifications would be counted. The law states that “above all Muslim women and Jewish men, if they are active in sovereignty, can face suspicion from the outset – with the blessing of a state, so to speak.”
Only one teacher’s last year’s victory before the Federal Labor Court
Opposition parties – including the Greens and the FDP – or the Left, which abstained from voting, cited these fears as the reason for their voting behavior, as well as the op-ed that voted with government factions, and the helmets that the law provides in their view as they welcome their use. According to Togespigel, the group only talked about the helmet. Jewish Gibeah, affected by the law, is not an issue.
The headscarf question has been immersed for almost a quarter of a century. In 1998, Baden-Wர்டrttemberg refused to hire author Fresta Ludin because of his helmet. On the other hand, he went to the Constitutional Court. In many decisions over the past 20 years, it has set limits on the blanket helmet ban in public service. Six years ago it was decided that wearing a helmet was no reason to question the neutrality of a civil servant or other civil servant. As a result, some of the eight federal states that enacted helmet laws changed their rules. The state of Berlin received a reprimand from the Supreme Court last year for its “neutrality law.” The Federal Labor Court in Erfurt ruled that an applicant for a teaching position should not be employed because of his helmet. The law, now passed by the Bundestag, now even meets the needs of the nation: their “respective highest service officers” rationally state that “the current law will create (… Restrict or prohibit) the possibility of wearing forms of appearance with religious or ideological connotations”.
The reason for the current law, however, is not religious symbols, but the fact that a Berlin police officer was tattooed with Nazi symbols, and his dismissal was upheld by the Federal Court of Justice in a 2017 ruling: an officer with an opinion contrary to values was identified as having a tattoo on his skin, “he said. The Leipzig court ruled that it was “not wearable.” Although the tattoo was not the basis of the decision, the approach was that the court should at that time impose on the legislature the legal basis for the appearance of civil servants.
The law was passed without debate in Parliament
After all, it interferes with their personal rights and personal life. The result was the law passed by the Bundestake on Thursday – without full discussion.
[Wenn Sie alle aktuellen Entwicklungen zur Coronavirus-Pandemie live auf Ihr Handy haben wollen, empfehlen wir Ihnen unsere App, die Sie hier für Apple- und Android-Geräte herunterladen können.]
Greens consider the process to be complex: “It is important that a regulation with such a purpose, including constitutional law, be in place now without further discussion,” said Pillis, a spokeswoman for her immigration and religious policy. Bolat. Nevertheless, they agreed, because, according to Bolt, there is a “need for action” in certain cases, such as tattoos, which can lead to reasonable suspicion of neutrality in office by civil servants. However, Bolt says the need for protection for religious clothing should be valued more than a tattoo. In addition to a piece of clothing required by the Federal Constitutional Court, there are other circumstances that cast doubt on the administration of a civil servant: “We reject a gibba or helmet barrier through the back door.”
According to their expert on religious affairs, Christine Bouchals, the Left does not want to oppose the ban on Nazis or other important signs. “But it could have been sorted separately and without any connection to religious clothing,” he told Takespeekal. The fact that her team has none is annoying accordingly. “The Social Democrats and the CDU backed out of the committee,” says Bouchals, who is not a member of the Interior Committee. “But the fear that the new law will be interpreted against the helmet is very real.
It also affects Jewish men with Gibbs: “But in reality we know it excludes mainly Muslim women.” In the case of Berlin’s applicant for a teaching position, the Chief Justice in Erfurt insisted that the helmet wearer could not be accused of wearing the helmet because of the scarf, and that he did not maintain the necessary neutrality. “What she does is decisive, not what the other person believes, believes or can do”. If the decision on the helmet is left in the hands of service officers, there may be widespread suspicion of women with helmets, Buchholz told Dagspegel. Such decisions are not made in a vacuum. “In my opinion, the concerns of victims and activists are justified.”