Germany’s Federal Constitutional Court has made a groundbreaking ruling which has favored the constitutional rights of the people over the argument of religious rights of Muslim women to wear the Islamic headscarf in German courtrooms.
The case involves a 38-year-old German-Moroccan law student who was born in Frankfurt and customarily wears a headscarf in public. In January 2017, she began legal training in the German state of Hesse, where the law bans any expression of religion in its courtrooms for judges, lawyers and legal trainees.
Some, like the author below, believe that “the court’s landmark ruling effectively smashes a backdoor effort to enshrine Sharia law into the German legal system.” The Moroccan law student’s lawyer has called the ban “tantamount to a declaration of war.” And that it is. The tenets of Islam mandate war between disbelieving countries (dar al harb) and Muslim ones (dar al Islam). There is an ongoing effort in Western countries to impose Islamic values; the two main areas of conflict have been the Islamic veil and free speech.
It isn’t enough that human rights abuses against women and religious minorities are a norm in Sharia states. Those who uphold the sharia — regarded as divine, immutable law in Islam — want to see Sharia imposed globally. This is a tenet of the Islamic faith.
“German Court Blocks Attempt to Enshrine Sharia Law,” by Soeren Kern, Jewish Voice, March 5, 2020:
Germany’s Federal Constitutional Court has ruled that the constitutionally guaranteed religious freedoms of Muslims can be curtailed if public displays of religiosity — in this case wearing Islamic headscarves in German courtrooms — endanger the ideological and religious neutrality of the state.
The court’s landmark ruling effectively smashes a backdoor effort to enshrine Sharia law into the German legal system.
The case involves a 38-year-old German-Moroccan law student who was born in Frankfurt and customarily wears a headscarf in public. In January 2017, she began legal training in the German state of Hesse, where the law bans any expression of religion in its courtrooms for judges, lawyers and legal trainees.
According to the law, legal trainees (Rechtsreferendar) are allowed to wear a headscarf — except when they are performing certain official tasks in which they serve as representatives of the judiciary or the state. This means, for instance, that trainee lawyers are not allowed to wear a headscarf when presiding over a hearing, taking evidence or representing the public prosecution office.
The complainant filed a lawsuit claiming that the headscarf ban interfered with her right to freedom of religion. She argued that she was being forced to choose between performing the intended tasks or fulfilling a religious clothing requirement that she considers imperative.
The Higher Regional Court (Oberlandesgericht) ruled that, according to the law in Hesse, legal trainees have a duty to conduct themselves neutrally with respect to religion and that, when wearing a headscarf, the complainant was therefore barred from performing any tasks in the course of which she might be perceived as being a representative of the justice system or the state.
The complainant filed an appeal, which was rejected by the Hesse Higher Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof). She then filed an appeal with the Federal Constitutional Court, which affirmed the lower court rulings. In a statement published on February 27, 2020, the high court explained:
“The principle of the state’s religious and ideological neutrality can be considered a constitutional interest that may justify an interference with freedom of religion in this case. The state’s duty to be neutral necessarily also entails a duty for public officials to be neutral since the state can only act through individuals. However, when public officials exercise their fundamental rights as private individuals in the performance of their duties, this cannot be attributed to the state in every case. Yet it can potentially be attributed to the state in cases where the state has specific influence on the visible character of an official act — as is the case in the justice system.
“Freedom of religion can be subject to a further constitutional limitation inherent in the Basic Law (Grundgesetz): the proper functioning of the justice system in general, which is one of the essential elements underpinning the rule of law and is firmly rooted in the values enshrined in the Basic Law, given that every court decision ultimately serves to safeguard fundamental rights.
“The proper functioning of the justice system requires that society not only place trust in individual judges, but also in the justice system in general. It is true that it will not be possible to achieve absolute trust among the entire population. However, it falls to the state to improve levels of trust. In the present case, the negative freedom of religion afforded parties to legal proceedings is also an argument in favor of the ban on wearing a headscarf.
“In the justice system, the state exercises public authority vis-à-vis the individual in the classic hierarchical sense, which gives rise to more serious impairments than public authority exercised in interdenominational state schools, which are meant to reflect society’s pluralism in religious matters….
“From a constitutional-law perspective, the legislature’s decision to establish a duty of neutral conduct with respect to ideological and religious matters for legal trainees must therefore be respected….
“In support of the complainant’s position, it must be taken into consideration that to her, the headscarf is not only a sign of affiliation with a certain religious group that could be taken off at any time — like, for example, the cross worn on a necklace. Rather, wearing the headscarf to her means fulfilling a requirement that she considers imperative. As there is no similarly widespread equivalent requirement in the Christian faith, a general ban on manifestations of religious belief has a stronger impact on the complainant than on other religious public officials….
“In support of the constitutionality of the ban, it must be taken into consideration that it is limited to a few individual tasks. The ban applies where legal trainees perform judicial tasks, represent the public prosecution office in trial hearings and take on quasi-judicial roles. In doing so, legal trainees — like civil servants — must represent the values that the Basic Law lays down for the justice system.”
Hesse’s Minister of Justice Eva Kühne-Hörmann (CDU) described the ruling as “groundbreaking” (wegweisend):
“With this groundbreaking decision, the court sent an important signal in favor of the ideological neutrality of state institutions. Especially in today’s society, in which people from many countries around the world live with different cultural biographies and also with different religions, the state order must place more value than ever on its ideological neutrality. This is only possible if the state parties to judicial proceedings are not allowed to show religious insignia.”…
Charlie in NY says
Wait, in the US we are told that wearing the hijab is merely a customary practice, and any Muslim woman is merely expressing her voluntary choice in so covering herself. In the case in Germany, however, the claim is that it is a religious obligation imposed by Islam and depriving her of the ability to follow her religion’s tenet is to violate her right to practice her religion. Which is it? Or does the message simply change depending on who the audience is with a view to gaining maximum advantage in that particular context, consistency be damned?
The questions in this comment are rhetorical.
PRCS says
Very good point!
Yes, it changes as needed.
*It’s my choice!
Except when it’s:
*My religion requires it!
And not just in Germany.
James Lincoln says
+1
AntiIslamicman says
Not sure if they are waking up but this is a great result for now. The only solution is to deport these evil I nvaders as their only intentions are to kill unbelievers. The governments are too afraid to take the appropriate action and protect the people from these evil Islamic invaders. Start the deportations
mortimer says
Please, AIM, you know nothing about modern human rights codes. We have a great opportunity in the West to deprogram Muslims. That is the way to eradicate this absurd ideology. Many thousands of Muslims are dropping out every day.
James Lincoln says
Mortimer,
I’m sure that there is a certain percent small of muslims who CAN be “deprogrammed.”
They are likely “on the fence” about islam, and enter into this deprogramming voluntarily.
My feeling is that a larger percent are pretty well “dug in” in regards to islam. These muslims would have to be deprogrammed involuntarily – not likely to succeed unless draconian measures were used – as is now done in China.
These draconian measures, however, are not likely to pass legal muster in countries like United States.
These are my personal thoughts, reliable data regarding deprogramming is hard to find. If you have some references, please provide.
Much thanks.
gravenimage says
Mortimer, where have Infidels *ever* been able to deprogram Muslims? I note that you have never said.
Frank Zarzar says
Give them their own desert sandbox to rule. They are not mixing with others and intend to kill non believers as soon as they have the numbers. Where I live the young females are pregnant every year. They live off of generous welfare and do nothing but school their kids to kill non-islamists in their newly built mosques. Over breeding is just one of their tactics. We need to quit cowering to them while we have the numbers or we are sentencing our children to cult slavery. WAKE UP!
PRCS says
1. See the post by Lu above: “In her case there’s no “back”; she obviously is German citizen, not even naturalized – born in Germany, ergo German. Germany is her country.
Sorry – ain’t gonna work.
2. Their only intention is NOT to kill ‘unbelievers’. It is to ‘offer’ reversion (conversion), dhimmitude (second class status under the humiliation of Islamic law–including Muhammad’s ‘protection tax” [that’s how the money rolls in]), or warfare.
Their ultimate goal is to subjugate the entire world under the hegemony of Islamic law (the sharia).
Spur says
Glad to see this, in contrast to the USA House of Representatives allowing Muslims to wear their head gear on the House floor. The wearing of hijabs are de facto propaganda, an Islamization of the court rooms and of the street- just as an army of occupation’s uniforms remind the defeated of their submission.
mortimer says
The Islamic veil declares to the world that the woman belongs to her clan chief or to her family chief and he gives her all her orders.
The Islamic veil is the symbol that the woman is a chattel. Mohammed’s last sermon says women are ‘domestic animals’ … in other words, house pets, more or less.
PRCS says
Per Qur’an 33:59 it distinguishes the wearer–from ‘filthy unbelievers’–as a Muslim (without regard to clan/family) so that she won’t be ‘abused’ by Muslim men.
PRCS says
And now, Muslim women in the U.S.can wear that supremacist garb in uniform.
Sun says
Unfortunately, this is an exception in Germany. The German state governments mostly bow to Islam.
Just recently, a court in Hamburg/Germany overturned a school’s ban on niqabs, ruling that Hamburg law does not allow educational authorities to impose such a ban.
https://www.dw.com/en/hamburg-court-rules-against-school-niqab-and-burqa-ban/a-52246574
Naildriver says
It would be concerning for a defendant where he’s accused of a hate crime against Islam to have a man or woman seated in Islamic garb above him as his judge. But should he/she feel any better were that judge merely patronising the demands of his profession? Even Turkey had such laws against Islamic religious displays!
Muslims simply need to be officially denied taking part in various components in society; such as, holding office, serving in the military, teaching in public schools etc.
Islam is the West’s enemy on a number of levels even the literal one. Has this not been shown to be the case over and over again throughout Islam’s history?
This prevailing presumption Islam and it’s devotees can be handled by our law system is insane; and poisoned with lies, greed, and treason.
PRCS says
“This prevailing presumption Islam and it’s devotees can be handled by our law system is insane.”
Only when the law is not enforced.
Telling the plaintiff NO! as an example of enforcement.
gravenimage says
Agreed, PRCS. Much of the time we are not enforcing our own laws.
Sun says
+1
Naildriver says
Law wasn’t the issue but consensus. Such added measures was the need for our president, supreme court and congress all to agree to acknowledge that Islam is an enemy to the functioning of our society and government.
This doesn’t mean it necessitates changing laws already covering Islam’s excesses that involves crimes ( which are many ) but as with communism it becomes US policy to add specific measures restricting Islamic activity in the USA to forcefully be in contention with Islam in an out-spoken public way — rather than a fawning submissive way in which Bush, Obama approached and promoted it.
Till then Islam will continue its pernicious attack upon this nation’s people and government with veritable impunity.
mortimer says
Judges wear a required uniform to show they are all servants of the CONSTITUTION. Judges should not be making laws. That is the job of legislators.
The Islamic veil would declare that the judge serves Sharia law.
To wear a veil in court, a judge would be openly declaring that women have second class status and can be assured of discrimination in that court.
PRCS says
And a Muslim woman judge would be expressing her supremacy over ‘filthy unbelievers’.
Naildriver says
It should be understood that the garb though repulsive hardly is the issue. Islamic belief and devotion is the problem and barring them from clothing hardly does a thing to prevent the worst of their work for Islam what ever the profession. That is why Islam needs to be singled out as an enemy element against the USA; and marginalised — the worries of other religions sanctity be damned as we live in a secular country — Islam can indeed be declared an enemy – it certainly has cast the non Muslim of any other faith as enemy.
Arnold Jackson says
“…legal trainees have a duty to conduct themselves neutrally with respect to religion…”
That is impossible for Muslims.
Sun says
+1
Walter Sieruk says
As for the efforts of the stealth jihadists in Germany to “enshrine Sharia law in the Germany legal system” which was, thanks to God, a failed effort. What a relief .
Furthermore the dedicated but delusional Muslims in their stealth jihad to enact sharia law in Germany are too blind and ignorant to the truth to actually understand or know that an implication of Sharia law in Germany would be ,in reality, the establishment of ancient pagan religious law in Germany.
For the actual origin of Sharia law is revealed in a Time –Life book with the title MESOPOTAMIA: THE MIGHTY KINGS copyright 1995. The point is this history book about the ancient pagan world of Mesopotamia informs the reader that “many Islamic laws resemble the Babylon and Assyrian forebears.” .page 150.
There is the above and other references imply that such pagan teachings were incorporated into the religion that Muhammad manufactured and then started.
Thus this further reveals that a lot of ancient paganism is part of the whole religion of Islam.
In other words, ancient paganism makes up much of Islam. Therefore Islam is a hoax.
Walter Sieruk says
About an hour ago my posting on this topic didn’t get through . So here it is again concerning on the subject of those stealth jihadist Muslims in Germany who failed , this time, to have Sharia law established in the Germany legal system.
The whole point is the those Muslim who attempted in their stealth jihad to have Sharia law set up as part of the legal system in Germany are too ignorant and blind to the truth about their religion to know or understand that to have the enactment of Sharia law in Germany is really having ancient pagan religious law enacted in the German nation .
For the actual origin of Sharia law is revealed in a Time –Life book with the title MESOPOTAMIA: THE MIGHTY KINGS copyright 1995. The point is this history book about the ancient pagan world of Mesopotamia informs the reader that “many Islamic laws resemble the Babylon and Assyrian forebears.” .page 150.
There is the above and other references imply that such pagan teachings were incorporated into the religion that Muhammad manufactured and then started. Thus Islam with its Sharia law
So all Westerner , not only Westerns of Germany , may be glad a the fail Islamic scheme of those stealth jihadist Muslims in Germany.
Lisa Bernstein says
German courts were absolutely correct in that when you represent the govt, you are suppose to be neutral…that includes religiously neutral. If she wore the hijab, she would not be neutral. She is showing the world that she is muslim and a fervent believer in the muslim practices. The bias would be on full display.
PRCS says
+1
abad says
Deport her back to Iraq, she does not belong in Germany.
And send all of the other “Syrian Refugees” along with her, too.
Lu says
Please, stop the “deporting” nonsense. By all indications she is a German citizen born in Germany. There is no deporting and if any “deporting body” even attempted so every court would stand by her – German or international.
PRCS says
Thank you!
gravenimage says
Germany: Court rules against hijab in courtrooms, smashes effort to “enshrine Sharia law in German legal system”
……………….
Some good news from Germany. G;ad to see it.
gravenimage says
Glad
Lu says
Victory in one battle of excruciatingly long and exhausting war between civilization and savagery.
But let’s rejoice over this small victory.
somehistory says
“sign of affiliation with a certain religious group that could be taken off at any time — like, for example, the cross worn on a necklace.”
Evidently, she has convinced the courts that this is **required** of her, that she cannot take it off “at any time.”
There are individuals who wear crosses and never take them off, although Christ does not demand that a person wear one in order to please God, nor is it required to prove faith.
And neither is the moslim wearing a scarf **required** to. Many go without it, some go without it until they wish to make trouble on a job and then, suddenly, it means everything to them.
One important point the Court made about “trust.” Defendants and others going to Court need to be able ti “trust” those who are expressing the government’s laws…for or against them.
moslims don’t earn trust…they lie like the cheap rugs they prey on.
And, suppose a person had a complaint against a moslim, and when going to Court to argue their case, the first person they see is wearing the scarf that says they are naturally on the side of the moslim in the case.
Or suppose there is a case of terrorism, rape, murder, theft, etc., and the person working from the prosecutor’s side of the aisle is wearing the moslim scarf. How can the victims hope to receive justice?
None of these scenarios would lend to the idea of being able to “trust” those enforcing the law.
The Courts in Germany all made a wise, and fair, decision. If she wants to wear it, she should find another occupation.
Ren says
Ban the muslim veil.
CTTV15@Hotmail.com says
Wooof! Woof! Woof! Woof! Good for them..
Magnum 44 says
Quite the conundrum. Normally when there is any anti sharia/muslim initiative (either real or imagined) there is rioting and actions taken against the citizens, trade, or institutions of the supposedly offending nation. In Germany however, with Merkel ‘s Muslims migrants on public welfare, by the tens of thousands, such demonstrations might cause Germany to ‘wake up” to the immigrant problem*s) and stop the handouts. Quite the decision – sharia or continued free jizya? Can you guess which will win out – at least until there are enough Muslim politicians to change the secular law.
Aussie Infidel says
At least the German judges can see through this attempt to introduce Sharia – unlike some of their dhimmi politicians like Merkel.
martin says
I.S.L.A.M. (My take)
Imposing SATAN on All Mankind