The Left Berlin News & Comment

This is the archive template

Category: Uncategorised

‘Free’ From Covid Restrictions, Britain Faces Another Virus Surge

The British government has failed to learn lessons from the pandemic so far and is taking a huge gamble


03/08/2021

On 19th July, the British government abandoned many of the precautions in place to reduce the spread of coronavirus on what some of the press inappropriately insisted on calling ‘freedom day’. Limits on how many people could meet, social distancing and mandatory use of masks were dropped. Nightclubs were allowed to reopen, pubs and restaurants no longer had to offer table service only and limits were lifted for numbers at weddings, funerals, concerts, theatres, sports events and church services. From mid-August, most Covid restrictions in schools will end, including ‘bubbles’, and fully vaccinated adults will not need to self-isolate after contact with a positive case. Guidance recommending against travel to amber list countries was removed, and those visiting were no longer expected to self isolate on return.

Had the war been won?

Reading the above it would be tempting to think that the ‘war against coronavirus’ in the UK had been won. However, numbers of new cases and hospital admissions told a quite different story, prompting rising concern among the scientific community long before restrictions were lifted. Writing in the medical journal The Lancet, Deepti Gurdasani and colleagues branded the decision to lift restrictions as dangerous and premature. An end to the pandemic should mean that enough of the population are immune to SARS-CoV-2 to prevent an exponential increase in infections with the huge pressure that this exerts on the NHS and the risk to many of death and chronic illness. In fact, in early July it was estimated that there were still 17 million people with no protection against the virus.

Indeed, the Health Secretary, Sajid Javid, was confidently predicting a rapid rise in case numbers to as high as 100,000/day. Soon afterwards, having developed infection himself despite being vaccinated, he fatuously and insensitively tweeted that people should not “cower” from infection. This not only led to swift condemnation by those who had lost relatives but also called seriously into question his soundness of judgment and his understanding of the seriousness of the disease.

A return to herd immunity

At the start of the pandemic, the UK government initially considered letting infection spread until herd immunity was achieved. While this is denied, video evidence confirmation from the Chief Scientific Adviser is freely available. The most obvious explanation for the recent lifting of restrictions is that the government now feels that herd immunity can be achieved through a combination of both vaccination and natural infection, rather than waiting for greater vaccine coverage to be rolled out. The consequence would be a huge rise in infections among the predominantly as yet unvaccinated younger population. This was justified by arguing that vaccines had “broken the link between infection and mortality” and that catching the virus if you were relatively young and healthy did not much matter.

However, the link between virus and death has been weakened rather than broken and infection can be a serious matter resulting not only in sudden illness requiring hospital admission but also long term problems in many who become ill. Around 10% of patients have symptoms three months after being infected and long Covid can affect the whole spectrum of people with Covid-19, from those with very mild acute disease to the most severe forms. The risk of this approach is therefore clear – exponential growth of the delta variant leaving hundreds of thousands of people with long term chronic health problems, increasing pressure on the NHS, and preventable deaths.

Storing up trouble for the future

Allowing transmission of the virus over the summer may also create a reservoir of infection that will accelerate spread when schools and universities reopen in the autumn. Modelling suggests that another effect could be to increase the likelihood of vaccine resistant variants. This would put all at risk, including those vaccinated, both in the UK and globally. An increase in hospital admissions will apply further pressure on health services struggling to cope and on exhausted staff. Catching up with the backlog of work will also become even more challenging. As always, it is the deprived communities who are more exposed to and more at risk from Covid-19 that will be disproportionately affected.

The authors of the letter to The Lancet described the government approach as a “dangerous and unethical experiment” as well as branding it illogical. They suggested an alternative approach of delaying relaxation of restrictions while pushing up vaccination rates, investing in adequate ventilation in schools and workplaces, continuing to follow WHO guidance including mask wearing in indoor spaces, having effective border quarantine processes and ensuring that ‘find, test, trace support’ systems worked. The latter must include doing something about statutory sick pay in the UK, which at £95.85 a week is almost the lowest anywhere in the industrialised world, and means around a quarter of the British workforce face poverty by falling ill.

Taking the batteries from the smoke alarm – a novel approach to fire fighting

Just as England was about to lift restrictions, new infection rates had climbed to one of the highest in the world with 54,674 new cases in the UK on 17th July. Not surprisingly, more people were being asked to isolate through contact with infected cases, more than half a million in the first week of July (a 46% rise on the previous week). Most of the press chose to call this a ‘pingdemic’ and blame it on the NHS contact tracing app rather than the huge rise in infection brought about by government strategy. Meanwhile, the lamentably expensive and largely useless privatised ‘test and trace’ continued to underperform, with only a minority of those with Covid symptoms coming forward for testing, mainly due to lack of financial support.

There followed calls for the sensitivity of the contact tracing app to be reduced and for key workers to continue to work provided they had negative daily lateral flow tests, a negative PCR test and had been double vaccinated. Much confusion then followed in terms of just who were key workers, would they still have to isolate when not at work, and what about risk to fellow workers who had not been in contact with infection? In addition, health staff told not to isolate would inevitably come into contact with vulnerable patients. While ministers are fans of lateral flow tests, it should be noted that the US Food and Drug Agency takes a different view and warned the public to stop using the Innova SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid qualitative test for detecting infection, suggesting the tests should be destroyed and binned or returned to the manufacturer.

Despite a symptomatic Sajid Javid testing positive and being in face to face meetings with the prime minister and chancellor, both suddenly claimed to be part of a ‘pilot scheme’ that allowed them not to isolate. A hostile public response, including from many of the around 1 million people estimated to have been told to self isolate, prompted a rapid U-turn. Among accusations of ‘one rule for them, another for the rest’ Johnson spent ‘freedom day’ isolating in 10 Downing Street. This meant we were spared him declaring victory over the virus day “by summoning the spirit of Churchill with appropriately stirring rhetoric . . at an historic venue associated with the wartime leader”.

Time will tell which way the numbers go

Modelling of what might happen after lifting restrictions suggested that Covid cases could rise as high as 200,000 a day with up to 2,000 hospital admissions and 100-200 deaths each day. By 26th July, daily infections had fallen from over 50,000 to the lowest in three weeks (24,950 cases) but hospital in patient numbers had risen to above 5,000 for the first time since mid-March and deaths were up by 50%. The seven-day average for hospital admissions had increased by 26% over the previous week, with a 31% rise in Intensive Care Unit bed occupancy. Since a June 1st with no coronavirus deaths, 1,114 were reported over the next four weeks. NHS providers warned the government that the NHS was as stretched as it was at the height of the pandemic in January.

With the closure of schools, numbers of children tested fell, possibly contributing to falling case numbers. Good weather also meant more people were outside and the spread of virus may have reduced. At the time of writing (end of July) It is certainly too early to conclude that a level of herd immunity has now been reached. Effects of lifting restrictions on the 19th July will take time to become apparent and a surge in cases remains possible in September (if not before) when schools reopen. There is general agreement that considerable uncertainty must remain about what will happen in the coming months.

International disbelief

Overseas observers looked on with incredulity at the July 19th lifting of restrictions, pointing out that the prime minister had clearly abandoned any claim to be basing actions on ‘data not dates’ given the skyrocketing of delta variant cases. A professor of infectious disease from Harvard commented: “Yes, vaccines make it much less likely you’ll get infected or ill; but if the virus isn’t there, it definitely can’t infect you”. Only half the UK population was fully immunised, vaccine uptake was slowing, and there were many who were unable to benefit from vaccination including those with immuno-suppression or those struggling with vaccine access.

Prof Robert West of the government’s Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies behavioural sciences subgroup, described the government approach as getting “as many people infected as quickly as possible, while using rhetoric about caution as a way of putting the blame on the public for the consequences”. In effect, a very strong signal had been sent out that the Covid crisis was now less serious, with the overall message being that actions by the public – not only mask wearing, but also distancing and avoiding crowded places – were no longer required.

The possibility of the UK becoming a breeding ground for new vaccine-resistant variants and exporting them to the rest of the globe caused alarm among 1,200 world scientists. Prof Michael Baker from New Zealand remarked: “we have always looked to the UK for leadership when it comes to scientific expertise, which is why it’s so remarkable that it is not even following basic public health principles”. Clinical epidemiologist Deepti Gurdasani commented: “Let’s be under no illusions – we are in a country where our government is taking steps to maximally expose our young to a virus that causes chronic illness in many. Our government is ending all protections for our children including isolation of contacts of cases in schools and bubbles”. Others warned that the British government’s approach would be imitated, for political expediency, by authorities elsewhere.

Coercion and vaccine passports – an assault on civil liberties

Care home staff will be expected to have vaccination against Covid-19, with expansion of compulsory vaccination against both Covid-19 and flu for all health and care workers. Care home staff that refuse will be dismissed without compensation and barred from their occupation. There is a lot more to safety in care homes than vaccination, including adequate staffing levels, training equipment, cleanliness, personal protective equipment, risk assessment, and consultation with staff and residents. The government has also overestimated the number of care staff who have not had vaccination. Respect and professionalisation of care staff would do more to boost vaccine uptake.

Nightclubs have been identified internationally as particularly dangerous environments for spreading the virus. By the end of September, vaccine certificates will be mandatory for entry into nightclubs and other venues where large crowds gather. This is more about coercing the young to be vaccinated rather than a serious approach to persuading people of the benefits. Critics asked why, if it was safe to go to a nightclub from July 19th, would it require full vaccination from the end of September? Big Brother Watch has highlighted problems of vaccine passports/COVID status certificates and mass testing of asymptomatic people – that there is insufficient evidence that vaccinations prevent transmission of the virus; there is no evidence to support the use of mass testing in people without symptoms or exposure to an infectious person (false positive tests hamper public health efforts and unfairly exclude healthy individuals from public life).

Further, the use of immunity as a condition for work, travel or leisure rights raises serious legal and ethical issues and would risk incentivising healthy people to contract the virus in attempting to access equal socio-economic opportunities. As COVID-status certificates do not reduce community risks, they should not play a role in reopening the economy. COVID-status certificates would create a two-tier society, in which minority ethnic groups, migrants, poorer people and people with lower education would be disproportionately represented. The best way to ensure marginalised groups are included in public health measures is to create an enabling, not a punitive, environment.

In conclusion

The current UK government strategy for managing coronavirus remains deeply flawed. Despite rising infection rate, restrictions known to reduce the spread of virus were abandoned on July 19th exposing many millions of unprotected individuals to risk of developing Covid-19. Ministers chose to abdicate responsibility for this by leaving the public to decide how to behave. Apart from a recent reduction in number of daily new cases, it is clear that hospital admissions and deaths have been increasing. Lifting of restrictions should have been delayed until a much greater proportion of the population were vaccinated, up to around the 85% mark needed for herd immunity to be achieved. The government has capitulated to its critics who declare mask wearing an infringement of liberty, insist Covid-19 is no worse than flu and see a disconnect between the economy and the health of the people. It is principally the young and the poor who are being sacrificed.

While only time will tell, there is every possibility that cases will once again surge over the coming months, with the added risk of the emergence of vaccine resistant variants. The government has failed to learn lessons from the pandemic so far, is still failing to adopt basic public health measures, has long since abandoned the science and is now taking a huge gamble. More than ever, it no longer deserves to be in power.

Film Review – Not Just Your Picture

The story of Layla and Ramsis Kilani powerfully portrays the fraught experience of Palestinians in Germany and the indifference of the German state towards them.


02/08/2021

Not just your Picture is the story of Ramsis and Layla Kilani, Palestinian siblings from Siegen in Germany. It is just as much its the story of their father Ibrahim. Ibrahim left his home in Beit Lahiya, Gaza, to study architecture in Germany. In 2002, after he lost his job and his marriage collapsed, he returned to Gaza, married a local teacher, and had 5 more children. Ramsis and Layla – then 11 and 9 – remained with their mother in Germany. Outside skype calls, they never saw their father again.

Twelve years later, in 2014, the Gaza “war” broke out. This was not a war in any real sense, and largely consisted of Israeli planes bombing residential areas of Gaza. Among the many civilian victims were Ibrahim, his wife and 5 children, plus 4 other relatives, who were all killed in a bomb attack on July 21st.

The Kilani family in Siegen received a condolence letter from someone who works for the German Diplomatic Mission in Ramallah. The letter expressed the personal sympathy of the writer but was unofficial and not written in the name of the German State or any of its agencies. The German government has still not opened any investigation into the brutal death of a German citizen.

Not Just your Picture follows how Ramsis and Layla have come to terms with their father’s death and the indifference of the country in which they were born and raised. Ramsis consulted the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights (ECCHR) about how he could sue the Israeli army. German politicians looked away as the legal process got bogged down in constitutional wrangling.

On a more personal level, he engaged himself with the radical left. Initially this not because of Palestine but for what he calls identitarian reasons – because the Left was anti-racist. He recalls with laughter the time he punched the one Nazi in the Siegen parliament, followed by confusion that part of the antifa scene was supporting his action by raising an Israel flag.

Ramsis explains that speaking out in public did not come naturally to him, but this responsibility has now been thrust upon him. We see him addressing a rally in Berlin on the anniversary of his father’s death, and speaking at the Institut du Monde Araba in France. He insists that he is not just speaking for his father and his family, but for the thousands of Palestinians in a similar situation.

Layla, in contrast, was less politically engaged, but still wanted to understand her father’s death. We see film footage of her visiting Palestine for the first time in 2017. This was an exchange programme organised by her University, so Ramsis couldn’t join her. She sees the benefits in this. Without the influence of her opinionated brother, she could get a clearer view for herself.

In Hebron she visits the infamous Shuhada Street to which Palestinians are denied access. Previously the street had been filled with Palestinian shops but it has now been taken over by settlers. The nearby school was also closed and is now a control centre for the Israeli army. Armed soldiers tell them that only the Europeans in their party may proceed – Palestinians (or, as the soldiers say, “Muslims”) are banned. They stick together and all turn around.

Back in Beit Lahiya, Ibrahim’s brother Saleh and his sister Khadija show us his abandoned house, then take us round his orchard. The trees have dried and there is little they can cultivate here, but they can’t bring themselves to come here since his death. As Khadija explains “every time we visit, we remember my brother. That’s why it’s been two years since we entered here.”

Both Ramsis and Layla talk about how it would be easier to shut up about their background. Talking about Palestine was even more difficult for their father who preferred to keep quiet and ignore any conflict. Layla explains that she used to introduce herself as an Arab to avoid being told that Palestine doesn’t exist. But her experiences have turned her into a proud and vocal Palestinian.

What is extraordinary about the Kilanis’ story is that it is not untypical. This is the experience of many Palestinians in Germany and throughout the world. It is contemporary history, and at the same time it is hidden, ignored. Neither Ramsis nor Layla has been able to visit their family or their father’s grave as they are denied entry into Gaza. They are not alone. Their story deserves to be told, but we must also act so that no more Palestinians must mourn the deaths of their families.

The German prémiere of Not Just Your Picture will be in the City Kino Wedding on Wednesday 4th August at 7pm. The film will be followed by a discussion with Layla and Ramsis Kilani plus directors Ann Paq and Dror Dayan.

‘We Are Close to a Majority for Expropriating Mega-Landlords’

Berlin housing activist Thom McGath says the referendum campaign to take 250,000 apartments into public ownership is on track


01/08/2021

Federico Fuentes (FF) interviews Thom McGath (TM)

Housing activists in Berlin have responded to a recent German court decision to strike down the state government’s rent cap by upping the ante, and calling for the expropriation of large housing corporations.

Having successfully collected hundreds of thousands of signatures, they have won the right to put this bold proposition to a referendum in September.

FF asks: For context, could you tell us how Berlin came to introduce a rent cap?

TA replies: Back in 2018, the Berlin government suggested it would be willing to explore the option of a rent cap. This responded to pressure from activists, following an unsuccessful referendum to introduce rent caps in 2015.

But it was our campaign for expropriation — which preceded the introduction of the rent cap — that really brought the topic to the fore. Within a few months of starting our campaign, the rent cap was introduced, in January 2020.

I would say that it would not have been possible without us. It was a response to or, at least, an attempt to appease, those who were making demands for expropriation.

What did the rent cap entail?

It meant rents were capped at 2019 levels and could not be raised for five years.

There were certain exceptions to the rules. For example, if you modernised or renovated the rental unit, you could increase the rent by about one euro per square metre. There were also allowances for a small increase after two years, but the increase could not be higher than inflation, which is about 1.2%.

On the other hand — and I think this was one of the more radical aspects of the cap — it also actively lowered rents based on how old the building was and the quality of amenities it provided. For example, whether it had things like central heating or not.

The government set an upper limit of €9.80 per square metre, which progressively dropped depending on the age and state of the apartment. This meant many renters saw massive decreases in their rent, in the order of 20‒30%.

This represented a very radical interference in the market.

Did the rent cap work?

Berlin’s rent cap provided a positive contrast to the failure of the rent brake [Federal Rent Control Act] introduced at the federal level in 2016, which limited rent rises to 15% every three years. During this time, Berlin was the only state to see rents drop, by about 11%.

But in the end, the federal rent brake was used by the Constitutional Court to overturn Berlin’s rent cap. The main issue raised in the court decision was that Berlin simply didn’t have the competency as a state to introduce such measures, given the federal government had already introduced restrictions.

In my opinion, rent caps work. The discussion on whether rent caps work or not is usually focused on the question of supply, which misses the whole point.

The argument is always that rent caps lead to shrinking apartment availability. This makes sense, because the research shows people stay in the same apartment for longer. But this is a positive thing, because it means people don’t have to move around so much, or are not being forced out due to rent rises, so that’s a positive.

One negative aspect of Berlin’s rent cap was that it excluded new buildings constructed after 2014. We saw a big explosion in rents in that segment. A lot of people who moved to the city were forced to that segment, as they couldn’t find anything else because people weren’t moving out.

In this regard, you must be a bit stricter with new buildings, while also building more public housing so that people can afford to move here.

But it’s important to note that we always saw the rent cap as a stop-gap measure. It was only set to last for five years and didn’t work to shift the structure of the existing market in favour of more not-for-profit models. We always said: “Ok, this is something that will last for five years, but what happens after that?”

For the Social Democrats, the main party in the governing coalition in Berlin, the answer was to just build more. But we said that was not enough.

Rather than campaign for restoring the rent cap, housing activists are setting up a campaign to expropriate housing corporations. Could you tell us why?

It’s important to start with the context of housing in Germany. The proportion of tenants is much higher in Germany than in most other countries. At the federal level, tenants make up 60% of the housing market. In Berlin, it’s about 85%.

This is largely because, for a very long time, there were certain regulations and policies in place that ensured rent was affordable. Up until about 1988, there was a not-for-profit housing law. That meant a certain amount of funding had to go to not-for-profit housing corporations or other not-for-profit models (such as cooperatives and state-owned housing).

But then we had a big wave of privatisation and neglect of the public housing sector. Institutional investors bought up a lot of expiring social and public housing units that were privatised in the wake of financial crises.

These companies entered the housing markets with the sole purpose of renting, as they realised it was much easier to make money from this if they could corner the rental market.

In Berlin, there was nothing in place to stop this happening. In fact, the government facilitated it through its privatisation of housing units, and the ease with which it allowed companies to inject international capital into the market.

These companies function as real estate investment trust funds that have concentrated a greater and greater share of housing in their hands. They get around taxes by buying up companies rather than the apartments themselves. This means they don’t have to pay any acquisition taxes or property taxes.

The result has been the rise of these huge housing companies. For example, Deutsche Wohnen has about 110,000 apartments and Vonovia has around 50,000. They are now planning to merge.

What impact would expropriating these companies have on the housing market?

We are proposing to expropriate all for-profit rental companies with 3,000 apartments or more and for these apartments to be put into public hands. We are also proposing to create a new institution to manage these apartments with built-in democratic structures — from building to neighbourhood to citywide councils. This will mean renters would be able to decide on things like investment in apartments that need modernisation and where utility costs are spent.

There are currently about 1.9 million units in Berlin, of which about 340,000 are public housing and 300,000 are owned by the tenants. Through this process we would bring another 250,000 apartments into public ownership.

This would remove a large proportion of the housing stock from the market and remove the incentive to speculate in the market. It would also push rents down, as private landlords would be forced to compete with more public housing.

Overall, it would place the not-for-profit model at the forefront of the housing market.

Can you give us a sense of the level of support for the campaign?

We have just finished the second round of signature collections and have moved onto the next level, which is the referendum. It will be put on the ballot at the state and federal elections on September 26.

I think we have had a huge impact in terms of public discourse. It’s been a top story around Germany for quite some months. All the political parties have had to take a position on it. A federal real estate industry group is trying to fund a $1.2 million euro campaign against us, so they are definitely scared of the ramifications of this campaign.

Our campaign broke the record for signatures for a referendum in Berlin. We submitted about 350,000 signatures, which shows not only the grassroots support for the campaign but also the desire for radical change among the public. Having successfully collected hundreds of thousands of signatures, they have won the right to put this bold proposition to a referendum in September

I would also say the polls have swung in our favour following the overturning of the rent cap. We saw a huge inflow of signatures in this period and, today, polls indicate that we almost have a majority of voters in favour of our proposal, roughly 49% in favour compared to 43% against.

Questions: Federico Fuentes for Green Left

Rally against the EU headscarf ban in photos

31st July, 2021 Brandenburger Tor.


31/07/2021

 

Why we are Protesting for the Right to Religious Expression

A new ruling could result in headscarves being banned throughout the EU. This is a serious attack on the rights of Muslim Women. Interview with Asha Faria-Vare


30/07/2021

Hello Asha, thanks for talking to us. Could we start by you telling us a little about who you are.

Thanks for your interest in the demo! I am a British citizen from the Forest of Dean who has been living in Germany for about five years now. I’ve got a bit of an eclectic background: I’ve gone from being a trapeze artist in the circus, to being a Classical pianist, to running rap workshops in Palestinian refugee camps. Right now I’m studying my Masters in Kulturelle Musikwissenschaft in Göttingen but I also lead the UK team for a flight compensation company based here in Berlin. In terms of activism, I ran a gender equality blog when I was a teenager and also wrote and performed many a protest song (on my gee-tar) for all kinds of causes at all kinds of events. The upcoming demo will actually be my first time on the mic without a musical instrument.

On 15th July, the European Court of Justice passed a “neutrality” law banning certain clothing in the workplace. What exactly does the law say and who is affected?

So the decision passed by the European Court of Justice is not a law in itself, it clarifies questions about the interpretation of the EU Council’s existing framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (Council Directive 2000/78/EC) and provides preliminary rulings in two cases brought before the court by Germany’s Federal Labour Court.

To summarise briefly, the court found that, while the existing EU framework prohibits both direct and indirect forms of discrimination, indirect religious discrimination may be justified under certain circumstances provided that there is a “genuine need” for the employer to prohibit visible forms of religious expression. Indirect discrimination, according to the court, occurs when all visible forms of religious expression are prohibited and no particular religion(s) are singled out. A genuine need might be “the wishes of customers” or, when it comes to education, the desire of parents to have their children supervised by people “who do not manifest their religion” while in contact with their children.

Regarding the two causes brought before the court, the court found the policy of one employer to prohibit large forms of religious expression impermissible as it targets specific religions and is therefore directly discriminatory. In the other case, the court found that the employer’s neutrality to be permissible insofar as it obliged people of all religions to refrain from wearing visible forms of religious expression. The court emphasised, however, that the employer must demonstrate a genuine need to implement such a policy, and must ensure that the prohibition in question is limited to what is strictly necessary according to the actual scale and severity of any adverse consequences the employer is seeking to avoid.

The decision of the court represents a major step backwards. While the original directive from the European Council talks of “apparently neutral” provisions, criterion or practices, the new decision fails to question whether or not neutrality policies are in fact neutral but rather broadly legitimises such policies provided that they are implemented by employers for “objective reasons”. That the so-called objective reasons named by the ECJ, such as customer complaints, are forms in which religious discrimination and racism is well-known to take, is suggestive of an intentional decision on the ECJ’s part to undermine the original intentions of the existing framework in favour of a distinctly right-wing interpretation.

In terms of who is affected, Muslim women who wear headscarves already bear the brunt of existing neutrality policies in Member States where legislation endorsing such policies already exists. Thus far, such policies have almost exclusively affected Muslim women; however, other religious minorities such as Orthodox Jews, Sikhs, and Hindus stand to be affected, particularly if member states, emboldened by the ECJ’s decision, begin to support such policies having previously taken a more tolerant approach towards religious practice and identity.

We’ve had a similar neutrality law in Berlin for just over 3 years now. How has that been going?

More trouble than it’s worth, I like to think. The State of Berlin first introduced its Neutrality Act in 2006 and has had difficulty implementing it ever since. It has at various times been ruled entirely unconstitutional, to some extent unconstitutional, and has seen multiple states of revision. In its initial stages, the Act, clearly targeted towards Germany’s growing Muslim population, excluded the prohibition of jewellery items such as crucifix pendants worn on necklaces. It was subsequently revised to include prohibitions on any visible form of religious expression and ultimately deemed constitutional under the condition that it is implemented in schools only when there is evidence of a “sufficiently concrete danger” to the school’s peace and state neutrality. In a city as diverse as Berlin, judges have generally taken a sceptical view towards the implementation of neutrality policies in schools as the implementation of such policies appears to pose a greater threat to peace than the absence of them, which makes a strong case for religious discrimination. Less diverse states, such as Nord Rhine-Westphalia, have had more success implementing neutrality acts.

The judgement says that it treats all religions equally. What’s wrong with that?

Of course all religions are not equally affected by the implementation of neutrality policies. For many Christians, the act of wearing a crucifix pendant is symbolic and removing it has no bearing on their religious practice. By contrast, many Muslims believe that covering the hair belongs to a broader concept of Hijab, or modesty, and is an obligatory requirement of the religion. This means that if a Muslim woman were to remove her headscarf, it would actively affect her ability to practice her religion. Muslim women are more likely to be forced out of the workplace as a result, which is extremely disheartening since they face enough difficulties accessing it on account of not only their religion but also their ethnicity and gender.

This is where the recent decision gets interesting: the ECJ acknowledges that religions for which visible forms of expression are religious precepts are more adversely affected by neutrality policies than others, it just doesn’t care. If we go back to the EU Council’s equal treatment framework, we find that it makes the same distinction between “direct” and “indirect” discrimination where discrimination is defined in terms of the action taken by the employer and not by the impact of these actions on employees. The adoption of this definition is less problematic here because both direct and indirect discrimination are ruled impermissible except under the strictest of circumstances. The framework allows member states to determine under which circumstances such discrimination might constitute a legitimate aim but, in light of the other provisions in the framework, it seems fairly obvious than any such circumstances should improve the situation of groups facing discrimination and certainly not legitimise harmful discrimination against them. In its totality, the equal treatment framework could and should be used as a tool for promoting religious tolerance.

What certain Member States (such as Germany) have done is exploit the freedom to define “legitimate aims” under which an employer might impose a policy of neutrality in order to create discriminatory legislation such as Berlin’s Neutrality Act. As we have seen in Berlin, some legislators went overboard and then had to work backwards by making the discriminatory elements less explicit in order to pass the legislation off as constitutional. Of course the original intentions of this legislation, to ban headscarves, has never changed, it has just been repackaged, but the questions surrounding its legitimacy have remained. This is essentially how two German cases ended up being referred to the ECJ for clarification.

What I find sad, or perhaps frightening, is that the ECJ was presented with a major opportunity to make good on the equal treatment framework, and they chose not to. Given the rise in far-right extremism and attacks against Muslims, the ECJ could have decided to take member states in another direction, but they opted instead to lean into it. The equal treatment framework also highlights the intersectional nature of discrimination but the ECJ did not consider gender based discrimination anywhere in their judgement. I cannot help but question their motivation and wonder if the European Union currently feels so unstable that it is scapegoating the increasing population of immigrants from outside the EU to maintain its legitimacy.

So far, neutrality laws have stopped women wearing headscarves from teaching or practising law, but not from cleaning schools and courts. Are double standards at work here?

Oh absolutely, if the position is something that the dominant culture affords a higher status to, a higher value, we feel affronted when we find people who do not look like us in that position and actively oppose it, legislate against it even. That’s when you hear “immigrants are stealing our jobs”. When it comes to menial positions or positions we attribute less value to, we barely pay attention to whether or not the person working is wearing a headscarf or not. The lower position is in keeping with the lower status we afford the person and, since it doesn’t ruffle our feather, we passively accept it.

Many supporters of neutrality laws say that by banning headscarves, they are protecting women as the headscarf is a symbol of women’s oppression. Is it that simple?

I feel like I’m a good person to answer this because I once joined my school’s debate team specifically to argue that the headscarf is oppressive and I remember clearly why I felt that way. I come from a place where we have a history of women being forced to cover up, so showing some skin represented, in my opinion, freedom from oppression. It logically followed that any requirement for women to cover must mean that they are oppressed by men. Simple, right?

Wrong. I tried to ignore the Muslim women telling me that Islam gave rights to women, convinced as I was that they are victims of the patriarchy, but after a while I decided to look into it (moving to a Muslim country helped). Turns out they were right, Islam really did give rights to women, substantial rights too given how women had been treated in the Middle East until that point. It has hardly surprising then, that when the Prophet Muhammed’s (SAW) wives, elevated members of Islamic society, began to wear headscarves, other women followed suit. It was a mark of pride, of prestige even. Within this context, the concept of hijab, when revealed to Prophet Muhammed (SAW), was readily accepted. The headscarf is not only a religious requirement then (a requirement of Allah, not of a man – that’s important), but it might also be regarded as symbolic of a religion that improved the status of women as well as a cultural practice. In Western societies, where women’s bodies are extremely hypersexualised, the headscarf represents for some Muslim women a position in opposition to this form of misogyny, it represents bodily autonomy.

To be honest, the headscarf is so ubiquitous in Muslim countries that at some point it’s like how men tend to have short hair while women tend to grow their hair. Many societies visibly distinguish between genders but you wouldn’t tell a woman she’s oppressed because she’s got long hair. When I visited the West Bank, I discovered that there is a headscarf for every personality type. There’s so much room for expression that even if someone is following a cultural norm, religious or not, it does not necessarily mean they are suffering. On the contrary, it might represent an important part of their identity, it might be the thing that makes them feel good about going out into the world.

I would like to mention that there are certain governments that exploit religious concepts, such as hijab, to oppress women. As a result, some women see that headscarf as symbolic of violence. It is important to understand that it really is complex and there are multiple truths, there are any number of ways in which the headscarf might be perceived. What is important is that we do not assume we know better than the person who chooses to wear it.

Many on the Left are proud atheists. Should religious matters like this concern socialists?

Yes, we should be opposed to all forms of oppression regardless of our personal beliefs. Oppression is a system that will continue to succeed if we allow some groups to be oppressed by the state and not others. In this case, many issues intersect including racism and sexism so if the religious aspect alone is not enough to get you on board, perhaps you can find another reason to support the cause. I believe the ECJ’s decision represents a strategic positioning towards the right and I would urge anyone on the left not to overlook this move on account of any personal religious (or even anti-religious) beliefs.

What actions are you organising and do you have plans for the future? How can people support you?

I expect I’ll do some networking at the demo and maybe some more activities will come out of it, but I have nothing lined up for the moment. I am pretty flat out with work and university so I took a step back from activism… at least I thought I did… but then things like this happen and I just can’t help myself.

Questions by Phil Butland. If you want more information about further activities, you can contact Asha on afariavare01@qub.ac.uk . We will continue to provide coverage on theleftberlin.com.

Protest Against New EU Ruling Which Allows Workplaces to Ban Visible Forms of Religious Expression: Saturday, 31st July, 1pm at Brandenburger Tor