"A Ban on Torture Is an Absolute Ban"
The President of the German Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution, Heinz Fromm, pronounced his support to the press for the use of information that may have been obtained under torture. Would this view have been conceivable for a high German state representative before September 11? Are human rights being visibly sacrificed in Germany in the name of security?
Heiner Bielefeldt: For several years now there has been a fundamental debate in Germany on the topic of torture, which probably would not have been conceivable in this form prior to the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. Unfortunately, some of the contributions to the debate have compromised or abandoned basic principles of human rights.
This can be seen, for example, in frequent proposals to allow exceptions to the ban on torture, as well as in approaches that aim to make it easier to deport terrorist suspects to those countries that practice torture.
For the past year there has also been a debate in Germany over the use of information obtained under torture for the purpose of averting danger. From the human rights perspective, however, we must make it clear that a ban on torture is an absolute ban. There are no exceptions, not even in the event of an emergency. A policy that turns a blind eye on information obtained under torture undermines our credibility in fighting torture. In terms of human rights, this is not acceptable.
How do you evaluate the response of politicians and citizens? Is there an awareness among Germans of the degree to which human rights are at risk in their own country?
Bielefeldt: Many people have followed the public debate over the ban on torture with interest, and many have actively participated in it. Human rights organizations such as Amnesty International and the Forum for Human Rights (the joint platform for nongovernmental human rights organizations active in Germany) have made their positions clear and defended the absolute ban on torture. But I would also wish to have a broad discussion in society about preserving and further developing the rule of law in times of a mounting threat from terrorism. My impression is that many people have long resigned themselves to the erosion of their right to data privacy.
Some German federal states have passed laws that prohibit Muslim female teachers from wearing headscarves in public schools. You have criticized these bans? Why?
Bielefeldt: The question of whether a female teacher may wear a headscarf for religious reasons in a public school is complex. Various human rights perspectives come into play here: the religious freedom of the teacher as well as the religious freedom of the pupils, the parents' right of care and custody, and finally gender equality. I have spoken out in favor of finding appropriate solutions for individual cases and have distanced myself from a general ban.
What I find especially problematic are regional laws that ban teachers from wearing headscarves in public schools while expressly permitting the representation of Christian symbols. This is clearly discrimination. The argument that Christian symbols such as the cross or the habit are universal – that is to say, cross-religious – cultural and educational values does not convince me. Former Federal Constitutional Court Judge Ernst-Wolfgang Böckenförde derisively noted that this logic downgrades religious orders to mere folkloristic societies.
In your view the concept of a "dominant culture" contradicts the right to religious freedom. How far can the majority in a society go in prescribing to minorities its idea of democracy, religion, and gender relations? Where are the limits for minorities in establishing their own religious identity?
Bielefeldt: We shouldn't invest too much pathos into the tedious debate about "the dominant culture." This controversial term is used in very different ways. Alongside narrow-minded ideas about a dominant German culture we hear talk of more inviting concepts of a "common culture," occasionally even a "Christian culture" or a "European culture." Either way I don't really like the term. On one hand it isn't precise. On the other hand its usage often acquires a polemical tone against cultural pluralism.
Of course, it's true that a pluralist society needs a common normative foundation. The German Basic Law – and in particular the human rights guaranteed in it – form this foundation. We don't need a dominant culture that goes beyond this.
Interview: Mona Naggar
© Qantara.de 2006
Translated from the German by Nancy Joyce
Qantara.de
Human Rights
Universal or Culturally Specific?
Are human rights a universal concept or are they dependent on a particular cultural understanding? Are Islamic societies and human rights compatible? Hajo Goertz interviewed Heiner Bielefeldt, Director of Germany's Institute for Human Rights
Dialogues
Are Sharia Laws and Human Rights Compatible?
In their correspondence, Emran Qureshi (journalist and expert for Islam and human rights) and Heba Raouf Ezzat (lecturer for political science and womens' rights activist) discuss the role of the sharia in Islamic countries and in how far sharia laws are compatible with human rights.