The Headscarf Debate In Germany And Syrian Refugee Crisis

Name
Tutor
Course
Date
The Headscarf Debate in Germany and Syrian Refugee Crisis
Introduction
Recently, there have been lots of debates in Germany regarding the manner in how various aspects of the diverse society should be dealt with. Such debates have also been experienced by other European countries, with prominent controversies being the dressing codes of the Muslim women; the headscarf. Wearing of the headscarf, a dress code that is considered to be religious in that it conceals the neck has sparked lots of debate in terms of whether its acceptance is an introduction of a religious system that would eliminate the culture of the Germans or not (Sinclair 19). In the recent years, Germany has faced lots of introductions of policies that constrain the wearing of the headscarf in the public service sectors.
Germany has a centralized federal system that helps the sixteen states enjoy a substantial legislative as well as judicial autonomy through the various state parliaments as well as courts. The regulations based on various aspects of religion and culture are thus a sole responsibility of the legislative bodies of the states. However, all the states are governed by the constitution of the nation and the rulings of the Federal Constitutional Court.
The fact that the implementations of various policies are responsibilities of the state results to numerous perceptions of the headscarf in various states. For instance, some states have enforced a ban on the headscarf, whereas some states have remained silent over the same. Wearing a headscarf and securing employment as a civil servant in Germany is challenging in some states. The perception that the piece of cloth does not guarantee neutrality in religion has been the primary argument (Shadid and Koningsveld 48). Intercession by the court of laws is thus vital in addressing the issue.
Ferhat Ludin, having secured citizenship in Germany, but could not serve in public schools as a teacher due to the headscarf, moved to court in 1998 to find directives. In 2003, the ruling by the Federal Constitutional Court ruled in her favor. Prohibitions to the delivery of services as a civil servant ought to be based on statutory foundations (Von Campenhausen 665). Even though the ruling was made in her favor, her state, the Baden-Wьrttemberg, passed a rule that barred teachers with headscarf from serving in the public schools. Controversy has thus surrounded the topic based on the various rulings made by the Federal Constitutional Court and the European Court of Justice. The essay explores the historical origin of the headscarf, its controversy, the headscarf as a symbol, the rulings of the European Court of Justice, impacts of Syrian refugees in Germany about the dressing and the way forward on the issue.
Historical Perspective of Headscarf
Legal disputes relating to the wearing of the headscarf in Germany dates back to the year 1998 when a case was filed by a Muslim woman. The primary concern for the filing of the case was to permit her wearing of the Islamic headscarf while at work. Ferhat Ludin was working as a teacher in Germany. Despite having been a native citizen of Afghanistan, she had acquired German citizenship in the year 1995 and had developed great motives towards pursuing a civil service career. However, as per the native cultures of the German state, she was not granted permission to carry out duties within the school (Von Campenhausen 665). The main argument against her recruitment into the schools was the stringent believe that the teachers in Germany ought to have remained neutral when it comes to matters of religion and faith; a perspective that was greatly rooted in the German cultures.
According to the Baden-Wьrttemberg's state minister for culture, a neutral work setting regarding religion and faith was mandatory. Also, Germany having been identified as a secular nation, the aspect of culture was one of the most important aspects that were given priority about civil services. The case having been filed triggered the move towards a resolution of the legal dispute. The primary objective was passing a fair judgment and the judges involved were subject to search the legality of the basis of all levels (Human Rights Watch). Some of the critical aspects explored include the questions whether the Koran stipulates the obligatory wearing of the headscarf for the women. Some sections, including surah 24 were used by the supporters of the headscarf as religious proofs. However, people with different opinions are depicted to have had varying opinions on the same.
Apart from the religious perspectives that had been put to the test, the next move was the assessment of whether the laws and the policies of Germany were for or against the wearing of the headscarf. However, the assessment by the judges reached a conclusion that no clear laws had been established over the same. In the year 2003, the findings of the judges postulated that the Constitutional Court of Germany had lifted the ban on admission to school teaching. However, the state of Baden-Wьrttemberg took a different turn by passing a new law that banned adorning the headscarf by teachers who served in the public schools (Sinclair 26). Ten years later since the filing of the lawsuit in 2003, a problem that not all states have conformed to the law still exists. For instance, in Eastern Germany, ministries have not taken sides, whereas, in the North Rhine-Westphalia, a state considered to be Germany’s most populous, the headscarf ban was adopted.
In 2006, a different turn of events in the Baden-Wьrttemberg state was realized. The administrative court lifted the ban. The primary argument for the turn of events was that religious integrity was to be respected. It implied that integrity regarding the different religious beliefs was to be upheld. For instance, the move was to allow the Christian nuns to wear their religious attire and the Islamic women to wear the headscarf. However, the legal turn of events triggered more chaos that required the assessment of the cases in a step by step basis.
Continuation of the Controversy
Thomas Brinkmann, a lawyer specializing in labor and the social welfare, addresses the reasons behind the continuing controversy regarding the wearing of headscarf based on the fact that no single law can bring to an end the disputes in relation to the freedom of religion that is guaranteed in Germany. The lawyer’s argument is in support of the court rulings and that the positions held by immigrants have no weight. His understanding of the court rulings cannot default the rulings. For instance, he argues that the laws passed in Germany are not passed on willy-nilly and that about the rulings, he has not observed a ruling that goes against the Islamic persons. Also, he affirms that the rulings by the Germany courts have not been based on inappropriate concessions and that any accusations of anti-Muslim tendencies do not have weight.
Brinkmann states that no single general law passed is subject to bring to an end the legal disputes in relation to the freedom of religion in Germany. Instead, he suggests a consideration of the interests of both the employers and the immigrant employees in the creation of an understanding. For instance, whenever a judge in Berlin is not allowed to dress in a headscarf at work due to bans on religious oriented dressing for civil servants, the lawyer believes that it is a stress on the fact that equal treatment of religious beliefs across the public sphere is considered.
Court rulings regarding the controversy depend on the manner in which the immigrants are religious, the durations in which they have been wearing the headscarf, and the duration in which the headscarf is worn during spare times. At the same time, employers also find it difficult to ban the wearing of the headscarf for the employees who do not have direct contacts with clients. Specifically, a ban for employees who are in touch with clients who do not find the attire offensive is difficult for the employers. Employers can only push for the bans whenever there is a need as per the contracts. However, employers who have a certain orientation when it comes to religious beliefs were covered in a ruling that guaranteed the ban whenever their employees confessed different beliefs.
According to the article by Dick, the rulings by the courts in Germany are not arbitrary. Even though lots of judgments had been made, the Central Council of Muslims in Germany has never criticized any ruling; an aspect that affirms the fact that the courts do not pass arbitrary rulings. Instead, it is depicted that the courts are focused on the establishment of measures that would advocate for free exercising of religion; an aspect that is likely to be realized more often as compared to the past.
Headscarf as a Defining Symbol
Amidst the controversies that have surrounded the wearing of the headscarf, no one has answered the fundamental question of whatever it means. Instead, it has been addressed as a non-legal question. The judgments by the courts have often referred the matter to legislators. The headscarf often referred to as a controversial piece of cloth, has provoked a clash of culture in Germany. Christian people perceive it as an irritating symbol while the Muslim minority perceives it as a symbol of emancipation and self-confidence (Sinclair 26). In terms of freedom, the headscarf has become a test of guarantee to freedom in the society, where different religious persons would want to live together.
The headscarf debate has entwined the matters of freedom of religion with apprehensions regarding the religious fundamentals and use of political symbols. Proponents of the ban believe that the headscarf poses a threat to the nation as well as to the freedom of women in the society. For instance, it is believed that the Islamic religious move is a plan to eliminate the secular structures progressively. About the smooth integration of the Muslim women into the culture in Germany, proponents postulate the headscarf is depicted as a hindrance. A ban on the headscarf is thus regarded as a signal by the civil service community to enforce integration
Various court rulings came along with diverse interpretations of the headscarf. Proponents of the restrictions argued that the move by the Baden-Wьrttemberg state was a great milestone in the fight for the women's rights and the realization of neutrality in the state. Thus, apart from the religious perspectives, proponents of the restrictions of the headscarf argue that a headscarf is a form of oppression of the women and that it violated the constitutional principles of the gender equality. The restrictions based on the various rules set by states were thus seen as a positive element of upholding the rights of the women (Amiraux 126). Also, proponents argue that the ban offered a form of defense against any likely compulsion as well as the pressure that the women and girls were subjected to; wearing the headscarf. It was also argued that whenever teachers were permitted to dress in the headscarf, they could not be ideal idols for girls who were fighting their families and communities to stop the headscarf-wearing.
In the realization of neutrality, the proponents’ arguments were based on the preservation of neutrality in ideology as well as religion. About the Basic Laws, neutrality was a guarantee of political and religious peace in the teaching environments and the public service sectors. A ban on the wearing of the headscarf was greatly linked to the realization of freedom by pupils from confrontations based on the particular religious affiliations (Sacksofsky 356). Representatives from churches as well as political perspectives argue that Germany’s culture is greatly founded on Christianity and that the value system of the nation would be compromised whenever a culture that enforces Islamic religion is tolerated. The leader's perception is that...