Neutrality obligation in the civil service: controversial headscarf ban!

Neutrality obligation in the civil service: controversial headscarf ban!

A sensitive topic is currently causing a stir in the public service: the neutrality obligation of civil servants, especially when wearing religious symbols such as the headscarf. The obligation to neutrality of the state is not only a legal, but also a social dilemma that affects many aspects of our coexistence. In Germany, the state is obliged to act neutrally, as The FAZ . This applies particularly to people in the public service who appear sovereignly, such as judges, police officers or teachers.

The question of whether wearing a headscarf is permitted in such professions is handled differently in different federal states. In some regions there are hardly any applicants who want to take this path with an Islamic headscarf. Berlin in particular is pragmatic and decides in individual cases whether school peace could be at risk from the wearing of religious symbols.

legal foundations and judgments

The legal foundations for neutrality in civil service are not uniform. In individual cases, it must be clarified whether a ban on religious symbols in the public service is legally permitted. A general ban cannot be derived, since this requires concrete legal regulations at federal and state levels, such as the Antidiscrimination Center explained.

Important decisions of the courts illustrate this: The Kassel Administrative Court found that wearing a headscarf in service is inadmissible under certain circumstances, since religious freedom has to be behind the neutrality of the state. In contrast, a judgment by the Augsburg Administrative Court found that a ban without the necessary legal basis is not durable. Here, however, it must be noted that a new law has now been issued in Bavaria to prohibit the wearing of religious clothing in the courtroom and the neutrality of the judiciary is supposed to protect.

opinions and debates

The discussion about the obligation to neutralize repeatedly disassembles and voices from politics bring a breath of fresh air into the debate. Tuba Bozkurt from the Greens calls for the abolition of the Neutrality Act in Berlin and questions whether this is compatible with the Basic Law. She emphasizes that an individual case test for carrying religious symbols should be possible to clarify whether this actually endangers school peace. Bozkurt criticizes that the law is primarily sending negative signals to migrant population groups and pleading for more equality in the rights and obligations of all employees in the public service.

On the other hand, there are also critical voices like that of Manuel Ostermann from the German Police Union. He speaks against religious symbols in civil service because he fears that they could undermine confidence in state authority. Ostermann recognizes the need for a diverse police, but sees potential problems, especially in social contexts.

In this exciting debate, different perspectives face different perspectives. While some believe that the headscarf might strengthen the police officers, others warn of the possible consequences of visible religious symbols on duty. Ultimately, the protection of neutrality in the state area is a task that must be carefully weighed in the sense of the common good.