On the Death of Siegfried Lenz ? ?You have to justify your life?

Siegfried Lenz, one of the great writers of German post-war literature is dead. He died on 7 October 2014, surrounded by his family. He was 88 years old.... more more

GoetheInstitute

17/08/2005

Making multiculturalism work

Jutta Limbach defends the idea of multiculturalism, and suggests how its constitutional protection could reduce the terrorist threat.

The 1960s witnessed the beginning of worldwide migration. Increasingly, people find themselves in surroundings where not only their clothes, food and drink set them apart from local inhabitants, but also their language, their ways of thinking and their beliefs. In Europe, as previously in the USA and Canada, the growing diversity of cultures and religions leads to tensions and conflicts.

These conflicts often take place in the schools, in many cases over questions of clothing, religious signs and symbols. The "Islamic scarf" and the crucifix come to mind. Should schoolgirls or teachers be allowed to wear veils in public schools? Does an Islamic girl have the right to be excused from co-educational gym classes because her religion – at least according to her reading of the Koran – forbids her from wearing gym clothes in the presence of the opposite sex?

But questions also arise outside of the schools. Should the Muezzin's calls to prayer over loudspeakers have the same status in German cities as the tolling of Christian church bells? Should religious slaughtering practices be permitted if they contravene local regulations? In the recent past, the major bones of contention have arisen from Koranic injunctions that Muslim men and women use to justify behaviour which is at odds with, or even contradicts, that of the local population.

There are basically two conflicting answers to these questions. One is to recommend that immigrants conform to the customs, habits and culture of their host country. The alternative to this forced assimilation emphasises cultural freedom: the right of immigrants and their children to retain the traditions and values of their country of origin, which are familiar, cherished and perhaps even holy to them.

Both strategies have their adherents – in Germany as elsewhere. True, one rarely encounters either position in its pure form. But the opposing sides often prefer the least sophisticated interpretation of the argument they oppose. This was evident in the public debates surrounding the murder of Theo van Gogh in Amsterdam and the suicide bombings in London. Faced with these fanatic acts of terror coming from the midst of society, the idea of multiculturalism has been on the wane in Germany - across the party spectrum. Not only that, it is being represented as the root of all evil.

It cannot be denied that parallel societies are emerging across Europe. Society is divided along ethnic, race and religious lines, particularly in the major cities and suburbs, where many immigrants and their descendants live. This worrying fact may shatter our idealistic illusions, but it should not lead us to discard a good socio-political idea. The increasing fragmentation of our major cities and suburbs does not result from the idea of peaceful coexistence among cultures. It is much more the result of the unsuccessful implementation of this idea.

Only gradually are we coming to understand that immigrants and their children, who live and work with us, feel spiritually displaced in our (allegedly) open society, and excluded by the majority. Inferiority complexes are spreading. Those ignored by the majority society are left searching for other spiritual worlds in which they can forge an identity for themselves and their communities. The comfort offered by fundamentalist preachers is a way out. But the solutions they propagate differ from religion; they create an image of the "enemy" that polishes their own ego.

The causes, motives and preconditions of terrorist attacks are certainly many-sided. The fact that the perpetrators come from the midst of our society leads us to turn our gaze there. Analyses into the roots of terror have shown that neither poverty nor illiteracy create a predisposition to terrorism. A much more important factor is the experience of humiliation. This explains why terrorist leaders are so successful in recruiting young men.

For that reason, our starting point should be a commitment to the inviolability of human dignity and the minority rights this commitment implies, even if it may, at first glance, seem absurd to discuss the protection of minorities rather than the protection of the majority, when faced with the threat of terrorism.

In Germany, the horrible lessons drawn from the inhumanity of the Nazi era had a formative influence on the shape of the Basic Law. In particular, the admission of human and civil rights drew on lessons from the past. The commitment to the inviolability of human dignity and equality before the law is an answer to the legal travesty of National Socialism, and the machinery of destruction that worked in the shadows of this arbitrary system.

The suffering of ethnic, racial and religious minorities under National Socialism resulted in a discrimination ban in the Basic Law: no one can be disadvantaged or favoured based on his parentage, race, language, homeland and origin, faith, or religious or political opinion.

The creators of the Basic Law were satisfied with this individual protection for members of groups that are frequently subject to discrimination. But unlike the constitutions of other nations, the Basic Law makes no mention of minority protection in the form of a collective right; that is, norms according to which the state, the Länder and the communities are to protect and foster the cultural identity and autonomy of an ethnic or religious minority.

In the early 1990s, an attempt by the opposition to add the explicit protection of minorities to the Basic Law failed. Even the simple sentence: "The state respects the identity of ethnic, cultural and linguist minorities" was rejected, due to the political make-up of the constitutional commission: members of the Bundestag and the Bundesrat (the second house of parliament composed of representatives of the 16 German states). The further addition proposed by the SPD that the state should protect ethnic groups and national minorities with German citizenship was attacked by the conservative majority. Opponents feared this minority protection veiled a new socio-political concept, that of the multicultural society.

For them, the term multicultural society evidently stood for more than the observable fact of a culturally mixed society. They associated it with the coexistence of the various independent cultures. But it could not be the business of the state, they argued, to organise as many independent cultures as possible within the territory of the Federal Republic of Germany. Rather, immigrants must be expected to integrate into the German state and society. Germany is one of the largest countries of immigration, following the USA, Canada and Great Britain. Seven million foreigners live here. Around 3.2 million are Muslims, of which between 300,000 and 400,000 are German citizens. These large numbers of immigrants and descendants of immigrants have no collective minority protection under the law. In particular, Turkish immigrants and their descendants enjoy no protection of their language, culture and religion.

These are tolerated, but not fostered. For that reason, the protection of ethnic and religious minorities in Germany takes place essentially through the needle's eye of individual protection, particularly through the basic freedom rights, of which freedom of religion plays a main role. So the construction of mosques, Islamic religious instruction by the Islamic federation, butchering practices and the excusing of Muslim girls from co-educational gym classes have been the subject of court decisions.

One consequence of religious freedom is that there is no forced assimilation. As a secularised freedom, the freedom of confession is "open to the development of various religions and confessions". All religious beliefs are on an equal footing, and are to be acknowledged in their respective particularities. The differentness of "immigrated religions" must therefore be accepted. No heed should be paid to recommendations to migrants that they conform to the practises of their host country. Strategies aiming at assimilating minorities into the majority culture jar with our constitutional order. Under a constitution that protects the freedom of belief and ideological confession, a "dominant culture" striving for spiritual or intellectual predominance is out of place. Rather, the Basic Law sets a standard of openness vis-à-vis the plurality of ideological and religious views.

All public authorities in the Federal Republic of Germany must respect the freedom of faith, conscience and ideological confession, and the imperative of tolerance. In the event of a conflict between majority and minority cultures, tribunals appealed to by the minority must defy the majority if constitutional guarantees are at stake.

Because the modern state is defined through its constitution and not through its religion, it must admit and protect cultural, and especially religious diversity. It is not the business of the state to answer every last question of meaning. In a pluralistic state which guarantees religious and ideological freedom, there can be no obligation to Christianity or a personal God. Only a state that remains neutral in questions of faith can guarantee the peaceful coexistence of diverse religious convictions.

The term "tolerance" does not appear in the constitution. But this principle is to be deduced from the Basic Law in its complete expression. The German Constitutional Court derives the imperative for tolerance mainly from the commitment to the inviolability of human dignity. But the "constitutional system of values promoting tolerance as a fundamental principle of free democracy" is also expressed in the right to free development of the personality, religious freedom and the prohibition of discrimination against other confessions.

Even tolerance has its limits. The behaviour of a religious minority may not conflict with the basic values of our constitution, even if it is grounded in religious law. This applies to cases in which the religious sign is a symbol of oppression and runs counter to the dignity and freedom of its wearer. The Basic Law also guarantees the equality of men and women. But the religiously motivated veil cannot be seen automatically as a symbol of oppression, or the expression of a fundamentalist basic attitude. Things are different for the burka, a veil that covers the entire head and body apart from the eyes, because the veiled woman is no longer seen by others as an individual.

Religious practices that degrade women or children, making them the object of foreign cultist acts that irreversibly violate the right to bodily inviolacy – genital mutilation, for example – are not covered by the guarantee of religious freedom. The state is duty-bound to protect the individual from assault by others, even their own parents. This duty to protect the individual's right to bodily inviolacy arises explicitly from the international law of human rights and the Children's Convention.

To change the world in the spirit of human rights, we must dream more deeply and be more awake in our actions. The commitment to the inviolability of human dignity in our Basic Law is the normative idea that will challenge us to do so. To bridge the gap between the ideal and the reality we need not only the sympathy, but more importantly, the will to make it happen. And we need this as much in our everyday life and social environment as in our political decisions.

*

The speech was delivered at the Canadian Embassy in Berlin on August 3, 2005. It was published in German on Perlentaucher.

Jutta Limbach was President of the German Federal Constitutional Court
from 1994-2002. Since 2002 she has been President of the Goethe-Institut.

Translation: jab

Get the signandsight newsletter for regular updates on feature articles.
signandsight.com - let's talk european.

 
More articles

This kiss for the whole world

Wednesday, February 22, 2012

Who actually owns "intellectual property"?  The German media that defend the concept of intellectual property as "real" property are the first to appropriate such rights, and they are using this idea as a defensive weapon. With lawmakers extending copyright laws and new structures emerging on the internet, intellectual property poses a serious challenge to the public domain. A survey of the German media landscape by Thierry Chervel
read more

Suddenly we know we are many

Wednesday 4th January, 2012

Why the Russian youth have tolerated the political situation in their country for so long and why they are no longer tolerant. The poet Natalia Klyuchareva explains the background to the protests on Bolotnaya Square in Moscow on December 10th. Image: Leonid Faerberg
read more

The Republic of Europe

Tuesday 20 December, 2011

Thanks to Radoslaw Sikorski's speech in Berlin, Poland has at last joined the big European debate about restructuring the EU in connection with the euro crisis. The "European Reformation" advocated by Germany does not mean that the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation will be established in Europe, but instead – let us hope – the Republic of Europe. By Adam Krzeminski
read more

Brown is not red

Tuesday 13 December, 2011

TeaserPicFilmmaker and theatre director Andres Veiel disagrees with the parallels currently being drawn between left-wing and right-wing violence in Germany. The RAF is the wrong model for the Zwickau neo-Nazi group, the so-called "Brown Army Faction" responsible for a series of murders of Turkish small business owners. Unlike the RAF, this group never publicly claimed responsibility for their crimes. Veiel is emphatic - you have to look at the biographies of the perpetrators. An interview with Heike Karen Runge.
read more

Legacy of denial

Tuesday 29 November, 2011

TeaserPicGermany has been rocked by the disclosures surrounding the series of neo-Nazi murders of Turkish citizens. In the wake of these events, Former GDR dissident Freya Klier calls for an honest look at the xenophobia cultivated by the policies of the former East Germany, where the core of the so-called "Brown Army Faction" was based. And demands that East Germans finally confront a long-denied past. (Photo: © Nadja Klier)
read more

Nausea in Paris

Monday 14 November, 2011

TeaserPicIn response to the arson attack on the offices of the Parisian satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo on November 2, Danish critic and semiotician Frederik Stjernfelt is nauseated by the opinions voiced against the publication, especially in the British and American media. Why don't they see that Islamism is right-wing extremism?
read more

Just one pyramid

Monday 10 October, 2011

Activist and author, Andri Snaer Magnason is among the Icelandic guests of honor at this year's Frankfurt Book Fair. His book and film "Dreamland" is both an ecological call to action and a polemic. "The politicians took one of the most beautiful parts of Iceland and offered it to unscrupulous companies," says the author in a critique of his native country. By Daniela Zinser
read more

Dark side of the light

Monday 3 October 2011

In their book "Lügendes Licht" (lying light) Thomas Worm and Claudia Karstedt explore the darker side of the EU ban on incandescent bulbs. From disposal issues to energy efficiency, the low-energy bulb is not necessarily a beacon of a greener future. By Brigitte Werneburg
read more

Lubricious puritanism

Tuesday 30 August, 2011

The malice of the American media in the case of Dominique Strauss-Kahn is a symptom of sexual uptightness that borders on the sinister, and the feminists have joined forces with the religious Right to see it through. We can learn much from America, but not when it comes to the art of love. By Pascal Bruckner
read more

Much ado about Sarrazin

Monday 22 August 2011

Published a year ago, the controversial book "Deutschland schafft sich ab" (Germany is doing away with itself) by former banker and Berlin Finance Senator Thilo Sarrazin sparked intense discussion. Hamed Abdel-Samad asks: what has the Sarrazin debate achieved beyond polarisation and insult? And how can Germany avoid cultivating its own classes of "future foreigners"?
read more

Economic giant, political dwarf

Wednesday 3 August, 2011

Germany's growing imbalance between economic and political competence is worsening the European crisis and indeed the crisis of Nato. The country has ceased to make any political signals at all and demonstrates a conspicuous lack of responsibility for what takes place beyond its own borders. This smug isolationism is linked to strains of old anti-Western and anti-political, anti-parliamentarian sentiment that is pure provincialism. By Karl Heinz Bohrer
read more

Sound and fury

Monday 11 April 2011

Budapest is shimmering with culture but Hungary's nationalist government is throwing its weight about in cultural life, effecting censorship through budget cuts and putting its own people in the top-level cultural positions. Government tolerance of hate campaigns against Jews and gays has provoked the likes of Andras Schiff, Agnes Heller, Bela Tarr and Andre Fischer to raise their voices in defence of basic human rights. But a lot of people are simply scared. By Volker Hagedorn
read more

The self-determination delusion

Monday 28 March, 2011

TeaserPicA Dutch action group for free will wants to give all people the right to assisted suicide. But can this be achieved without us ending up somewhere we never wanted to go? Gerbert van Loenen has grave doubts.
read more

Revolution without guarantee

Monday 21 February, 2011

Saying revolution and freedom is not the same as saying democracy, respect for minorities, equal rights and good relations with neighbouring nations. All this has yet to be achieved. We welcome the Arab revolution and will continue to watch with our eyes open to the potential dangers. By Andre Glucksmann
read more

Pascal Bruckner and the reality disconnect

Friday 14 January, 2011

The French writer Pascal Bruckner wants to forbid a word. Which sounds more like a typically German obsession. But for Bruckner, "Islamophobia" is one of "those expressions which we dearly need to banish from our vocabulary". One asks oneself with some trepidation which other words we "dearly need" to get rid of: Right-wing populism? Racism? Relativism? By Alan Posener
read more