For several years now, the AfD has strategically invoked “neutrality” in order to delegitimize criticism of it and intimidate civil society actors. This creates uncertainty: Do I have to remain “neutral” in school, administration, college or club while others represent increasingly radical positions? No! In a defensive democracy there is no obligation to be neutral towards inhumane positions. On the contrary: a clear commitment to the free democratic basic order (FDGO) is often even mandatory.
There is no one rule of neutrality
Even if it is constantly talked about: a general requirement of neutrality is not in the Basic Law. Obligations of neutrality only apply in narrowly defined situations in which there is particular proximity to the state. It may then be legally necessary not to favor or disadvantage any political party and, above all, not to use state resources to pursue party politics or promote one’s own party-political preferences. This particularly affects members of the government, state public relations, civil servants or the tax non-profit status of associations. There are also obligations to be objective or moderate, for example for civil servants or when making official announcements.
Liberal democratic basic order: Why a clear stance is permitted and necessary
But even where neutrality is required, it is limited by the protection of the free, democratic basic order. The FDGO includes the central principles of the Basic Law: protection of human dignity, the principle of democracy and the rule of law. Positions that are hostile to human dignity are those that assume an ethnically homogeneous “people”, that deny immigrants belonging, or that only grant basic rights to a supposed “national community”. This also includes racist, anti-Semitic, anti-Muslim, anti-gypsy, misogynistic, ableist or transphobic demands.
Civil servants and many public sector employees have a duty of loyalty to the constitution. So they should not be neutral towards enemies of the constitution, but should actively protect the values of the Basic Law. It follows from this defensive democracy: Anyone who clearly rejects statements that are hostile to human dignity while on duty is not violating neutrality, but rather is fulfilling their duty.
Government, office and party: Where neutrality applies – and where it doesn’t
For equal opportunities between parties, it is important that state resources and the authority of a government office are not used to directly combat a particular party. For this reason, the Federal Constitutional Court has sometimes viewed critical statements made by members of the government in official formats against the AfD as a violation of equal opportunities. However, it was always about state public relations: the website of the Ministry of the Interiora press conference by Angela Merkela press release from the Berlin Education Minister about the AfD.
However, the Rhineland-Palatinate State Constitutional Court has made it clear that a violation of the parties’ equal opportunities can also be justified if it serves to protect the FDGO. The call by former Prime Minister Malu Dreyer to take part in a demonstration “against the right” and to clearly identify right-wing extremist deportation fantasies was permissiblebecause it served to protect the free democratic basic order and was not arbitrary or unobjective.
This means that anyone who speaks in an official capacity must pay particular attention to equal opportunities between the parties, but is allowed to clearly state positions that violate human dignity – even if this contradicts the stance of an individual party.
School: How teachers can show attitude
The AfD is trying to use the neutrality requirement to intimidate, especially in schools, for example via reporting portals in which students should report teachers for alleged “partialism”. In fact, teachers, like civil servants, are obliged to be loyal to the constitution, and school laws require that lessons serve to respect and implement the values of the Basic Law.
The guideline for this has been the so-called Beutelsbach Consensus for decades, which sets out principles for political education: Students should not be “overwhelmed”, i.e. taken by surprise with an opinion. Topics that are socially controversial should also be presented as controversial and not just one-sided. And students should be empowered to form their own democratic judgments. But that doesn’t mean that right-wing extremist, racist or misanthropic statements have to be left “neutral” in lessons. On the contrary: they should be classified and confronted with the values of the Basic Law.
Court decisions have confirmed that political signs that serve to protect minorities – such as a Progress Pride flag in a primary school day care center – are permitted. A school can also prohibit an internship with a member of the AfDespecially if the corresponding regional association of the party is classified as right-wing extremist. Teachers are therefore allowed to take a clear stand against right-wing extremism as part of their educational mission, as long as they remain objective, do not overwhelm students and identify controversial topics as such.
University: academic freedom and political commitment
Academic freedom applies at universities and is not limited by a general obligation of neutrality. In the scientific field there is no content control in the sense of political moderation. Professors and students are allowed to research, publish and argue, including on right-wing extremism and authoritarian tendencies and, more specifically, on political parties.
Political engagement by students – for example alliances against the right, events, banners or demonstrations – does not conflict with any requirement of neutrality, but rather with house rules and university regulations. Some universities have banned protests citing neutrality or house rulesothers have tolerated political banners and actions for years. A court has emphasized that a banner reading “STOP AFD YOUTH” did not have to be removedbecause the university generally tolerates political banners and the students’ freedom of expression and university self-administration must be taken into account.
Organized student bodies (AStA) have a university policy mandate. You are allowed to express yourself politically as long as there is a clear connection to the concerns of the students and the university. In practical terms, this means that protests against right-wing extremist actors that affect the campus climate, safety or equal opportunities for students are exempt from this mandate be covered.
Remonstration: When contradiction is mandatory in public service
Civil servants are not only obliged to comply with the law, but also to remonstrate: If there are doubts about the legality of an instruction, they must report it to their superiors. If this does not happen, the person concerned can later be held responsible for illegal actions.
Anyone who receives an order that may violate fundamental rights or is obviously disproportionate should justify this in writing, request a review and, if in doubt, involve a higher authority. If a measure remains clearly illegal, it is possible and necessary to refuse to cooperate. An example of this is the case of planned expulsions of students in Berlin, which were supposed to take place after protests in solidarity with Palestine. A responsible official protestedbecause the measure was based only on investigative reports without conviction. The court later stopped the expulsions.
Civil society and associations: Politically active despite being a non-profit organization
Civil society organizations are coming under increasing pressure. One means is extensive parliamentary questions, in which the exercise of fundamental rights such as freedom of assembly is viewed with suspicion becomes. Nevertheless, the following applies: There is no general state neutrality requirement for clubs. Non-profit associations must remain party-politically neutral in the tax sense, i.e. not directly support any individual party. However, they are allowed to have a political impact if this corresponds to their statutory purpose.
That’s why it’s important to formulate statutes clearly: Anyone who explicitly anchors anti-racism work, equal rights or climate protection as an association’s purpose in the statutes can also take a clear stance on these topics. Criticism should be directed primarily against right-wing extremist content and behavior that violates human dignity, not generally against a party as such.
Conclusion: Resistance is mandatory
In a defensive democracy, neutrality towards inhumane behavior is not an obligation, but rather the problem. Obligations of neutrality are narrowly limited and cannot be understood as a general muzzle against commitment to human dignity and democracy. Anyone who refers to the free democratic basic order, clearly identifies positions that are hostile to human dignity and reflects on their role is generally on safe legal ground.
If you are confronted with accusations of lack of neutrality, it is worth remaining calm, clarifying your own role, documenting events and seeking legal support. Nobody has to be neutral towards racism, anti-Semitism, sexism or other forms of inhumanity – you can, and in many capacities you must, resolutely oppose them.
The counter-legal protection from FragDenStaat and the Society for Freedom Rights support you when authorities act authoritarianly and disregard your rights. We defend your democratic commitment, press and academic freedom against legal attacks from the right and also provide information about the neutrality requirement.
→Here is the lecture “Who is afraid of the neutrality requirement?” by Hannah Vos and Vivian Kube at the Chaos Communication Congress 39C3
Streaming Film
Watch free movies
Backlink Services
Download Anime Batch