Federal Minister for Justice Stefanie Hubig (SPD) is proposing several legal amendments and even a change to the Basic Law following the terrorist attack on the Berlin Christopher Street Day (CSD).
Hubig stated in an interview with the “Rheinische Post” that she supports supplementing Article 3, Paragraph 3 of the Basic Law to explicitly prohibit discrimination based on sexual identity. Since the Basic Law already strictly prohibits unequal treatment based on gender, religion, or origin, she views including sexual identity discrimination as a natural, logical addition to the constitution.
Although she acknowledged that discussions with the government are still needed-and that the Union party has expressed reservations-she noted encouraging signals, particularly from coalition-led state governments. Furthermore, she highlighted that the Chancellor has publicly committed to supporting the queer community after the CSD incident, and that amending the Basic Law would provide concrete legal backing to this promise.
In addition to the constitutional changes, Hubig aims to improve the exchange of information between security agencies and the judiciary. She pointed out the failure to prevent the CSD attack despite security services having identified the perpetrator as a dangerous Islamist with prior police involvement-including an appearance in Berlin court in May regarding his intent to join the Islamic State. She asserted that consequences must be drawn from such incidents.
The SPD politician explained that security agencies frequently hold vital information regarding potential threats posed by individuals, such as Islamists. She stressed the necessity of ensuring that the penal justice system can access these findings when necessary. This is especially critical when a court decides whether to suspend a sentence on probation, as effective probation decisions rely heavily on predicting whether the offender will commit further crimes-a prediction for which security intelligence is extremely relevant. This same principle, she noted, applies to decisions concerning preliminary probation, a system used in juvenile law (as seen in the case of Abdul B. in Berlin).
While acknowledging that experts consider preliminary probation a useful tool, Hubig agreed that the system needed refinement. She proposed mandating in the law that preliminary probation can only be granted if it is justifiable in light of the general public’s security interests. Simultaneously, she rejected a general trend toward applying adult criminal law to radicalized youth or offenders deemed dangerous, defending the continued application of juvenile justice. Her rationale is that the goal remains steering young offenders back to the right path because they are often still moldable. Treating them with adult criminal law in a blanket manner could, in fact, be counterproductive and accelerate their radicalization.
