Hair remission

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The hair decree is colloquially referred to as the regulations applicable in military or military organized associations with regard to how to wear hair and beards.

Germany

As hair Decree (. Amtl name: "The hair and beard of the soldiers") designated service provision is an explanatory regulation, as Annex 1 a part of the Central Service Regulation (ZDv) 10/5: "Life in the military community," the Bundeswehr represents.

In the case of law enforcement officers, hair remission regulations are unconstitutional and therefore no longer exist.

history

armed forces

The hair decree, which has since been revised several times , not least due to the admission of female soldiers , first came into effect in the 1960s, when more and more young men with hairstyles that were then fashionable and called "Beatles mane" or " mushroom heads " started doing their job wanted to do the Bundeswehr or had to do so as conscripts . The Federal Ministry of Defense reacted to this in February 1971 with a " hairnet decree ", which resulted in soldiers with longer hair wearing an olive hairnet. However, the decree, which included the purchase of 740,000 hair nets, only lasted one year. The reason for this was obviously less a lack of general acceptance than the fear of a loss of reputation for the Bundeswehr, which made itself felt through political statements and polemical criticism from abroad (for example, the term "German Hair Force" was used instead fallen from "German Air Force" as corruption for the German Air Force). In May 1972, the Federal Ministry of Defense finally issued the ordinance, which has essentially continued to this day, according to which the (male) hair of the head must not touch the uniform or the shirt collar.

police

In the federal and state police forces, beard and hairstyles were partly regulated by decree. A decree was introduced in North Rhine-Westphalia in 1972, but it was abolished again in 1980. A reintroduction to the Federal Police was suggested in January 2006 by the Federal Minister of the Interior, Wolfgang Schäuble. Apart from the fact that the proposal was heavily criticized in part (in particular by the police unions and the Bündnis 90 / Die Grünen party ), a permanent and lawful reintroduction failed due to the decision of the Federal Administrative Court on the illegal hairstyle regulation of the state of Rhineland-Palatinate on May 26th 2003 (see below for details).

Legal consideration of hair remission

Hair decrees are so-called administrative regulations and only have an effect within the authorities.

Hair decree for soldiers of the Bundeswehr

Development and current situation

According to two rulings of the Federal Administrative Court from 1994 and 1999, a male soldier's rights will not be violated if different regulations apply to him with regard to hairstyle than for female soldiers. It should be noted here that at the time of the decision, the admission of female soldiers was still limited to the medical and music service as well as to the sports promotion group.

The justification that (male) soldiers have a negative impact on long hair when performing their duties (e.g. loss of function of NBC protective masks, infection prevention), however, should no longer be viable in all careers given the admission of female soldiers since January 1, 2001 . The 4th Chamber of the Troop Service Court in Munich accordingly, in a decision of January 4, 2005, called the hair decree as arbitrary and unconstitutional.

The Federal Ministry of Defense, meanwhile, speaks of an "individual decision" and continues to adhere to the hair decree. This is permissible because the court decision lacks the general binding effect (“ inter partes ”). In this respect, a press release that speaks of the future permission of long hair for male soldiers is misleading, as it is not legally correct.

In the Neue Zeitschrift für Wehrrecht (NZWehrr) a scientific article was published on the topic: "Pulled up by the hair - the supposed unconstitutionality of the so-called hair and beard decree of the Bundeswehr". The author criticizes the decision of the 4th Chamber of the Troop Service Court South to the effect that initially the hair decree itself does not violate the principle of equality and the general right of personality . Doubts about the legality should only be considered in the fact that the provision only allows exceptions with regard to female soldiers, as they do not apply to male soldiers. However, this is not acceptable because the problems caused by long hair (risk of accidents, hygiene) continue to apply to the military, regardless of gender. The work of a soldier cannot be compared with that of a police officer, since " police officers usually have sufficient opportunity to groom themselves, even on missions lasting several days (e.g. Castor transport) ." In this respect, an amendment to the hair decree is necessary in such a way that female soldiers are no longer privileged over male soldiers.

The 1st Chamber of the Troop Service Court South takes the opposite view in its decision of March 14, 2007. According to this, the hair remission constitutes a permissible encroachment on the general right of personality and is also not objectionable with regard to the different regulations for male and female soldiers.

Revisions of the hair decree

In its statement on the annual report of the Armed Forces Commissioner 2005, the Federal Ministry of Defense announced that it would make a revision of the hair and beard decree dependent on a decision by the Federal Administrative Court, which at the time was dealing with a lawsuit against the hair decree of the federal police. The judgment was issued in March 2006 (see below for details). The Federal Ministry of Defense then stated that it would make its decision dependent on further proceedings pending before the Federal Administrative Court in November 2006. However, since the dispute was not accepted for decision, the Federal Ministry of Defense did not believe that it should be revised.

The unclear legal situation is criticized by the Armed Forces Commissioner in such a way that the repeatedly postponed announcement of the revision of the decree also “ contradicts the recommendations of the Social Science Institute ”, since a necessary contribution to the attractiveness of the profession, especially with regard to young people interested in the profession, is not made .

The fact that the disputed legal situation was also recently taken up in the press and media (see e.g. individual documents below) should at least in part be understood as a criticism of the behavior of the responsible Federal Ministry.

The beard and hair decree of the Bundeswehr was renewed and made considerably more precise in the course of the new regulation management effective February 1, 2014 in regulation A 2630/1. On 7 A4 pages it is now very precisely regulated whether and how hair, jewelry, accessories, tattoos and piercings may be worn. In principle, it can be stated that there has been no significant deviation from previous practice. Women have been somewhat restricted in their previous rights.

Hair remission for law enforcement officers

At the beginning of 2006, Federal Interior Minister Wolfgang Schäuble ( CDU ) issued a regulation for the Federal Police that forbade hair longer than “shirt collar length”. The Federal Administrative Court "with the declared the adoption on 2 March of the same year for the constitutionally protected right to privacy not the officials agreed". The decree also violates the principle of equality . It could not be established that long hair "resulted in conflicts or hindrances in the exercise of duty". It would also “no longer be linked to certain social ideas or non-conformist attitudes in the same way as before”.

The prohibition of wearing a “ Lagerfeld braid ” on duty was also found to be illegal in 1996 by the Kassel Administrative Court because of a violation of general personal rights. In the reasons for the decision it is also considered as a non-legal argument that "police officers are based on the idea of ​​the 'citizen in uniform', which means that [...] in the uniformed police fringe groups and individualists are represented in a comparable proportion as in society itself" . There is therefore "no objective reason to assume that the general public could, in the context of their perception of the appearance of the uniformed police, exclude people who have merely realized an individual fashionable wish in their hairstyle without unduly demanding tolerance towards fads".

Political and social consideration

Whether and to what extent the hair length of high-ranking officials in uniform can have a detrimental effect on the authority concerned is likely to be controversial from both a political and social point of view.

  • According to the former Chancellor Helmut Schmidt , " a soldier with long hair can also be a good soldier ". It should be remembered, however, that “ it is part of the classic legacy of European military service that the external image is taken more seriously than the internal core. "
  • A clearly liberal point of view is represented by FDP politician Ingo Wolf , Interior Minister of North Rhine-Westphalia from 2005 to 2010. In a recent press release, Wolf indicates that a " hair decree for NRW police officers is superfluous " and that " a correct and friendly demeanor would be decisive ". For him it is “ not a problem if there are individualists among his police officers. "
  • Furthermore, the ongoing change in fashion, according to which there has been a trend towards longer men's hair again in recent years, gives rise to the consideration of whether the fear of a loss of reputation for state institutions is actually justified. A turning point in the previously rather conservative case law speaks against this. While in 1994 it was still legally unobjectionable for the Federal Administrative Court to subject male soldiers with their hairstyle to stricter regulations than female medical soldiers, it is highly doubtful that this position will be retained, especially in view of its case law on the police hair remission in a future decision. These doubts should apply even more if one also considers the aforementioned decision of the Troop Service Court South.

Austria

Federal Army

There is also a decree within the armed forces that regulates hair length. It stipulates that the main hair of the soldiers must be cut in a way that the proper fit of the headgear is guaranteed and no harm to oneself or others can occur. Male soldiers must cut their hair so that it does not touch the collar of their shirt when the head is upright, and forehead and ears are not covered by overhanging hair.

In contrast to this, the haircut of female soldiers can be designed differently from that of male soldiers, provided that the haircut or the way the hair is worn ensures that the headgear fits properly and that there is no danger to oneself or others. Ultimately, this means that female soldiers are allowed to wear long hair, provided that the aforementioned conditions regarding the fit of the headgear or the avoidance of hazards are ensured.

On the part of the armed forces, the legal assessment results that for reasons of hygiene and protection against accidents at work, also taking into account Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights , the prescription of a short military haircut is justified.

The armed forces also judge that the distinction between male and female soldiers with regard to their haircut is objectively justified (and thus constitutionally), since the social appearance of male soldiers has always been culturally reflected in externally visible behavioral norms. The resulting idea of ​​the male-soldier does not allow an individual connection between long hairstyle and military professionalism.

From the point of view of the armed forces, the idea of ​​the "soldier-feminine" is not harmed by the soldiers' long hairstyle. Even the fact that men wear long hair, which occurs in civilian life, and women wear short hair, does not change the fact that, according to cultural understanding, wearing long hair is still understood as a characteristic of the feminine identity.

Federal Police

Regulations similar to those of the Armed Forces apply to the uniformed officers of the Federal Police .

A normal haircut is provided for male uniformed servants. Female uniformed men with long hair must have their hair tied (e.g. in a braid) or pinned up.

The hair and beard if necessary must be chosen so that the uniform is neither covered nor impaired in its function (especially with regard to the equipment) and the principles of self-protection are complied with when the body is upright.

Exceptional haircuts and coloring, which are also forbidden, are in any case partially shaved heads and unnatural coloring; this also applies to the beard.

Civil servants who do their service in civilian clothes do not fall under this rule.

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Similar regulations - although apparently not explicitly regulated - should apply within the British Army . According to this, the applicant information shows that male applicants are subject to stricter standards than female applicants. This is what it says in two recruitment sheets:

  • " Male recruits should have a haircut before arriving, but definitely not a skinhead (the closest permissible haircut is No 2 at the sides and a No 3 on top). "
Translated logically: “Men should have their hair cut before starting work, but definitely not bald. (The most permissible haircut corresponds to a number 2 on the sides and a number 3 on the head.) "
Note: The "numbers" correspond to the length of the attachment used by the hair trimmer. They correspond to 1/8- inch values. "Number 2" is therefore around 6 mm; "Number 3" is around 10mm.
  • " Female hair, if long, must be tied in a bun to the rear; if short, must be off the collar. "
Translated logically: “Women's hair - if long - should be tied into a bun at the back of the head; if the hair is short, it must be above the collar. "

Australia

In the Australian Army which already applies to the United Kingdom said. Here, too, the central recruiting authority points out the following requirements:

  • " All male recruits will have a haircut in the first week of training, this will be a number 2 all over. "
Basically translated: "All male recruits receive a haircut in the first week of training that corresponds to a number 2 over the entire head."
  • " Females are required to wear their hair in a neat, tidy bun on the back of their head if they have long hair. "
Translated logically: "Women have to wear long hair in a neat bun on the back of the head."

United States of America

The "Army Regulation (AR) 670-1" of the United States Army sets very exact and stringent requirements . The regulation regulates the hairstyle for both male and female soldiers. Similar to the current view of the Federal Ministry of Defense (see above), female soldiers are given far greater leeway with regard to hair length and type of hair as well as other external details (e.g. cosmetics). The difference becomes clear above all through the passages cited as examples:

  • " Males are not authorized to wear braids, cornrows, or dreadlocks [...] while in uniform or in civilian clothes on duty. "
Translated logically: "Men are not authorized to wear pigtails, braided hairstyles or dreadlocks if they are in uniform or are on duty in civilian clothing."
  • " Females may wear braids and cornrows as long as the braided style is conservative [...]. "
Translated logically: "Women are allowed to wear braids or braided hairstyles as long as the style of the braid is traditional."

See also

Sometimes practical requirements require hair and beard growth to be restricted, for example for wearers of respiratory protective equipment or for people who work in a clean room .

Web links

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ a b c Longer hair dared , Deutschlandfunk, February 8, 2006, accessed December 5, 2007
  2. ↑ Sandro Wiggerich: The body as a uniform. The standardization of the soldier's hairstyle in Prussia and the Federal Republic. In: Sandro Wiggerich, Steven Kensy (Ed.): State Power Uniform. Uniforms as a symbol of state power in transition? (= Studies on the history of everyday life 29). Franz Steiner Verlag, Stuttgart 2011, ISBN 978-3-515-09933-2 , pp. 161-183.
  3. ↑ Institute Viwa eV - individually. Retrieved April 16, 2016 .
  4. ↑ Homepage of Silke Stokar, Member of the Bundestag: “Hairy decree violates personal rights” from January 16, 2006. ( Memento of the original from August 11, 2007 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. Retrieved December 5, 2007.  @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.stokar.de
  5. ↑ BVerwG, decision of April 13, 1994 , Az. 1 WB 64/93, full text; BVerwG, decision of October 26, 1999 , Az. 1 WB 24/99, full text.
  6. ↑ Wichmann / Langer, Public Service Law, 7th edition 2014, Rn. 207, 210.
  7. ↑ Troop Service Court South, decision of January 4, 2005, Az.S4 BLc 18/04, in: Neue Zeitschrift für Wehrrecht 2005, p. 257
  8. ^ Ministry of Defense adheres to the hair and beard decree despite the verdict. In: shortnews.de. June 19, 2005, accessed April 16, 2016 .
  9. ↑ Long hair for Bundeswehr soldiers allowed in the future , NZZ-Online from June 19, 2005, accessed on February 23, 2019.
  10. ↑ NZWehrR issue 4/2006.
  11. ↑ Pulled up by the hair - The alleged unconstitutionality of the so-called hair and beard decree of the Bundeswehr in: Neue Zeitschrift für Wehrrecht 2006, pp. 139–145
  12. ^ Troop Service Court South, decision of March 14, 2007, Az .: p. 1 BLa 3/06.
  13. ↑ a b BT-Drucksache 14/4700 (PDF; 1.2 MB), briefing by the Armed Forces Commissioner, annual report 2006, accessed on December 5, 2007.
  14. ↑ faz: Bundeswehr Style Guide. Retrieved November 28, 2014 .
  15. ↑ ntv: Wednesday, January 22nd, 2014 The new fashion etiquette of the Bundeswehr. Hide your tattoo, comrade! Retrieved November 28, 2014 .
  16. ^ [Hair decree is illegal] - German Police Union, 2006, including extract from BVerwG, judgment of March 2, 2006
  17. ↑ a b c BVerwG, judgment of March 2, 2006, Az.2C 3.05. Retrieved April 16, 2016 .
  18. ^ VGH Hessen, decision of November 16, 1995 , Az. 1 TG 3238/95, full text = NJW 1996, 1164.
  19. ↑ Press release of the state government of North Rhine-Westphalia of May 26, 2006. (No longer available online.) Formerly in the original ; accessed on April 16, 2016 .  ( Page no longer available , search in web archives )@1@ 2Template: Toter Link / www.im.nrw.de
  20. ↑ See e.g. B. Cosmoty.de: 282 hairstyle suggestions for men ; German radio service: The latest hairstyle trends 2006. Accessed December 5, 2007.
  21. ↑ BVerwG, decision of April 13, 1994 , Az. 1 WB 64/93, full text.
  22. ↑ bmlv.gv.at - soldiers' everyday life - section "Do I have to get my hair cut in the army?"
  23. ↑ a b Army magazine “Milizinfo”, article “Haircut” (PDF; 2.9 MB), p. 20.
  24. ^ Army Training Regiment Lichfield, Whittington Barracks recruiting leaflet. (PDF; 163.3 kB) Archived from the original on March 6, 2008 ; accessed on April 16, 2016 .
  25. ^ Army Training Regiment Winchester Recruitment Sheet, Sir John Moore Barracks. (PDF; 133.7 kB) Archived from the original on June 10, 2007 ; accessed on April 16, 2016 .
  26. ↑ Recruit information on the homepage of the Australian Army Recruit Training Center. Archived from the original on September 28, 2009 ; accessed on April 16, 2016 .
  27. ^ Army Regulation (AR) 670-1 on the homepage of the Army Publishing Directorate. ( Memento of the original from July 26, 2007 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. Retrieved December 5, 2007.  @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.usapa.army.mil
  28. ^ Army Regulation (AR) 670-1, Chapters 1-8, (2) (a).
  29. ↑ Army Regulation (AR) 670-1, Chapters 1-8, (3) (a).