At a high school in Berlin-Gesundbrunnen there have been repeated conflicts with strict Muslim students for many years. Girls from liberal Muslim families are insulted because they don't wear a headscarf. Young people are repeatedly pressured to convert to Islam. Attempts are being made to impose Islamic dietary laws on students. Muslims who do not want to observe Ramadan or prayer times are excluded.
During this year's Lent, a young person dressed in black appeared as a prayer leader in a corner of the schoolyard. Muslim students are regularly criticized or even insulted by their classmates for their choice of clothing that is too revealing - and Muslim high school graduates have to justify themselves when they shake the headmaster's hand at the graduation ceremony. Forced to confess, pressure to conform, proselytizing - such cases are becoming known again and again, and not just in the capital.
The high school saw “school peace” at risk due to these incidents. The house rules have prohibited the “demonstrative practice of religious rites” since 2023. School leaders argued that demonstrative prayer could inflame and exacerbate conflicts.
This brought the Society for Freedom Rights into action. The association, which describes itself as “legal protection insurance for the Basic Law” and has repeatedly achieved fundamental decisions with its lawsuits before the Federal Constitutional Court, did not, however, take the side of those students who are being bullied by fundamentalist-minded Muslims. He sided with those students who want to enforce Islamic norms and Sharia rules in class and during breaks.
This was done in the name of anti-discrimination. The association argued before the Berlin Administrative Court that the ban on demonstrative prayer was discriminatory against Muslims who, due to Islamic doctrine, feel obliged to practice the obligatory prayer five times a day. It's about a “racist classification”. Under the “guise of school peace” religious freedom is being violated.
Since the house rules were changed, some students have had to hide behind garbage containers, in bushes or in toilets to pray so as not to get into trouble, the association further argued in the court case. Those affected felt “hunted” by the staff and had to fear educational and regulatory measures as well as effects on their grade.
According to the legal online portal “LTO”, the school rejected these representations in the oral hearing before the administrative court last week. It's just about clarifying discussions. A lawyer from the Society for Freedom Rights countered this explanation by saying that school is the place where one has to learn to withstand social pressure and inner urges. In this respect, it is an important learning process to see the prayer of others and decide autonomously: “Is this something for me?”
Pressure to conform through demonstrative prayer
The Society for Civil Rights apparently glorifies the pressure to conform to religion as a pedagogical learning tool. But autonomy needs a protected space in which it is possible to say no, without having to fear exclusion, insults or pressure to justify yourself.
Anyone who demands that young people demonstrate their autonomy in the face of demonstrative religious practice must not ignore the social conditions under which they have to do this. When strictly religious students pressure others because of their clothing, their behavior, or their lack of religiosity, demonstrative prayer is no longer a purely private act of faith.
It can mark group membership, create expectations and increase social pressure to conform. Anyone who ignores these connections overlooks those whose freedom is particularly at risk: liberal and secular Muslims who have to assert themselves against religious paternalism. School must be a place where all children and young people can learn equally. Regardless of whether they are strictly religious, liberal, secular or atheist.
It is therefore to be welcomed that the administrative court agreed with the legal opinion of the school and the Senate and dismissed the lawsuit. The court expressly recognized that the regulation particularly disadvantages Muslim students. However, it considered this indirect discrimination to be justified in this specific case because the ban was necessary to maintain school peace. In this specific case, school peace is given greater importance than the interference with religious freedom associated with unequal treatment.
Anyone who wants to fight discrimination and protect liberal democracy should welcome this ruling. Religious freedom not only protects those who want to practice their faith demonstratively, but also those who do not pray, do not wear a headscarf and do not want to submit to other religious norms.
Anti-discrimination must not mean making it easier to enforce such standards in the name of religious freedom. Anyone who is serious about anti-discrimination must oppose religious pressure to conform and religiously based bullying. And those who defend the freedom of believers must not forget the freedom of those who do not believe, believe differently, live differently.
Political editor Frederik Schindler reports for WELT on the AfD, Islamism, anti-Semitism and justice issues. His “Counter-speech” column has been published biweekly for the past two years. This is the 44th edition.
