Germany’s Anti-Discrimination Law Strangles Freedom for 20 Years

Twenty years ago, the German Bundestag passed the General Equal Treatment Act with votes from the Christian Democrats, Social Democrats, and Greens. The legislation has since served as a political instrument of the left, which is why progressive forces have for years sought to expand and strengthen the law’s reach into private life and business.

The current black-red coalition government is now working on a revised version of the law. During an initial reading in the Bundestag, Green and Left Party representatives accused the government of insufficient measures. The perpetually outraged network of non-governmental organizations has dismissed the proposed changes as inadequate. All factions are demanding even deeper state intervention into private autonomy than the current law already imposes.

The government promises to meet the requirements of a diverse and open society. The best way to serve such a society would be to abolish the Anti-Discrimination Law entirely without replacement.

Brussels Origins of the Anti-Discrimination Industry

The business model of anti-discrimination can only be understood through the law’s creation story. Since the 1990s, various NGOs in Brussels had massively lobbied to legally anchor the issue. The Amsterdam Treaty of 1997 created an entirely new legal foundation after decades of lobbying and strategic engagement by non-governmental organizations, as European law scholar Gráinne de Búrca later described it.

From that point forward, the European Union gained competence to take appropriate measures to combat discrimination based on sex, race, ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age, or sexual orientation. The legal drafts prepared by left-wing lobby groups found their way into four EU directives in 2000. This forced all EU countries to translate anti-discrimination law into national legislation. The roots of today’s German law thus lie in Brussels.

A few years later, the Bundestag adopted a draft law from the then-grand coalition that not only massively interfered with private autonomy but was almost identical to the anti-discrimination law planned by the previous red-green government and went far beyond European legal requirements.

NGO Pressure for Law Expansion Continues

Shortly before the decisive vote on June 29, 2006, Guido Westerwelle congratulated the Greens in the German Bundestag, noting that the law came from their pen. Looking at the legislative text from the Christian Democrats and Social Democrats, he remarked that credit should go where it was due. The then-opposition leader mocked the situation, noting that Germany had voted out the Greens, yet they remained in spirit on the government bench. This parallel to the present time proves once again how long the Christian Democrats have acted as executors of left-wing agendas.

Domestic organizations such as the Lesbian and Gay Federation and the German Institute for Human Rights had lobbied the Federal Ministry of Justice for years, submitted petition lists, and participated in hearings. Even then, part of the organized pressure came not from an independent civil society but directly from state-funded structures.

This NGO pressure continues. The Alliance for AGG Reform criticized the Merz government’s draft law a few weeks ago as a cautious adjustment rather than a bold reform. The alliance demands an open catalog of new discrimination characteristics. Body weight, social status, language, citizenship, and chronic illnesses should receive the same legal protection as race, sex, or religion. Additionally, they demand a state-funded legal aid fund for litigation associations and a right to collective action that would allow NGOs to go to court even without specific affected individuals.

The Law Should Be Abolished, Not Extended

In fact, just a few years after the law’s passage, the first litigation associations were founded, such as the Office for the Implementation of Equal Treatment, establishing the business model of anti-discrimination. The NGO milieu, which was further strengthened and expanded, produced numerous figures over the years who sought to continue the agenda. Ferda Ataman, for example, moved from the state-funded NGO network New German Organizations to the office of Federal Anti-Discrimination Commissioner, a position created by the law itself. A lobbyist became a political civil servant to close the supposed legal gaps she had previously complained about as an activist.

Ataman now demands that mandatory diversity training for all administrative employees in Germany be incorporated into the law. After such a reform, all employees would have to be qualified in diversity competencies and basic anti-discrimination law as part of their education and continuing training. While Christian Democratic politicians accused the 46-year-old of division just a few years ago, she is now being granted new powers under the government draft. A mediation office for alternative dispute resolution is to be established at her agency, and her participation in legislative processes is to be strengthened.

The expansion drive of the anti-discrimination industry knows no bounds. The pattern remains consistent: a proliferation of various NGOs quietly begins preliminary work, drafts foundational texts on the topic over years, finds willing buyers among EU bureaucrats and left-wing parliamentary representatives, and in the end the Christian Democrats approve what has already been decided. The permanent revolution knows no pauses.

With information from Junge Freiheit