Before the Berlin Labour Court the process has begun against the State, German Public Procurement Network. A failed worker Nikolas T. demands EUR 17 500 compensation, claiming he was discriminated against. It was that in the email answer to his Curriculum Vitae, the phrase “Dear Sir...” was used. The reason ‘identifies’ as ‘non-binar’ and considers that specified a form was highly offensive to him. The suit is based on the German Anti-Discrimination Act (AGG).
The Genderist sued a failed employer for discrimination. The Berlin case sounds like a joke, or an abstract script of a case under debate about the clever usage of anti-discrimination law. A candidate who did not meet the requirements of the position was not hired — which in itself is not controversial. The controversy began later: erstwhile the standard courtesy phrase in the email became the basis for a claim of respective 1000 euros.
This is not the first specified event. Sodomites and genderists increasingly usage the law as an instrument for investigating strategy boundaries and coining their intellectual illness. The anti-discrimination regulation was intended to defend people from real harm: refusal to work due to competences independent, systemic exclusion, unequal treatment. In fact, however, any regulation that operates on concepts that are hard to specify unequivocally — specified as “decentness”, “identity” or “appropriate form of communication” — becomes susceptible to manipulation.
Even if a casual, non-intentional language failure may be the basis for a advanced financial claim, then we halt talking about protection from discrimination and start with a strategy that can be utilized by claiming to be a discriminated person. In specified a situation, there is no request for bad will on the part of the institution — a standard, automated email is adequate to trigger the legal procedure.
Enough to say it's not the only case involving Nikolas T. In another procedure, the candidate filed a suit against the company, which in the announcement required “German as a native language”. The deviant was born in Bangkok and applied to work without a photo. After rejecting the candidacy, he considered that the employer could presume that he did not have adequate linguistic competence due to his birthplace.
Such cases have an effect which is seldom seen by their initiators. This is erstwhile the public sees matters that seem disproportionate and absurd, it starts to question not only circumstantial claims, but besides the sense of the rules in question. The law, which was to defend against abuse, itself begins to be seen as 1 large abuse. As a result, the deviants cut the branch on which they sit, due to the fact that they may be able to extort any money in court, but they draw on themselves the anger of society put aside in time.
In this way, the Berlin case is about maintaining simple common sense. The legal strategy cannot function based on walking around intellectual deviants like around an egg. If any mistake — even without bad intentions — becomes a possible origin of the claim, an environment is created in which communication by employers and public institutions ceases to be natural and begins to be insecure.
Insurance does not advance either openness or common knowing or tolerance. It's just stalking the full society in the name of the well-being of a fistful of perverted perverts.
There are many ways that this Berlin thing can end. However, regardless of the verdict, it already acts as a informing signal. It shows that the line between protection and the instrumentisation of the law is thin — and that it can have consequences far beyond a single process. In the long term, it's not just about who wins in court. The question is whether the law will stay a tool of justice, whether it will become an instrument of ideological play and a way of making money from smart guys.
We besides recommend: Kwidzyn duplicates the mistakes of the West. millions for refugees
