The Independent Federal Anti-Discrimination Commissioner, Ferda Ataman, is intensifying calls for a significant overhaul of German law to provide greater legal protection for women facing sexual harassment in everyday situations. Currently, a legal vacuum exists where such incidents, occurring in settings like supermarkets, gyms, driving schools, or during apartment hunting, fall outside the scope of anti-discrimination legislation.
Ataman’s statements, published in regional newspapers, highlight a growing disconnect between legislative efforts to address sexual harassment through criminal justice reform and the pervasive reality of its occurrence in commonplace interactions. While lawmakers are currently debating harsher penalties for sexual offenses, Ataman argues this focus neglects the widespread issue of harassment that women routinely experience outside of the workplace.
Under existing law, sexual harassment is explicitly prohibited in employment settings as a form of discrimination. Ataman is now demanding a reform of the General Act on Equal Treatment (AGG) to extend this protection to women’s experiences in everyday life. The Anti-Discrimination Office reports a concerning rise in reported incidents occurring in non-workplace environments, specifically citing instances of unwanted sexual advances during housing searches. Without expanding the AGG’s remit, victims are left with limited or no legal recourse.
The issue has garnered bipartisan attention. Martin Plum, a CDU politician and member of the parliamentary Legal Committee, echoed the sentiment that sexual harassment is “unacceptable” and should not be tolerated. However, he cautioned against hasty legislative action, suggesting the existing Civil Code already provides a “swift, dignified and effective” means of redress. Plum acknowledged the coalition agreement between the CDU/CSU and SPD mandates a reform of the AGG, but stressed the need for a considered approach to avoid “thoughtless quick fixes.
The diverging views – Ataman’s urgent call for expanded legal protections versus Plum’s cautious assessment – underscore a complex debate within Germany regarding the scope and efficacy of legal responses to pervasive issues of gender-based harassment and the delicate balance between swift action and well-considered legislative reform. The debate raises fundamental questions about the extent of state responsibility in safeguarding citizens from harm and the priorities of legal protections in a rapidly evolving social landscape.
