Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T02:30:53.420Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Religious Symbolism and the Resilience of Liberal Constitutionalism: On the Federal German Constitutional Court's Second Head Scarf Decision

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2019

Matthias Mahlmann

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The second decision of the German Federal Constitutional Court on the Islamic headscarf declares a general ban on headscarf to be unconstitutional and, in particular, a violation of freedom of religion. This case note examines whether this decision is an ill-conceived weakening of a religiously neutral state or, to the contrary, an encouraging manifestation of a liberal constitutional order that takes its aspirations in a highly contested area of law seriously.

Type
Special Section
Information
German Law Journal , Volume 16 , Issue 4 , 01 September 2015 , pp. 887 - 900
Copyright
Copyright © 2015 by German Law Journal GbR 

References

1 For a recent reminder on the different potential and aspiration of the revolutionary movement in the Middle East, see Mallat, Chibli, Philosophy of Non-Violence (2015).Google Scholar

2 See, e.g., the series of murders claimed by the neo-fascist terror cell NSU.Google Scholar

3 Cole, David, Must Counterterrorism Cancel Democracy?, The New York Review of Books, available at http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2015/jan/08/must-counterterrorism-cancel-democracy/.Google Scholar

4 The prohibition of Minarets in Switzerland was, among others, driven by the argument that more than the four existing Minarets in Switzerland would give Islam too much room in the symbolic space of religious faith.Google Scholar

5 See Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG] [Federal Constitutional Court], Jan. 27, 2015, Case No. 1 BvR R 471/10 & No. 1 BvR 1181/10, http://www.bverfg.de/SharedDocs/Entscheidungen/DE/2015/01/rs20150127_1bvr047110.html.Google Scholar

6 See Bundesarbeitsgericht [BAG] [Federal Labor Court], Aug. 20, 2009, Case No. 2 AZR 499/08, https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Text=2%20AZR%20499/08; Bundesarbeitsgericht [BAG] [Federal Labor Court], Dec. 10, 2009, Case No. 2 AZR 55/09, https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Text=2%20AZR%2055/09.Google Scholar

7 BVerfG, Case Nos. 1 BvR R 471/10 & 1 BvR 1181/10 at para. 8.Google Scholar

8 Id. at para. 26ff.Google Scholar

9 Education Act of North Rhine-Westphalia § 57 Sec. 4, sent. 1 (Jun. 13, 2006).Google Scholar

10 Id. at § 57 Sec. 4, sent. 1.Google Scholar

11 Id. at § 57 Sec. 4, sent. 2.Google Scholar

12 Id. at § 57 Sec. 4, sent. 3.Google Scholar

13 Bundesarbeitsgericht [BAG] [Federal Labor Court], Aug. 20, Case No. 2 AZR 499/08; Bundesarbeitsgericht [BAG] [Federal Labor Court], Dec. 10, 2009, Case No. 2 AZR 55/09; Bundesverwaltungsgericht [BVerwG] [Federal Administrative Court], 116 Entscheidungen des Bundesverwaltungsgerichts [BVerwGE] 359 (on a parallel provision in Baden-Württemberg and the comments by Böckenförde JZ 2004, 1181, 1183). The Bavarian Constitutional Court took a different position. Compare Bayerischer Verfassungsgerichtshof, Jan. 15, 2007, Vf. 11-VII-05, with Mahlmann, Differenzierung und Neutralität im Religionsverfassungsrecht, Myops 39 (2007).Google Scholar

14 Education Act of North Rhine-Westphalia § 58, sent. 2.Google Scholar

15 See Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG] [Federal Constitutional Court], Jan. 27, 2015, Case No. 1 BvR R 471/10 & No. 1 BvR 1181/10, para. 7f, http://www.bverfg.de/SharedDocs/Entscheidungen/DE/2015/01/rs20150127_1bvr047110.html.Google Scholar

16 See Bundesarbeitsgericht [BAG] [Federal Labor Court], Aug. 20, 2009, Case No. 2 AZR 499/08, https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Text=2%20AZR%20499/08; Bundesarbeitsgericht [BAG] [Federal Labor Court], Dec. 10, 2009, Case No. 2 AZR 55/09, https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Text=2%20AZR%2055/09.Google Scholar

17 See 108 BVerfGE 282, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift [NJW] 56 (Sept. 24, 2003); Mahlmann, Religious Tolerance, Pluralist Society and the Neutrality of the State: The Federal Constitutional Court's Decision in the Headscarf Case, 4 German L.J. 1099 (2003).Google Scholar

18 The Second Senate decided the older case, while the first the newer. This raises questions under Section 16.1 Bundesverfassungsgerichtsgesetz: The plenary of the Federal German Constitutional Court has to decide if one Senate wants to decide a matter differently than another Senate.Google Scholar

19 See Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG] [Federal Constitutional Court], Jan. 27, 2015, Case No. 1 BvR R 471/10 & No. 1 BvR 1181/10, para. 77ff, http://www.bverfg.de/SharedDocs/Entscheidungen/DE/2015/01/rs20150127_1bvr047110.html.Google Scholar

20 See id. at paras. 80, 113.Google Scholar

21 See id. Google Scholar

22 See id. at para. 113.Google Scholar

23 See id. at para. 103.Google Scholar

24 See id. at para. 83Google Scholar

25 See id. at para. 86.Google Scholar

26 See id. at para. 87ff.Google Scholar

27 See id. at para. 95f.Google Scholar

28 See id. at para. 99.Google Scholar

29 See Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland [GG] [Basic Law] art. 4, translation at https://www.bundestag.de/blob/284870/ce0d03414872b427e57fccb703634dcd/basic_law-data.pdf.Google Scholar

30 See BVerfG, Case No. 1 BvR R 471/10 & No. 1 BvR 1181/10 at para. 104f.Google Scholar

31 See id. at para. 105Google Scholar

32 See id. at para. 104.Google Scholar

33 See id. at para. 100.Google Scholar

34 See GG art. 6, § 2, translation at https://www.bundestag.de/blob/284870/ce0d03414872b427e57fccb703634dcd/basic_law-data.pdf.Google Scholar

35 See BVerfG, Case No. 1 BvR R 471/10 & No. 1 BvR 1181/10 at para. 106.Google Scholar

36 See GG art. 7, § 1, translation at https://www.bundestag.de/blob/284870/ce0d03414872b427e57fccb703634dcd/basic_law-data.pdf.Google Scholar

37 See BVerfG, Case No. 1 BvR R 471/10 & No. 1 BvR 1181/10 at para. 108ff.Google Scholar

38 See id. at para. 118.Google Scholar

39 See id. at para. 121.Google Scholar

40 See id. at para. 115. It is noteworthy in this context that the Central Council of German Jews in their amicus curiae held the general ban on religious vestiary symbols to be unconstitutional. See id. at para. 75.Google Scholar

41 See id. at para. 142ffGoogle Scholar

42 See id. at para. 143ffGoogle Scholar

43 See id. at para.148ff.Google Scholar

44 See GG art. 3, § 3, sent. 1, translation at https://www.bundestag.de/blob/284870/ce0d03414872b427e57fccb703634dcd/basic_law-data.pdf; Id. at art. 33, § 3; BVerfG, Case No. 1 BvR R 471/10 & No. 1 BvR 1181/10 at para. 123ff.Google Scholar

45 See BVerfG, Case No. 1 BvR R 471/10 & No. 1 BvR 1181/10 at para. 127.Google Scholar

46 See id. at para. 132ff.Google Scholar

47 See id. at para. 2ff (dissenting opinion by justices Schluckebier and Hermans).Google Scholar

48 See id. at para. 17 (dissenting opinion by justices Schluckebier and Hermans).Google Scholar

49 See id. at para. 30 (dissenting opinion by justices Schluckebier and Hermans).Google Scholar

50 See Vajnai v. Hungary, App. No. 33629/06, (July 8, 2008), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/.Google Scholar

51 See Tawakkol Karman—Facts, Nobelprize.org, http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2011/karman-facts.html.Google Scholar

52 See Yousafzai, Malala, Nobel Lecture (Dec. 10, 2014), available at http://www.nobelprize.org/mediaplayer/index.php?id=2424.Google Scholar

53 See 108 BVerfGE 282 (306), 56 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift [NJW] (Sept. 24, 2003). The European Court of Human Rights in its decision in the Dahlab v. Switzerland case did not consider existing empirical studies but rather stated a detrimental effect of visible symbols as evident, despite the fact that the teacher concerned taught without problems for three years. See Dahlab v. Switzerland, ECHR App. No. 42393/98 (Feb. 15, 2001), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-22643#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-22643%22]}.Google Scholar

54 See, e.g., a) for the constitutionality of such a solution: Böckenförde, “Kopftuchstreit” auf dem richtigen Weg?, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift [NJW] 723 (2001); C. Walter & A. von Ungern-Sternberg, Verfassungswidrigkeit des nordrhein-westfälischen Kopftuchverbots für Lehrerinnen, Die Öffentliche Verwaltung 488 (2008); S. Korioth in Maunz/Dürig, GG, 72. Aufl., 2014, Art. 140/136 WRV, Rn.62; M. Morlok/J. Krüper, Die “Kopftuch-Entscheidung” des BVerwG, NJW 2003 (1020–1021); Mager in v. Münch/Kunig, GG, 6. ed. 2012, Art. 4 Rn. 50 (if children are mature enough to determine their religion (religionsmündig)); Matthias Mahlmann, Religious Tolerance, Pluralist Society and the Neutrality of the State: The Federal Constitutional Court's Decision in the Headscarf Case, 4 German L.J. 1099 (2003); b) against the constitutionality of such a solution: Kokott in Sachs, Grundgesetzkommentar, Art. 4 Rn. 64; Jarass in Jarass/Pieroth, GG, 13. Aufl. 2014, Art. 4 Rn. 36; Dollinger/Umbach in Umbach/Clemens, GG, 2002, Art. 33, Rn.52; F. Hufen, Der Regelungsspielraum des Landesgesetzgebers im “Kopftuchstreit”, NVwZ 2004, 575.Google Scholar

55 For additional commentary on the subject, see Mahlmann, Freedom and Faith—Foundation of Freedom of Religion, 30 Cardozo L. Rev. 2473 (2009); see generally Forst, Toleranz im Konflikt (2003).Google Scholar

56 See the classical “parable of the ring” of Gotthold Ephraim Lessing, in Nathan der Weise (Nathan, the Wise) (1779).Google Scholar

57 See Mendelssohn, Jerusalem oder über religiöse Macht und Judentum (1783).Google Scholar

58 At least this is what is plausible to conclude from Kant's attack on the relevance of outward appearance in religious matters. See Kant, Die Religion innerhalb der Grenzen der blossen Vernunft [Religion Within the Limits of Reason Alone] Akademie Ausgabe Vol. 6 (1902).Google Scholar