“The general criminal laws against insults and incitement to hatred are completely sufficient to ensure peaceful coexistence between people of different religious denominations and those of no denomination in Germany,” said the President of the Humanist Association of Germany, Frieder Otto Wolf, in Berlin yesterday evening. Wolf clearly criticized the call by Stephan Mayer (CSU), spokesperson for domestic policy for the CDU/CSU parliamentary group, for the existing Section 166 of the German Criminal Code to be tightened. “Any special criminal law protection for religious or ideological beliefs is just as nonsensical and wrong as the demand for special criminal law protection for political beliefs,” said Wolf. The reason for the CSU member of parliament’s demand was the renewal of the proposal by FDP chairman Christian Lindner and the head of the Church Law Institute of the Protestant Church in Germany, Michael Heinig, to abolish paragraph 166 of the German Criminal Code. They said that this would send a signal about the importance of freedom of expression and artistic freedom following the terrorist attacks on the French satirical magazine “Charlie Hebdo”. The Alliance 90/The Greens party had also spoken out in favor of repealing the paragraph in the past. Frieder Otto Wolf went on to say that the continued existence of the regulation, which is often still seen as a law against “blasphemy”, harms religious and non-religious people alike. “Holding on to this regulation weakens the position of the Federal Republic of Germany in the international fight against the persecution of people on the basis of their religious and ideological beliefs,” Wolf emphasized. “In Germany, this criminal law is superfluous and from an international perspective it is even harmful.” Frieder Otto Wolf asked: “How can the German government or other institutions effectively and authentically take a stand against the draconian punishments for deviating from certain religious beliefs and ideas in other countries if the Federal Republic itself adheres to such criminal laws?” The UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief of the UN Human Rights Council, Heiner Bielefeldt, also recommended in a report at the end of 2013 that all regulations on the special sanctioning of criticism of religious or ideological beliefs should be repealed. In the report, Bielefeldt referred to the Rabat Action Plan of the UN Human Rights Council, which states that laws against “blasphemy” are counterproductive for the preservation of social peace, as they result in the censorship of interreligious dialog, the exchange of beliefs and criticism, which are generally constructive, healthy and necessary. In addition, the relevant criminal laws are often applied in a discriminatory manner. Wolf went on to say that it was “downright frighteningly reckless” to ignore the international repercussions of adhering to the superfluous provision in the German Criminal Code. “Christians, atheists and members of other minorities suffer equally in many countries under laws against apostasy, blasphemy or criticism of the majority religion and its prophet,” Wolf recalled. Time and again there are reports of violence, imprisonment, torture or even the death of people as a result of such penal norms. As a fundamentally liberal society, the Federal Republic of Germany therefore also has a responsibility here to represent its principles and values in an exemplary manner. The repeal of paragraph 166 of the German Criminal Code is therefore indispensable.
“Politicians such as CSU MP Stephan Mayer and church representatives must ask themselves why they are advocating a type of law here that is used against their own religious brothers and sisters in other countries on a daily basis. From our point of view, it certainly seems as if the defenders of such regulations have not yet arrived at the principles and consensus of a modern civilization,” says Wolf. On the topic:
The Oxford Declaration on Freedom of Thought and Expression
