Schleswig-Holstein’s Minister President Daniel Günther is preparing to push for a nationwide sugar tax and defend a controversial new law enabling enhanced security vetting of public servants, signaling a conservative push for both public health intervention and heightened ideological security within Germany’s institutions. Günther, of the Christian Democratic Union (CDU), confirmed to “Welt” that a draft bill for the sugar tax would be submitted as a Bundesrat initiative in the first quarter of next year, with a corresponding motion slated for the CDU’s national party conference in February.
Günther justified the proposed tax, arguing that the escalating societal costs linked to excessive sugar consumption necessitate governmental action. While expressing a preference for voluntary industry adjustments, he lamented the apparent failure of such approaches, suggesting state regulation is now unavoidable. The move is likely to face significant opposition from the food and beverage industry and may be criticized as a form of “nanny state” intervention. Critics question whether a sugar tax is the most effective strategy, potentially disproportionately impacting lower-income households who rely on less expensive, often sugar-laden, products.
Furthermore, Günther staunchly defended Schleswig-Holstein’s recently unveiled law requiring mandatory security checks for prospective public employees. The legislation, critics have labeled as potentially infringing on civil liberties, mandates regular evaluations by the Verfassungsschutz (Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution). Günther framed the measures as essential for safeguarding the integrity of the public sector, asserting that individuals entrusted with public authority must demonstrably embrace Germany’s constitutional principles.
The move has garnered substantial criticism from civil rights organizations and segments of the political left, who argue the law fosters suspicion and undermines the presumption of innocence. They express concerns that the broad scope of the checks risks chilling political expression and disproportionately targeting individuals with dissenting viewpoints. The law’s application process and potential for misinterpretation remain key points of contention, raising questions about the boundaries of acceptable scrutiny within a democratic framework and the potential for politicization of security assessments. The implementation of this law is expected to ignite fierce debate on the balance between security concerns and fundamental rights within German society.
