Explanation by Frauke Brosius-Gersdorf in the wording: “Incorrect and incomplete, unsightly and non-transparent”

Explanation by Frauke Brosius-Gersdorf in the wording: “Incorrect and incomplete, unsightly and non-transparent”

For reporting in the media about the federal constitutional judge election, Prof. Dr. Frauke Brosius-Gersdorf published the following explanation:

1. The reporting on my person and my positions of content in connection with the election as a judge of the Federal Constitutional Court was incomplete and incomplete in parts of the media in parts of the media. It was not subject -oriented, but directed by the goal of preventing the choice. The name of my person as “ultralinks” or “left -wing radical” is defamatory and unrealistic. The appeal to anonymous sources is also unacceptable, especially if this source is supposed to be a Minister of Justice.

2. Individual state officials must also be criticized. What is the reason to comment anonymously as a member of a state government, especially from the area of the judiciary, anonymous in a debate about a constitutional judge?

In times when politicians are rightly pronounced against verbal attacks and discuss a “digital masking ban”, anonymous statements from the ranks of political responsible officials of the state. Even anonymous in media criticism to the abuse of others and at the same time demanding abuse protection for themselves, contradictory.

3. An in-depth and complete content of the content with my scientific contributions would have shown that the focus of my research is the constitutional, social and educational law and also topics such as the regulation and financing of schools, the securing of local services in Germany, the creation of demographic change, the reform of our social security systems and the digitalization of administration.

If you politically assign my scientific positions in their broad, a picture of the democratic center is shown. One -sided attributions (“ultralinks” and “left -wing radical”) lack the factual base. They are based on a selective and incomplete selection of individual topics and theses, to which individual sentences are torn out of context in order to draw a distortion.

On individual topics:

3.1. The reporting on my position on the reform of the abortion was lacking in the factual basis. The main allegation in the media is that I discussed the human worthy of the unborn life and is for a termination of pregnancy until birth. This is wrong. The fundamental right to life is entitled to life from Nidation. I always joined for that. The statement that I would be incorrect for legalization and a (from this) impunity of the termination of pregnancy until birth, is incorrect and represents a disposal.

It is true that I have pointed out to the constitutional dilemma, this is if you promote the maneuvering guarantee like humans after birth.

Under the prevailing legal dogmatic premise of the non -weighing capacity of human dignity with fundamental rights as well as the pregnant woman, a termination of pregnancy would not be permitted under any circumstances. A demolition due to medical indication in the event of endangering life or the health of the woman is also evident.

However, it is the long -standing legal situation that a termination in the event of a medical indication is permitted. My endeavor and my job as a scientist was and is to point out this problem and inconsistencies in existing law and to show solutions for a contradictory regulation of the abortion.

The solution can only be constitutionally that either human dignity is weighing up or does not apply to unborn life. I showed this necessary constitutional -dogmatic need for discussion without representing the position that the unborn life was defenseless.

On the contrary: Even if human dignity should only apply to man from birth, the unborn life would not be defenseless. From Nidation he has the fundamental right to life, for which I have always entered. The accusation that I would stand up for a demolition of pregnancy until birth and is “life -critical” is wrong and lacks any basis.

My publications in this regard cannot be misunderstood. The constitutional -dogmatic dilemma I showed is reproduced and used to accompany me incorrectly, I would not advocate the fundamental right to life from the time of nidation.

3.2. The concerns and the subject of the scientific examination of the religious headscarf of legal trainees were differences in the case law when dealing with the state’s neutrality requirement. While a headscarf ban for teachers at state schools should not be constitutionally permitted, a corresponding ban for legal trainees should be permitted in certain situations in the courtroom.

I saw a contradiction in this. In both cases, a distinction must be made between the state, for which a neutrality requirement (ban on identification) applies, and the state employees who exercise their fundamental rights. The state does not identify with the exercise of its employees.

However, it does not follow that a ban on headscarves would always be unconstitutional. Because even if a ban on headscarves for official walers cannot be relyed on the neutrality requirement for the state, it can be legitimized in individual cases by the moderation requirement for state employees. Here, too, my position is reproduced incorrectly.

3.3. It was reported that I wanted to undermine electoral principles for the election of the German Bundestag, such as in particular, the election of the German Bundestag.

The right thing is: I have legally dealt with the question of whether the requirement of promoting the actual enforcement of the equality of women and men justifies interventions in the election principles. This question is controversial in law and not clarified. (TSP)

Source: Tagesspiegel

Share this article:

Leave a Reply