Decision; Subjects: RACE RELATIONS, PERIODICALS, TURKS, GERMANY, RACIAL DISCRIMINATION; [CERD: Rassendiskriminierungsübereinkommen; Convention sur l'élimination de la discrimination raciale; Convenzione sull'eliminazione della discriminazione razziale]
Volltext (verifizierbarer Originaltext)
GE.13-43525
Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination
Communication No. 48/2010
Opinion adopted by the Committee at its eighty-second session,
11 February to 8 March 2013
Submitted by:
TBB-Turkish Union in Berlin/Brandenburg
(represented by counsel, Ms. Jutta Hermanns)
Alleged victim:
The petitioner
State Party:
Germany
Date of the communication:
12 July 2010 (initial submission)
Date of the present decision:
26 February 2013
United Nations
CERD/C/82/D/48/2010
International Convention on
the Elimination of All Forms
of Racial Discrimination
Distr.: General
10 May 2013
Original: English
CERD/C/82/D/48/2010
2
Annex
Opinion of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial
Discrimination under article 14 of the international
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial
Discrimination (eighty-second session)
concerning
Communication No. 48/2010 *
Submitted by:
TBB-Turkish Union in Berlin/Brandenburg
(represented by counsel, Ms. Jutta Hermanns)
Alleged victim:
The petitioner
State Party:
Germany
Date of the communication:
12 July 2010 (initial submission)
The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, established under
article 8 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial
Discrimination,
Meeting on 26 February 2013,
Having concluded its consideration of communication No. 48/2010, submitted to the
Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination by the TBB-Turkish Union in
Berlin/Brandenburg under article 14 of the International Convention on the Elimination of
All Forms of Racial Discrimination,
Having taken into account all information made available to it by the petitioner of
the communication, its counsel and the State party,
Adopts the following:
Opinion
1.
The petitioner for the communication, dated 11 May and 13 July 2010, is an
association, the TBB-Turkish Union in Berlin/Brandenburg, represented, in accordance
with paragraph 9 of its by-laws by the spokesperson of the Board of Directors and an
* The following members of the Committee participated in the examination of the present
communication: Mr. Nourredine Amir; Mr. Alexei S. Avtonomov; Mr. José Francisco Cali Tzay;
Ms. Anastasia Crickley; Ms. Fatimata-Binta Victoire Dah; Mr. Régis de Gouttes; Mr. Ion Diaconu;
Mr. Kokou Mawuena Ika Kana (Dieudonné) Ewomsan; Mr. Yong’an Huang; Ms. Patricia Nozipho
January-Bardill; Mr. Anwar Kemal; Mr. Dilip Lahiri; Mr. Jose A. Lindgren Alves; Mr. Pastor Elías
Murillo Martínez; Mr. Waliakoye Saidou; Mr. Carlos Manuel Vázquez. In accordance with rule 90 of
the Committee’s Rules of Procedure, Mr. Gün Kut did not participate in the examination of the
present communication.
The text of an individual opinion by Mr. Carlos Manuel Vázquez is appended to the present Opinion
as a separate document (CERD/C/82/3).
CERD/C/82/D/48/2010
3
additional member of the Executive Board of Directors.1 According to paragraph 3 of its
by-laws, the aim of the association is threefold: (1) to contribute to the peaceful coexistence
and solidarity of all persons in Berlin and Brandenburg and to understanding among the
peoples; (2) the furtherance of equal and non-discriminatory cohabitation and cooperation
between Germans and Non-Germans, in particular persons of Turkish heritage in Berlin and
Brandenburg; (3) education and counselling on issues of consumer protection in connection
with protection against discrimination. The petitioner pursues its aims with the following
measures: conduct of events, conferences, forums, working groups on different topics,
counselling of institutions and authorities on the topic of integration policy, dissemination
about issues of concern to persons of Turkish heritage, support for persons in Berlin and
Brandenburg on legal and social questions through counselling, courses and seminars, as
well as the holding of cultural events, discussions etc. and counselling in and out of court
against discrimination. The petitioner claims that its members and the association itself are
victims of a violation by Germany2 of article 2, paragraph 1(d), article 4, paragraph (a), and
article 6 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. It is
represented by counsel, Ms. Jutta Hermanns.
The facts as submitted by the petitioner
2.1
The German cultural journal Lettre International (2009 fall edition, No. 86)3
published an interview with Mr. Thilo Sarrazin, the former Finance Senator of the Berlin
Senate (from 2002 to April 2009, Social Democratic Party) and member of the Board of
Directors of the German Central Bank (from May 2009), entitled “Class instead of Mass:
from the Capital City of Social Services to the Metropolis of the Elite”. In this interview,
Mr. Sarrazin expressed himself in a derogatory and discriminatory way about social “lower
classes”, which are “not productive” and would have to “disappear over time” in order to
create a city of the “elite”. In this context, he stated, inter alia:
“[…] The city has a productive circulation of people, who work and who are
needed, be they part of the administration or of the ministries. Beside them,
there are a number of people, about 20% of the population, who are not
economically needed. They live off social welfare (Hartz IV) and transfer
income; on a federal level this segment is only 8-10%. This part of the
population needs to disappear over time. A large number of Arabs and Turks
in this city, whose numbers have grown through erroneous policies, have no
productive function, except for the fruit and vegetable trade, and other
perspectives will probably not develop either […].
[…] One must stop talking about “the” migrant. We must look at the different
migrant groups. […]
With the core group of people from Yugoslavia, however, one sees a more
“Turkish” problem, the Turkish group and the Arabs ‘slope’ dramatically [in
terms of success]. Even in the third generation, a lot of them lack any
reasonable knowledge of German. Many of them don’t even finish school
and an even smaller number make it to the college entrance exam […].
1 The power of attorney is signed by the spokeswoman of the Board of Directors and by the
spokesperson of the Executive Board of Directors.
2 The Convention was ratified by Germany on 16 May 1969, and the declaration under article 14 was
made on 30 August 2001.
3 A German cultural magazine, with 23,000 issues printed. For the issue in question 33,000 issues were
printed.
CERD/C/82/D/48/2010
4
[…] There is another problem: the lower the class, the higher the birth rate.
The birth rates of the Arabs and Turks are two to three times higher than what
corresponds to their overall proportion in the population. Large segments are
neither willing nor able to integrate. The solution to this problem can only be
to stop letting people in, and whoever wants to get married should do it
abroad. Brides are constantly being supplied: the Turkish girl here is married
to someone from Anatolia; the young Turkish man gets a bride from an
Anatolian village. It’s even worse with the Arabs. My idea would be to
generally prohibit influx, except for highly qualified individuals and not
provide social welfare for immigrants any more.
[…] It is a scandal when Turkish boys don’t listen to female teachers because
of their culture. Integration is an accomplishment of those who integrate. I
don’t have to accept anyone who doesn’t do anything. I don’t have to accept
anyone who lives off the State and rejects this very State, who doesn’t make
an effort to reasonably educate their children and constantly produces new
little headscarf girls. That is true for 70% of the Turkish and for 90% of the
Arab population in Berlin. Many of them don’t want any integration, they
want to live according to their own rules. Furthermore, they encourage a
collective mentality that is aggressive and ancestral […].
[…] The Turks are conquering Germany just like the Kosovars conquered
Kosovo: through a higher birth rate. I wouldn’t mind if they were East
European Jews with about a 15% higher IQ than the one of Germans.
[…] If the Turks would integrate themselves so that they would have
comparable success in the school system like other groups, the topic would
become moot. […] However, it does not happen like that. Berliners always
say that they have a particularly high number of foreigners. This is wrong.
The percentage of foreigners in Munich, Stuttgart, Cologne or Hamburg is
much higher, but the foreigners there have a smaller percentage of Turks and
Arabs and they are of more diverse origin.
[…] We have to completely restructure family policies: do away with
payments, above all to the lower class. I remember a report in the newspaper
“Die Zeit” that stated that every Monday morning, the city cleaning services
clean 20 tons of leftover lamb from Turkish grill parties in the Tiergarten -
this is not a satire. The Neukölln Mayor Buschkowsky spoke about an Arab
woman who was having her sixth child to be able to get a bigger apartment
through the social welfare law (Hartz IV). We have to say farewell to these
structures. One has to assume that human ability is to some extent socially
contingent and to some extent hereditary. The road we are following leads to
a continuous decrease in the number of intelligent high performers due to
demographic reasons. One can’t build a sustainable society that way...
[…] If 1.3 million Chinese are just as intelligent as Germans, but more
industrious and in the foreseeable future better educated while we Germans
take on ever more of a Turkish mentality, we’ll have a bigger problem […]”
2.2
On 23 October 2009, the petitioner, “as the interest group of the Turkish citizens and
citizens with Turkish heritage of Berlin and Brandenburg” filed a complaint of criminal
offence against Mr. Sarrazin to the Office of Public Prosecution. It claimed, inter alia, that
Mr. Sarrazin’s statements constituted incitement of the people (Volksverhetzung), pursuant
CERD/C/82/D/48/2010
5
to article 130 of the Criminal Code,4 in particular because “Turks and Arabs were presented
as inferior and denied a right to existence in our society”.
2.3
Mr. Sarrazin’s statements were reviewed with respect to article 130 (incitement to
hatred) and article 185 (insult)5 of the German Criminal Code. On 16 November 2009, the
Office of Public Prosecution established that there was no criminal liability for
Mr. Sarrazin’s statements and terminated the proceedings on the basis of article 170 (2) of
the German Code of Criminal Procedure.6 The Office of Public Prosecution based its
decision on article 5 of the Basic Law (freedom of expression)7 and concluded that
incitement to hatred against a segment of the population vs an individual, was not
recognized and that Mr. Sarrazin’s statements are considered as a “contribution to the
intellectual debate in a question that [was] very significant for the public […].”
2.4
On 21 December 2009, the petitioner submitted a written complaint, challenging the
decision of the Office of Public Prosecution. On 24 February 2010, the Prosecutor General
informed the petitioner that it was not entitled to file a formal complaint against the
decision of the Office of Public Prosecution, because it was not the “injured party” within
the meaning of article 172 (1), sentence 1, of the Code of Criminal Procedure.8 The
Prosecutor General, however, reviewed the facts of the case in his supervisory role and
decided that the Office of Public Prosecution in Berlin had correctly terminated the
proceedings. He established that Mr. Sarrazin’s comments were made in the context of a
critical discussion about; inter alia, structural problems of an economic and social nature in
Berlin.
2.5
In addition to the petitioner, two individual members of the petitioner, Ms. C.B. and
Mr. S. Y. filed a complaint against Mr. Sarrazin to the Office of Public Prosecution. These
proceedings were also terminated. The complaints against the termination of investigative
4 Paragraph 130 of the Criminal Code: (1) Whoever, in a manner that is capable of disturbing t he public
peace: 1. incites hatred against segments of the population or calls for violent or arbitrary measures
against them; or 2. assaults the human dignity of others by insulting, maliciously maligning, or
defaming segments of the population, shall be punished with imprisonment from three months to five
years.
5 Paragraph 185: Insult shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than one year or a fine and, if
the insult is committed by means of violence, with imprisonment for not more than two years or a
fine.
6 Article 170 of the German Criminal Procedure Code : (1) If the investigations offer sufficient reason
for preferring public charges, the public prosecution office shall prefer them by submitting a bill of
indictment to the competent court. (2) In all other cases the public prosecution office shall terminate
the proceedings. The public prosecutor shall notify the accused thereof if he was examined as such or
a warrant of arrest was issued against him; the same shall apply if he requested such notice or if there
is a particular interest in the notification.
7 Article 5 of the Basic Law: (1) Every person shall have the right freely to express and disseminate his
opinions in speech, writing and pictures, and to inform himself without hindrance from generally
accessible sources. Freedom of the press and freedom of reporting by means of broadcasts and films
shall be guaranteed. There shall be no censorship. (2) These rights shall find their limits in the
provisions of general laws, in provisions for the protection of young persons, and in the right to
personal honour. (3) Arts and sciences, research and teaching shall be free. The freedom of teaching
shall not release any person from allegiance to the constitution.
8 Article 172(1), of the German Criminal Procedure Code: Where the applicant is also the aggrieved
person, he shall be entitled to lodge a complaint against the notification made pursuant to Section 171
to the official superior of the public prosecution office within two weeks after receipt of such
notification. On the filing of the complaint with the public prosecution office the time limit shall be
deemed to have been observed. Time shall not start to run if no instruction was given pursuant to
Section 171, second sentence.
CERD/C/82/D/48/2010
6
proceedings against Mr. Sarrazin were rejected in an identical way by the Prosecutor
General. Due to personal reasons, these individuals have not taken any further legal action.
2.6
Domestic remedies have been exhausted with the termination of the investigative
proceedings on the basis of article 170 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Further legal
action is not available and the six-month deadline for the submission of an individual
communication to the Committee should be counted from 16 November 2009, despite the
review of the complaint by the Prosecutor General in his supervisory role.
2.7
According to article 172 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, proceedings aimed at
forcing the public prosecution service to initiate criminal charges are not available to the
petitioner as a union or association. For the same reason, it cannot file a constitutional
complaint to the Federal Constitutional Court. According to the decision of the Federal
Constitutional Court of 22 June 2006 (the umbrella organization in the Sinti und Roma
case), only individual members of a group, not the association itself, can be affected in their
human dignity within the meaning of article 130 of the Criminal Code. An institution
cannot initiate legal proceedings to obtain criminal prosecution, since only natural persons
can invoke human dignity.9
2.8
With regard to the victim status pursuant to article 14, paragraph 1, of the
Convention, the petitioner argues that the association’s aim is the conduct of events,
conferences, forums, working groups on various topics, counselling of institutions and
authorities on the topic of integration policy, dissemination about issues of concern to
persons of Turkish heritage, support for persons in Berlin and Brandenburg on legal and
social questions through counselling, courses, seminars, as well as the holding of cultural
events, discussions etc. and counselling in and out of court against discrimination (see 1.1
above). The association represents persons of Turkish heritage and works towards equality
and non-discrimination in society, in particular for persons of Turkish heritage. In line with
the Committee’s jurisprudence in communications No. 28/2003, Documentation and
Advisory Centre on Racial Discrimination v. Denmark,10 No. 30/2003, Jewish community
of Oslo v. Norway11 and No. 38/2006, Central Council of German Sinti und Roma et al. v.
Germany,12 TBB, as a legal entity representing the interests of the Turkish citizens and
citizens of Turkish heritage of Berlin and Brandenburg, is a victim within the meaning of
article 14, paragraph 1, of the Convention. Through the negative value judgments, its
integrity as a union of migrants with Turkish background, and its work are affected. There
is a danger that the petitioner itself and its members could become victims of criminal acts
due to the climate of negative value judgements and blanket statements expressed by
Mr. Sarrazin. In this context, the organization received two e-mails on 9 and 10 October
2009, expressing support for Mr. Sarrazin’s statements and for the fact that statements
about immigrants and foreigners should be protected by freedom of expression. The larger
right-wing extremist parties, such as the German National Democratic Party (National
Demokratische Partei Deutschlands, NPD), German People’s Union (Deutsche Volksunion,
DVU) and the Republicans, have all sided with Mr. Sarrazin. The petitioner notes that even
though Mr. Sarrazin cannot be directly held responsible for the fact that the right-wing
extremist parties sided with him, his statements are on a level that abetted the goals of these
parties. The rights of its members, as well as of the association representing these
9 See Federal Constitutional Court, B.v. 22 June 2006 – 2 BvR 1421/05.
10 See communication No. 28/2003, Documentation and Advisory Centre on Racial Discrimination v.
Denmark, Opinion of 22 August 2003, para. 6.4.
11 See communication No. 30/2003, Jewish community of Oslo et al. v. Norway, Opinion of 15 August
2005, para. 7.4.
12 See communication No. 38/2006, Central Council of German Sinti and Roma et al. v. Germany,
Opinion of 22 February 2008, para. 7.2.
CERD/C/82/D/48/2010
7
individuals and groups of individuals, have been violated by the decision of the Office of
Public Prosecution in Berlin, confirmed by the Prosecutor General, to terminate the
proceedings against Mr. Sarrazin due to the fact that his statements were not liable to
criminal prosecution.
The complaint
3.1
The petitioner claims to be a victim of a violation by Germany of article 2,
paragraph 1(d), article 4, paragraph (a) and article 6 of the Convention on the Elimination
of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, as the State party failed to provide protection under
its Criminal Code against Mr. Sarrazin’s racially discriminatory and insulting statements
directed against the petitioner as a group of individuals of Turkish heritage and as the
representative of this group.
3.2
The petitioner recalls the Committee’s concluding observations, in which it
recommended that the State party consider adopting a clear and comprehensive definition
of racial discrimination in its national legislation. The Committee also recommended that
the State party broaden its approach to combating racial discrimination with a view to
countering such discrimination in all its forms, including expressions of racist prejudices
and attitudes. It submits that the degrading and discriminatory statements made by
Mr. Sarrazin are connected to distinct features of the Turkish population. The Turkish
population was presented as a group of individuals who live at the expense of the State and
due to their ascribed negative characteristics and ways of behaviour, do not have the right
to be in Germany.
3.3
The petitioner argues that since Mr. Sarrazin is the former Finance Senator of the
Berlin Senate and member of the Board of Directors of the German Central Bank, his
authority leads to the perception that his statements are based on proven facts and,
therefore, “the truth”. It adds that the effects of Mr. Sarrazin’s statements are to enhance
prejudices of the majority towards the Turkish population and individuals of Turkish
heritage, including their children. The petitioner submits that such racially discriminatory
statements are not covered by the right to freedom of expression because the group
concerned has a right to live without prejudices and general intolerance, and the freedom to
exercise their rights should be respected. The statements made by Mr. Sarrazin should be
assessed in the framework of the special social context of Germany, adding to the general
pattern of incitement to racial hatred against the Turkish population, which in the
circumstances can be even more dangerous than openly flaunted racism, which is easier to
combat. With the termination of the investigation against Mr. Sarrazin, the petitioner claims
that it was arbitrarily denied protection against racially discriminatory statements directed
against it as a group of individuals of Turkish heritage and as the representative of this
group and the propagation thereof represents a violation of articles 2 (1 (d), 4, (a) and 6.
3.4
With regard to article 4 (a), of the Convention, the petitioner notes that an effective
criminal prosecution had not taken place when the Public Prosecution refused to introduce
criminal proceedings against Mr. Sarrazin and the State party implicitly tolerates a
repetition of similar statements. Therefore, in violation of article 6 of the Convention,
effective protection has been denied.
State party’s observations on admissibility and merits
4.1
On 23 December 2010, the State party submits its observations on admissibility and
merits. The State party recalls the facts and adds that, at the time of the interview, Mr.
Sarrazin was working on his book “Germany is self-destructing”, which was published in
August 2010. In his book, Mr. Sarrazin gave an opinion on the situation of Germany. He
predicted future developments concerning poverty and inequality, the job market,
CERD/C/82/D/48/2010
8
motivation to work, equality in education, the demographic development, immigration and
integration. In all these areas, he made direct and controversial statements.
4.2
The State party notes that it does not in any way share or condone Mr. Sarrazin’s
views as expressed in his interview with the Lettre international, however it submits that
this does not mean that it was under an obligation to prosecute Mr. Sarrazin for uttering
them. The State party submits that the Committee should find the communication
inadmissible, as the petitioner lacks standing to submit a communication, pursuant to article
14, paragraph 1, of the Convention in conjunction with article 91 (b) of the Committee’s
Rules of Procedure. Being a legal entity, the petitioner is not in a position to claim that it is
the victim of a violation of any of the rights set forth in the Convention. The Turkish Union
in Berlin-Brandenburg is not directly affected in its own rights by the statements of
Mr. Sarrazin. The integrity of the complainant as a legal entity is not a right that can be
violated. The petitioner does not mention any concrete influence of the statements in its
work. It notes that in this respect, the case differs from the facts in communication No.
30/2003 (Jewish Community of Oslo et al v. Norway).13 In that case, on a march in
commemoration of the Nazi leader Rudolf Hess, a racially discriminating speech was made.
As a result of this, there was increased “Nazi” activity, and a marked increase in violence
against blacks and political opponents. This understandably instilled fear and had a serious
influence on the Jewish community and its work. In the present communication, no effects
of the interview can be noted that would make the petitioner a “victim” and the e-mails the
petitioner received after the interview do not amount to such serious adverse effect.
4.3
The State party acknowledges the possibility that an association can act on behalf of
a member or a group of its members, provided it is authorized to do so.14 However, the
State party submits that even if all or some members of the petitioner might be victims, the
petitioner itself is not authorized to submit an individual communication and the bylaws of
the petitioner do not provide any basis for such authorization. Furthermore, the petitioner
does not provide any justification as to why it is acting on behalf of its members without
due authorization. Although the Turkish Union supports equitable co-existence in society
without discrimination, it only gives legal support against discrimination and the members
do not join the organization to be legally represented.15
4.4
With regard to the merits, the State party submits that the goal of German policy is
to create a climate where racist statements and crimes are proscribed and thus deterred.
Racially motivated crimes are prosecuted and punished with determination. On the other
hand, freedom of speech is even applicable to information or ideas that offend, shock or
disturb the State or any sector of the population. With regard to the petitioner’s claim of a
violation of article 4 (a) of the Convention, the State party notes that the focus of this
provision is on legislative action and that the provisions of the German Criminal Code
(GCC) are sufficient to provide effective legal sanctions to combat incitement to racial
discrimination. The four categories of misconduct mentioned in article 4(a) of the
Convention are penalized: (1) dissemination of ideas based upon racial superiority or
hatred; (2) incitement to racial hatred; (3) acts of violence against any race or group of
persons of another colour or ethnic origin; and (4) incitement to such acts. It explains that in
order to find someone guilty of a crime under § 130 GCC, the existence of each required
13 See communication No. 30/2003, The Jewish community of Oslo et al v. Norway, Opinion of 15
August 2005.
14 Communication No. 28/2003, Documentation and Advisory Centre on Racial Discrimination v.
Denmark, Opinion of 19 August 2003, para. 6.4.
15 Communication No. 30/2003, Jewish Community of Oslo et al. v. Norway, Opinion of 15 August
2005, para. 7.4; communication No. 38/2006, Central Council of German Sinti and Roma et al. v.
Germany, Opinion of 22 February 2008, para. 7.2.
CERD/C/82/D/48/2010
9
element of the crime must be established beyond reasonable doubt. By finding that, in this
case, the prerequisites of § 130 GCC were not fulfilled, the State party did not violate the
Convention. It notes that the order of termination of 16 November 2009 by the Office of
Public Prosecution held that the statements did not reach the threshold of intensity which
would amount to incitement. The interview – although polemical - did not call for particular
actions such as violence or arbitrary measures. The Office of Public Prosecution clearly
stated that the language used in the interview was inappropriate; however, it did not brand
segments of population as “inferior” and the right to exist as equally worthy persons was
not contested. Moreover, the statements did not qualify as an insult (§ 185 GCC),
considering the context and the freedom of speech. The Prosecutor General shared this
point of view in his decision of 22 February 2010. He added that the statements were made
in the context of a critical discussion of economic and social problems in Berlin. There
were no indications that Mr. Sarrazin intended to foment hostility against the groups
described.
4.5
The State party further maintains that the decisions by the criminal prosecution
authorities were in conformity with article 4 (a) of the Convention. They were neither
manifestly arbitrary nor did they amount to a denial of justice. As a consequence of the
interview, there were several complaints from organizations and individuals of different
nationalities; however the authorities concluded that considering the context, purpose and
content of the statements, an offence of incitement to racial or ethnic hatred could not be
established. It further notes that the context of the interview shows that Mr. Sarrazin
expressed his personal views rather than giving any official or semi-official view. There
was no indication that Mr. Sarrazin intended to incite hatred against certain segments of the
population. His statement was neither objectively suitable nor subjectively determined to
engender and strengthen an emotionally increased hostile attitude against people of Turkish
and Arab origin, nor did it include any indication that violent or arbitrary measures should
be used against those groups. Hatred based on intolerance was not incited, promoted or
justified. There were a lot of critical reactions to Mr. Sarrazin’s statements and many
people living in Germany stated in public that they did not share his point of view. In
August 2010, Mr. Sarrazin published his book “Germany is self-destructing”, which
included similar statements. Many important personalities took public positions against the
views put forward in the book. Chancellor Angela Merkel called Mr. Sarrazin’s statements
“stupid” and the Social Democratic Party, to which Mr. Sarrazin belongs, initiated a
procedure for exclusion from the Party. This discussion showed that a majority of the
German population did not share the opinion of Mr. Sarrazin and it is not true that a main
part of the society was encouraged and confirmed in their latent racism because of the
interview and the decisions to terminate the criminal investigations. The State party submits
that there was no increased risk for the petitioner or its members of becoming victims of
future criminal acts. Rather, as a consequence of the interview, the discussion on how to
improve the situation of immigrants and how to promote their integration has gained
welcome prominence.
4.6
With regard to the alleged violation of article 6 of the Convention, the State party
notes that effective criminal prosecution of racist acts is generally ensured by the principle
of mandatory prosecution. Although the petitioner was not allowed to lodge a complaint
and was not entitled to appeal because it was not a directly aggrieved party, the Prosecutor
General in his supervisory role scrutinized the decision of the Office of Public Prosecution.
4.7
With regard to the alleged violation of article 2(1(d) of the Convention, the State
party notes that any dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or hatred, incitement
to racial discrimination as well as all acts of violence or incitement to such acts against any
race or group of persons of another ethnic origin constitute an offence punishable by law. In
the instant case, the prosecution could not establish that Mr. Sarrazin intended to cause any
disadvantages for the segments of the population mentioned in the interview. This being so,
CERD/C/82/D/48/2010
10
the importance of freedom of speech precluded the authorities from bringing criminal
charges against him.
Petitioner’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility and merits
5.1
On 7 March 2011, the petitioner submitted its comments on the State party’s
observations and notes that in German, the terms such as “supply a bride” or “produce
headscarf girls” have deeply degrading and contemptuous connotations. The petitioner
notes, as the State party demonstrated, that the statements were subsequently repeated in
Mr. Sarrazin’s book published in August 2010, and are an expansion of the statements
found in the present complaint. In the debates following the book’s publication, contrary to
the State party’s observation, it emerged that a majority of the German population agreed
with Mr. Sarrazin’s racist statements, and as a consequence verbal and physical attacks
against immigrants increased.16 According to studies, Islamophobic attitudes during the
Sarrazin debate were assessed to be held by 55% of the population and social scientists who
publicly criticized Mr. Sarrazin received death threats and hundreds of hate e-mails. The
petitioner disagrees with the State party and notes that Mr. Sarrazin’s statements in the
interview led to public vilification and debasement of “Turks”, “Arabs” and Muslims and it
became socially acceptable to have these types of opinions.
5.2
With regard to the admissibility, the petitioner recalls the Committee’s
jurisprudence17 and notes that it represents the Turkish community and as a consequence of
Mr. Sarrazin’s statements, all “Turks” have been vilified through insulting and racist
statements. The petitioner therefore notes that all members of the ethnic group “Turks” are
victims or potential victims in the sense of article 14 of the Convention. It notes that the
increase in racial hatred in society has a direct consequence on the mandate of the petitioner
whose work is to promote a climate of mutual respect and of freedom from discrimination.
Furthermore, it is not necessary to have been subjected to a physical attack to become a
victim under the Convention. Referring to the Committee’s jurisprudence,18 the petitioner
submits that, in accordance with its by-laws it supports its members against discrimination
in and outside court and that the by-laws of the association can be interpreted to the effect
that the petitioner should take any necessary action on behalf of its members to fight against
discrimination and support them when they are victims of discrimination. Its two members,
who are listed by name, decided not to continue proceedings out of fear of verbal attacks,
abuses or threats in public, as even well-known persons and academics were victims of
such abuses.
5.3.
With regard to the merits, the petitioner recalls that Mr. Sarrazin, as a former finance
senator of Berlin and thereafter Board member of the German Central Bank, should be
considered as a State party official. Even if he did not make the statements in his official
capacity, the State party should be obliged to prohibit such statements. As a consequence of
the publication of his book, Mr. Sarrazin voluntarily resigned from the Board of the
German Central Bank, however only after receiving an increase in his pension. The
petitioner reiterates that it considers articles 2, 4 and 6 to have been violated, as the
16 See statement of 400 well-known persons and organizations expressing their concern about the public
order and racist statements, tageszeitung.taz, a daily newspaper, 1 October 2010, and German
Institute for Human Rights of 2 September 2010.
17 See communication No. 28/2003, Documentation and Advisory Centre on Racial Discrimination v.
Denmark, Opinion of 19 August 2003, para. 6.4; communication No. 30/2003, Jewish Community of
Oslo et al. v. Norway, Opinion of 15 August 2005, para. 7.4; communication No. 38/2006, Central
Council of German Sinti and Roma et al. v. Germany, Opinion of 22 February 2008, para. 7.2.
18 See communications Nos. 28/2003 (see note 16 above), para. 6.4; No. 38/2006, para. 7.2; No.
30/2003, para. 7.4.
CERD/C/82/D/48/2010
11
authorities narrowly interpreted the domestic legislation, contrary to other cases concerning
similar statements made by right-wing extremists against Jews. This amounts to unequal
treatment.19 It also notes the statement of the right-wing extremist National Democratic
Party (NPD), which stated that after the dismissal of the investigative process against Mr.
Sarrazin, it will be difficult to sentence members of the NPD on grounds of incitement to
ethnic hatred.20 Lastly, no other domestic remedies were available to the petitioner.
Further observations by the State party on admissibility and merits
6.1
On 1 June 2011, the State party submitted further observations on admissibility and
merits and compares the present communication with communication No. 38/2006. The
State party reiterates that the petitioner does not become a victim pursuant to article 14,
paragraph 1, because of its nature or activities.21 It notes that there are important differences
between the petitioner and the petitioner in communication No. 38/2006, as the Central
Council of German Sinti and Roma is the biggest and most important organization
representing Sinti and Roma in Germany and there are regional groups all over the country.
It exerts permanent influence in all political questions regarding Sinti and Roma and
therefore has the authority to speak for the group it represents. In contrast, the petitioner
criticized Mr. Sarrazin’s statements about “Turks” and “Arabs” without authorization to
speak for these groups in general. The petitioner’s activity is restricted to the region of
Berlin-Brandenburg and it represents only 26 Turkish organizations and many other
Turkish and Arab organizations in the communities of Berlin and Brandenburg have no
connection with the petitioner. Moreover, pursuant to rule 91 (b), of the Committee’s rules
of procedure, the submission on behalf of the alleged victim(s) without authorization is
only allowed in exceptional cases and the only reason why Ms. C.B. and Mr. S.Y. did not
submit their communication to the Committee is because they had failed to exhaust
domestic remedies. It submits that their fear of hostilities and attacks appears to be
exaggerated, as their criminal complaint did not have such consequences and there was no
reason to assume that the continuation of the proceedings would change that.
6.2
On the merits, the State party reiterates that it has noted Mr. Sarrazin’s statements
with great concern and that it disapproves of his opinion and welcomes the protests lodged
against the statements from all sectors of society.22 Nevertheless, the State party reiterates
that Mr. Sarrazin’s statements are protected by the freedom of speech and expression,
which is guaranteed under German Basic Law. As his statements cannot be classified as
hate speech, they are not punishable under criminal law. It notes that Mr. Sarrazin talked
about his personal views and did not advocate for particular action such as violence or
arbitrary measures against certain segments of the population, such as “Turks” and
“Arabs”, and although he made negative statements about them, he did not express racial
hatred.23 Referring to the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, the State
party submits that the domestic authorities have the advantage of evaluating the facts and
assessing Mr. Sarrazin’s statements, and therefore their decisions should be scrutinized only
insofar as they may have infringed rights and freedoms of the European Convention on
19 See the report of the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination,
xenophobia and related intolerance, Githu Muigai (A/HRC/14/43/Add. 2), para. 67.
20 See Südwestrundfunk, SWR, TV station, 30 August 2010. [This statement was made after the
publication of the book by Mr. Sarrazin.]
21 See communication No. 38/2006, Central Council of German Sinti and Roma et al. v. Germany,
Opinion of 22 February 2008, para. 7.2.
22 See for example the statement by 400 well-known persons in the “tageszeitung.taz”, daily newspaper,
1 October 2010.
23 See article 20, paragraph 2, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; European
Court of Human Rights, Gündüz v. Turkey, No. 35071/97, judgement of 4 December 2003, para. 40.
CERD/C/82/D/48/2010
12
Human Rights. During the procedure for exclusion from the Social Democratic Party, to
which Mr. Sarrazin belongs, he issued a declaration on 21 April 2011 clarifying that he did
not want to discriminate against any groups but wanted to underline the necessity of
integration of immigrants.
6.3
The State party further submits that punishment for the expression of a personal
opinion is one of the greatest encroachments on the freedom of expression and criminal law
and should be used only as a last resort. Mr. Sarrazin did not express any form of hatred
against Turks and Arabs, nor did he say that he regards them as inferior. His statement is
not hostile and does not advocate for hostility or violence. With regard to the consequences
of Mr. Sarrazin’s statement, the State party notes that the petitioner’s description is
exaggerated and partial. It notes that, even if true, it is not a consequence of Mr. Sarrazin’s
statement or book. The State party argues that there is no indication that the number of
attacks against immigrants increased after Mr. Sarrazin’s statement. The State party
observes that the various figures the petitioner puts forward are not comparable; there may
have been an increase in negative attitudes against Muslims but not all of these are
tantamount to racial discrimination and there is no indication that they increased after Mr.
Sarrazin’s statements. With regard to the attacks against immigrants, death threats and hate
mails against social scientists, the State party assures the Committee that every offence is
criminally prosecuted and that there is no need to punish Mr. Sarrazin, as he did not cause
or advocate for these offences.
Petitioner’s further comments
7.1
On 8 January 2012, the petitioner submits that it is not a quantifiable number of
victims that determines the victim status of the petitioner but the way the acts were
committed. The petitioner is an umbrella organization for persons of Turkish descent and
represents a number of individuals and 27 member organizations. With regard to issues of
migration and integration, the petitioner is the most visible and attentively heard voice in
public and supports an independent project against all forms of discrimination. On these
grounds it is entitled to represent the demographic group that has become a victim of a
violation of the Convention. With regard to the fear of Ms. C.B and Mr. S.Y., the petitioner
notes that it is not hypothetical, as a Social Democratic City Council member, Mr. D., has
received a number of death threats since 17 May 2011 further to his demand that statements
such as Mr. Sarrazin’s be categorized as incitement to ethnic hatred. It further observes that
the police notified the petitioner on 21 November 2011 that it is on the list of the National
Socialist Underground (NSU), as supposed enemies of Germany. The NSU is responsible
for at least eight murders of individuals originally from Turkey. The public therefore
considers that the petitioner represents persons from Turkey living in Germany.
7.2
On the merits, the petitioner reiterates its previous submissions and reiterates that in
light of the domestic jurisprudence, Mr. Sarrazin’s statements would have been treated
differently if he had denigrated the population group of “Jews”. Mr. Sarrazin’s explanatory
statement in the exclusion proceedings of the Social Democratic Party was demanded of
him in order to prevent his exclusion and in order that criminal liability of racist incitement
should not depend on a claim made two years after the initial statement. In domestic
criminal proceedings, the motivation to incitement of ethnic hatred is an inner attitude,
measured objectively by actions and not by statements of the perpetrator.
8.1
On 20 January 2012, the petitioner submitted an amicus curiae brief by the German
Institute for Human Rights (GIHR). GIHR notes that the term “racism” is often used in the
context of organized right-wing extremism only. This perception has been criticized by the
CERD/C/82/D/48/2010
13
Committee24 and other international bodies.25 It notes that some prominent public figures
supported Mr. Sarrazin and that he and the Social Democratic Party received a great
number of approving letters and emails. Right-wing extremists espoused Mr. Sarrazin’s
positions. In the internal sanction procedure by the Social Democratic Party, of which Mr.
Sarrazin is a member, a scientific opinion was produced which described his statements in
the interview as racist.26 The fact that the party procedure did not lead to his exclusion was
met equally with criticism and approval. After the publication of Mr. Sarrazin’s book, he
was presented as a political realist who breaks taboos on integration and immigration
policy. In a number of magazines, newspapers and television shows, the alleged
intellectual, social and character deficits of the Muslim population were discussed in a
generalized fashion. The labels “Turks” or “Arabs” are applied as synonyms for Muslims.
Occasionally, even public office-holders took up Mr. Sarrazin’s positions and thereby
contributed to the stigmatization and stereotyping of Muslims in Germany. The debates
considerably affected the climate in Germany, this included that persons who publicly
criticized Mr. Sarrazin received hate mails and death threats and were ridiculed on internet
blogs. GIHR also refers to an open letter to the President of prominent German Muslims,
in which they expressed their concern at the current atmosphere and note that in their daily
lives, they are confronted with hostility.27
8.2
GIHR observes that freedom of expression is a pivotal human right and that high
thresholds must be put on restrictions of freedom of expression. It observes that one of the
main functions of freedom of expression stems from the need to protect the criticism of
power. However, this does not require that it be interpreted in a way which would protect
racist statements against minorities. It notes that article 4 (a) of the Convention stipulates
that the dissemination of racist ideas be made a punishable offence, which is implemented
in article 130 (1) (2) of the German Criminal Code (GCC). GIHR notes the domestic case
law, according to which the Federal Constitutional Court stressed repeatedly that when
determining the application of article 130 of the GCC, the right to freedom of expression
must be weighed on a case-by-case basis against the legally protected interest that is
affected by the expression of the respective opinion of the other.28 However, the Court has
also established that in the case of an assault on human dignity, freedom of expression must
yield to human dignity.29 The notion of human dignity prohibits making a person the mere
object of the State or subjecting the person to treatment which fundamentally calls into
question his/her quality as a human being. Assaults on human dignity include, for instance,
degradation, stigmatization or social exclusion30 and other forms of conduct that deny the
affected person’s right to respect as a human being.31
24 See CERD/C/DEU/CO/18, para. 15.
25 See European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) Report on Germany, 26 May
2009, p. 8; Report of the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination,
xenophobia and related intolerance, Githu Muigai, Mission to Germany (A/HRC/14/43/Add. 2), para.
77 (a).
26 Gideon Botsch, Gutachten im Auftrag des SPD-Kreisverbandes Spandau und der SPD-Abteilung Alt-
Pankow zur Frage “Sind die Äusserungen von Dr. Thilo Sarrazin im Interview in der Zeitschrift
Lettre International (deutsche Ausgabe, Heft 86) als rassistisch zu bewerten?”, 22 December 2009.
27 See Open letter of German Muslims to the President Christian Wulff, Offener Brief deutscher
Musliminnen und Muslime an den Bundespräsident Christian Wulff, 13 September 2009.
28 Federal Constitutional Court, decision of 12 November 2002, 1 BvR 232/97, paras. 17 and 21.
29 Federal Constitutional Court, decision of 4 February 2010, 1 BvR 369/04, 1 BvR 370/04, 1 BvR
371/04, para. 26.
30 Federal Constitutional Court, decision of 4 February 2010, 1 BvR 369/04, 1 BvR 370/04, 1 BvR
371/04, para. 28.
31 Ibid.
CERD/C/82/D/48/2010
14
8.3
GIHR notes that Mr. Sarrazin’s statements in the relevant parts of the interview meet
all the criteria of racist ideas and an assault on human dignity. Racist ideas are characterized
by their calling into question the individuality of human beings and thus also their human
dignity. It notes that on the basis of their content, linguistic style and terminology, Mr.
Sarrazin’s statements display parallels to the racial biology literature of the 19th and early
20th century. Mr. Sarrazin separates the population into “us” and “them”, in which he
includes “Turks” and “Arabs”, to whom he attributes negative characteristics and conduct.
He misuses the term “Turkish” and applies it as a synonym for an established expression
with a negative meaning (“with respect to the core group of Yugoslavs, you can see
“Turkish” problems”). Mr. Sarrazin’s statements ridicule and degrade people (“no
productive function except for the vegetable trade”) and simultaneously, in a belligerent
tone, they fan fear (“the Turks are conquering Germany in the same way as the Kosovars
conquered the Kosovo: by way of higher birth rates”). He refers to them as if they were
mass-produced goods (“permanently brides are supplied, “Arabs” and “Turks” constantly
produce little headscarf girls”). GIHR notes that this rhetoric denies the affected persons,
including children, the right to respect as human beings.
8.4
GIHR notes that the identity of the person who made the statements and the type of
magazine in which it is published are irrelevant for considerations under article 130 of the
GCC. Furthermore, according to the Committee’s jurisprudence, the context of a political
debate is irrelevant to the racist nature of specific statements.32 GIHR observes that the
Public Prosecutor’s Office’s considerations situating Mr. Sarrazin’s statements in the
context of the development of Berlin 20 years after the fall of the Berlin wall and basing
them on his political work in Berlin, have the consequence that public figures enjoy special
and arbitrary protection when expressing racist views. Moreover, the judiciary legitimizes
such statements and not only promotes the establishment and acceptance of racism in
society but also contributes to the development of racism. The facts complained of therefore
reveal a violation of the Convention.
9.
On 10 February 2012, the petitioner refers to the jurisprudence of the German
Constitutional Court cited by the position paper of GIHR (see para. 8.3), which states that if
statements depict foreigners as inferior, for example, through the generalized attribution of
socially unacceptable behaviour or characteristics, freedom of expression cannot prevail
over human dignity.33 Mr. Sarrazin’s statements contain exactly this kind of generalized
attribution in relation to supposedly unacceptable behaviour and characteristics, inter alia
referring to “Turks” and “Arabs” who have characteristics attributed to them solely on the
basis of their origin.
Further observations by the State party
10.1
On 9 February 2012, the State party, in response to the amicus curiae brief
submitted by the German Institute of Human Rights (GIHR), notes that the point at issue is
not whether the State party’s judiciary shares or supports Mr. Sarrazin’s statements. The
State party reiterates that it rejects these opinions and regards them as wrong and deplorable
and dissociates itself, including its judiciary, from them. The GIHR brief conveys a
fundamental misconception of the relationship between freedom of expression and the
Convention. According to article 4 (a) of the Convention, the need to respect freedom of
expression cannot be disregarded when States parties combat racism. It reiterates that
32 See communication No. 34/2004, Mohammed Hassan Gelle v. Denmark, Opinion of 6 March 2006,
para. 7.5; communication No. 43/2008, Saada Mohamad Adan v. Denmark, Opinion of 13 August
2010, para. 7.6.
33 See Federal Constitutional Court, Decision of 4 February 2010, 1 BvR 369/04, 1 BvR 370/04, 1 BvR
371/04.
CERD/C/82/D/48/2010
15
German law conforms to article 4 (a) of the Convention and section 130 of the GCC
provides for severe punishments in all cases of incitement to hatred, if the relevant act is
capable of disturbing the public peace. The question of whether the relevant act is capable
of disturbing the public peace has to be carefully assessed, in particular when freedom of
expression is to be balanced against the necessity of combating racism.
10.2
A statement which the petitioner perceives as racist does not automatically constitute
an assault on human dignity within the meaning of section 130 of the GCC. GIHR appears
to imply that the criterion of “capable of disturbing the public peace” is not relevant in this
case, although it is a requirement in the GCC. It was legally necessary for the Prosecutor
General to consider the position of the author of the incriminated statements, the weight of
his opinion, his known political opinions and the role and distribution of the journal which
published the interview when deciding whether the statements were likely to disturb the
public peace. The debate generated by Mr. Sarrazin’s statements does not constitute a
disturbance of the public peace. The State party firmly rejects the assertion by GIHR that
the judiciary or any other State authority promotes the establishment and acceptance of
racism in society.
Issues and proceedings before the Committee
Consideration of admissibility
11.1
Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee on the
Elimination of Racial Discrimination must decide, pursuant to article 14, paragraph 7 (a), of
the Convention, whether or not the communication is admissible.
11.2
The Committee notes that the petitioner is a legal entity. It is an umbrella association
with individual members and 27 legal entities as members. The Committee takes note of the
State party’s argument that the communication should be declared inadmissible, on grounds
of “lack of victim standing” in accordance with article 14, paragraph 1, as the petitioner is
not directly affected by the statements of Mr. Sarrazin. It also notes the State party’s claim
that the present communication cannot be compared to communication No. 38/2008,34
because in the present case, the petitioner does not have the authority to speak for the group
it represents and has not provided any arguments as to why it is acting on behalf of its
members without due authorization. It also takes note of the petitioner’s argument that it
represents the interests of citizens of Turkish heritage in Berlin and that its work of
promoting equality and a climate of non-discrimination was directly affected by the
statements of Mr. Sarrazin.
11.3
The Committee reiterates that article 14, paragraph 1, directly refers to the
Committee’s competence to receive communications from “groups of individuals”. It
considers that, on the one hand, the nature of the petitioner’s activities and its aims, which
are, according to paragraph 3 of its by-laws, the promotion of peaceful coexistence and
solidarity in Berlin and Brandenburg and the furtherance of equality and non-discrimination
implemented, inter alia, by counselling and support both in and out of court against
discrimination, and, on the other hand, the group of individuals it represents, namely
persons of Turkish heritage in Berlin and Brandenburg, satisfies the victim requirement
within the meaning of article 14, paragraph 1, of the Convention.35 It further considers that
for purposes of admissibility, the petitioner has sufficiently substantiated that it was directly
34 See communication No. 38/2006, Central Council of German Sinti and Roma et al. v. Germany,
Opinion of 22 February 2008.
35 Ibid., para. 7.2; communication No. 30/2003, Jewish Community of Oslo et al. v. Norway, Opinion of
15 August 2005, para. 7.4.
CERD/C/82/D/48/2010
16
affected by Mr. Sarrazin’s statements, as it had received several e-mails in which
individuals expressed their agreement with Mr. Sarrazin, stating that citizens of Turkish
heritage and Muslim do not integrate and that the petitioner should accept the supremacy of
freedom of expression. It also received a notification from the police that it was on the list
of the National Socialist Underground as an enemy of Germany.
11.4
The Committee36 therefore considers that the fact that the petitioner is a legal entity
is not an obstacle to admissibility. Accordingly, the Committee declares the communication
admissible and proceeds with its examination on the merits with regard to the claims under
articles 2, paragraph 1 (d), 4, paragraph (a) and 6, of the Convention.
Consideration of the merits
12.1
In accordance with article 14, paragraph 7 (a), of the International Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, the Committee has considered the
present communication in light of all the information submitted by the petitioner and the
State party.
12.2
The issue before the Committee is whether the State party fulfilled its positive
obligation to take effective action against reported statements of racial discrimination,
having regard to the extent to which it investigated the petitioner’s complaint under
paragraphs 130 and 185 of the Criminal Code. Paragraph 130 of the Criminal Code
criminalizes any manner of expression that is capable of disturbing the public peace by
incitement to hatred against segments of the population or calling for violent or arbitrary
measures against them; or by assaulting the human dignity of others by insulting,
maliciously maligning, or defaming segments of the population. It also criminalizes
incitement of hatred against segments of the population or a national, racial or religious
group, or one characterized by its folk customs, calls for violent or arbitrary measures
against them, or assaults the human dignity of others by insulting, maliciously maligning or
defaming segments of the population or a previously indicated group. Paragraph 185 of the
Criminal Code criminalizes insult.
12.3
The Committee recalls its earlier jurisprudence37 according to which it does not
suffice, for the purposes of article 4 of the Convention, merely to declare acts of racial
discrimination punishable on paper. Rather, criminal laws and other legal provisions
prohibiting racial discrimination must also be effectively implemented by the competent
national tribunals and other State institutions. This obligation is implicit in article 4 of the
Convention, under which States parties undertake to adopt immediate and positive
measures to eradicate all incitement to, or acts of, racial discrimination. It is also reflected
in other provisions of the Convention, such as article 2, paragraph 1 (d), which requires
States to prohibit and bring to an end, by all appropriate means, racial discrimination, and
article 6, which guarantees to everyone effective protection and remedies against any acts
of racial discrimination.
12.4
The Committee notes the petitioner’s claim that Mr. Sarrazin’s statements in the
magazine “Lettre international” No. 86 (2009) discriminated against it and its members,
who are all of Turkish heritage, as the Turkish population was presented as a segment of the
population who live at the expense of the State and who should not have the right to live on
the territory of the State party and that the State party failed to provide protection against
such discrimination. It also notes the petitioner’s argument that Mr. Sarrazin’s statements
36 Mr. Carlos Manuel Vázquez noted that he did not agree that the communication be declared
admissible.
37 See communication No. 34/2004, Gelle v. Denmark, Opinion adopted on 6 March 2006, paras. 7.2-
7.3.
CERD/C/82/D/48/2010
17
had led to public vilification and debasement of Turks and Muslims in general. It further
notes the petitioner’s claims that the absence of criminal prosecution of Mr. Sarrazin
amounts to a violation by the State party of articles 2, paragraph 1(d); 4, paragraph (a), and
6, of the Convention, as the domestic legislation was narrowly interpreted. The Committee
notes that the State party disapproves of Mr. Sarrazin’s opinion, but argues that the
provisions of its Criminal Code sufficiently translate its obligations to provide effective
legal sanctions to combat incitement to racial discrimination and that the State party’s
authorities correctly assessed that Mr. Sarrazin’s statements are protected by the right to
freedom of expression and do not amount to incitement, nor do they refer to segments of
the population as inferior. The Committee further notes the State party’s argument that the
decisions by its criminal prosecution authorities were neither manifestly arbitrary nor did
they amount to a denial of justice and that there was no indication of an increased risk for
the petitioner or its members of becoming victims of future criminal acts.
12.5
The Committee recalls that it is not its role to review the interpretation of facts and
national law made by domestic authorities, unless the decisions were manifestly arbitrary or
otherwise amounted to a denial of justice.38 Nevertheless, the Committee has to examine
whether the statements made by Mr. Sarrazin fall within any of the categories of impugned
speech set out in article 4, of the Convention, and if so, whether those statements are
protected by the “due regard” provision as it relates to freedom of speech, as well as to
whether the decision not to prosecute Mr. Sarrazin was manifestly arbitrary or amounted to
a denial of justice.
12.6
The Committee has taken note of the content of Mr. Sarrazin’s statements regarding
the Turkish population of Berlin and in particular notes that he states that a large proportion
of the Turkish population does not have any productive function except for the fruit and
vegetable trade, that they are neither able nor willing to integrate into German society and
encourage a collective mentality that is aggressive and ancestral. Mr. Sarrazin uses
attributes such as productivity, intelligence and integration to characterize the Turkish
population and other immigrant groups. While he uses these attributes in a positive manner
for some immigrant groups, for example the East European Jews, he uses them in a
negative sense for the Turkish population. He states that the Turks are conquering Germany
just as the Kosovars conquered Kosovo: through a higher birth rate, and that he would not
mind if they were East European Jews with an IQ about 15 per cent higher than that of the
Germans. Mr. Sarrazin states that he does not have to accept anybody who lives off the
State and rejects that very State, who makes no effort to reasonably educate their children
and constantly produces new little headscarf girls, and claims that this is true for 70 per cent
of the Turkish population in Berlin. Mr. Sarrazin also creates an adjective to express his
ideas concerning the inferiority of the Turkish population and states that in other segments
of the population, including Germans “one can see a “Turkish” problem”. He also states
that he would generally prohibit influx of migrants, except for highly qualified individuals
and stop providing social welfare for immigrants. The Committee considers that the above
statements contain ideas of racial superiority, denying respect as human beings and
depicting generalized negative characteristics of the Turkish population, as well as
incitement to racial discrimination in order to deny them access to social welfare and
speaking about a general prohibition of immigration influx except for highly qualified
individuals, within the meaning of article 4 of the Convention.
12.7
Having described Mr. Sarrazin’s statements as impugned speech under article 4 of
the Convention, the Committee needs to examine whether the State party properly assessed
these statements as being protected by the “due regard” provision relating to freedom of
38 See communication No. 40/2007, Er v. Denmark, Opinion adopted on 8 August 2007, para. 7.2.
CERD/C/82/D/48/2010
18
speech. The Committee recalls its jurisprudence and reiterates that the exercise of the right
to freedom of expression carries special duties and responsibilities, in particular the
obligation not to disseminate racist ideas.39 It also observes that article 4 of the Convention
codifies the State party’s responsibility to protect the population against incitement to racial
hatred but also acts of racial discrimination by dissemination of ideas based upon racial
superiority or hatred.40
12.8
While acknowledging the importance of freedom of expression, the Committee
considers that Mr. Sarrazin’s statements amounted to dissemination of ideas based upon
racial superiority or hatred and contained elements of incitement to racial discrimination in
accordance with article 4, paragraph (a), of the Convention. By concentrating on the fact
that Mr. Sarrazin’s statements did not amount to incitement of racial hatred and were not
capable of disturbing the public peace, the State party failed in its duty to carry out an
effective investigation into whether or not Mr. Sarrazin’s statements amounted to
dissemination of ideas based upon racial superiority or hatred. The Committee further
considers that the criterion of disturbance of the public peace, which is taken into
consideration in the evaluation if statements reach the threshold of dissemination of ideas
based upon racial superiority or hatred, does not adequately translate into domestic
legislation the State party’s obligation under article 2, paragraph 1 (d), in particular as
neither article 2, paragraph 1 (d), nor article 4 contain such a criterion.
12.9
The Committee therefore concludes that the absence of an effective investigation
into the statements by Mr. Sarrazin by the State party amounted to a violation of articles 2,
paragraph 1 (d), 4 and 6 of the Convention.
13.
In the circumstances, and with reference to its general recommendation No. 31
(2005) on the prevention of racial discrimination in the administration and functioning of
the criminal justice system41 and its general recommendation No. 15 (1993) on organized
violence based on ethnic origin,42 the Committee on the Elimination of Racial
Discrimination, acting under article 14, paragraph 7 (a), of the International Convention on
the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, is of the opinion that the facts as
submitted disclose a violation of article 2, paragraph 1 (d), 4 and article 6 of the Convention
by the State party.
14.
The Committee recommends that the State party review its policy and procedures
concerning prosecution in cases of alleged racial discrimination consisting of dissemination
of ideas of superiority over other ethnic groups based on article 4 (a) of the Convention and
of incitement to discrimination on such grounds, in the light of its obligations under article
4 of the Convention.43 The State party is also requested to give wide publicity to the
Committee’s Opinion, including among prosecutors and judicial bodies.
15.
The Committee wishes to receive, within 90 days, information from the State party
about the measures taken to give effect to the Committee’s Opinion.
39 See general recommendation 15 (1993) on organized violence based on ethnic origin (article 4), para.
4; communication No. 43/2008, Saada Mohamad Adan v. Denmark, Opinion adopted on 13 August
2010, para. 7.6.
40 See the Committee’s general recommendation No. 15, para. 3.
41 Official Records of the General Assembly, Sixtieth Session, Supplement No. 18 (A/60/18), chap. IX.
42 See the Committee’s general recommendation No. 15.
43 See communication No. 4/1991, L.K. v. the Netherlands, Opinion adopted on 16 March 1993, para.
6.8.
CERD/C/82/D/48/2010
19
[Adopted in English, French, Russian and Spanish, the English text being the original
version. Subsequently to be issued also in Arabic and Chinese as part of the Committee’s
annual report to the General Assembly.]