The General Equal Treatment Act (AGG) is to reduce discrimination against minorities in Germany in civil law. This law was the basis of a compromise between the coalition partners of the grand coalition, where you have almost all the relevant components of an earlier draft left unconsidered, which was still red-placed Green in the Bundestag, has become the discontinuity (which is the elimination of all proposed legislation after the close of a Term) fell prey.
Now my Rhineland-Palatinate Minister of Labour, Social Affairs, Health, Family and Women (MinASGFF) Malu Dreyer, the state Commissioner for Migration and Integration Maria Weber and the country representative for the interests of disabled people Ottmar Miles-Paul, did the law proven (press release by the Ministry of 07.09.2009 the following link: http://bit.ly/17vh46).
Fri Weber says it's beneficial integration that companies could now carry out training to prevent discrimination within the company. Also observe that the equality of lesbians and gay men by the AGG been cemented to the point that you now also at the national legislative level, the partnerships (so - since the term "marriage" constitutional law is for the coexistence of man and woman protected by a marriage certificate - the grounds of permanent bonds called same-sex partners who were executed before a registrar) on the same footing with marriage .
For Mr. Miles-Paul, it is already a success in itself, that disabled people were ever taken in with the law (for background: the relevant directives of the European Union have the - as yet - had not provided). In addition, there is at least intriguing, from a former representative of the "advocacy Independent Living" read to have, among disabled people handle it is to people with disabilities (it makes a huge difference whether I as a human being, one body had, sensory or intellectual damage, which implies an impairment that leads only to disability in the social environment or whether I, as a man by my disability even in the - must be stigmatizing word choice - wrong, but maybe that's only the press department of the Ministry "botched"). This is a diction that is backward looking and fits rather well to the language of the CDU / CSU as the most prominent representatives concerned itself with the representatives for the interests of disabled people. After all, the fault
Minister and the two officers that the law was not sufficiently particular in civil law is too narrow.
"Yes, where else?", One is tempted to ask. The General Equal Treatment Act regulates virtually exclusively matters of civil anti-discrimination protection (apart from employment in public service to which the law is also applicable). If the minister at the start of the press release to stand out, the law has served to raise awareness of the effect in much of the population that there are a lot of discrimination for minorities, so that - with all due respect - nonsense.
The AGG may be one of the least known Laws in the German-speaking apply. to this is now for laws that protect minorities and prevent their discrimination is not unusual (that has existed since 2001, the SGB IX as a successor for the Severely Handicapped Act, is still less than many companies know, that disability equality laws at the federal is-how at country level until today no one knows). If a case of discrimination is a - as in the recent case of a four-star hotels in Bavaria, the thought that he should prevent a disabled guest underlying the sauna experience - no one even comes up with the idea that there could be one of the action facts capable to act.
that continue to as Fri Dreyer also running an - by the trade associations on employer before creation of the law so feared - wave of lawsuits is failed, may well be due to the overwhelming reluctance of the discriminated to act against their discriminators and legally (which to discriminate against a vague and they conveniently denominated law also clearly relieved), it is however much more to the fact that, first, in many cases the cost of the income is not worth it (as the damages for non-recruitment, despite discrimination limited regular maximum of three Brutt-monthly payments), on the other - such as I said - the law the bar for proof of actual discrimination plenty of high places. So high in any case that under the general rules of evidence law in the employment tribunal process (because that's essential in AGG) and in "normal" civil process more friendly in terms of the defendant, that those responsible for the discrimination have is configured. If
Fri Weber seriously the view that would prevent discrimination by business education to a significant extent, it is either naive or she speaks against better knowledge. It is known in legal circles everywhere that have been made after 2006 (the creation of the AGG) All law firms about how the law - well, we call it even politely so - in the sense of the company to the effect can be "interpreted" that, while still discriminated against, but by victims of discrimination can not be effectively countered. This is a practical burden of proof would have been the sensible way, only the ruling coalition of political opportunism to the employers' associations against would not.
Again, as with almost all other points of contention to the CDU / CSU prevailed in the legislative process. There is not a traditional burden of proof in AGG, it may still be discriminated against in the individual rights movement (that is, whenever it is not so-called bulk business is), the legal standing of the associations is such that it can be seen in fact hardly there (a particularly red flag for me) ... the Anti-Discrimination Office (ADS; that the abbreviation is with such, known as attention deficit disorder, the same, is surely only a coincidence but it fits perfectly into the picture).
not alone, that the CDU has created for Mrs. Dr. Martina Köppen, one certainly deserved and joyous Christian man, an accommodation for at least a little over half a term that has in charge of Mrs. Dr. Köppen ADS made it to two and a half years, value for your money literally nothing to do, except make themselves known (and this in turn taxpayers' money in considerable amount "wasted"). Now, if Mr.
. Miles-Paul again speaks from the experience of success in such a way that disabled people in general appear in the laws piece of work, you can - certainly meant it maliciously, as it sounds - ask: so what? There was no special protection against discrimination in employment is already in the former SGB IX, that today - hypothetically - the right to challenge an insurance company that denies insurance degree: beautiful. In the grounds of tenancies to people with disabilities are still hardly complain (because of the barrier with regard to the individual legal agreements).
There might argue against this "jubilee" of the ladies Dreyer and Weber, and by Mr. Paul Miles-yes absolutely nothing, when the AGG because in fact - particularly for disabled people - something substantial "do" would have. But only to pay homage to the thesis that it was laudable that the law at all give, then - content - even more than poor!
the legal text of the Equal Treatment Act - it is worthwhile even for non-lawyers to read the same time - can be found here, BTW: http://bit.ly/8HW5m.
0 comments:
Post a Comment