IRAQI CHRISTIANS FLEE ISLAMIC TERROR. GET REJECTED BY GERMAN-MUSLIM IMMIGRATION EMPLOYEE
German broadcaster Welt24 reports that a few days ago, German politician Wolfgang Bosbach met a Christian Iraqi family in Nordrhein-Westphalia, his constituency, who had recently applied for asylum in Germany.
Bosbach heard them tell how they had fled their country for fear of Jihadist violence. Eventually, they reached the part of their story, in which they filled in they asylum application, in one of the foreign offices of the German Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF). There, they faced a BAMF employee with a headscarf, who was going to decide whether or not they, Christians, would get protected status.
Last year, 97.000 Iraqis submitted an application for asylum in Germany. In January, 64.6% of Iraqi asylum applications were successful. The family Bosbach met, however, was rejected and told him they felt they were at a disadvantage because of the official who handled their case. Bosbach understood their reasoning:
“I understand the applicants’ concern that their application may not have been decided upon solely on objective and prejudice-free considerations, (…) when they are Christians telling a headscarf-wearing Muslima that they have suffered persecution by Muslims.”
To Bosbach, it doesn’t matter so much, whether or not the official in question really was prejudiced, but merely that “the applicants have reason to fear that their application might not be objectively decided.” And Bosbach is of the opinion that this fear
“is not entirely ungrounded. Therefore, I cannot understand, why only Muslims in BAMF get to decide whether or not Christians, who fled from radical Muslims, get the right to stay in the Federal Republic of Germany.”
When asked to comment, a spokesperson for BAMF seemed to miss the point when she declared that:
“Constitutionally, women are allowed to wear a headscarf in their place of work, and the employer can only limit that right when there are objective grounds to do so, for example, health and safe issues, when it is detrimental to the peace in the working environment etc.”
Bosbach is not convinced by this line of reasoning:
“Apparently, it is not an ‘objective ground’ for BAMF, when asylum-applicants fear, that those doing the interviews and making the decisions at BAMF do not view their application in a way that is unprejudiced, neutral and free from preconceived ideas. I can’t follow their reasoning.”
The Ministery of Internal Affairs meanwhile, seems to agree with the BAMF. It simply does not consider the headscarf, unlike the Christian cross, to be “a religious symbol in and of itself.” Only in context can it have a comparable meaning. And even that is not considered a problem, as there is no law or regulation against the wearing of religious symbols by civil servants.
The Iraqi family has been urged by Bosbach to make a complaint against the BAMF’s decision. But according to him, they’re afraid that “their complaint will again be judged by someone wearing a headscarf.”