(de-news.net) – Germany’s conservative bloc has called for tougher security measures after the Berlin CSD attack, rejecting constitutional changes in favor of expanded police powers, stricter criminal law, and stronger action against extremist threats. The CDU/CSU argues that the response should focus less on symbolic legal amendments and more on practical measures to prevent future attacks, including broader security authorities’ powers, tighter rules for dangerous offenders, and reforms to juvenile criminal law.
Germany’s conservative CDU/CSU bloc rejected renewed calls to add “sexual identity” to the anti-discrimination provisions of the Basic Law following the Islamist attack near Berlin’s Christopher Street Day (CSD) event, arguing that such a constitutional amendment would divert attention from measures with a direct impact on public security. Deputy parliamentary group leader Günter Krings maintained that the debate centered on symbolic constitutional politics rather than on policies capable of preventing future attacks. In his view, amending Article 3 would neither deter terrorist violence nor stop dangerous offenders, making the proposal largely symbolic. Instead, he argued that protecting gay and lesbian people required strengthening the legal powers and operational capabilities of security authorities through legislative reforms rather than revising the constitution.
Krings further argued that Germany’s constitutional framework already provided comprehensive protection against discrimination. He noted that the Federal Constitutional Court had established that the general right of personality and the constitutional guarantee of equality protected individuals regardless of their sexual orientation or sexual identity. Consequently, he maintained that the central challenge was not the absence of constitutional safeguards but the need for a more determined response against those who promote hatred and commit acts of violence. According to Krings, the attack instead underscored the necessity of expanding security powers and intensifying efforts against Islamist terrorism and other forms of extremist violence. Among the measures he highlighted were stricter action against individuals classified as security threats, retention of IP address data, broader use of existing investigative powers available to security agencies, expanded provisions for pre-deportation detention and departure custody, and the consistent deportation of foreign nationals convicted of serious crimes or identified as Islamist extremists. He also argued that older adolescents convicted of the most serious violent or terrorist offenses should generally be prosecuted under adult criminal law.
Youth crime rules, electronic monitoring and preventive detention
The attack also prompted senior CDU/CSU politicians to renew broader demands for tightening Germany’s security legislation. Their calls followed Interior Minister Alexander Dobrindt’s announcement of a three-part security package focusing on juvenile criminal law, electronic ankle monitoring for individuals deemed security risks, and preventive detention. Krings expressed full support for the initiative, arguing that juvenile criminal law should not restrict the state’s ability to respond effectively to highly dangerous offenders, many of whom were already legal adults. He therefore advocated the consistent application of adult criminal law from the age of 18.
To illustrate his argument, Krings pointed to the Berlin CSD suspect, who, he said, had previously been sentenced under juvenile criminal law despite being 20 years old at the time of the offense. He argued that the suspect had undergone systematic radicalization and had repeatedly planned and attempted to leave Germany with substantial criminal intent, circumstances that, in his assessment, reflected neither developmental immaturity nor diminished responsibility. Rather, he characterized the case as evidence of structural shortcomings in the application of juvenile justice. He therefore contended that lawmakers should align criminal responsibility with the age of majority already recognized under German civil law.
CSU legal affairs spokesperson Susanne Hierl likewise argued that policymakers should consider any measure capable of preventing comparable attacks. She suggested narrowing the circumstances under which juvenile criminal law could be applied in terrorism-related cases by treating participation in a terrorist organization as fundamentally incompatible with developmental immaturity, thereby permitting the application of adult criminal law. Hierl also proposed limiting the availability of suspended sentences for certain serious offenses, expressed qualified support for expanding the use of electronic ankle monitors for individuals classified as security threats on a case-by-case basis, and called for nationwide rules governing preventive detention. She identified Bavaria’s legal framework as a possible model for harmonizing such measures across Germany.
