As many know Germany has banned CLSDs this year. Following this ban a group of MAPs and Dollshop owners said that they will file a constitutional complaint.
However, since the old gov. is still in charge they are holding it back, because it surely makes more sense with an entirely new group of politicians.
The new gov. seems to be much more open about anything really, and just 40 minutes ago the ministry positions were made public aka. what party is going to get what ministry (three parties are in the new gov.).
And I think the most important ministry, the ministry of justice, is now in the hands of the liberals. They were one of the only parties to be against the ban, since they want an evidence-based approach and not symbolic politics. This also is backed by the fact that they also got the “ministry of research & education”. So, this surely is beneficial.
A few things to be aware: filing a constitutional complaint is difficult, because it requires someone who is affected (preferably a MAP who had to destroy his doll) to go public and that every other legal option was already used. ALSO, they can just simply decline your complaint since there is no legal obligation to process any complaints.
What would be a consequence should the complaint work? Well, it would be a huge success. It might affect realistic fictional material as well, since both animations and dolls are currently not scientfically proven to cause harm. So, if the Federal Constitutional Court aggrees that a ban without proof is against the following paragraphs:
[Human dignity – Human rights – Legally binding force of basic rights]
(1) Human dignity shall be inviolable. To respect and protect it shall be the duty of all state authority.
(2) The German people therefore acknowledge inviolable and inalienable human rights as the basis of every community, of peace and of justice in the world.
(3) The following basic rights shall bind the legislature, the executive and the judiciary as directly applicable law.
(1) Every person shall have the right to free development of his personality insofar as he does not violate the rights of others or offend against the constitutional order or the moral law. (Problem here is “moral law”, see it as obscenity laws like in the USA - subjective bullshit)
(2) Every person shall have the right to life and physical integrity. Freedom of the person shall be inviolable. These rights may be interfered with only pursuant to a law.
[Freedom of expression, arts and sciences]
(1) Every person shall have the right freely to express and disseminate his opinions in speech, writing and pictures and to inform himself without hindrance from generally accessible sources. Freedom of the press and freedom of reporting by means of broadcasts and films shall be guaranteed. There shall be no censorship.
(2) These rights shall find their limits in the provisions of general laws, in provisions for the protection of young persons and in the right to personal honour.
(3) Arts and sciences, research and teaching shall be free. The freedom of teaching shall not release any person from allegiance to the constitution.
Then there is a good chance. Especially “human dignity” and “insofar as he does not violate the rights of others or offend against the constitutional order” seem to be restricted here.
Last good thing this court did was legalize commercial/assisted suicide, so they certainly are more neutral than other christian countries.