Digitaldemocracy - Benutzerbeiträge [de]

Diskussion:Gruppe7 EN

2023-02-08T10:59:38Z

Wikiadmin: Die Seite wurde neu angelegt: „== Test == [1] Test123 [2] Test 345 [4] == test == [6] hkhkkhk [7] User123 (discussion) 16:57, 15 May 2022 (CEST) [9] abc User164 (discussion) 21:31, 15…“

== Test ==
[1]

Test123 [2]

Test 345 [4]

== test ==
[6]

hkhkkhk [7]

User123 (discussion) 16:57, 15 May 2022 (CEST) [9]

abc User164 (discussion) 21:31, 15 May 2022 (CEST) [11]

test User142 (discussion) 09:19, 16 May 2022 (CEST) [13]

test "User140 (discussion) 10:12, 18 May 2022 (CEST)" [16]

test "User169 (discussion) 10:08, 19 May 2022 (CEST)" [18]

== Layout improvement ==
[20]

I would divide into paragraphs and lit: Par. 1 According to this law is punished who makes himself unrecognizable at: lit. a gatherings requiring a permit lit. b demonstrations lit. c other gatherings of people. [21]

Par. 2 Exceptions can be granted [23]

I agree, I find the previous text otherwise also rather confusing. User171 (discussion) 08:27, 16 May 2022 (CEST) [26]

User158 (discussion) 10:21, 16 May 2022 (CEST) Concur with the execution. [28]

I think that's a good idea too. Can you make the change right on the "page"? I'm not sure I fully understand the tool technically yet. User142 (discussion) 09:26, 16 May 2022 (CEST) [30]

I don't think this is a good idea. Listing them in multiple letters suggests that they would be 3 clearly separable, alternative TB. This is not the case. Rather, it is an attempt to make a single TB tangible with these 3 terms. But in this case, the terms should not be artificially separated. I would be open to shortening to a single term (--> see "Specify human gathering) User128 (discussion) 12:09, 17 May 2022 (CEST) [32]

@User128: Aye User123 (discussion) 12:54, 17 May 2022 (CEST) [34]

== Competence to grant exceptions ==
[36]

Input: I think it would be purposeful to define the modalities/responsibility and, if necessary, the requirements for exception approval. [37]

Justification: Since this is a very open formulation (in my opinion), it would make sense to have a competence regulation. According to the wording here, it is not recognizable whether the competent authority of the permit, a cantonal authority, police, etc. is responsible for the exceptional permit. Likewise, the requirements that lead to a permit are not listed. [39]

Proposal: Exceptional permits can be issued by the competent authority, provided that there are no safety concerns. [41]

User158 (Discussion) 10:21, 16 May 2022 (CEST) [43]

I think this is a good idea. The wording could also be amended as follows: "Exceptional permits may be granted by the competent authority, provided that no overriding public or private interests are opposed." This way, one could allow for a balancing of interests on a case-by-case basis. User142 (discussion) 09:39, 16 May 2022 (CEST) [46]

We definitely need to look closely at the exception question. In my opinion, the gatherings requiring a permit are less problematic, since there is already a permit in this regard. We certainly have to think more carefully about the issue of "other gatherings of people". These have not yet been approved (by the competent cantonal authority), which raises the question of who exactly would be the competent authority, which would not approve the assembly itself (Art. 22 BV freedom of assembly), but only the unrecognizable at this assembly. [49]

With regard to the reasons for exceptions, one could consider using Art. 10a BV as a basis. However, the weighing of interests is certainly important and correct. [51]

User164 (Discussion) 10:43, 16 May 2022 (CEST) [53]

@User164, leaning on 10a I also find good. Have this now once on the exercise page so inserted in relation to the carnival. @User158, I find competence also important. I have now once taken the government BS as the competent authority, since demonstration permits are usually also issued by the government. In BS, the city government is equivalent to the cantonal government. User123 (Discussion) 13:04, 17 May 2022 (CEST) [55]

One point that just occurs to me is that instead of an exemption permit, one could simply provide for an exemption from punishment in cases of health, climatic conditions, and native custom. That way the authority would be with the prosecutor's office. How do you guys see this? User164 (discussion) 08:09, 18 May 2022 (CEST) [57]

@User 164, the concept of exemption from punishment (instead of an exemption permit) convinces me! Good idea. But in "cases of health, climatic conditions" I see rather critical, because too little concrete. Climatic conditions prevail on every day and also health specific reasons can be found quickly (winter too cold -> scarf, pollen in spring, face mask during the whole year). That's why I'd like to see exemption from punishment for local customs. "User169 (discussion) 10:16, 19 May 2022 (CEST)" [59]

I am against the legal exception, as this is a substantive change to the norm. I think the government council should be designated as the competent authority for exemptions User123 (discussion) 18:29, 21 May 2022 (CEST) [61]

== Clarification of gathering of people ==
[63]

Input: Replace the enumeration "meetings, demonstrations and other gatherings of people requiring a permit" with "public space". [64]

Justification: By choosing the word "gathering of people" a very open formulation is chosen. If the intention of the legislator is to initiate a general ban on anonymization in public space, this would at best have to be taken into account. However, the present wording makes no distinction between gatherings in the private sphere or public gatherings. [66]

Proposal: Par. 1: (...) Whoever makes himself unrecognizable at gatherings of people in public space, namely at gatherings requiring a permit, demonstrations, sporting events or events with more than 200 people. [68]

Par. 2: Exceptions may be granted." [70]

User158 (discussion) 10:21, 16 May 2022 (CEST) [72]

Good point! However, I take the liberty of criticizing your proposal insofar as I would leave it at "gatherings requiring a permit" and "demonstrations" in the enumeration after "by name", as it is in the source text. In addition, I would dispense with the specification of 200 people, because I consider gatherings of people already given at a lower number. [74]

I would therefore rather something like: "... in the case of gatherings of people in public spaces, namely in the case of gatherings or demonstrations requiring a permit ...". [76]

User164 (discussion) 10:35, 16 May 2022 (CEST) [78]

I would add something like "planned gatherings of people", the HB at rush hour is also a gathering of people, but as I read it is not envisaged by the legislator or? User123 (discussion) 17:49, 16 May 2022 (CEST) [80]

@User123: Yes, crowds at rush hour at the HB should not be covered. As can be seen from Mr. Uhlmann's introductory video, it is mainly about hooded chaotic people who take advantage of crowds. Crowds at the station are certainly not to be recorded. However, from my point of view, the word "planned", while well-intentioned, is also somewhat unfortunate, as it excludes anything that occurs spontaneously. User164 (discussion) 08:55, 17 May 2022 (CEST) [82]

Suggestion: "Those who make themselves unrecognizable at gatherings or processions in public spaces." --> so the concern of "planned" is in there, as these two words are not about a random gathering of people, at the same time it doesn't have to be planned either, a hooligan procession can go off completely spontaneously. The enumeration of the other three terms is also unnecessary. --> Possibly one could also add "..., with which it is a matter of increased public use", in order to delimit downwards (so that a mini-assembly could not already be covered" User128 (discussion) 12:18, 17 May 2022 (CEST) [84]

@User128: I think that's a good suggestion. This way the rule will be more streamlined and the unnecessary or confusing enumeration can be deleted. User142 (discussion) 17:18, 17 May 2022 (CEST) [86]

Also, one more suggestion from my side: in my opinion, it doesn't hurt to have a catch-all offense like "other gatherings of people" in the standard. Possibly this might help for a more flexible application, if a situation should be factual according to the purpose of the standard, but does not meet the enumerations. If we keep the first two terms, I would suggest that we could write "... at meetings, demonstrations, or comparable gatherings of people requiring a permit." "Comparable" makes a reference to the other terms and is thus less open than "other". For example, the gathering of people at the HB would also correctly not be covered in this way. - As a suggestion. What do you guys think? "User140 (discussion) 10:13, 18 May 2022 (CEST)" [88]

@User128: very good! @User140: this is a criminal norm, from my point of view flexible catch-all offences simply don't belong in it dogmatically. The point of the exercise is exactly that the norm is handy. User123 (Discussion) 22:48, 18 May 2022 (CEST) [90]

@User128: I also find it convincing! "User169 (discussion) 10:18, 19 May 2022 (CEST)" [92]

I find @User128's suggestion compelling as well and would favor it. User131 (discussion) 14:39, 19 May 2022 (CEST) [94]

== Determination ==
[96]

In general, I think the norm is - esp. for a criminal norm - relatively vague. Especially the more detailed description of the term "unrecognizable" seems to me to be important, because after all the punishability is linked to it. But also the word "other gatherings of people" is rather open (from how many people?). At best, these terms could be defined in further paragraphs? [97]

For example: "Anyone who disfigures himself to such an extent that his true appearance can no longer be reconstructed and identification becomes impossible. (-> Counter-suggestions are welcome; when formulating, one notices how difficult it is to paraphrase this term...) [99]

By the way, the type of punishment is also missing. I suggest: "With fine is punished, who..." [101]

User171 (discussion) 09:31, 16 May 2022 (CEST) [103]

The term "unrecognizable" already exists in the StGB (Art. 256, 257 and 268 StGB), at most we therefore do not need to define it more precisely. At best, we could also refer to Art. 10a BV, where it is about veiling, which has a similarity with making unrecognizable after all. [105]

A somewhat shorter proposal would be, for example, to omit "who disfigures himself to such an extent", which would result in the following formulation: "...makes himself unrecognizable so that his true appearance can no longer be traced and identification becomes impossible...". [107]

At best shorter and with somewhat different words also this suggestion: "makes unrecognizable, with which a recognition is not possible". [109]

User164 (discussion) 10:26, 16 May 2022 (CEST) [111]

@User171: I gladly concur with your comments. I agree that the term "unrecognizable" should be defined. Your formulation I also find good, but possible would also be the following formulation: "Unrecognizable makes himself, who changes his true appearance so that an identification is not possible". [114]

With regard to the expression "other gatherings of people", I agree with you that this is also too imprecise. However, especially in view of the purpose and the protective idea of the standard, there must be some leeway. In my opinion, it is therefore not expedient to assume a "gathering of people" only from an exact number of persons. I would therefore also welcome it to replace the enumeration "meetings, demonstrations and other gatherings of people requiring a permit" by "public space" or to retain the (named) enumeration without a specific number of people (see above proposal). [116]

I like your suggestion with the definition of the type of punishment. User131 (discussion) 10:36, 16 May 2022 (CEST) [118]

So if the concept of unrecognizable already exists, I don't think a legal definition is necessary. After all, case law has already concretized the term. Besides, it is not usual to put legal definitions into a penal norm. At least none comes to my mind right now :P User123 (discussion) 17:46, 16 May 2022 (CEST) [121]

Agreed in principle - maybe a legal definition of "unrecognizable" would already be put in the introductory provisions of the decree. The point with the penalty (fine) I find very important - at most a tightening could be chosen, if in addition a crime is committed and the offender has made himself unrecognizable. [Author:in missing] [124]

- On BV 10a and the question of whether to ban in general in public spaces: I think we just have to ignore that here, the mandate is clear, only to prevent masking in the context of demos/fanzügen, i.e. events that facilitate the covert commission of crimes, and just not to restrict it even more. User128 (Discussion) 12:19, 17 May 2022 (CEST) [126]

@User 128: By leaning on Art. 10a BV I meant more to lean on words of the mentioned article at most, especially with regard to the exception provisions, and less on the content that general mummery should be punished with a fine. This is not the order. [128]

The point about facilitating concealed committing of crimes is probably true, yes. User164 (discussion) 12:29, 19 May 2022 (CEST) [130]

== Sanction ==
[132]

By the way, the penalty type is also missing. I suggest: "Punished with a fine is whoever...". [133]

User171 (discussion) 09:31, 16 May 2022 (CEST) [135]

I like your suggestion with defining the type of punishment. User131 (discussion) 10:36, 16 May 2022 (CEST) Suggestion: [137]

Punished by fine (...). [139]

Para. 2 or 3: With fine or imprisonment is punished, who makes himself unrecognizable according to para. 1 and thereby commits a crime against life and limb or damage to property. (Clarification is certainly necessary) User158 (Discussion) 22:14, 16 May 2022 (CEST) [141]

The point with the penalty (fine) I find very important - at most a tightening could be chosen, if in addition a crime is committed and the offender has made himself unrecognizable. [Author:in missing] [143]

[Discussion postponed User128 (Discussion) 11:55, 17 May 2022 (CEST)] [145]

According to StGB 335, cantons can only add transgression penalties. So the wording must be with fine. User128 (discussion) 11:55, 17 May 2022 (CEST) [148]

I would also mention only the fine, because otherwise we would be adding too much to the law with our own inputs. User151 (discussion) 8:25, 18 May 2022 (CEST) [150]

@User128: I agree with your execution. I think, concerning the topic "sanction/type of punishment" we can concretize/modify the law text only with the words "According to this law is punished with fine [...]". User131 (discussion) 14:28, 19 May 2022 (CEST) [152]

== Original text ==
[154]

I'm copying the original text here once, so that we can always refer back to it, even if we have already revised the text. [155]

"[Punished under this law is]: [...] [157]

Whoever, at assemblies requiring a permit, [159]

demonstrations and other gatherings of people. [161]

Exceptions may be granted." [163]

(Discussion) 10:05, 16 May 2022 (CEST) [165]

Text: [168]

1 According to this law, whoever makes himself unrecognizable at: [170]

lit. a assemblies requiring a permit [172]

lit. b demonstrations [174]

lit. c other gatherings of people [176]

2 Exceptions may be granted [178]

--> everybody could insert here his above mentioned remarks User151 [180]

That means that the text, which is under exercise, has already been edited? User123 (discussion) 17:43, 16 May 2022 (CEST) [183]

Text has been edited - but reverted back to original version - I found the revised text very successful. At most, another edit/revision would be useful. User158 (discussion) 22:08, 16 May 2022 (CEST) [185]

@User123: I have re-pasted the text as I first read it. User151 has already structured by paragraphs and letters as I understand it. User164 (discussion) 08:58, 17 May 2022 (CEST) [187]

As I understand it, we should modify the adjustments to the text on the page (top left), under "Exercise", not here in on the discussion platform. So far, no changes have been made there. User142 (discussion) 11:13, 17 May 2022 (CEST) [189]

@User142, exactly, now copied once above back to the exercise page and still made changes myself. User123 (discussion) 13:05, 17 May 2022 (CEST) [191]

@User 158 The revised text yesterday was as follows: [194]

"Para. 1: [Punishable by fine under this law]: [...] Whoever makes himself unrecognizable at gatherings of people in public space, namely at meetings or demonstrations requiring a permit. [196]
Par. 2: Anyone who changes his true appearance in such a way that identification is not possible, makes himself unrecognizable. [197]
Par. 3 Exemption permits may be granted by the competent authority, provided that no overriding public or private interests are opposed." [198]
As things stand today, however, further revisions are probably necessary. [199]

-->I have added the, in my opinion, better fitting definition of "makes unidentifiable" User151 (discussion) 8:32, 18 May 2022 (CEST) [201]

Please take a look at the practice page, where we were supposed to make these changes. I referred there to the Regierungsrat as the executive branch of BS as the responsible authority. It is somewhat witless in the standard to speak of a competent authority without regulating which authority is then effectively the competent one. The legal definition was also actually discarded in the discussion in an upper thread, since the term already exists in the StGB and there is case law on it. User123 (discussion) 14:03, 20 May 2022 (CEST) [203]

Here once briefly summarized those points, which according to my understanding so far by most people as good was felt and/or hardly contradicted: [205]

- Sanction: fine [207]
- the suggestion of User128 with "gatherings and processions [208]
- Removal of the legal definition to make it unrecognizable [209]
- Penalty instead of exemption (?) [210]
I allow myself once to write this provisionally once so in the exercise page.... User164 (discussion) 15:52, 20 May 2022 (CEST) [211]

I made another editorial adjustment to the effect that paragraph 1 of the article is the staring norm itself and paragraph 2 is the exception. The sequence of the two paragraphs would not have made sense otherwise. User123 (discussion) 18:18, 21 May 2022 (CEST) [214]

I am against the legal exception as this is a substantive change to the standard. I think the government council should be designated as the competent authority for exception permits User123 (discussion) 18:28, 21 May 2022 (CEST) [216]

I agree with you. I would stay closer to the earlier version. So, for example, change para 2 to "The government council may grant exceptions.", or longer: "The government council may grant exceptions, namely for reasons of native customs." "User140 (discussion) 10:24, 22 May 2022 (CEST)" [218]

@User123 @User140 I agree with you. With the possibility of an exemption permit, there is more leeway if there are newer/different scenarios than Fasnacht where you want to have the option to not punish people. User142 (discussion) 11:49, 22 May 2022 (CEST) [220]

I agree and think an exemption is also better for the reasons already mentioned. --> The wording "The government council can grant exceptions, namely for reasons of native customs." I think is good; on the one hand, this can specifically cover Fasnacht, but on the other hand, it can also cover other gatherings that should not be affected by this norm. User171 (Discussion) 13:07, 22 May 2022 (CEST) [222]

I agree with you and I also think that in the present case the exemption permit is more appropriate. So I like best the version of @User140: "The government council may grant exceptions, namely for reasons of local customs". User131 (Discussion) 17:32, 22 May 2022 (CEST) [224]

I'll change this again then.... User123 (discussion) 18:04, 22 May 2022 (CEST) [226]

I understand your points and they are absolutely understandable, from me it fits. I just wanted to throw this in as a point of discussion. User164 (Discussion) 19:34, 22 May 2022 (CEST) [228]

== Inputs from introductory podcast ==
[230]

The introductory podcast has since been uploaded to OLAT. [231]

Here are brief notes: [233]

Current norm § 11 para. 1 lit. e Übertretungsstrafgesetz (ÜStG) Canton Basel-Stadt. [235]

BGer has commented on this norm in BGE 117 Ia 472 regarding other points. [237]

Task: The norm is to be formulated more narrowly. [239]

Background: To prohibit masking at demonstrations, especially for masked chaotic people who exploit peaceful demonstrations (e.g. May Day demonstrations in Zurich). But: Should of course not affect the Basel Fasnacht. [241]

User164 (Discussion) 11:57, 16 May 2022 (CEST) [243]

: Thanks for your summary. Against this background, would it be necessary to link the punishability not only to the "making unrecognizable", but also to the fact that a certain dangerousness results (so that the Fasnachtler are precisely not covered)? And as soon as someone makes himself unrecognizable at an event and "riots" or participates (unrecognizably) in a "rioting crowd", he is punished? Just a thought - but maybe this is going too far, and it's better to solve the problem via the exception permit...? What do you guys think? User171 (discussion) 13:33, 17 May 2022 (CEST). [245]
@User 171: I would tie the punishability to the criterion of "making unrecognizable" alone and solve the problem better via the exception grant. This way a case-by-case solution can be found by the law-applying authorities. Otherwise, one has to define again what a "riotous crowd" is or when there is a dangerousness etc.. In doing so, it becomes very difficult to impossible for the legislature to cover all possible cases. User142 (discussion) 17:07, 17 May 2022 (CEST) [246]

@User142: Those are good and important points you raise. I agree that you need to solve this problem about "unrecognizing" at events that require a permit, but at the same time provide an exemption permit for carnival, etc. I think with this solution the goal of the standard can be achieved most easily (goal of the standard = 1. no unrecognition at demonstrations, 2. Basler Fasnacht should not be covered). User131 (discussion) 14:29, 19 May 2022 (CEST) [248]

@User 131: I find very good: we could add this in par. 3 User151 (Discussion) 14:54, 19 May 2022 (CEST) [250]

== Finalization ==
[252]

I'm very happy with the current version - I think the discussed points are brought in - Maybe some final feedback/input if someone is not happy with the current version. User158 (Discussion) 22:41, 22 May 2022 (CEST) [253]

Thanks for the new section - I'm very happy with our current version as well. "User140 (discussion) 23:04, 22 May 2022 (CEST)" [255]

For me it fits as well. Only the sub-sentence "is punished according to this law" could also be left out, because it is somehow logical that one is punished according to this law, if the norm is in it. User164 (discussion) 08:09, 23 May 2022 (CEST) [257]

I also think that we have worked out a good final version now. User142 (discussion) 08:40, 23 May 2022 (CEST) [259]

Fits :) User171 (discussion) 09:05, 23 May 2022 (CEST) [261]

I am very happy with the current version as well. User131 (discussion) 09:11, 23 May 2022 (CEST) [263]

Thanks for the feedback - I've taken the suggestion and deleted "under this law" - thanks for the cooperation and good inputs User158 (discussion) 10:24, 23 May 2022 (CEST) [265]

Diskussion:Gruppe6 EN

2023-02-08T10:59:21Z

Wikiadmin: Die Seite wurde neu angelegt: „== Procedure == [1] Good morning [2] Is the small section that is supposed to go towards the veiling ban our text for editing? [4] LG User165 (discussion) 0…“

== Procedure ==
[1]

Good morning [2]

Is the small section that is supposed to go towards the veiling ban our text for editing? [4]

LG User165 (discussion) 08:01, 16 May 2022 (CEST) [6]

My understanding is that this is correct. The small text under the listing of users of group 6. I suggest that we always write changes under the original text, so that we can still see the original at any time. What do you think about this? [9]

Good idea, I would also suggest that we first make sections on individual points here in the discussion, where we can then discuss. User101 (Discussion) 10:19, 16 May 2022 (CEST) [11]

I also think this is a good idea. So should be written directly under each paragraph to be changed or at the very end of the text? Great idea to do a discussion on the paragraphs first. User155 (discussion) 13:48, 16 May 2022 (CEST) [13]

Or does anyone know if in each case the different versions are saved when the text is edited and these can be viewed? Or does a "new" editor only see the revised final product? User155 (Discussion) 13:48, 16 May 2022 (CEST) [15]

Can't answer exactly, however if you enter the character "~" four times in a row i.S.v. "xxxx" you can leave your signature. User165 (discussion) 12:19, 16 May 2022 (CEST) [17]

Alright. And then how do we decide on a final version/create the version for submission? As I understand it,there should just be a text at the end which is also used for ranking. User155 (discussion) 13:48, 16 May 2022 (CEST) [20]

Think we discuss here now and then at the very end write the final version in at the "Page" tab instead of the original text. User165 (discussion) 14:03, 16 May 2022 (CEST) [22]

I would do it the same way. We can create a new section "Final version" at the end at the "Page" tab. User115 (discussion) 16:26, 17 May 2022 (CEST) [24]

Shall we all meet again today Sunday ( 22.5.) suggest 18:00 to agree? User133 (discussion) 14:35, 22 May 2022 (CEST) [26]

== Overview of the elements of crime ==
[28]

For a brief overview, I would suggest that we discuss the elements of the crime in individual sections. These would be (in my opinion) the following: [29]

- Types of assembly (there is already a section) - Act of making unrecognizable - Exceptions [31]

Is there anything missing for you in terms of a delimiting element or similar? User165 (Discussion) 12:22, 16 May 2022 (CEST) [33]

M.E. this listing is complete. User115 (discussion) 16:35, 17 May 2022 (CEST) [35]

== Content introduction video ==
[37]

Are any of you watching the content introduction video on OLAT? This should have been up at 8:00, but nothing is visible on my end yet. Perhaps we should watch this first before jumping into revising the text, as there may be some helpful background information provided. User155 (discussion) 13:49, 16 May 2022 (CEST) [38]

Is there User165 (discussion) 07:49, 17 May 2022 (CEST) [40]

== Exceptions ==
[42]

"Exceptions may be granted." [43]

Here concretization of the exceptions is missing. A reference would be possible, e.g.: [45]

Para. 2: The Federal Council shall determine exceptions. These are subject to approval. [47]

or a (not?) exhaustive list: [49]

Par. 2: Exceptions to the veiling ban include (in particular) veiling for health or metrological reasons, within the framework of folk traditions, or on the basis of official orders. Par. 3: The exceptions are subject to approval. [51]

What should also be added, in my opinion, is the responsibility for the permit. e.g.: [53]

Par. 2/3: The competent authority for the approval of the exceptions is determined by cantonal law. [55]

What do you think is better? and in the list how do you want to supplement/correct it? [57]

User101 (discussion) 10:32, 16 May 2022 (CEST) [59]

The responsibility for granting the permit definitely still needs to be defined: that is, whether the BR can define the exceptions or whether it is the responsibility of the cantons. With the list (I would have said now it would be a non-exhaustive list and one could leave then the "in particular" so) I agree absolutely. By the non-exhaustive list one would still have room for possible further reasons in exceptional cases. User155 (discussion) 13:49, 16 May 2022 (CEST) [61]

In my opinion [63]

"in particular" very good. [65]

No need to specify who determines the exceptions, would standardize them directly in the law and leave enough room for the courts to develop the law à la version "veiling for health or metrological reasons, within the framework of folk traditions or on the basis of official orders". Perhaps I would also add in the sense of a general clause "where the enforcement of the prohibition is unobjectionable from a safety point of view". [67]

User165 (discussion) 12:31, 16 May 2022 (CEST) [69]

Maybe in para 2 you could make a list of fixed exceptions like "Excluded is the wearing of (e.g. face covering) for health, weather, folk traditional reasons, etc. (i.e. things that involve making unrecognizable by e.g. face covering, but which don't have to/can't be approved in individual cases) as well as in private spaces." And in para 3 something like "The Federal Council (or canton/municipality/etc.) may grant further exceptions.", as a catch-all clause? User119 (discussion) 15:31, 16 May 2022 (CEST) [71]

Perhaps we should not provide for exceptions at all, or make exceptions subject to approval? Instead, couldn't we use the criminal law figure of intent and say "Whoever disguises [types of assembly] with the intent to evade identification by the authorities..."? User165 (discussion) 17:06, 16 May 2022 (CEST) [73]

I would still replace with: "by name or in particular" to mark the exceptions as non-exhaustive-> Also, in my opinion, the public health aspects must be taken into account especially in times of a pandemic (very topical) and maybe instead of folk traditional I would write cultural. User133 (discussion) 15:24, 22 May 2022 (CEST) [75]

== Enumeration of types of assemblies ==
[77]

"Assemblies, demonstrations and other gatherings of people requiring a permit". [78]

In my opinion, these terms do not make sense. [80]

- Assemblies requiring a permit: The obligation to obtain a permit is defined by the cantonal or communal authorities. What all falls under this category differs everywhere in Switzerland. - Demonstrations regularly include events that require a permit and are rather a non-technical umbrella term. - Other gatherings of people are then simply the catch-all category, which should be further defined if necessary. In my opinion, however, the term can remain as it is, provided that the enumeration is sensibly designed beforehand. [82]

I would dispense with the term "permit requirement". Instead, a distinction could be made according to how the assemblies are created. [84]

E.g. demonstrations, rallies, public events and other gatherings of people. This also includes spontaneous gatherings of people without a corresponding organization. [86]

What do you think? If necessary, we could also make a separate paragraph with a legal definition? [88]

User101 (Discussion) 10:47, 16 May 2022 (CEST) [90]

Questionable would be then insb. also how the permit requirement for exceptions to the spontaneous gatherings should stand. [92]

True. I meant that for spontaneous rallies generally also no permission must be obtained (only obligation to report that a spontaneous rally is to take place). Then it wouldn't make much sense if the covering had to be approved, but the approval itself not. Otherwise, I am in complete agreement with the enumeration. User155 (discussion) 13:49, 16 May 2022 (CEST) [94]

To more easily get a listing of assembly types, one might first consider what the purpose of the ban on unrecognizable is. In terms of public safety and law enforcement, the background could be that people who have committed crimes in a large crowd are recognized or found in or from the large crowd. Or also that one prevents possible criminal acts by taking away the protection of anonymity by making them unrecognizable. It is questionable at what kind of gathering there are most likely to be potential criminals, and from what size of crowds one does not find them - if they have made themselves unrecognizable? One could say, among others, politically motivated gatherings. Or generally gatherings above a certain (defined) size. But there it is also questionable how far you want to extend the ban or if you want it as specific as possible only for e.g. demonstrations? User119 (discussion) 14:55, 16 May 2022 (CEST) [96]

== Draft 1 ==
[98]

Hello together [99]

I have made a first draft. What do you think? Maybe we can use it for further discussion? [101]

Maybe you can make some more drafts, and we can decide for one of them for further work? User165 (Discussion) 07:57, 17 May 2022 (CEST) [103]

Added a few changes as well. I would delete para 1 and 2 and make para 1 as follows: [105]

1 Whoever makes himself unrecognizable at gatherings of people requiring a permit and other gatherings of people with the intention to prevent identification of his person. [107]

I would have shortened para. 1 and 2 in order to shorten something. Instead of an identification by the authorities I would have suggested only an identification of his person. [109]

Paragraph 3 I would draft as follows: [111]

3 The authorization under paragraph 2 may not be granted if public safety is endangered. [113]

I think that some discretion would be appropriate and therefore chose a "may" provision. [115]

== Draft 2 ==
[117]

Punishment under this Act: [118]

1 Whoever, at gatherings of people requiring a permit and other gatherings of people, disguises himself with the intention of preventing identification of his person. [120]

2 The absence of intent shall be presumed if there is a permit for the disguise. [122]

3 Authorisation in accordance with paragraph 2 may not be granted if public safety is endangered. [124]

4 The authority responsible for authorizing the assembly shall decide on the authorization in accordance with paragraph 2. [126]

My thoughts on the current status: [129]

- If we are of the opinion that not only gatherings requiring a permit but also other gatherings of people should be covered, then we can actually delete the part "requiring a permit and other". It can be argued that the offence should only apply to gatherings of people requiring a permit, as these already represent an increased threat to public safety (hence the requirement for a permit in the first place). [131]

- The limitation of the "making unrecognizable" with the formulation "with the intention of preventing identification of his person" is certainly sensible, but causes problems with regard to the enforcement of the provision. [133]

- Do I understand correctly that the presumption in item 2 is actually pointless, since the burden of proof never lies with the alleged perpetrator anyway? [135]

- No. 3 would perhaps be better formulated in this way: The granting of a permit according to paragraph 2 may be refused if public safety is endangered. User115 (Discussion) 17:26, 17 May 2022 (CEST) [137]

- I agree, the criterion requiring a permit is unfortunate anyway. [140]

- I agree here too, I think it makes more sense to define "unrecognizable". [142]

- Yes, if there is a permit, concealment is permissible, if not it is impermissible (so also the us originally given text). Here, an additional consideration is proposed, according to which an unauthorized disguise is nevertheless permissible, but no criteria are specified for the consideration of interests, which makes the whole thing very unclear again. [144]

- I think your proposal is well formulated. I think you still have to define criteria, according to which the permit is granted (purely for legal protection interests, you have to know how to argue in the application). [146]

- Paragraph 4 should be adapted in such a way that the responsibility for events requiring a permit and those not requiring a permit is applicable. [148]

I would change the text (also with the changes from the chapter below) as follows: [150]

Under this Act shall be punished: [153]

1 Whoever makes himself unrecognizable at meetings. [155]

2 Making oneself unrecognizable includes any process by which the identification of a person is made more difficult, in which essential parts of the face or the overall appearance of this person are covered. [157]

3 Exceptions may be made to the prohibition on disguise. Exceptions are subject to approval. Reasons for granting exceptions are in particular ... . [159]

4 The granting of a permit in accordance with paragraph 3 may be refused in the event of a threat to public safety. [161]

5 The authority responsible for the authorization of assemblies such as the one in question shall decide on the authorization in accordance with paragraph 3. [163]

User101 (Discussion) 15:17, 18 May 2022 (CEST) [165]

In my opinion, a definition of unrecognizable is superfluous, as it entails a lot of text. Moreover, it narrows down a term that in itself tells each person enough about what is punished, precisely unrecognizing, without unnecessarily narrowing it down. This leaves enough room for case-by-case application without having to accept loopholes. In addition, I would summarize paragraphs 3 and 4 as follows: "Paragraph XY: Exceptions to the prohibition of obliteration are subject to authorization. This will only not be granted in the event of a threat to public safety and order." With this wording of the exception, we create a kind of barrier: The very far-reaching prohibition that we have stated, which is supposed to cover all assemblies, is restricted in the same harsh manner for the authorities. The authorities must approve the unmarking if it does not endanger public safety and order, which is the only purpose we are pursuing. Lastly, I would like to address paragraph 5: I find it poorly worded or simply do not understand, unfortunately, what "The authority responsible for authorizing assembly such as the one in question" means. [168]

User165 (discussion) 15:41, 18 May 2022 (CEST) [170]

== Change ==
[172]

Hi everyone I unfortunately discovered the discussion board here only after I made two changes to our draft. [173]

First, I have changed paragraph 1 to refer to assemblies and not gatherings of people. In my eyes, "assembly" is more concrete and therefore more accurate than the term "gathering of people". [175]

Furthermore, I have added a new second paragraph. The aim of this provision is to prevent crimes from being committed more easily under the cover of disguise. This paragraph 2 would express this even more concretely. [177]

What do you think? [179]

Amendments: 1 Who makes himself unrecognizable at meetings requiring a permit, with the intention of preventing an identification of his person. [182]

2 The disguise must be made in order to achieve a violent purpose at the meeting. [184]

I would delete paragraph 2 completely. Torts can also be non-violent, and limiting it to a violent (or any tortious) purpose undermines the general prohibition on mummery of subsection 1 and raises many additional questions. It serves simplicity if no additional criterion is added. User101 (discussion) 15:03, 18 May 2022 (CEST) [186]

Agree with user 101 in this regard. Would like to additionally underline the statement in that para 2 sounds like an intention to me, which is already stated in para 1. P.S. can we all please work with leaving the username, I find clearer User165 (discussion) 15:29, 18 May 2022 (CEST) [188]

I would also delete para 2 and merge it with para 1. I suggest the following wording: [191]

1 Anyone who makes himself unrecognizable at assemblies requiring a permit in order to realize a violent purpose and to prevent identification of his person. [193]

In the realization of the violent purpose would then be included the intention. User 154 [195]

I agree with that. I would also merge paras 1 and 2, otherwise it gets out of hand with the number of paragraphs. User155 (discussion) 14:55, 20 May 2022 (CEST) [197]

And how would it look then regarding the assemblies that could not be granted, since spontaneous @User154? User165 (Discussion) 22:35, 18 May 2022 (CEST) [200]

true, I disregarded them.... @User165 User 154 [202]

How about" who is at events requiring a permit or notification"? A spontaneous demo doesn't require a permit but as far as I know a report still has to be made to the relevant authority before it can take place. User155 (discussion) 14:55, 20 May 2022 (CEST) [204]

Should the provision only apply to gatherings that require a permit? The original text also mentions other gatherings of people, which can be understood to mean that the ban should apply generally when several people gather. Likewise, reasons for the prohibition are not apparent from the original text (regarding para. 2 to realize a violent purpose). This is certainly one aspect of the prohibition, but are we allowed to limit the law in this way? Or should we stick a bit more to the original text? User119 (discussion) 00:14, 21 May 2022 (CEST) [206]

I'm finally getting to the discussion as well (other commitments this week) :D I find the idea of intent quite difficult. It seems to me that the idea behind the draft is, after all, precisely to make mummery suspect, so to speak. The requirement of intent to prevent identification would result in law enforcement having to prove that intent. Wouldn't an exemption option be a better solution here? A la: [208]

Anyone who makes himself unrecognizable in public gatherings will be fined up to ... francs. Those who disguise themselves for cultural or religious purposes are not punished. [210]

Also a reduction to gatherings requiring a permit or notification - as User119 has already suggested - would not correspond to the meaning of the original regulation. This is not only about demonstrations, but also about gatherings after sporting events or the like. User120 (Discussion) 09:18, 21 May 2022 (CEST) [212]

I see exactly the same. Should best cover all gatherings. Would also just use the word "crowds" or "gatherings" in the article for this (see above), as this also covers demos and other types of gatherings. I disagree with the wording "Not punished is anyone who disguises himself for cultural or religious purposes." - In my opinion, this does not allow for further exceptions, resulting in a "stricter" punishment. I would prefer the mechanism with the permit, the arguments for it: Very many events are already permitted anyway (like e.g. the Basler-Fasnacht etc.) or at least regulated by the authorities (football matches). Within the framework of this normal authorization, an authority can easily make an additional statement on unrecognition (little effort and clear responsibility). This creates legal certainty for a large part of the gatherings. For all other (among others spontaneous events) assemblies, a different criterion is needed. With the above mentioned "will not be punished" one excludes a small part from punishability. Conversely, with the intention: in principle, the unrecognizable is not punishable, unless one wants to escape identification by doing so. One takes thus only a small part into the punishability. With regard to proof: the same as with intent in the case of property crimes and the subjective elements of the crime in general: the proof can rarely be provided in a direct form, but one then concludes from the external circumstances to the internal circumstances, as it has always been done and is done. User165 (discussion) 13:39, 21 May 2022 (CEST) [215]

== Draft 3 ==
[217]

I have created (also based on the previous discussion) a new draft 3: [218]

Under this law, punishment is, [220]

who makes himself unrecognizable at meetings, demonstrations and other gatherings of people in public. [222]

Not punished, [224]

who disguises himself for cultural or religious reasons or [226]

who has received an exceptional permit from the competent authority to disguise himself. Permission may be granted if public safety and order are maintained. It specifies the purpose and nature of the disguise. [228]

Thoughts on this: [230]

In my opinion, unrecognition does not have to be defined (cf. User 165). [232]
No restriction to gatherings requiring a permit, instead broad definition of gatherings. Here, however, I have added a criterion of "in public", as I think this is still an essential distinction. [233]
Exceptions to the ban: [234]
religious and/or cultural unrecognizability --> exemption possibility for legitimate purposes. I think these are the two relevant cases, what do you think? Additions welcome. [235]
Authorization by an authority --> Here the idea that organizers can establish legal certainty through authorization. User120 (discussion) 09:44, 21 May 2022 (CEST) [236]
Thanks for the draft! I think you could combine the assembly types and just write "assemblies." --- On the "cultural or religious reasons", I have made comments above --- On the "may" wording in the permit: I would not grant the authority any discretion here, as they have sufficient leeway in interpreting public safety and order. --- Find the draft a bit unstructured. User165 (discussion) 13:43, 21 May 2022 (CEST) [237]

Thanks for your feedback. As I read the original text, the whole point was to create a strict regulation to make it as easy as possible for law enforcement agencies. You can take that politically however you want (personally, I'm critical of it) but I think we need to live up to that sense and create a template that gives authorities appropriate discretion, etc. In that sense, do you want to design a counter draft? User120 (discussion) 16:00, 21 May 2022 (CEST) [239]

== Draft 4 ==
[241]

Here's another draft 4 that also summarizes the thoughts collected so far: [242]

Under this law, it is punishable [...] [244]

1 Who makes himself unrecognizable at gatherings and other gatherings of people in public space requiring a permit. [246]

2 Anyone who makes himself unrecognizable by covering his face or his overall appearance makes identification of his person impossible. [248]

3 This does not apply to disguising oneself for traditional or religious reasons. [250]

4 The competent authority may grant further exceptions, provided that public safety and order are preserved. [252]

Regarding para. 1 This would cover all gatherings of people in public spaces, whether spontaneous or authorized. [255]

Re para. 2 The term 'made impossible' could be replaced by 'made more difficult'. One could also argue with the intention: 'Whoever, with the intention of making the identification of his person impossible, obscures the essential parts of his face or his overall appearance, makes himself unrecognizable.' I think it makes sense to distinguish the concept of making oneself unrecognizable from other concepts such as veiling in the sense of BV 10a. What do you think? [257]

Do you have any additions to paragraph 3? Or this paragraph could also be deleted. What do you think? [259]

Regarding para. 4 I would define the competent authority even more clearly, but since non-permitted assemblies are also covered, the authority that is also responsible for authorizing the assembly cannot be the competent authority. User119 (Discussion) 12:06, 22 May 2022 (CEST) [261]

Re para 2: Find the delineation and definition of unrecognizable is not purposeful. Especially narrowing it down to "obscuring".... one can make oneself unrecognizable e.g. also with make-up. In this respect, I would delete it. [264]

Paragraph 3 and 4 I find good! User165 (Discussion) 13:17, 22 May 2022 (CEST) [266]

Dear All should we write only "make impossible" or also write substantially aggravate? User133 (discussion) 15:02, 22 May 2022 (CEST) [268]

I would have additional suggestions: M.e. Should health aspects be considered in addition to cultural aspects in the exceptions? Furthermore, I would write in paragraph 4 instead of; Provided that public order and safety are preserved. I would write: "Provided that public order and safety are not disturbed" User133 (Discussion) 15:13, 22. May 2022 (CEST) [270]

== Draft 5 ==
[272]

Hi all I made another 5th version. I think the health aspects should also be included in the list of exceptions and I would not choose a conclusive wording but have emphasized this with "by name" and added "the special reasons". In addition, I would find the cultural reasons a bit more appropriate than the term "folktraditional", because in my opinion this is only a subset of cultural. Furthermore, I would like to see "significantly complicate" instead of "make impossible", since this gives us some leeway in the evaluation and the term is not too narrow. Kind regards User133 (Discussion) 16:21, 22 May 2022 [273]

== Discussion on the selection of the final version (05/22-22 all day)==
[275]

Hi all. Think we should slowly decide on a draft? Which one would you guys prefer? User165 (discussion) 13:19, 22 May 2022 (CEST). [276]

I would suggest version 4. Only term subject to approval I would still delete, because it is a reference to cantonal/municipal law and thus not definable from itself. Thank you all :) User101 (discussion) 15:54, 22 May 2022 (CEST) [279]

So can we agree on this version...: [282]

According to this law, it is punished [...] [284]

1 Who makes himself unrecognizable at assemblies in public space. [286]

2 Who makes himself unrecognizable, who makes the identification of his person substantially more difficult. [288]

3 This does not apply to disguising oneself for traditional, religious or health reasons. [290]

4 The competent authority may grant further exceptions, provided that public safety and order are not thereby disturbed. [292]

LG User165 (Discussion) 16:12, 22 May 2022 (CEST) [294]

Input 1: I made another 5th version starting from the 4th version could we consider this as well? User133 (discussion) 16:20, 22 May 2022 (CEST) [297]

Input 2: I have a proposed amendment for 2: "2 Makes himself unrecognizable who makes it difficult to identify himself with the intention of committing crimes". User141 18:31, 22 May 2022 (CEST) [300]

- I would also add intent to para 2 as suggested by User 141. (User 154) [302]

- Thanks @User154. I once planted draft 6 on the page with the suggestion. User141 (discussion) 19:10, 22 May 2022 (CEST) [304]

== Discussion on Monday (23.05.22 08:00-10:00) ==
[306]

Dear all, thank you very much for your great preliminary work! [307]

Could we at most tomorrow at 08:00-10:00 in this section talk about the final version again live and agree on the final version? So that it remains somewhat clear :D Team wööörk. [309]

Would suggest that we each preface the individual comments with "Input 1", "Input 2" etc. in bold. You can write " and " before and after the text part for this. See example below. [311]

P.S. And for all of you, who are visiting for the first time on Monday : After your comment you can write "~ ~ ~" (all together) and then your username + the time will be posted automatically :) Let the discussion begin! :) User141 (discussion) 19:23, 22 May 2022 (CEST) [313]

Input 1: [316]

According to this law, the punishment is [...] [318]

1 Whoever makes himself unrecognizable at assemblies in public space. [320]

2 Who makes himself unrecognizable, who makes the identification of his person substantially more difficult. [322]

3 This does not apply to disguising oneself for traditional, religious or health reasons. [324]

4 The competent authority may grant further exceptions, provided that public safety and order are not thereby disturbed. [326]

I would take this version, however, in para 1 I would not combine the terms 'gatherings requiring a permit' and 'other gatherings of people' into the term 'assemblies', as I do not think these are synonyms. 'Assemblies' are arranged meetings, whereas 'gatherings of people' means a spontaneous gathering of several people. [328]

The definition in para. 2 could be made a bit clearer. One can argue with intention, however, in my opinion, intention should not refer to 'committing crimes', but to the intention to make oneself unrecognizable. I think paras 3 and 4 are good. User119 (discussion) 07:39, 23 May 2022 (CEST) [330]

Comment 1 on input [332]

@User119, so as follows? [334]

According to this law is punished, [...] [336]

1 Who makes himself unrecognizable at gatherings and other gatherings of people in public space requiring a permit. [338]

2 Anyone who intentionally makes the identification of his person significantly more difficult makes himself unrecognizable. [340]

3 This does not apply to disguising oneself for traditional, religious or health reasons. [342]

4 The competent authority may grant further exceptions, provided that public safety and order are not thereby disturbed. [344]

could you bring any other suggestion for para 2 intention? User141 (discussion) 08:15, 23 May 2022 (CEST) [346]

Comment 2 on input [348]

Comment 3 on input [350]

--- [352]

Input 2: Attempt to summarize all inputs on draft 5 and draft 6 [354]

Under this law, the following shall be punished [...] [356]

1 Whoever makes himself unrecognizable at meetings and other gatherings of people in public spaces. [358]

2 Anyone who deliberately makes it impossible or significantly more difficult to identify himself by covering his face or his overall appearance makes himself unrecognizable. [360]

3 This does not apply to making oneself unrecognizable for special reasons, namely for health, cultural and religious reasons. [362]

4 The competent authority may grant further exceptions, provided that public safety and order are not impaired thereby. [364]

User141 (discussion) 08:54, 23 May 2022 (CEST) [366]

Comment 1 on input [368]

Comment 2 on input [370]

Comment 3 on input [372]

--- [374]

Input 3: short title/suggestion/ZF [376]

Comment 1 on input [378]

Comment 2 on input [380]

Comment 3 on input [382]

--- [384]

Please leave underlined template for copying: [387]

Input 4: short title/proposal/ZF [389]

Comment 1 on input [391]

Comment 2 on input [393]

Comment 3 on input [395]

== Vote final version (23.05.22 08:00-09:30) ==
[397]

Why don't you cast your vote for the final version on Monday at 09:30 by noting your username by the version you like the most. User141 (discussion) 19:01, 22 May 2022 (CEST) There are 10 of us, so hopefully there should be 10 votes in the end :D User141 (discussion) 19:03, 22 May 2022 (CEST) [398]

Draft 1: - e.g.: UserXXX ("~ ~ ~" <- just use that) - -. [400]

Draft 2: - - [402]

Draft 3: - - [404]

Draft 4: - - - [406]

Draft 5: - User101 (discussion) 08:11, 23 May 2022 (CEST) -User133 (discussion) 08:17, 23 May 2022 (CEST) (Good teamwork my dears many thanks to all!) - [408]

Draft 6: -User120 (Discussion) 07:26, 23 May 2022 (CEST) (am working today, so already my vote, thanks everyone for yesterday's work!) -User119 (Discussion) 07:47, 23 May 2022 (CEST) (with the adjustments mentioned in Input 1. Am working today as well, so already my input and vote. Thanks everyone for the cooperation) - User165 (discussion) 07:50, 23 May 2022 (CEST) (am not working but think it doesn't get any better and we have done a solid job so far! Thanks everyone!) - join me :) User141 (discussion) 08:16, 23 May 2022 (CEST) - User115 (discussion) 08:29, 23 May 2022 (CEST) User 154 ("User154 (discussion) 09:42, 23 May 2022 (CEST)" thank you all!) [410]

Draft 7: - - [412]

Draft 8: - - - [414]

etc. (please adjust if more drafts/versions are added). [416]

== Publishing our final version on "page" (05/23/22 09:50) ==
[418]

Dears, do you all agree with the following? [419]

Someone from us will publish the final final version on the page at 09:50 as follows: (1) The exercise including all drafts will be "copied" to this post (for preservation :D) (2) The final version will be pasted. [421]

Please briefly for active opposition and otherwise alternative suggestions :D Thanks User141 (discussion) 19:06, 22 May 2022 (CEST) [423]

Input 1: Thank you for the descriptive presentation! Would you adopt this? @User141 (must also work later) User133 (discussion) 08:23, 23 May 2022 (CEST) [425]

Input 2: I tried to combine the two drafts from the voting (5 and 6) and to consider all the inputs that fell to these two times. You can find this variant in "Input 2" of the discussion. I hope that everyone is OK with me publishing this as the final version. You are still welcome to intervene :D [427]

User141 (discussion) 09:51, 23 May 2022 (CEST) [429]

Copy of the exercise: [431]

Exercise Text: [433]

"[Punished under this law is]: [...] [435]

Whoever at meetings requiring a permit, [437]

demonstrations and other gatherings of people. [439]

Exceptions may be granted." [441]

Copy of the drafts: As of 23.05.22 08:30 [443]

Draft 2 Under this law, the following shall be punished: [445]

1 Whoever, at assemblies requiring a permit, with the intention of preventing identification of his person, makes himself unrecognizable. [447]

2 The disguising must be done in order to achieve a violent purpose at the assembly. [449]

3 The absence of the intention to conceal one's own identification is presumed if there is a permit for the disguise. [451]

4 Authorization under paragraph 3 shall not be granted if public safety and order are endangered. [453]

5 The authority responsible for authorising the assembly shall decide on the authorisation in accordance with paragraph 3. [455]

Draft 3 Under this Act shall be punished, [457]

who makes himself unrecognizable at meetings, demonstrations and other gatherings of people in public. [459]

Not punished, [461]

who disguises himself for cultural or religious reasons or [463]

who has received an exceptional permit from the competent authority to disguise himself. Permission may be granted if public safety and order are maintained. It specifies the purpose and nature of the disguise. [465]

Draft 4 Under this Act shall be punished [...]. [467]

1 Anyone who disguises himself at meetings and other gatherings of people in public spaces requiring a permit. [469]

2 Anyone who makes himself unrecognizable by obscuring his face or his overall appearance makes identification of his person impossible. [471]

3 This does not apply to disguising oneself for reasons of folk tradition, religion or health policy. [473]

4 The competent authority may grant further exceptions, provided that public safety and order are preserved. [475]

Draft 5 According to this law is punished, [...] [477]

1 Anyone who disguises himself or herself at meetings and other gatherings of people in public spaces requiring a permit. [479]

2 Anyone who makes himself unrecognizable by covering his face or his overall appearance makes the identification of his person impossible or substantially more difficult. [481]

3 This does not apply to making oneself unrecognizable for special reasons, namely for health, cultural and religious reasons. [483]

4 The competent authority may grant further exceptions, provided that public safety and order are not impaired thereby. [485]

Draft 6 Under this Act shall be punished [...]. [487]

1 Anyone who makes himself unrecognizable at gatherings in public spaces. [489]

2 Who makes himself unrecognizable, who makes the identification of his person with the intention of committing criminal offences more difficult. [491]

3 This does not include disguising oneself for reasons of folk tradition, religion or health. [493]

4 The competent authority may grant further exceptions, provided that public safety and order are not thereby disturbed. [495]

please copy further drafts here (if any are added) [497]

Diskussion:Gruppe5 EN

2023-02-08T10:58:41Z

Wikiadmin: Die Seite wurde neu angelegt: „== Organization == [1] Love all (Dear all) [2] No idea how and when you'll want to work on this assignment next week. Just wanted to give you a heads up: I'm…“

== Organization ==
[1]

Love all (Dear all) [2]

No idea how and when you'll want to work on this assignment next week. Just wanted to give you a heads up: I'm occupied in a seminar all day Monday and Tuesday and won't be able to then. So I should be able to make my contribution sometime later. [4]

User124 (discussion) 10:50, 11 May 2022 (CEST) [6]

Hello all [8]

Finding a common time frame is probably difficult. So everyone should probably check in from time to time to see how things are going. [10]

"User149 (discussion) 08:22, 16 May 2022 (CEST)" [12]

For me that would be so i.O if everyone looks in from time to time. Don't forget to sign your comment with the wave characters. ("User139 (discussion) 13:10, 16 May 2022 (CEST)") [14]

== Exceptions ==
[16]

Find it still good to define the exceptions more precisely (Ex: religious festivals). How would you incorporate these into the structure of the decree? [17]

"User149 (discussion) 08:36, 16 May 2022 (CEST)" [19]

In the exceptions, it would probably also be necessary to determine who can determine these exceptions (the legislature itself, the executive, the administration).User121 (discussion) 08:49, 16 May 2022 (CEST) [21]

I also think that the law should state who can grant exceptions in individual cases. That will presumably be an administrative authority, after all. "Federal agency XY may grant exceptions." In order for the law to be sufficiently definite and predictable, however, the legislator himself would still have to describe in the law under what conditions an exception approval is possible. This would also ensure equality of rights. Or one could make a legislative delegation, i.e. write in that the Federal Council specifies the exceptions in an ordinance. "The Federal Council may provide for exceptions." User107 (discussion) 11:22, 16 May 2022 (CEST) [23]

Wouldn't a cantonal administration be responsible for such a permit? [25]

In view of the principle of legality and the fact that we are in the area of criminal law, I think it is necessary to aim for a high density of regulations. It should be clear which behavior is punishable and which is not. Otherwise, there is probably also a lack of the desired possibility of orientation. Therefore, I would agree with you to mention the exceptions explicitly. I tend rather to provide for them in the law itself with a view to Art. 164 BV or to describe the exceptions at least in the broad outlines. How do you see this? ("User139 (discussion) 13:20, 16 May 2022 (CEST)") [28]

@ User 139 That would mean that you would rewrite the concept of unrecognizable in more detail, so that it is clear which actions are punishable and which are not? Which exceptions would you describe more precisely? It would be conceivable to establish abstract conditions that would allow an exception. Do you mean something like this?User108 (discussion) 09:22, 17 May 2022 (CEST) [30]

I agree that the exceptions need to be defined more precisely. The following aspect is unclear to me and would therefore need to be clarified: According to Art. 1 para. 2, exceptions "may be granted". According to Art. 2, an exception "may exist" in the case of religious celebrations --> Does a permit have to be obtained in every case, even in the case of religious celebrations, for making the image unrecognizable? M.E. it would make sense if a permit is always required. It would also make sense if the authority that issues the permit for the event also decides on the permit for masking at the same time (practicability). At the legislative level, as already mentioned by User 108, abstract conditions should be defined as to when an exception is granted. One such abstract condition could be that the masking is necessary to fulfill the purpose of the authorized event. Religious celebrations can (but do not have to) still be explicitly mentioned. Proposal (considering the structure suggested by user 108): Art. 1: "[According to this law, it is punishable] ... Whoever makes himself unrecognizable at meetings, demonstrations or other gatherings of people requiring a permit Art. 2 para. 1: The authority responsible for the permit of the event in terms of Art. 1 may grant exceptions. Art. 2 Para. 2: An exception is granted if the obscuring is necessary to fulfill the purpose of the event as defined in Art. 1. The exception is granted in particular for religious celebrations, where the unrecognition is part of the religious tradition". [32]

I like your wording very much. Can you make the changes right away?User108 (discussion) 15:08, 17 May 2022 (CEST) [34]

The way Art. 2 para. 2 is worded, then only permissions are possible, if the unrecognition is necessary. Without any leeway. If we want it that way, then that's ok. If this should also be only an example and other exceptions should be possible, I would take the "by name" further forward. So "Art. 2 para. 2: An exception is granted by name if making it unrecognizable is necessary to fulfill the purpose of the event as defined in Art. 1, such as religious celebrations." And: we still have the fundamental problem that also people who wear a big scarf in winter can be punished, or those who (have to) wear a Corona mask. What are we going to do with this? User124 (discussion) 21:22, 17 May 2022 (CEST) [36]

You could also write "an exception may be granted for respectable reasons" or "the competent authority may grant an exception to the ban in justified cases" User108 (discussion) 08:11, 18 May 2022 (CEST) [38]

Find the wording of User108 good. The respectable reasons would probably have to be defined more precisely by case law. Then we can leave out the examples and their reasons (can't anticipate everything, so can leave room for case-by-case justice). "User149 (discussion) 11:41, 18 May 2022 (CEST)" [40]

@User124, m.E. one would have to include a twist in the norm text in those cases, which aims at the motivation of the mummery. Namely, it should be possible for individuals who do not want to do without a scarf or a mask to wear them without making themselves liable to prosecution. The associated impediment to identity or disguise must be in line with the purpose of the corresponding covering object. The practical problem will probably be the determination of the inner will. From the outside, it is not possible to determine the intention or the motive of the covering. For this reason, greater control should be exercised and, for example, it should be stipulated that such persons should be more likely to be stopped by the police, etc., or that the organizers should have a greater obligation to observe such persons within the framework of the rally management, and thus possibly be liable for any damage caused by such persons. However, one would still have to clarify to what extent such a liability is permissible at all, I am unsure about that. In this way, an incentive would be set to keep a closer eye on such persons and the general control generated in this way, based on the panoptic principle, would rather prevent deviant behavior.User116 (discussion) 09:57, 20 May 2022 (CEST) [42]

== Concretization of crowds == (People meetings)
[44]

m.E. the used term "other gatherings of people" is formulated very openly and would have to be concretized or restricted. The (criminal) legality principle should hardly be satisfied by this formulation? User121 (Discussion) 08:44, 16 May 2022 (CEST) [45]

Would it possibly suffice to concretize the term "other gathering of people" in a regulation or through case law? User107 (discussion) 11:39, 16 May 2022 (CEST) [47]

Personally, I understand "other gatherings of people" as a catch-all from the aforementioned assemblies. Such catch-all elements are not new in criminal law and I think they are not per se incompatible with the principle of legality. Therefore, I would leave the term. ("User139 (discussion) 13:37, 16 May 2022 (CEST)") [49]

At most, exemplary enumerations of crowds could also be made, such as demonstrations or sporting events. This would at least somewhat illustrate what could be meant. This especially in light of the fact that Fasnacht and the like are not (supposed to be) included. (Discussion) 20:56, 19 May 2022 (CEST) [51]

I share the opinion of User139, that gathering of people as a catch-all offense does not need to be further specified. Moreover, a gathering can only be subject to authorization if there is an increased public use. Thus, it depends, among other things, on the local space conditions, how many people are perceived as disturbing. "User149 (discussion) 09:29, 20 May 2022 (CEST)" [53]

I agree with User139 and 149. In the end, it's always about authorized events, and it doesn't matter how exactly the term "crowd" is defined. As soon as there is an authorized event, the prohibition of unrecognition applies. User111 [55]

As I understand the text of the norm so far, the obligation to obtain a permit refers only to "assemblies", not to demonstrations and not to other gatherings of people. The purpose of the law is to prevent riots. In my opinion, there would be no need for a catch-all provision, since such riots usually occur in the context of demonstrations and authorized gatherings. I would therefore delete the "other gatherings of people", but expand the demonstrations by "authorized and unauthorized demonstrations". This would cover the main applications of the ban on mummery, but at the same time would not uncontrollably expand the scope of the norm. "User121 (discussion) 07:54, 22 May 2022 (CEST)" [57]

@User 121 Why would the permit requirement only apply to assemblies, but not to demonstrations and other gatherings of people? As I understand the text, all three are covered. Moreover, I am already of the opinion that a catch-all provision makes sense. Even if the riots mostly take place at demonstrations, that's still a long way from being all the cases of application. I think that with the catch-all "other gatherings of people" all kinds of events are covered, which may not have been thought of yet. User111 (Discussion) 12:37, 22 May 2022 (CEST) [59]

@User111 From a purely linguistic point of view, I understood it that way; however, I see that this can also be understood differently and that there is a need for a catch-all standard. "User121 (discussion) 15:24, 22 May 2022 (CEST)" [61]

== Concept of unrecognizability ==
[63]

The term unrecognizability seems to be very vague. A concretization would probably be desirable. How do you see it?User108 (discussion) 09:17, 17 May 2022 (CEST) [64]

M.E. see no need to concretize the concept of unrecognizability further. The requirement of definiteness should not be understood in an absolute way. A general-abstract norm always needs vague terms. The citizen, knowing the norm, must simply know how to direct his behavior. Personally, I think "make unrecognizable" is clear that it must be a mummery, in which the identity of the person concerned is no longer apparent. how do the others see it? "195.176.96.193 08:46, 18 May 2022 (CEST)" [66]

Well, we could title the article "Vermummungsverbot". Then it would be clear what is meant by "make unrecognizable". I don't see any further need for concretization either. User124 (Discussion) 10:34, 18 May 2022 (CEST) [68]

I think the term unrecognizable seems clear enough. In common usage it should be clear what is meant by it, as has already been brought into the field above.User116 (discussion) 09:29, 20 May 2022 (CEST) [70]

Possibly a trivial question, but isn't "mummery" or "unrecognizability" also covered by the newly adopted ban on veiling in public spaces/publicly accessible spaces? Since events requiring a permit necessarily take place in public spaces. This provision is basically about face veiling and presently also or? User125 (discussion) 14:44, 21 May 2022 (CEST) [72]

Thereby are yes then e.g. Fasnachten/Skibekleidung etc. also excluded, since they are culturally anchored. So this also more in terms of exceptions. User125 (Discussion) 14:47, 21 May 2022 (CEST) [74]

== Merging Art. 1 and 2 ==
[76]

I would maybe even merge Art. 1 and 2. Wouldn't it be possible to say in Art. 1 para. 2 exceptions are possible esp. for ...? [77]

I would also merge the two articles, especially because Art. 2 is so short with the possible exceptions. User107 (discussion) 11:26, 16 May 2022 (CEST) [79]

Another possibility would also be to write the principle in Art. 1 for the prohibition and then insert the exceptions in Art. 2: Art. 2 para.1: The competent cantonal authority may provide for exceptions. Art. 2 para. 2: Exceptions can be provided in particular for...User108 (discussion) 11:47, 16 May 2022 (CEST) [81]

I would like the variant of User 108 very much. ("User139 (discussion) 13:22, 16 May 2022 (CEST)") [83]

So should I make the changes in the legal text?User108 (discussion) 09:23, 17 May 2022 (CEST) [85]

I agree with user 108's suggestion as well. Feel free to make the change. [87]

User108's suggestion sounds reasonable. Also, in keeping with the custom, I would divide the article(s) into sections instead of numbers? User121 (discussion) 15:15, 17 May 2022 (CEST) [89]

@user108 Yes, go ahead and make that change, I like it. User124 (discussion) 20:07, 17 May 2022 (CEST) [91]

i think the change is good too. User125 (discussion) 14:37, 21 May 2022 (CEST) [93]

== Concept of the obligation to obtain a permit ==
[95]

To my knowledge, cantonal or even communal(?) law defines the obligation to obtain a permit for demonstrations. Does it make sense to choose a term here, which is defined differently in the cantons? Should the concept of the obligation to obtain a permit be dispensed with? ("User139 (Discussion) 13:34, 16 May 2022 (CEST)") [96]

I'm not sure we know if this is a federal law or a cantonal law. If it were a cantonal law, tying it to the permit requirement would not be problematic.User108 (discussion) 09:26, 17 May 2022 (CEST) [98]

According to the explanations of Prof. Uhlmann, it is the cantonal criminal law of transgressions (Basel Stadt). Thus, it is unproblematic to use the term "subject to approval". [101]

Shouldn't reference be made here to the applicable law/ordinance that governs the requirements for such a permit? Or according to what are the permits issued? On a discretionary basis? And which authority is responsible for issuing one? (Discussion) 21:01, 19 May 2022 (CEST) [103]

@user125 Do you mean the permit for the event? I think this is a permit for increased public use. The granting of the permit is at the discretion of the authority, when exercising liberties there is a conditional right to the granting of the permit. The municipality is responsible for issuing the permit. User107 (Discussion) 09:59, 20 May 2022 (CEST) [105]

What do we actually do with events that do not require a permit? Are we allowed to mask up at those at will? User116 (discussion) 08:16, 21 May 2022 (CEST) [107]

@user116 i would say you can't regulate that. everything that goes under increased public use is subject to permit and falls under this article. for simple public use (i.e. very small gatherings) you can't introduce a permit requirement. but then it's probably not necessary because there are so few people that the police can control them. User124 (discussion) 09:25, 21 May 2022 (CEST) [109]

== other cantonal regulations ==
[111]

I just had a quick look at how other cantons that have a ban on mummery have regulated it. Whether this helps us, I don't know now...? We can probably deduce from this that apparently not too much concretization is necessary... [112]

ZH: § 10. ban on disguising 1 Anyone who disguises himself at meetings, demonstrations and other gatherings of people on public ground requiring a permit shall be punished by a fine. The investigation and assessment of the infringement shall be the responsibility of the governor's office. 2 Exceptions may be granted. [114]

BE: Art. 20 Prohibition of disguise 1 Anyone who disguises himself at meetings or demonstrations requiring a permit shall be liable to a fine. 2 The competent municipal authority may grant exceptions to the ban on disguising oneself if there are worthy reasons for disguising oneself. [116]

LU: (under the chapter "Offences against security") § 9a Disguise 1 Anyone who disguises himself by wearing a disguise at meetings, demonstrations or other gatherings of people on public land requiring a permit shall be liable to a fine. 2 The competent authority may grant exceptions in justified cases. [118]

TG: § 39 Ban on disguising oneself 1 Anyone who disguises himself at gatherings or rallies on public ground requiring a permit shall be liable to a fine. 2 The enforcement of the ban may be waived at the discretion of the police if otherwise the escalation of the situation must be feared. [120]

SO: (under the chapter "Breaches of the public peace") § 21bis Prohibition of disguising oneself 1 Anyone who disguises himself at meetings, demonstrations and other gatherings of people on public ground requiring a permit shall be punished by a fine. Parades and gatherings at which the traditional masking of the face is the actual purpose of the event are exempt. 2 Exceptions may be granted if justified reasons are given for disguising oneself. 3 The police may exceptionally waive the identification of masked persons if the circumstances so require. [122]

SG: Art. 12bis Prohibition of masking 1 Anyone who disguises themselves at meetings or rallies requiring a permit or in the vicinity of sporting or other events shall be liable to a fine. 2 The competent authority may grant exceptions if respectable reasons justify disguising oneself. Carnival and other traditional, folkloric events are not covered by the ban. 3 The police command may refrain from enforcing the ban in individual cases if this appears necessary to prevent escalation. [124]

Art. 12ter Prohibition of face covering 1 Anyone who makes himself unrecognizable by covering his face in public spaces as well as in places accessible to the public and thereby threatens or endangers public safety or religious or social peace shall be punished by a fine. User124 (discussion) 21:05, 17 May 2022 (CEST) [126]

I like the provision of the canton SO much. As I understood Prof. Uhlmann in the video, we don't have to deal with the question of sufficient definiteness of the norm (therefore we don't have to deal with the terms "crowd" and "unrecognizable" any further). Rather, the point is to narrow down the open norm. Occasions such as carnival should not be covered by the offence in the first place. Paragraph 1 of §21bis of the canton SO therefore also excludes parades and gatherings, where the traditional masking of the face is the actual purpose of the event, from the elements of the crime. Because it is not covered by the offence at all, no exception has to be granted for it. This is practical and it is not the aim of the legislator that a masking at the carnival must always be approved first. M.E. also religious celebrations, with which one masks oneself traditionally, could already be excluded. For this, there would be no need for an explicit exception. What the actual purpose of an event is, is in my opinion sufficiently determinable. It would therefore be an idea to formulate Art. 1 as follows: "[According to this law shall be punished]: [...] Whoever makes himself unrecognizable at meetings, demonstrations and other gatherings of people on public ground requiring a permit. Exempted are processions and gatherings where the traditional masking of the face is the actual purpose of the event." Art. 2 on the exceptions to the permit requirement for masking could be worded as follows. Art. 2: "The authority responsible for authorizing the event referred to in Art. 1 may authorize further exceptions if justified reasons are provided." User107 (discussion) 16:15, 19 May 2022 (CEST) [130]

@User 107 I totally agree with you that from a practicability point of view it can't be that the regulation would necessitate a flood of individual permits. The intrument of the permit should be reduced to a minimum accordingly. User116 (Discussion) 19:46, 19 May 2022 (CEST) [132]

@User 107 Also find it pointless if a permit must now be obtained for every event. Therefore I find your formulation, based on that of the canton SO, very good. Thus, a large part of the permits will already be omitted, for events where the permit would be issued anyway. However, I would also explicitly include the religious events, because I do not see them in your formulation as necessarily covered by the exception, since (from my point of view), the masking is not the actual purpose of the religious event (unlike the carnival). Therefore, I would include the exception of religious events in Art. 1 as well. User111 [134]

@User 111 Thank you for your input. You are absolutely right, the very purpose of religious events is not to masquerade. If we include religious events in Art. 1 as well ("Excluded are processions and gatherings where traditional masking of the face is the actual purpose of the event, as well as religious events"), then that would mean that you can always disguise yourself at all religious events without a permit. Wouldn't it therefore be better to simply include religious events in Art. 2 as an explicit example of a "legitimate reason" for which an exception can be granted? This way, one would really only exempt the events where the traditional masking of the face is the actual purpose of the event from the permit requirement. Everything else would have to be dealt with under Art. 2. Art. 2 could read as follows "The authority responsible for licensing the event referred to in Art. 1 may grant further exemptions if justified reasons are invoked. Justified reasons may exist in particular in the case of religious celebrations." Art. 2 could also be divided into 2 paragraphs. User107 (discussion) 15:30, 20 May 2022 (CEST) [136]

== Formulation of the norm ==
[138]

How about we write wording suggestions in here? Then we can decide on a version and make the change.User108 (discussion) 12:29, 20 May 2022 (CEST) [139]

About the method: I am also in favor of a first consolidation at this point. If there is still a need for discussion on the concrete text, you can open a discussion section for the respective text proposal. I propose to list chronologically numbered standard text proposals here (e.g. proposal 1) and to continue the discussion (e.g. discussion on proposal 1) in a corresponding section. At the end we can have different texts to choose from and can select our "favorite text" based on the discussions and release it for submission.User116 (Discussion) 07:28, 21 May 2022 (CEST) [141]

For the sake of readability and clarity, I would like to make it popular to open a separate section for each standard text proposal.User116 (Discussion) 07:31, 21 May 2022 (CEST) [143]

== Proposal 1 ==
[145]

Art.1 [146]

[Punishable by fine under this law]: [...] Whoever disguises himself at gatherings requiring a permit, such as demonstrations or other gatherings of people on public ground. Excluded are processions and gatherings where the traditional masking of the face is the actual purpose of the event. [148]

Art. 2 [151]

Par. 1 The authority responsible for authorizing the event as defined in Art. 1 may grant further exceptions if justified reasons are asserted. [153]

Par. 2 Justified reasons may exist in particular in the case of religious celebrations. [155]

User116 (Discussion) 08:44, 21 May 2022 (CEST) [157]

== Discourse on version 1 ==
[159]

I have added the penalty "fine", which I think was missing. User116 (discussion) 08:26, 21 May 2022 (CEST) [160]

M.E. one should discuss whether the obligation to obtain a permit refers only to assemblies or also to gatherings of people etc.. This does not seem clear to me yet. One could also read the provision in such a way that e.g. only gatherings of people requiring a permit fall under the masking ban and unpermitted ones do not. Possibly a clarification is still to be made here. [162]

A specification would be possible, for example, by adding the word "at". For example, "at meetings requiring a permit, at demonstrations, at gatherings of people". [164]

However, authorized demonstrations etc. should also be included. Therefore, one could also formulate as follows: at gatherings requiring a permit, such as demonstrations or other gatherings of people. [166]

I think especially the unauthorized gatherings of people etc. have a great potential danger for "chaos". Therefore, we should also regulate such gatherings with the masking ban in accordance with the regulatory objective. [168]

Accordingly, I have still adapted the proposal 1. User116 (Discussion) 08:35, 21 May 2022 (CEST) [170]

== Proposal 2 ==
[172]

Art. 1 ban on mummery [173]

1 Anyone who disguises himself at meetings, demonstrations and other gatherings of people on public ground requiring a permit shall be punished by a fine. Exceptions are processions and gatherings where the traditional masking of the face is the actual purpose of the event. [175]

2 The authority responsible for authorizing the event within the meaning of paragraph 1 may grant further exceptions if there are justified reasons, in particular in the case of religious celebrations. [177]

User124 (discussion) 09:49, 21 May 2022 (CEST) [179]

== Discussion on proposal 2 ==
[181]

I didn't reinvent proposal 1. Just structured it a bit differently. I would still put the whole thing under the title "Vermummungsverbot". To clarify what we actually want to ban. And I wouldn't make two different articles. After all, it's not a whole law on the ban on mummery (I assume), but the ban on mummery is simply a part in the police law. User124 (discussion) 09:52, 21 May 2022 (CEST) [182]

I think suggestion 2 is a good one. The article is one of many in the cantonal transgression criminal law. So it really makes more sense to have it all in one article in two paragraphs. The title is also good. Paragraph 2 could possibly be made into two sentences. "The authority responsible for authorizing the event as defined in Art. 1 may grant further exceptions if justified reasons are asserted. Justified reasons may exist in particular in the case of religious celebrations." User107 (discussion) 10:57, 21 May 2022 (CEST) [184]

i think the change to the article is good, it provides more clarity especially regarding exceptions. User125 (discussion) 14:51, 21 May 2022 (CEST) [186]

I think proposal 2 is also good, two articles are not necessary in my opinion. But I agree with User107 that it is clearer if we split para 2 into two sentences. User111 (discussion) 17:33, 21 May 2022 (CEST) [188]

I think proposal 2 is good too. Putting it in one article already makes sense. User116 (discussion) 06:55, 22 May 2022 (CEST) [190]

I think proposal 2 is good too. Just one note: I would not write "the actual purpose" but "part of the purpose". Masking is rarely the main purpose (i.e. the actual purpose) of a meeting but only a part of it. [192]

In principle, I agree with putting the regulation in one article. Personally, I still find something disturbing how the exceptions are regulated. Paragraph 1 sentence 2 already provides for an exception (and then specifically only on traditional?) Personally, I would include the exceptions only in paragraph 2. I think it makes the most sense if the decision of the authorization lies with the competent authority. This can probably in individual cases best the vers. Interests against each other. (my suggestion see suggestion 3)("83.78.59.50 20:51, 22. May 2022 (CEST)") [195]

== Levy ==
[197]

We must not forget to change the "official" text. Should we leave the discussion open until 8pm tonight and then someone could adjust the text tonight or Monday morning with any input that exists by then? [198]

Personally, I think 20:00 is too early. I would like to add sth.and can't look over it until later. [200]

== Summary of the suggestions ==
[202]

I have summarized your suggestions in one text: [203]

Art.1 Ban on mummery [205]

1 [According to this law is punished with a fine]: [...] Whoever disguises himself at meetings, demonstrations and other gatherings of people on public ground requiring a permit. Exceptions are processions and gatherings where the traditional masking of the face is part of the purpose of the event. [207]

2 The authority responsible for authorising the event within the meaning of Article 1 may grant further exceptions if justified reasons are given. Justified reasons may exist in particular in the case of religious celebrations. [209]

If no further suggestions are received I can make the change in the main text tomorrow morning. [211]

User108 (discussion) 20:10, 22 May 2022 (CEST) [214]

I have another suggestion 3. Maybe you can still express your opinion about it? ("83.78.59.50 20:52, 22 May 2022 (CEST)") [218]

== Transitional/final provisions? ==
[220]

With regard to the implementation of the ban on face coverings (Art. 10a BV; referendum of March 7, 2021), would transitional or final provisions have to be created? [221]

The implementation of the initiative is planned through Art. 332a E-StGB (cf. https://www.bj.admin.ch/bj/de/home/aktuell/mm.msg-id-85515.html). Due to the numerous exceptions, the wording of Art. 332a E-StGB is likely to be less far-reaching than the norm we are drafting here. In my opinion, it is an open question whether the cantons may tighten this provision or whether there is no room left for cantonal regulations. In the second case, federal law would take precedence over cantonal regulations due to its derogatory effect (see also Explanatory Report on the Opening of the FOJ Consultation Procedure of 20 October 2021, para. 6.2.). In this case, would it be necessary to stipulate that the regulation ceases to apply when Art. 332a E-StGB enters into force? How do you see this? "User121 (discussion) 10:21, 22 May 2022 (CEST)" [223]

I think there is no need for final/transitional provisions. The task at hand is merely about "improving" a single norm within a law.User108 (discussion) 21:14, 22 May 2022 (CEST) [226]

== Proposal 3 ==
[228]

Art.1 Prohibition of mummery [229]

1 [Punishable by fine under this law]: [...] Whoever disguises himself at gatherings requiring a permit, such as demonstrations or other gatherings of people on public ground. [231]

2 The authority responsible for licensing the event within the meaning of para. 1 may grant further exceptions if justified reasons are asserted. [233]

3 Legitimate reasons include, in particular, religious celebrations, local customs, climatic conditions or health measures. " "178.197.216.171 21:23, 22 May 2022 (CEST)" (User 139) [235]

Paragraph 3 is intended to meet the requirement for definiteness. So it gives some nudge/idea as to when an exception might exist. The enumeration should not be exhaustive (therefore by name) and the authority would still be entitled to weigh and decide in individual cases whether there is a legitimate reason in the specific case. "178.197.216.171 21:23, 22 May 2022 (CEST)" (User 139) [238]

I think your suggestion is good.However, I would then delete the word "further" in para. 2 from the legal text, because it no longer fits.User108 (discussion) 21:17, 22 May 2022 (CEST) [240]

== Conclusion ==
[242]

Shall we vote which of the 3 proposals we think is best? Then we can change the text tomorrow morning. ("178.197.216.171 21:26, 22 May 2022 (CEST)") [243]

I think it's good. I am in favor of the suggestion made by user 108 (summary of suggestions). [245]

Good idea. Methodology: everyone has two votes and can distribute them as they like or how do you want to do this? "User121 (discussion) 21:43, 22 May 2022 (CEST)" [247]

Since no one has come forward and at least I won't have time later, I have adjusted the official text once according to suggestion 3. If more people come forward later and are in favor of another proposal, the text can simply be adjusted again. [249]

I find the current proposal very good, I have only written out the abbreviation "i.S.v.", since such abbreviations are not used in laws in principle. "User111 (discussion) 08:01, 23 May 2022 (CEST)" [251]

I think the current proposal is good too. Thanks for the change!User108 (discussion) 08:07, 23 May 2022 (CEST) [254]

I am also for proposal 3 (current change) [257]

Great, thank you guys! User124 (discussion) 08:28, 23 May 2022 (CEST) [259]

Thanks, agree with it as well. I still added "buses", which obviously got lost somewhere. User116 (discussion) 08:31, 23 May 2022 (CEST) [261]

Perfect, thanks to all involved. "User121 (discussion) 08:50, 23 May 2022 (CEST)" [263]

A bit late, but I think the change is good too. Thank you very much. User125 (discussion) 09:21, 23 May 2022 (CEST) [265]

Thank you for accepting the change. It is soon levy and I would also no longer make a change, but the definitive proposal I now understand again that a permit must be obtained for mummery, for example, at the carnival. Because it is listed as a legitimate reason for a permit in paragraph 3. Wasn't the idea to exempt such events as the carnival already in a first step from the obligation to obtain a permit and not only to list them as a justified reason for obtaining a permit? The expansion of the reasons to include native customs, climatic conditions or health measures I find good. User107 (discussion) 09:33, 23 May 2022 (CEST) [267]

Diskussion:Gruppe4 EN

2023-02-08T10:58:10Z

Wikiadmin: Die Seite wurde neu angelegt: „== Test == [1] First attempt to write something here. "User147 (discussion) 01:00, 15 May 2022 (CEST)" [2] First attempt to reply here. -- User 138 [4] ": Te…“

== Test ==
[1]

First attempt to write something here. "User147 (discussion) 01:00, 15 May 2022 (CEST)" [2]

First attempt to reply here. -- User 138 [4]
": Test" "User167 (discussion) 13:53, 16 May 2022 (CEST)" [5]

Test User147 (discussion) 09:25, 22 May 2022 (CEST). [7]

== Test ==
[9]

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 User103 (discussion) 13:45, 16 May 2022 (CEST) [10]

== Other crowds ==
[12]

I don't like the wording "meetings, demonstrations and other gatherings of people requiring a permit". Especially also the order of enumeration. [13]

Perhaps the wording; "Who makes himself unrecognizable in gatherings of people" and then in an additional paragraph a legal definition of gatherings of people, possibly with an enumeration of examples of what would fall under it, would be better. [15]

Assuming that the purpose of this norm/law is to prevent/minimize the risk of violence and escalation in larger groups (e.g. football scene, May Day, etc.), then this should also be evident from the norm that it only applies to large gatherings of people. [17]

What do you think? -- User 138 [19]

: I like your approach. However, I wonder whether we are not unnecessarily dragging out the text with a legal definition. Does "crowds" need to be specified at all, or wouldn't "who makes himself unrecognizable at crowds requiring a permit" already be understandable? User161 (discussion) 08:33, 16 May 2022 (CEST) [21]
:: Understand your concerns. Of course the standard should not become too long. But doubt that "gatherings of people requiring a permit" would cover the potential for violence and escalation from a group of fans rioting masked around the venue of a sporting event. That would be a spontaneous gathering of people. User 138 08:56, 16 May 2022 (CEST) [22]
::: That's true, of course. But just because a gathering of people "spontaneously forms" doesn't mean it wouldn't require a permit per se. I think that the term "subject to authorization" could be used to narrow down those gatherings that have a certain size and actually pose a potential danger. In doing so, I assume that we can rely on an existing ordinance on the use of public land - or is this also part of our task here? After all, the standard should not be too vague. On the other hand, we also have to be careful not to create any loopholes. What would your legal definition look like? User161 (discussion) 09:15, 16 May 2022 (CEST). [23]
:::: I would have worded it like this: [24]
"[Punished under this law is]: [...] [25]

Who makes himself unrecognizable in crowds. [27]

A gathering of people is a group of people in which the number of individuals cannot be determined at first glance. In particular, this includes gatherings and demonstrations that require a permit. [29]

Exceptions may be granted." [31]

But I like your argument with the reference to the ordinance. In the canton of Zurich, this would be the special use ordinance. A permit is required if the public land is used excessively, the use is contrary to the intended purpose or others are excluded from its use.This requirement would not be necessary with my proposal. With this open formulation, I would like to counter the danger that the potential for violence increases with "hooded" groups (due to group dynamics and anonymity), regardless of how much they use the public ground.Your formulation would therefore certainly be narrower than my legal definition. Our discussion is also about proportionality, what gatherings actually need to be encompassed. User 138 11:10, 16 May 2022 (CEST) [33]

::::: i have only now seen the content introduction video by Professor Uhlmann. If the scope is to be narrowed so that the Basler Fasnacht is not included, the wording in my proposal is of course much too broad.User 138 18:09, 16 May 2022 (CEST) [35]

== Freedom of expression ==
[38]

In my opinion, freedom of expression is at least marginally affected by this norm. For example, during environmental/climate change demonstrations, it always happens that participants dress up (e.g. white full-body suits with hood and gas mask) to express the threat of environmental pollution. One could possibly soften this issue somewhat by writing "who makes his face... unrecognizable" instead of "who makes himself... unrecognizable". This could clarify that disguises are not prohibited per se. User161 (discussion) 08:44, 16 May 2022 (CEST) [39]

:Sensible suggestion that can still be used to further achieve the norm's purpose! With the specification "who makes his face... unrecognizable" there are also fewer interpretation difficulties regarding the question of what counts as "making unrecognizable". User157 (discussion) 17:16, 16 May 2022 (CEST) [41]

::: As already written under the chapter "making unrecognizable", I think the wording "who makes his face unrecognizable" is too narrow. What do you think of "who makes himself so unrecognizable that identification of the person is made considerably more difficult". After all, the point is that hooded chaotic people do not take advantage of a peaceful demo and possibly commit crimes as part of the protection of the demo. In order for a crime to be prosecuted appropriately, it must be possible to identify the perpetrator. Therefore, the focus of the standard is probably that it is possible to prosecute crimes appropriately. User103 (discussion) 18:30, 17 May 2022 (CEST). [43]

== How do we want to proceed? ==
[45]

Do we want to agree on a specific day with time on which we can work together on the text, or should everyone just edit the text during that week when they have time? User103 (Discussion) 11:15, 16 May 2022 (CEST) [46]

I think it's better if basically everyone edits the text when they have time. But maybe it would be good to have a provisional final version a day or two before the submission date. If there are any suggestions for improvement then, we can always implement them. "User167 (discussion) 14:03, 16 May 2022 (CEST)" [48]

: I'll open a section with solution variants. Explicit solution suggestions can be placed there. Then we can vote on which solution to submit on Monday. User138 (discussion) 09:37, 21 May 2022 (CEST)" [50]

== "make unrecognizable" ==
[52]

I think the legal text would have to be more specific about the cases in which making unrecognizable is punishable. After all, this article really only wants to cover cases in which people make themselves unrecognizable in order to riot or otherwise commit violent acts. As already mentioned, dressing up at the Basel carnival, for example, cannot fall under this. In my opinion, the reason for disguising oneself should be listed as a prerequisite. So for example "if one makes oneself unrecognizable, in order not to be recognized with punishable actions" or the like. Another possibility would also be to list counter-exceptions in which disguising oneself is not punishable. In my opinion, this is the worse option, because it is difficult to include everything... What do you guys think? "User167 (discussion) 14:43, 16 May 2022 (CEST)" [53]

: This proposal would require that the intent of the people involved be proven in each case. This opens up possibilities for circumvention ("The purpose of the unidentification was not, after all, the commission of a criminal act..."). The effectiveness of the norm is probably weakened. User157 (discussion) 17:13, 16 May 2022 (CEST)" [55]
:::: I also think that the legal text needs to be more concrete regarding what exactly is meant by making unrecognizable. However, I find the idea of user 157 with the suggestion "who makes his face unrecognizable" too strong a restriction. The sense of the norm is probably that one remains recognizable for the police so that an identification of a possible offender is possible. Therefore my suggestion: "who makes himself so unrecognizable that an identification of the person is significantly impeded". User103 (Discussion) 17:54, 17 May 2022 (CEST) [56]
::::: I like the approach of specifying the cases of making oneself unrecognizable. Regarding the suggestion of User 103, m.E. the problem of the Basler Fasnacht is not solved here, because even with Fasnacht disguises there is the problem that it is more difficult to identify the persons. The unrecognizable should refer, as already mentioned several times, to possible criminal proceedings. Possibly a combination of the formulations of User 167 and User 103 would be the solution: "if one makes oneself unrecognizable and thereby makes identification by law enforcement authorities more difficult in the case of criminal acts." User 138 10:27, 18 May 2022 (CEST) [57]
:::::: I like the suggestion of User 138 to replace the text module "make unrecognizable" with "if one makes oneself unrecognizable and thereby makes identification by law enforcement authorities more difficult in the case of criminal acts" and I think one could definitely change it that way and submit it that way on Monday. User103 (discussion) 19:31, 18 May 2022 (CEST) [58]
::::::: "Make unrecognizable" is too ambiguous, we agree on that. But you'd also have to ask what exactly "make unrecognizable" encompasses: Only the face or a whole change of the body by disguise, costumes etc.? I think it goes too far to speak only of "making unrecognizable", and would have to restrict it to the face. Otherwise, a shapeless black hoodie with a cap and baggy jeans could also fall under "making unrecognizable", as I would certainly no longer be recognized with it (changes my appearance). The question is whether that should be covered as well. Leads to more ambiguity. Also, if it were limited only to the face, the question is whether any disguise would be covered, or whether only disguise and masks would be covered. After all, with makeup, the face can look different. But the proposal of user 138 is good, it leaves this question open and if someone has a good concretization to the veiling, gladly, otherwise I would adapt it as follows: "Who makes his face unrecognizable and thereby in criminal acts an identification by law enforcement impedes." Otherwise, it goes too far m.M.n. [59]
:::::::: I think the above suggestion with the more precise definition of which external features the "making unrecognizable" should refer to also makes sense. As mentioned above, it makes sense to limit the "making unrecognizable" to the face. This is because on the identity cards and identification cards also only faces are photographed and serve the authorities to clarify the identity. The restriction of disguise in relation to criminal acts, however, I do not find sensible. I imagine a situation in which a surveillance video of a gathering of people is evaluated by the investigating authorities. Here, it is not only a matter of determining the identity of a criminal, but also the identity of witnesses, helpers etc. Without such a possibility of identification of all participants, a subsequent invitation to an interrogation becomes difficult.User105 (discussion) 11:23, 20 May 2022 (CEST) [60]
::::::::: I think the restriction to facially unidentifiable makes sense. Restricting it to felonies or criminal acts I also find sensible and would leave it as is. In my opinion it would go too far if witnesses and helpers would be punished under this provision if they have their faces unrecognizable. Moreover, in my opinion and interpretation, with the wording, "whoever makes his face unrecognizable and thereby makes identification by law enforcement authorities more difficult in the case of criminal acts." the offense is not limited to criminals. Would not place a personnel restriction in the wording either. However, I am of the opinion that only those can be punished who (possibly) intentionally disguise themselves in order to make prosecution more difficult in the case of criminal acts. According to my interpretation, this could also include witnesses. Perhaps an adjustment of the wording is still necessary in this regard. User138 9:30, 21 May 2022 (CEST) [61]
:::::::::: With User138's text module ("who makes his face unrecognizable and thereby makes identification by law enforcement authorities more difficult in the case of criminal acts"), the standard is not limited to defendants, which makes sense. Here is a suggestion for a linguistically even more elegant formulation: "who makes his face unrecognizable and thereby makes identification by law enforcement authorities in connection with criminal acts more difficult" User157 (discussion) 22:58, 22 May 2022 (CEST) [62]

== Basel carnival as an exception ==
[64]

What do you think of the solution to explicitly include Basler Fasnacht as an exception. A reference to the wording of the veiling ban in Art. 10a para. 3 BV, in which the native customs are also exempted. [65]

I consider it problematic that a loophole would arise in the event of riots at the Basel carnival. In order to prevent such loopholes, I think the solution proposed in the discussion around ("make unrecognizable") would be better. User 138 12:00, 17 May 2022 (CEST) [67]

::: I don't know if it makes sense to explicitly mention the Basel Fasnacht as an exception. According to the video of Mr. Uhlmann, the norm is about the fact that gatherings, such as the Basel Fasnacht, should not be covered by the text of the law. Rather, the norm concerns the fact that masked chaots sneak in among a peaceful demonstration and then perhaps commit crimes. According to Mr. Uhlmann, the norm we are working on is more narrowly defined (so that the Basel Fasnacht is precisely not supposed to fall under it). User103 (discussion) 18:12, 17 May 2022 (CEST). [69]
:::: Agreed, mentioning exceptions specifically makes less sense in my opinion, think we would rather have to concretize "crowds" somehow. User114 (discussion) 11:22, 21 May 2022 (CEST)~ [70]
:::: Agreed. While the Basel Fasnacht is a suitable exception, it is also one of many. I would make the standard narrower. Possibly a legal definition would be useful, but one would have to be careful that it does not go too far User147 (discussion) 09:28, 22 May 2022 (CEST) [71]

== Proposed solutions ==
[73]

Variant 1: [74]

"[Under this law is punished by fine]: [...] [76]

Whoever, at assemblies requiring a permit, [78]

demonstrations and other gatherings of people that require a permit, disguises his or her face in order to prevent identification by the police in the event of a criminal offence. [80]

law enforcement authorities more difficult." User138 09:45, 21 May 2022 (CEST) [82]

: I think this variant is good, especially that you also mentioned the fine, since in my opinion the penalty range is a mandatory part of a penalty provision. However, I would simply replace the part "meetings, demonstrations and other gatherings of people requiring a permit" with "gatherings of people" and add below it a legal definition, as suggested above, as follows: [85]
: "A gathering of people is a group of people in which the number of individuals cannot be ascertained at a glance." Whereby I would omit the part with "Falling by name..." as this unnecessarily drags out the legal text. User145 (discussion) 13:00, 21 May 2022 (CEST) [86]

:: For reasons I have already explained under the Title "Other gatherings of people", I would use the wording "gathering of people requiring a permit". If we write an intent to thwart identification into the law, that intent must also be proven (User157 has also already noted under "make unrecognizable"). In my opinion, this makes it unnecessarily difficult for practice. Perhaps instead of writing this as intent, one could write it as purpose and then use the original wording "exceptions may be approved". This gives the authorities the admittedly large but necessary discretion to make appropriate exceptions, such as the Basel Fasnacht. At the same time, the standard provides a guideline for exemptions, namely events where criminal acts are not typically expected. My suggestion for this: [88]

:: Variant 2: [90]
:: "For the purpose of identification of persons by law enforcement authorities, this law punishes with a fine: [91]
:: Whoever makes his face unrecognizable at gatherings of people requiring a permit. [92]
:: Exceptions may be granted" User161 (discussion) 15:20, 21 May 2022 (CEST). [93]
:: I see the intent issue with Var. 1 the same way, but the wording of Var. 2 goes too far and endangers legal certainty. This would mean that you don't know in advance if you will be punished for covering your face in a crowd (since person identification usually happens afterwards). But it should not be forbidden in general, but only if in connection with it criminal offences would be committed and the prosecution would be made more difficult (this is how I interpret our discussion). I think it is already enough to replace the word "in order to" with "and" in Var. 1. The enumeration of the different assemblies is superfluous in my opinion, since they all mean the same thing. -> [94]
Var. 3: "[According to this law is punished with fine]: [...] [95]

Who makes the face unrecognizable at assemblies requiring a permit and thereby in the case of criminal acts an identification through the [97]

law enforcement authorities more difficult." "User132 (discussion) 22:01, 21 May 2022 (CEST)" [99]

: Yes, the intent issue is indeed true. However, as User132 suggested, I would also just replace "in order to" with "and", thus this issue is already solved in my opinion.User145 (discussion) 09:29, 22 May 2022 (CEST) [101]
Variant 4: [102]

"[Under this law is punished by fine]: [...] [104]

1 Whoever makes the face unrecognizable at gatherings of people requiring a permit and thus makes identification by law enforcement authorities in connection with criminal acts more difficult." [106]

A crowd is a group of people in which the number of individuals cannot be determined at first glance. [108]

2 The face shall be made recognizable when requested by the authority for the purpose of identifying the person [110]

User147 (discussion) 09:35, 22 May 2022 (CEST) [112]

: I'm in favor of variant 4. I think this wording is best. However, so that para 1 is not so long, I would put the legal definition alone in a paragraph (para 1bis or para 2). In addition, according to me, it should be "aggravated" and not "to aggravate". User138 (discussion) 10:52, 22 May 2022 (CEST) [114]
:::: I think var. 4 is good too. I also assume that "zu erschweren" was a careless mistake and that "erschwert" was meant. If one follows the Eugen Huber rule, the legal definition of crowd should be in a separate paragraph. As suggested by User 138, I would use paragraph 1bis for the legal definition of crowd. User103 (discussion) 22:09, 22 May 2022 (CEST) [115]
::::: i have tentatively entered var 4 with the legal definition as para 1bis as a proposed solution on our group page and tried my hand at formatting it. So that we can submit something tomorrow for sure. Changes are still welcome to be made or the variant changed should another majority opinion emerge. Good night :) User138 (discussion) 22:28, 22 May 2022 (CEST). [116]
::::: Thanks User138 for preparing the proposed solution. I made another linguistic adjustment in para 1 2nd TS ("and thereby makes identification by law enforcement authorities in connection with criminal acts more difficult." instead of "and thereby makes identification by law enforcement authorities in connection with criminal acts more difficult."). If that's okay with you, we could adjust the proposed solution accordingly tomorrow morning. User157 (discussion) 23:04, 22 May 2022 (CEST). [117]
:::::: In the absence of any contrary comments, I have adjusted this accordingly in the proposed solution. User157 (discussion) 07:54, 23 May 2022 (CEST) [118]
::::::: I think variant 4 is good too. I just wonder if it would make more sense to make it a paragraph 2 instead of paragraph 1bis. I had in mind that this instrument of "until" is used for insertions in already existing laws, in order not to have to revise the existing structure completely. Since we write here however a completely new article, I would create without "to". What do you think about this?User105 (discussion) 08:04, 23 May 2022 (CEST) [119]
::::::: I agree that we should not create a para 1bis, but a para 2 and then continue with para 3. "User167 (discussion) 08:21, 23 May 2022 (CEST)" [120]
::::::: I have adjusted the paragraph numbers accordingly. User157 (discussion) 08:56, 23 May 2022 (CEST) [121]

== Penalty ==
[123]

The original version says "[Under this law, punishment is]: [...] - but how high the punishment could be does not say. The penalty range is also an important part of a penalty provision and should/must also be regulated in the law. M.E. the fine is the appropriate punishment here. User138 09:50, 21 May 2022 (CEST) [124]

This has already been considered in the variant solutions "[Under this law, punishment is by fine]". However, I agree with you that in casu the penalty type of the fine is appropriate User147 (discussion) 09:36, 22 May 2022 (CEST) [126]

== Exceptions ==
[128]

The wording of the exception set out in the proposed solution is not entirely workable I think. So for each approval of a meeting would also have to be processed umpteen Ausnhamegesuche, because, for example, people want to disguise their face at the carnival, etc.. I find it more successful to directly introduce a general catalog of exceptions. Or we leave out the exceptions, because according to the wording of the variant, face covering is only punishable if a crime is committed. I.e., it is grds. permitted, but no longer, if one commits criminal offences. Then there is no need for exceptions. What would still make sense in my opinion, however, is the obligation to make the face identifiable upon request by the authorities. [129]

"Par. 2: The face shall be made recognizable upon request by the authorities for the purpose of identifying the person." "User132 (discussion) 22:12, 21 May 2022 (CEST)" [131]

I agree that you should either make a specific list of exceptions or otherwise leave the exceptions out altogether. However, I agree with you that the exceptions are not strictly necessary, since the veiling is punishable only when a crime is committed. I think the paragraph 2 is good. User147 (discussion) 09:40, 22 May 2022 (CEST) [133]

:: I agree with User132 here. I do not support a separate list of exceptions either. User132's proposed paragraph 2 ensures that law enforcement has another way to identify people. However, in my view, this simultaneously forms a further condition for criminal liability. One could combine User132's proposal with our existing paragraph 1 and say: [135]
:: "[Punishable by fine under this Act]: [...] [136]
:: Whoever, in the case of criminal acts, makes identification by law enforcement authorities more difficult by making his face unrecognizable at gatherings requiring a permit or by failing to make his face recognizable when requested by the authorities for the purpose of identification.User105 (discussion) 19:43, 22 May 2022 (CEST) [137]
::: I agree that you should leave out the exception right away, in particular you should not include a catalog of exceptions, because it will not be possible to anticipate all possible variants of exceptions with a catalog of exceptions. The general wording "exceptions may be granted" does not add any value, as this wording is so vague that it unnecessarily drags out the legislative text. User103 (discussion) 22:01, 22 May 2022 (CEST) [138]
:::: I find User 105's suggestion very successful. On re-reading it, I noticed that in my variant, abs. 2 sounds a bit bumpy, or doesn't quite fit with abs. 1. This way, on the other hand, it is coherent and unifies under abs. 1. I will make this adjustment if that is okay with everyone. "89.206.112.12 08:52, 23 May 2022 (CEST)" [139]

== Veiling ban St. Gallen ==
[142]

The canton of St. Gallen also has a veiling ban since 2019. It is paraphrased as follows: "1 Anyone who makes himself unrecognizable by covering his face in public spaces as well as in places accessible to the public and thereby threatens or endangers public safety or religious or social peace shall be punished by a fine." I wonder if the reference "and thereby threatens or endangers public safety or religious or social peace" or similar would also still make sense. What do you guys think about this? User114 (discussion) 21:11, 22 May 2022 (CEST) [143]

:: In my opinion we can leave it out. It is irrelevant in our wording, or with a criminal offense you already endanger public safety and you don't need to write it in again additionally. "89.206.112.12 08:54, 23. May 2022 (CEST)" (User 132, somehow the signature does not work correctly for me) [145]

Diskussion:Gruppe3 EN

2023-02-08T10:57:47Z

Wikiadmin: Die Seite wurde neu angelegt: „== Hello all == [1] I'm testing how this works and if you can read this entry. Who can read this and reply? [2] Hey! Can read your post and reply to you this…“

== Hello all ==
[1]

I'm testing how this works and if you can read this entry. Who can read this and reply? [2]

Hey! Can read your post and reply to you this way. Is that the idea? User122 (discussion) 16:30, 11 May 2022 (CEST) [4]

: Very good that you could read my entry and replied. Your entry looks good. I hope you can see that I made a new entry. User126 (discussion) 16:30, 12 May 2022 (CEST). [6]
How about the others, can you read along and reply as well? User126 (discussion) 17:14, 13 May 2022 (CEST) [7]

It works for me too. User106 (discussion) 10:28, 16 May 2022 (CEST) [9]

I can read it too. User143 (discussion) 10:31, 16 May 2022 (CEST) [11]

I can read it too. User144 (discussion) [13]

It works for me as well. User136 (Discussion) 18:09, 16 May 2022 (CEST) [15]

It works for me too. [17]

Works for me as well. User110 (Discussion) 13:49, 17 May 2022 (CEST) [19]

Test User170 [21]

Sorry folks, I only just noticed that the exercise has already started. I will read in and familiarize myself with the software. User153 (discussion) 09:59, 19 May 2022 (CEST) [23]

Source text(Kantonales Übertretungsstrafrecht des Kt. Basel Stadt): "[According to this law is punished]: [...] [25]

Whoever, at gatherings requiring a permit, [27]

demonstrations and other gatherings of people. [29]

Exceptions may be granted." [31]

Goal: Prevention of masked chaotic people or ban on masking threatened with punishment. [34]

== Editing suggestions ==
[36]

Perhaps everyone can briefly state here which deficiencies they notice and add to them: [37]

First sentence: [39]

: Contains vague legal terms "meetings, demonstrations and other gatherings of people requiring a permit". [41]
: It is not apparent what exactly "subject to authorization" refers to [42]
: The relationship between assemblies and other human rights gatherings is unclear [43]

: Two questions remain: (1) Does "subject to authorization" refer to all listed assemblies? (2) What is the difference between the various terms "assembly," "demonstration," and "gathering of people"? Moreover, the use of the adjective "other" seems to imply that assemblies and demonstrations are also gatherings of people. In my opinion, a common denominator should be found here; "assembly" seems most common and general. Furthermore, all these assemblies seem to have in common (with regard to the ratio of the provision) that they take place in public space. To implement these ideas, the following formulation is conceivable: "... assemblies requiring a permit in public space". User106 (discussion) 17:28, 16 May 2022 (CEST). [45]

: Actually, the text is not entirely clear. Re (1): I rather understand the text as follows: the adjective "requiring a permit" refers exclusively to "assemblies" and not also to "demonstrations" and/or "gatherings of people". I therefore understand the term "other gatherings of people" as a general clause, so that all other gatherings (outside the already mentioned demonstrations and gatherings requiring a permit) are to be covered. If I am correct in my reading (which is by no means the case...), then the problem could be solved by changing the order of enumeration. e.g.: "Demonstrations, gatherings requiring a permit and other gatherings of people". Then problem (1) would be more or less solved. [47]

: To (2): I think your approach is good: It seems obsolete to mention all three variants. However, if - as in your proposal - you restrict this to "gatherings in public spaces requiring a permit", then you narrow down the wording of the law compared to the original draft, since this standardization means that "other gatherings of people" that do not require a permit are no longer covered. A material restriction of our draft would be undoubtedly desirable (cf. example of Prof. Uhlmann, that even the carnival would be subsumed under this), but your proposal would nevertheless create certain gaps: I am thinking, for example, of football fans, for whom it is a tradition to meet every week and walk together to the stadium. In my opinion, such fan marches are not always increased public use, depending on the number of participants: If they clog up the streets (as is regularly the case with fans of Super League teams (1st division)), then in my opinion it is clearly increased public use. However, if it is a smaller group of a few dozen people (e.g. fans of Challenge League clubs (2nd league)), who remain mainly on the sidewalks during the fan march, then in my opinion there is no increased public use, so that the fan march would not require a permit. Nevertheless, even at smaller fan marches, the hooligans regularly disguise themselves in order to be able to riot anonymously (cars, street signs). And exactly this behavior should be punished by our norm, so that a limitation to gatherings requiring a permit would not make sense in my opinion. User136 (discussion) 19:49, 16 May 2022 (CEST) [49]
I agree with User136. A limitation to assemblies requiring a permit makes little sense. Especially since spontaneous demonstrations would not be covered either. In terms of location, how would the provision be limited to "assemblies in public spaces and places accessible to the public"? From a factual point of view, it might be possible to require that the assembly must be supported by an "aggressive mood" in order for the ban on mummery to apply (although it is very difficult to determine when such a mood exists or occurs). User144 (Discussion) [50]

: So you would also want to cover non-permitted gatherings? In this case, would it make sense to speak of "gatherings of people" (in general) or "gatherings of people regardless of whether they are subject to a permit requirement"? In my opinion, the requirement of an "aggressive atmosphere" makes sense in the end -- but I still doubt its practicability. Moreover, the question arises whether then the "aggressive basic mood" is not in the center, which possibly runs counter to the (political) intention behind the rule. User106 (discussion) 14:25, 18 May 2022 (CEST) [52]

: I see the same vague legal terms and open wording. Regarding User106's suggestion, my thoughts have been that a clarification with "in public space" may well make the provision more precise and clear, but in my opinion it is not necessary. Thus, everyone can and should behave freely in private space, i.e. "veiled" or not. Therefore, in my opinion, this passage is not necessary. [54]
: I see the idea behind the suggestion of "aggressive basic mood". However, I can imagine that this would lead to great ambiguity, because it is difficult to determine when such a basic mood exists. I think this would make the provision open and indeterminate. Therefore, I propose to omit this clarification. [55]
: I also wondered what the adjective "subject to approval" refers to. I agree with User136's suggestion to change the order of enumeration. For example, I find that in the phrase "demonstrations, gatherings requiring a permit, and other gatherings of people" it becomes clear what the adjective "requiring a permit" refers to. This makes the provision narrower or more specific overall. User126 (discussion) 10:18, 17 May 2022 (CEST). [56]
: I support the suggestion to change the order. Still, one has to wonder what we are even giving examples of and naming the events that require a permit if all gatherings of people are covered anyway. Cf. my suggestion above on how to include the permit requirement without requiring an enumeration. User106 (discussion) 14:25, 18 May 2022 (CEST) [57]
:: Without further clarification regarding permissibility requirements for demonstrations, I'm just wondering if your suggestion to include the permit requirement narrows the scope of this provision. I do not know whether a permit must be obtained for demonstrations. If this is not the case, i.e. if demonstrations can be held without a permit, demonstrations would not be covered by the scope of the provision. Thus, "veiled" participants could not be sanctioned. User126 (discussion) 14:56, 19 May 2022 (CEST). [58]
Don't you think the general clause is too broad or too vague for criminal law? (nulla poena sine lege certa?) After all, you have to know when such a gathering of people exists. User153 (discussion) 10:05, 19 May 2022 (CEST) [59]

Second sentence: [62]

: Optional provision which grants discretion. [64]
: In addition, it is not specified when exceptions are granted. It is also unclear which authority must concretize the term. Depending on whether this is the legislator or an administrative authority, different questions arise under the principle of legality.User143 (discussion) 11:07, 16 May 2022 (CEST) [65]
: I share these criticisms. In addition, one might consider setting limits or criteria for the exceptions already in the law. User106 (discussion) 11:09, 16 May 2022 (CEST). [66]
: A valid objection. At most, one could consider formulating the exceptions similar to Art. 332a para. 2 StGB (implementation of the veiling ban initiative). However, the norm would then become very long. User122 (Discussion) 16:29, 16 May 2022 (CEST) [67]

M.E. the instrument of "granting" exceptions makes no sense at all here. As I understand the nouns, the conduct (mummery on the occasion of gatherings) is punishable. However, exceptionally it can be granted that someone is not punished. So a permit for non-punishment (does that make sense?). In my opinion, it would be better to simply say ("Not punishable are.... User144 (discussion) [69]

: I share the view of the immediately preceding entry. The provision can/should be understood as allowing exceptions to (basic) criminal liability. In my view, this must refer to specific events/variations of actions. These would then have to be mentioned in the provision. This can be done in the form: "Not punishable are ...". [73]
The instrument of authorization does not seem suitable to me here. It leaves too much leeway to the enforcement authority. In addition, it is not obvious to the subjects of the law when a conduct is still exempt from punishment. It makes the provision very intransparent. Therefore, I suggest deleting the second sentence and replacing it with "Not punishable are ...". User126 (discussion) 08:51, 17 May 2022 (CEST) [74]
It is unclear to me to what extent an authorization possibility can be implemented in such a way that it complies with ratio legis. There is the practical question of whether decisions are made in individual cases (very time-consuming) or whether, for example, general decrees are issued in which permitted behaviors are enumerated. User153 (discussion) 10:08, 19 May 2022 (CEST) I would suggest that we keep an exemplary list with cases where the behavior is not punishable. For example, religious, medical, etc. Reasons. [75]

Granting exceptions does not seem to me to be appropriate here either, as this would exempt in advance a theoretically punishable act from allf. Punishment is freed. It seems more practical to me to introduce a certain "de minimis threshold" or a norm with a (non-exhaustive) enumeration of acts not worthy of punishment in connection with paragraph 1. On the other hand, the judge could be given discretion and justice in individual cases with the formulation "may refrain from punishing". This seems to me more appropriate insofar as the (non-)punishability of the act is to be decided only in retrospect instead of in advance (on the basis of an authorization). Such an examination of punishability tailored to individual cases also seems appropriate to me, since in para. 1 with the formulation "other gatherings of people" a kind of catch basin is created and also cases could be covered by it, which would not at all correspond to the original realization of the goal (in general, the scope of para. 1 could be narrowed by a more precise designation of "gatherings of people", but it is questionable whether one would want to go so far as to require "a basic atmosphere threatening the peace order"; moreover: should gatherings not requiring a permit be excluded from the scope of application or rather be subsumed under the other two terms). User110 (discussion) 13:47, 17 May 2022 (CEST) [78]

== Level of penalty ==
[80]

The draft merely provides that "under this Act [punished] shall be whoever [...]". According to the principle of legality under criminal law (nulla poena sine lege certa), this is questionable. The consequence of punishment must be clearly circumscribed in the law. [81]

In my opinion, in view of the unlawful nature of the offense, it would make sense to define it as a misdemeanor within the meaning of Art. 103 SCC; the amount of the fine should be limited. Therefore, the introductory sentence could be changed as follows: "According to this law, the following shall be punished by a fine of up to 1,000 Swiss francs:" User106 (discussion) 10:49, 16 May 2022 (CEST) [83]

Concur, limiting the fine to a maximum amount would certainly be beneficial. User122 (discussion) 16:15, 16 May 2022 (CEST). [85]
: Good point, but I rather think this will not be mandatory. In any case, Art. 335(1) StGB only gives the cantons a sanctioning competence within the framework of the Übertretungsstrafrecht, whose maximum penalty is limited by federal law to a maximum of CHF 10,000 (Art. 103 ff. StGB). Furthermore, our norm that we are dealing with says: "according to this law shall be punished...". §11 para. 1 of the Übertretungsstrafgesetz of the Canton of Basel-Stadt explicitly states that the range of punishment - unless otherwise specified - is a fine of CHF 1 - CHF 10,000. In this respect, I do not see such a problem with regard to the principle nulla poena sine lege certa. A limitation to CHF 1,000 (or otherwise an appropriate maximum amount), as proposed here, can also make sense, if the "mummery of chaots" is simply not considered to be so serious a crime that it would ever justify a fine of up to CHF 10,000. But this is then a legal-political and less a legalistic question. In my opinion, we must primarily ask ourselves the following question: Do we find a penalty range of up to CHF 10,000 okay or is this too high? User136 (discussion) 19:08, 16 May 2022 (CEST) [86]
: I think we need to consider whether or not the standard is too open-ended in terms of the penalty. Whether the punishment is appropriate or not is not for us to judge. In my opinion, no questions arise with regard to the openness of the wording, because the range of punishment in the criminal law of transgressions is limited to the fine (up to a maximum of CHF 10,000; cf. Art. 106 para. 1 StGB). From the provision in the context of the entire Transgression Criminal Law it is clear what sanction the person subject to the law is threatened with. A violation of this provision (the "veiling ban") can thus be punished with a fine. Consequently, for me, there is no need for any adjustments in terms of the amount of the penalty. User126 (discussion) 09:36, 17 May 2022 (CEST). [87]

As User136 said, the penalty in Art. 11 para. 1 Übertretungsstrafgesetz of the Canton of Basel-Stadt is sufficiently clear and also a limitation of the amount of the fine does not seem necessary to me (cf. also Art. 106 para. 3 StGB, according to which the fine should be proportionate to the offender's culpability). With regard to the definiteness of the penal norm, on the other hand, I would see a need for adaptation, especially whether the conduct threatened with punishment is sufficiently predictable for the norm addressees (with regard to what is to be understood by making unrecognizable and gathering of people). However, in my opinion, the variety of possible circumstances to be regulated, the rather low severity of the encroachment (transgression), as well as the concretization that is necessary in individual cases, lower the requirements for the definiteness of the norm. User110 (Discussion) 14:23, 17 May 2022 (CEST) [89]

I agree that the sanction consequence should be more precisely determined. If the idea of fairness to the addressee is brought into play, a repetition of the penalty range and the penalty type "fine" would make sense in my opinion. It would also be conceivable to make a reference to the criminal code of the canton of Basel-Stadt. (User 127) [91]

I agree with user 136 and user 110, and I think that a limitation of the amount of the fine is not necessary and does not make sense. If necessary, one could make a reference to StGB 106 ("who...is punished with a fine in the sense of StGB 106"). If one fixes the amount of the fine, there may be problems of retroactivity, if StGB 332a comes into force. Greetings User144 (Discussion) [94]

== Formatting and enumeration ==
[96]

The standard appears to be part of an enumeration. However, there are several line breaks in it. [97]

For reasons of formatting, ease of reading and logic, I think the line breaks should be omitted. This must also apply to the last sentence concerning exceptions, if it refers only to this part of the enumeration. As a result, the text could be adapted as follows: [99]

"Who makes himself unrecognizable at meetings, demonstrations and other gatherings of people requiring a permit; exceptions may be granted." User106 (discussion) 10:56, 16 May 2022 (CEST) [101]

: Agreed. User136 (discussion) 19:11, 16 May 2022 (CEST). [103]
: Already much clearer this way! User110 (discussion) 14:28, 17 May 2022 (CEST) [104]

: I agree that for ease of reading, the line breaks should be dropped. In my opinion, the current form is not well formatted because it is not entirely clear how the sentence relates to the exceptions to the preceding sentence. It should obviously refer (only) to this and not also to the rest of the enumeration (which we do not see). [106]
: I therefore agree with User106's suggestion as well. User126 (discussion) 08:05, 17 May 2022 (CEST) [107]
: @all: Can we put this in the "final" draft like this? User106 (discussion) 14:27, 18 May 2022 (CEST) [108]

I agree with you guys. User153 (discussion) 10:13, 19 May 2022 (CEST) [110]

Wouldn't it make more sense if the two half-sentences were split into two different paragraphs? User122 (discussion) 12:13, 21 May 2022 (CEST) [112]

== Concept of "unrecognizability" ==
[114]

The penalty provision links to the fact that the offender "makes himself unrecognizable". This term is not only open-ended, but also imprecise. [115]

Since terms should be used uniformly in the overall legal system, the term "unrecognizable" must be used in view of Art. 10a BV, according to which "[n]o one [...] may veil his face in public spaces and places". [117]

Therefore, the text of the norm could be amended as follows: "Who [...] veils his face. [...]" User106 (discussion) 11:05, 16 May 2022 (CEST) [119]

I think this is a good point. One could also ask whether a separate veiling ban for gatherings, demos, crowds is needed at all, since gatherings, demos, crowds fall under Art. 10a BV anyway and are probably also considered in the implementing regulations. [121]

: Find the reformulation proposal i.S. the veiling ban initiative also better. User122 (Discussion) 16:24, 16 May 2022 (CEST) [123]

: In my opinion, the term "unrecognizable" holds great potential for interpretation, because it is open-ended and imprecise. When someone is unrecognizable depends very much on the perceptual abilities of the other person and, in my opinion, cannot be determined objectively/generally. Therefore, a term that is unambiguous and clear should be used. I welcome the suggestion of "veiling one's face" in principle. In this way, the requirement to use terms uniformly in the overall legal system is preserved. It also makes the wording much less open. [125]
: However, it should be borne in mind that this wording is also open to interpretation. Thus, under certain circumstances, even wearing a mask can be classified as "covering one's face". User126 (discussion) 08:14, 17 May 2022 (CEST) [126]
: You're right, mask-wearing probably falls under my suggestion as well; so we'd need to flesh out the exceptions (analogous to the BV provision). User106 (discussion) 13:12, 17 May 2022 (CEST) [127]
: if the exceptions according to BV 10a III are to be concretized analogously, on the one hand the "native customs" would have to be omitted (I don't see any possible application here) and on the other hand the question arises in my opinion whether these exceptions should then also be formulated conclusively or exactly not? User170 (discussion) 22:26, 17 May 2022 (CEST)User170 [128]
I think the idea of uniform use of terms as in federal law is a good idea. However, I wonder in this context what is the relationship with Art. 10a BV? Doesn't Art. 10a BV anyway set a minimum level of prohibition of veiling, so that the cantons may only enact stricter prohibitions? (User 127) [129]

@all Does anyone have any objections to the proposal? User106 (discussion) 14:37, 19 May 2022 (CEST) [131]

: Since no one objected to this change, I have changed the text accordingly. User122 (discussion) 12:03, 21 May 2022 (CEST) [133]

== Constitutionality (esp. fundamental rights) ==
[135]

1. freedom of assembly and expression [136]

The threat of punishment interferes indirectly with the right to freedom of assembly (and freedom of expression) and has a chilling effect. The obligation to obtain a permit interferes directly with the right to respect for freedom of assembly and freedom of expression. [138]

It remains to be clarified whether the norm in its vagueness can be interpreted in a proportionate manner. In my opinion, problems arise with regard to necessity and reasonableness. In particular, due to the generality of the norm, I do not believe that the principle of interference is observed. [140]

If one wanted to demonstrate with gas masks in order to draw attention to air pollution, this would require a permit according to the text of the norm. According to the text of the standard, this would also apply to spontaneous demonstrations. However, requiring a permit for spontaneous demonstrations is unconstitutional. [142]

2. personal freedom [145]

The normative text also interferes with personal freedom. As a result, the normative text includes every form of gathering of several people and is therefore not suitable in every case (to prevent or solve crimes) and therefore disproportionate (e.g. when someone puts on a mask in a play, carnival, etc.). [147]

3. freedom of religion [150]

The provision also strongly interferes with religious freedom. User144 (Discussion) [152]

So, are you proposing a restriction of the norm in order to make it constitutional? What restrictions do you think would be necessary to achieve this goal? User106 (discussion) 17:30, 16 May 2022 (CEST) [155]

Yes, the standard would have to be restricted in some way, in my opinion. One could account for the restriction at the level of "principle (p. 1) or at the level of "exceptions" (p. 2). I am undecided where it makes the most sense. I would welcome prioritizing political gatherings (demonstrations) over other gatherings (e.g. fan marches on the occasion of sporting events) from a fundamental rights perspective, since political gatherings also have a democratic function. One could say, for example, that the veiling ban at demonstrations (politically motivated assemblies) only applies if the assembly is carried by an "aggressive basic mood" or "criminal acts are to be expected". But how this would be compatible with BV 10a is also not entirely clear to me. User144 (Discussion) [157]

: I see your reasoning and concerns about constitutionality. After all, the "veiling ban" should not lead to an unjustified restriction of fundamental rights. Rather, the "veiling ban" should ensure the safe exercise of fundamental rights, i.e. that, for example, political demonstrations or gatherings can be held safely without "veiled chaots" causing disturbances. In my opinion, the provision in the version presented to us (only) wants to cover "veiled chaotic people" at such gatherings, so that the gathering can be held undisturbed. It does not cover all peacefully participating persons. If, however, it is determined, for example, that the prohibition of veiling at demonstrations only applies if this is carried by an aggressive basic mood, then all peaceful demonstrations can be held "veiled". In my estimation, this is not the ratio Legis of the provision. Rather, with a general ban on veiling wants to ensure a safe holding of demonstrations (= exercise of fundamental rights). [160]

: To restrict the provision would, in my opinion, be exactly contrary to the Ratio Legis. User126 (discussion) 09:55, 17 May 2022 (CEST) [162]

I find the phrase "basic aggressive sentiment" somewhat problematic. It reminds me too much of offenses like breach of the peace "Grundstimmung threatening the peace", BGer. There the threshold at which one has reached the threshold for participation is very low (Appearing as part of the crowd). I have a feeling that if we choose too similar a wording, it could end up in peaceful non-chaotic people being too quickly classified as participants in the actions of the chaotic people as well, and thus still not going unpunished. User153 (discussion) 08:25, 20 May 2022 (CEST) [164]

: Agree with you. User122 (discussion) 12:43, 22 May 2022 (CEST) [166]

== Problem: Competence ==
[168]

According to StGB 335, the cantons retain the right to legislate on the criminal law of transgressions only insofar as it is not the subject of federal legislation. With StGB 332a (not yet in force), a transgression norm is enacted as a violation of the face veiling prohibition. If the norm enters into force, the canton of Basel City would not be authorized to enact its own transgression penal norm. Do you see it the same way? Would it make sense to set a time limit for the norm of the Canton of Basel City? User144 (Discussion) [169]

: You are right. As soon as Art. 332a StGB enters into force, "our" provision will automatically no longer be applicable (cf. also Art. 49 BV). A time limit is therefore (materially) not mandatory, but still makes sense. On the other hand, the question then arises whether the legislative effort is in reasonable proportion to the purpose behind this "cantonal pre-effect of federal law". Should one dispense with the norm altogether and wait for federal law? If not, one could regulate the time limit in the transitional provisions or in the norm itself (e.g. in a para. 2). User106 (discussion) 13:08, 17 May 2022 (CEST). [171]

: I don't think we should spend too much energy on this point. As User106 has indicated, if Art. 332a SCC were to enter into force, cantonal law would simply be derogated (Art. 49 BV and Art. 335 para. 1 SCC, according to which the cantons retain the right to legislate on the criminal law of transgressions when it is not the subject of federal legislation). In this respect, I do not think that a time limit would have to be introduced. A time limit would be very difficult anyway, since the date of entry into force of Art. 332a StGB is not yet definitely foreseeable. User122 (discussion) 12:25, 22 May 2022 (CEST) [173]

== Suggestions ==
[175]

Here every user can make a suggestion [176]

User 144: [178]

: Par. 1: Anyone who covers his face at meetings in public places or in places accessible to the public, and thereby impedes the clarification of criminal acts committed or in execution, shall be punished by a fine. [180]
: Par. 2: It shall not be a punishable offence under this provision for a person who merely accepts the impediment to clarification. User144 (discussion) 21:55, 17 May 2022 (CEST) [181]
:: @User144 (I haven't quite figured out the technique yet, so I'll try this now): how do you come up with "and makes prosecution more difficult"? I could not derive your suggestion from the discussion. Doesn't any concealment imply an aggravation of law enforcement? User170 (discussion) 22:17, 17 May 2022 (CEST) [182]
::: I understand what you mostly (mean). Here's what I've been thinking about. In order for there to be a prosecution (repressive) that can be aggravated, a crime must have been committed first. If there are no crimes to prosecute, there is no prosecution that can be aggravated. Furthermore, in subj. respect, it is required that the perpetrator acts intentionally (because of: para. 2: intention or dolus directus 2nd degree). The intent must also refer to the success of the crime. Thus, the perpetrator must act at least in the certain knowledge or with the intention to cause the aggravation of a criminal prosecution. However, I have now changed the text (formerly: criminal prosecution; now: clarification of criminal offences). Thanks! User144 (discussion) 22:26, 17 May 2022 (CEST). [183]
:::: To make it clearer what the intent should refer to, the following wording would be better, if necessary: "... in order to impede the prosecution/solving of crimes,..." User170 (discussion) 22:38, 17 May 2022 (CEST) [184]
::::: Good idea. The word "in order to" implies that it needs intent (dolus directus 1st degree) on subj. level. Advantage of your suggestion is that the provision would so definitely not go too far and the para 2 could be deleted. Disadvantage is that the intention in individual cases and especially with "followers" (people who mask themselves, but do not commit a crime) is probably difficult to prove. I will sleep on it and think it over again. Thanks! User144 (discussion) 22:47, 17 May 2022 (CEST). [185]

I can understand your consideration to put the norm in connection with a criminal offense, however, this will not facilitate the identification of chaotic people, because if they are covered you will not be able to identify them and also not be able to initiate criminal proceedings that could then lead to punishment under this article. The provision should have a preventive effect and thus prohibit veiling or unidentification without reference to a crime. (User 127) [187]

I understand your approach. But wouldn't you also have this problem if you banned veiling without reference to a crime? Especially since the police could not dissolve the demo in the case of individual violations of the prohibition of veiling (would be disproportionate intervention). [189]

If one forbids the veiling in principle, the inhibition threshold to commit a crime sinks, since the anonymity is omitted. For this reason I believe that it makes a big difference for the achievement of the purpose whether one puts the prohibition in connection with a criminal offense or not. In the case of a connection, we have no preventive effect and the detection of crimes is not improved, the only advantage that remains is an additional sanction (in the form of the fine), because of the veiling, for the offender. (User 127) [191]

That criminals will not mask themselves, can probably not be prevented by a norm. Moreover, in the case of the masked offender, in the context of competition, the prohibition of masking will probably take a back seat to the main offense, or even be considered as unpunishable self-favoritism. I believe that the main goal is to prevent people who do not commit crimes from wearing hoods (because the more hooded people there are, the more difficult it is to identify the perpetrators), and to have a "catch-all" for suspected criminals who cannot be proven to have committed any other crime.I understand what you mean by the preventive effect. I agree with you that with such a ban there is no preventive effect on criminals who want to commit crimes under the mummery. For those who do not commit crimes under the disguise, I think the ban already has a preventive effect, because they must be aware that if they disguise themselves near criminals, they can be punished, even though they themselves have not committed any crimes. One must not forget that from a fundamental rights perspective, there are legitimate reasons for wearing a mask during demonstrations, etc. (e.g. if one does not want to be recognized by one's employer, etc.). I see the public interest in security and order as predominant only if there is a sufficient danger that crimes are committed, which are more difficult to solve because of the masking. What I still have in mind, in order to have a "more preventive* effect, is to additionally criminalize the carrying of balaclavas and garments with sewn-in netting to cover the face (as often used by football chaots). (User 144) [193]

: The veiling ban prevents crimes in the context of "aggressive crowds" (such as football hooligans) insofar as those persons who veil themselves in order to be able to commit crimes undetected can already be stopped and punished for the veiling. As a result, criminal liability is "brought forward" in these cases. Those who want to commit crimes are already conspicuous because of their disguise. Those who do not mask themselves for this reason (in order not to attract attention) are probably psychologically prevented from committing crimes, since they could be recognized in the process. All in all, however, this preventive effect can be achieved even without the proposed addition of "making the detection of crimes more difficult" -- in my opinion, this is even counterproductive, since it would no longer be possible to stop (and punish) everyone who is hooded, but it would have to be additionally proven that the hooding makes the detection of crimes more difficult; m.a.w., people could then hood themselves again without immediately fearing punishment. User106 (discussion) 14:35, 19 May 2022 (CEST) [195]

As mentioned above in discussions, I simply have concerns from a fundamental rights perspective if you define the scope of the provision very broadly. I understand your thoughts regarding the purpose of the norm and I also see that a broad scope would implement the ban most effectively. For this reason, and also in view of the already advanced time, I drop my proposal. User144 (discussion) 14:35, 21 May 2022 (CEST) [197]

:: I agree with User106's view. Linking it to "to solve crimes" seems counterproductive to me. So, as User106 said, in principle only those "veiled" participants who prevent the detection of crimes can be punished. All other "veiled" participants could "veil" themselves with impunity. I think this is not the goal of the provision. In my opinion, the goal of the provision is to have as few "veiled" participants in gatherings as possible. In this way, order and security can be ensured, because the willingness to commit offences decreases, in my estimation, without "veiling". Therefore, the provision wants to sanction "veiling" in principle. If the sanction is sufficiently deterrent, the goal of the provision can be achieved. With a sharp standard, no participants will "veil" themselves, which should basically ensure peace and order. [200]
:: Therefore, I think there should be no additions to the provision. The only thing that is needed, in my opinion, is a more precise wording. My suggestion is: [201]
:: Paragraph 1 ... whoever covers his face during demonstrations, gatherings requiring a permit and other gatherings of people. [202]
:: Par. 2 From the punishability of veiling are excluded in particular at [203]
:: - Swiss customs, such as the carnival; [204]
:: - religious customs; [205]
:: - pandemic conditions/situations. [206]
:: User126 (discussion) 15:31, 19 May 2022 (CEST) [207]

I agree with you in principle, User126. However, I would make the last line "pandemic conditions/situations" more general and say, for example, "... on medical indication or for the protection of public health, namely in the case of a pandemic condition". What exactly a pandemic condition should be would then have to be elicited by interpretation. User153 (discussion) 08:13, 20 May 2022 (CEST) [209]

In my opinion, the order of "events", where it is forbidden to make oneself "unrecognizable", should be changed: e.g. "...who makes himself unrecognizable or covers his face at gatherings of people (of a certain size, if necessary concretization by means of a number), esp. (permit-requiring) meetings, demonstrations etc.". This would make it clear that a permit requirement is not a prerequisite, although in my opinion the permit requirement could also be omitted entirely. As a further exemplary enumeration, one could also include "in the context of sporting events" in order to give more validity to the purpose of the norm. In addition, such a non-exhaustive list prevents certain cases from being accidentally omitted... As for the exceptions, a more open-ended wording such as "cultural & medical reasons" could be chosen, though we should still decide first whether the exceptions should be ex ante authorization (by whom?) or ex post judicial review. User110 (discussion) 13:26, 20 May 2022 (CEST) [211]

: User153 is correct. The term pandemic conditions/situations should be more general. Otherwise an interpretation is necessary, which can be too narrow/wide and then not in the sense of the legislator. My suggestion is "situations to protect public health." [214]
: I share User110's suggestions to change the order and add to the enumeration. This makes it clearer, in my opinion, that this is a non-exhaustive list. My suggestion is: "...who covers his face in gatherings of people, especially in gatherings, demonstrations, fan marches, etc." User126 (discussion) 11:19, 21 May 2022 (CEST) [215]
:: My thoughts about your suggestion [216]
::: 1. i think it's good to make the scope in paragraph 1 broad and then restrict it in paragraph 2 [217]
::: 2) I find a non-exhaustive enumeration delicate with regard to the principle of legality under criminal law. [218]
::: 3. veiling in the context of demonstrations, which are considered as an expression of peaceful expression of opinion should be allowed in my opinion (e.g. demonstrating in protective masks to draw attention to bad air). [219]
::: 4) The addition "namely Fassnacht" could be deleted in my opinion. [220]
::: 5. the problem with all the exceptions is that e.g. chaotic people who wear medical masks (during a pandemic) or who wear carnival masks during the carnival do not fall under the ban. One could therefore formulate as the only exception: "Not punishable acts, who by the veiling the public safety and order and not endanger". Alternatively, one could dispense with the exceptions and simply say: "Anyone who covers his face on the occasion of demonstrations, gatherings requiring a permit and other gatherings of people and thereby endangers public safety and order will be punished with a fine. [221]
::: 6. in my opinion, the ban should be limited to the public space and to places accessible to the public [222]
::: 7. are police officers who make themselves unrecognizable on the occasion of such gatherings also covered? [223]
::: 8. in my opinion, the enumeration "demonstrations, assemblies requiring a permit and other gatherings of people" is too long and could be replaced by "assemblies or other gatherings of people" User144 (discussion) 15:19, 21 May 2022 (CEST) [224]

== Ratio legis ==
[226]

Hoi zäme [227]

can we still briefly discuss what we understand here as ratio legis of the norm? [229]

We don't have much information on what we can work with, but I would have assumed that it is about countering "football hooligans" or "field hockey hooligans". [231]

I would not have seen a political intention to restrict religious freedom or the like. (Therefore, I would not find it problematic to include an exception in favor of medical, religious or need-based coverings. [233]

Or how do you see it? LG User153 (Discussion) 10:24, 19 May 2022 (CEST) [235]

: I agree with you. We should clearly rewrite the exceptions. User106 (discussion) 14:26, 19 May 2022 (CEST). [237]
: I also agree. This is not about restricting religious freedom, but about protecting against people who cover their faces with the intention of remaining unrecognized. "User143 (discussion) 09:39, 23 May 2022 (CEST)" [238]
: I raised the question above whether a catalog of exceptions might be useful. In terms of content as well as in terms of legislation, one could be guided by the catalog of exceptions in the new Art. 332a para. 2 StGB (implementation of the Veiling Prohibition Initiative). The only question is whether this would overload the content of the provision, since one would have to introduce a total of 7 relatively detailed exceptions (assuming that federal law is adhered to). User122 (discussion) 12:18, 21 May 2022 (CEST). [239]
: Where can I find art 332a para 2 StGB? I can't find it in the current and future versions of the StGB on admin. I also doubt whether the ratio legis of the veiling ban initiative is also the same as that of the present norm. If you look at the voting posters, it is clear that in that initiative the prohibition of religious representations (Burqa, Niqab etc.) should be prohibited. Such an intention is not apparent to me in casu for our norm. User153 (discussion) 08:00, 22 May 2022 (CEST). [240]
: You can find the preliminary draft here: https://www.bj.admin.ch/dam/bj/de/data/gesellschaft/gesetzgebung/verhuellungsverbot/vorentw-stgb.pdf.download.pdf/vorentw-stgb.pdf I agree with your view regarding the different ratio legis. However, I would like to orientate myself only on the exception (para. 2), which can be taken over to a large extent also with a different ratio legis. Only the exception lit. g I would not adopt, and lit. a would have to be expanded, so that regardless of the place a politically motivated face covering is not punishable. User122 (discussion) 12:37, 22 May 2022 (CEST). [241]
: Thanks for the link. Yes I think a partial takeover is not bad! User153 (discussion) 17:29, 22 May 2022 (CEST) [242]

== Concept of "gathering of people" ==
[245]

We have already discussed the term (or the factual characteristic) of "gathering of people" variously above. Now we should decide. We have to decide the following points: [246]

1) "assemblies, demonstrations and other gatherings of people" --> Is there a need for this enumeration, i.e. is it preferable to a simple general clause ("gatherings of people")? [248]

2) Does the permit requirement apply to all forms of gathering? [250]

3) Is it necessary to add "in public space"? [252]

4) Does it need an addition "aggressive atmosphere"? [254]

I don't know how we can best do this. Maybe we could take a vote and then, once we have a basic direction, we can work on the wording. So I suggest we do "stabs" for pro/contra. (And if I have forgotten any important points, please feel free to add them. We are also welcome to make such preliminary votes for other points [e.g. the intention concerning prevention of prosecution, which was suggested by some people]) User106 (discussion) 20:13, 20 May 2022 (CEST) [256]

1) Pro: I I I I / Con: II II [258]

2) Pro: / Con: I I I I I II [260]

3) Pro: I I I I I/ Contra: I [262]

4) Pro: / Contra: I I I I I II [264]

: I made my dashes too "User143 (discussion) 09:35, 23 May 2022 (CEST)" [266]
: I have made my dashes. User126 (discussion) 11:08, 21 May 2022 (CEST). [267]
: My dashes are in place as well. User122 (discussion) 11:59, 21 May 2022 (CEST). [268]
Got my dashes in place as well. To 1) I think a non-exhaustive enumeration is appropriate for the sake of clarity, so that the addressees can form a more precise idea of the standard (e.g. "in the context of sporting events" could be added). Regarding 2) I think that the obligation to obtain a permit cannot refer to other gatherings of people and is therefore not a mandatory requirement. Therefore, it could be completely omitted from my point of view, as it would otherwise rather lead to ambiguities/misunderstandings instead of clarification. Regarding 3) since the standard is already openly formulated anyway and a limitation would be appropriate, I find this addition suitable. Regarding 4) I would rather reject this addition, since the scope of application would be limited in a way that would be contrary to the purpose of the norm (chaotic people want to mingle with peaceful "gatherings of people" in order to commit crimes under their "protective cloak"...). User110 (discussion) 13:59, 21 May 2022 (CEST) [269]

Have put my dashes too User144 (discussion) 11:08, 21 May 2022 (CEST) [271]

Got my dashes set too User170 (discussion) 19:42, 21 May 2022 (CEST)User 170 [273]

My dashes are set. User153 (discussion) 08:01, 22 May 2022 (CEST) [275]

My dashes are set. (User 127) [277]

Wonderful! Then the following is set: [279]

1) and 2) No general clause "gatherings of people" --> User 110 suggests omitting the "permit requirement" -- that makes sense! User 144 suggests "assemblies or other gatherings of people" above. This also just implements the suggestion of user 110 ==> Therefore: Are there any votes against this suggestion of user 144?
[281]

3) Addition "in public space" was integrated User106 (Discussion) 19:13, 22. May 2022 (CEST) [283]

"What do you think about this wording: whoever covers his face in places open to the public or in public spaces at gatherings or other crowds?" (User 144) [285]

Regarding the restriction (or para 2?), I've summarized the suggestions in the room (hopefully correctly) (if something is wrong, please correct). Do we do a vote with dashes again? [287]

Proposal 1: (User 110) [289]

Para. 2: Not punishable is the disguising of the face for exclusively medical or health reasons as well as due to the native custom. [291]

Proposal 2: (Result from the discussion of user 126 and user 153) [294]

Para. 2: Veiling is exempt from punishment, especially in the case of [296]

a: Swiss customs, such as the carnival; [298]

b: religious customs; [300]

c: public health protection situations. [302]

Proposal 3: (User 122) [305]

Par. 2: Face coverings are not punishable: [307]

a. for religious purposes; [309]

b. for the protection and restoration of health; [311]

c. to ensure safety; [313]

d. to protect against climatic conditions; [315]

e. to maintain local customs and for artistic and entertainment performances; [317]

f. for performances for advertising purposes. [319]

Proposal 4: (User 144) [322]

Par. 2: Not punishable are face coverings: [324]

a. for religious purposes; [326]

b. for the protection and restoration of health; [328]

c. to ensure safety; [330]

d. to protect against climatic conditions; [332]

e. to maintain local customs and for artistic and entertainment performances; [334]

f. for performances for advertising purposes; [336]

g. during demonstration marches or rallies, provided that the face covering has been approved by the competent authority. [338]

Proposal 1: [341]

Proposal 2: II [343]

Proposal 3: I I [345]

Proposal 4: I [347]

@User144 I think your wording regarding para. 1 is good (short and sweet), but I would use either "in publicly accessible places" or "in public space" and not both together (demonstrations could also be included by me and at most add "esp. in the context of sports events" in brackets after "other gatherings of people" to clarify a main concern of the norm). Regarding para. 2, I would prefer a narrower exception (proposal 2, for example), whereby we could also add a sentence stating that "the competent authority may grant further exceptions". User110 (discussion) 23:57, 22 May 2022 (CEST) [349]

: Agreed re. the "double" mention of the public. However, I would already rewrite the exceptions in more detail, as is the case with proposal #3, for example. In proposal #2, we also have "customs" twice, which is rather unattractive wording. User136 (Discussion) 00:21, 23 May 2022 (CEST) [351]
: Adjusted the text regarding para 1. Demonstrations are special types of assemblies, so demonstrations of assemblies are included. [352]

I would have combined b and d "User143 (Discussion) 09:31, 23 May 2022 (CEST)" or added lit b of proposal 3 to proposal 2. "User143 (Discussion) 09:42, 23 May 2022 (CEST)" [354]

: I agree with you: Lit. b and lit. d actually belong together, in my opinion, one protects oneself from climatic conditions with a mask because one wants to protect one's own health. User136 (discussion) 09:41, 23 May 2022 (CEST) [356]

== Exemption ==
[359]

How should we now design our exception rule? On the one hand, we should first agree on whether a "permit requirement", "legal exceptions to criminal liability" or a "subsequent judicial assessment regarding criminal liability in individual cases" should be chosen. [360]

-> Suggestions: Not punishable is the "making unrecognizable"/"face covering": ... [362]

On the other hand, the question arises whether our catalog of exceptions should be conclusive or not, as well as how we want to concretize the exceptions. User110 (Discussion) 14:22, 21 May 2022 (CEST) [364]

-> Suggestions: ... exclusively for medical/health reasons as well as due to local customs. [366]

I bring in the question again, doesn't the regulation have to be stricter than the one on federal level "veiling ban" anyway? (User 127) [368]

@User 127: I think this is also an important question: how does the norm relate to BV 10a? we have already addressed this above, but have not yet found an answer User170 (Discussion) 19:44, 21 May 2022 (CEST)User170 [370]

: See my answer above. This online exercise has existed since 2017, a time when the veiling ban initiative was narrowly tabled and the question about the relationship to cantonal provisions had not yet arisen. I don't think we should worry too much about the competitive relationship with Art. 332a StGB. User122 (discussion) 12:29, 22 May 2022 (CEST) [372]

== Suggestion: We simply adopt the wording of the preliminary draft of the StGB revision regarding the implementation of BV 10a ==
[374]

Para. 1: Whoever covers his face at meetings, demonstrations and other gatherings of people in places accessible to the public, which require a permit, shall be punished by a fine. [375]

Para. 2: Face coverings are not punishable: [377]

a. in places of worship; [379]

b. for the protection and restoration of health; [381]

c. to ensure safety; [383]

d. to protect against climatic conditions; [385]

e. to maintain local customs and for artistic and entertainment performances; [387]

f. for performances for advertising purposes; [389]

g. in the case of individual appearances and gatherings in public spaces, if the covering of the face is necessary for the exercise of the fundamental rights of freedom of expression or freedom of assembly, or if it is a visual expression of opinion that does not impair public safety and order. [391]

If necessary, we could still narrow the provision to assemblies, etc. User144 (discussion) 11:04, 22 May 2022 (CEST) [394]

I like the idea for para 2, but would choose this version as the first paragraph: [397]

Para 1 According to this law, whoever covers his face at meetings, demonstrations and other gatherings of people in places open to the public, which require a permit, shall be punished by a fine. (User 127) [399]

However, we would have to adapt the exception (para. 2) a bit to our provision. Lit. a is too narrow; this would have to be expanded so that all religiously motivated face coverings are excluded from criminal liability, regardless of the place of residence. With regard to lit. g, we would have to ask ourselves whether this does not include conduct that we actually want to punish. Therefore, I would not adopt lit. g in the tendency, in the thrust, one comes with this exception through the back door again to the "peace-threatening basic mood", of which we agreed above that we do not want to introduce it as a criterion. User122 (discussion) 12:42, 22 May 2022 (CEST) [402]

Thanks, I'll summarize: [405]

Para 1: Whoever covers his face in places open to the public at meetings, demonstrations and other gatherings of people requiring a permit shall be punished by a fine. [407]

Para. 2: Face coverings are not punishable: [409]

a. for religious purposes; [411]

b. for the protection and restoration of health; [413]

c. to ensure safety; [415]

d. to protect against climatic conditions; [417]

e. to maintain local customs and for artistic and entertainment performances; [419]

f. for performances for advertising purposes. [421]

Instead of the lit. g criticized by you, one could provide the following passage: (lit. g): (Not punishable are face coverings), at demonstration marches or rallies, provided that the face covering was approved by the competent authority. In my opinion, without such a provision, there would be a great risk that our article could not be interpreted in conformity with the constitution, since the freedom of expression and assembly would be restricted to an extent that is not necessary. (cf. https://www.bj.admin.ch/dam/bj/de/data/gesellschaft/gesetzgebung/verhuellungsverbot/vn-ber-stgb.pdf (p. 20 ff., esp. p. 23)). User144 [423]

== Structure in paragraphs ==
[425]

Just a small formal suggestion. Wouldn't it be nicer if we divided the two sub-sentences into two paragraphs? Or is that not possible on this wiki? User122 (discussion) 12:47, 22 May 2022 (CEST) [426]

I assume that the provision is part of an enumeration and therefore the distinction into paragraphs is not possible. User106 (discussion) 19:15, 22 May 2022 (CEST) [428]

Diskussion:Gruppe2 EN

2023-02-08T10:57:11Z

Wikiadmin: Die Seite wurde neu angelegt: „== Proportionality of par. 1? == [1] I am not sure whether this is so proportionate. [2] == Legal definitions == [4] What about the word XXX, is this clear…“

== Proportionality of par. 1? ==
[1]

I am not sure whether this is so proportionate. [2]

== Legal definitions ==
[4]

What about the word XXX, is this clear enough? [5]

== How do we want to proceed? ==
[7]

What do you think? [9]

102: In terms of content, the term "gathering of people" is indeterminate and I doubt whether the construction in criminal law with a strict legality principle makes sense. We could take gathering of people first and make it more precise with a "in particular gatherings and demonstrations requiring a permit" construction. A negative enumeration probably does not lend itself here (e.g., "does not include ..."). Further I think that the extent of the crowd has to be specified (>20, >30 or >50 persons etc.?). Or do you guys have other suggestions on how will get this more specific? Am not really satisfied with this solution either, but it would be an approach. "Make unrecognizable" is also to be concretized. Here one must provide possibly exceptions, so that we do not punish Fasnächtler. [11]

113: I see the same problems. In addition, it should also be defined who can grant exceptions and whether there should be an ordinance for this. [13]

102: That's right, I also see it that way. In addition, I would also define the places where "unrecognizable" is prohibited. Not at a private masquerade ball, for example, but rather at a field hockey match in a private stadium. Proposal: "Whoever in public places or in private places open to the general public for use against payment or free of charge...". The preliminary draft of the BR on the veiling ban also has such a formulation. [15]

102: on the exceptions: If we simply say "Par. 2: The executive may grant exceptions." Is that possibly too broad. On what grounds may exceptions be granted? Additionally, the may wording is difficult. Does a carnival procession have to get a permit every time that people can dress up and what if they don't get it? It would be better to say that the executive can make exceptions. In particular, disguising is permitted for religious events, holidays and for the protection of health. [17]

113: Perhaps it would be a good idea to define general exceptions and to give the legislator the possibility to define further exceptions or to transfer the approval to an authority (e.g. the police). [19]

135: I think your considerations are good. I would limit the size of the crowds to >15. On the subject of "making unrecognizable" I would not mention explicit exceptions, such as private masquerade ball etc.. There are certainly quite a few exceptions, not all of which can be listed. The proposal of 102 "The executive may provide for exceptions. Permitted are in particular the making unrecognizable in the context of religious occasions, on holidays as well as for the protection of health." is already very successful. [21]

118: I also think it would be a better idea to leave it up to the legislator to decide which exceptions he wants to provide for "making unrecognizable". But one could write, for example, that he can provide exceptions in particular for religious or cultural. This would make it a little clearer what the legislator wanted to achieve with the exceptions. [23]

135: Instead of "executive", we could also write directly that the "government council" can provide for exceptions. [25]

112: I agree with your reasoning. Regarding making unrecognizable, we could possibly add/precise: "... especially by covering the face [by means of a cloth, scarf, or mask,] {so that identification is rendered impossible}." What do you think, is the identification aspect superfluous, since "making unrecognizable" implicitly states that identification is impossible anyway? User112 (discussion) 13:18, 16 May 2022 (CEST) [27]

168: The canton of St.Gallen has had a corresponding regulation in the Übertretungsstrafgesetz for more than 10 years: [29]

Art. 12bis* ban on mummery (disguise) [31]

(1)Anyone who disguises himself at meetings or rallies requiring a permit or in the vicinity of sports or other events shall be punished by a fine. [33]

(2) The competent authority may grant exceptions if respectable reasons justify disguising oneself. Carnival and other traditional, folkloric events are not covered by the ban. [35]

(3) The police command may refrain from enforcing the ban in individual cases if this appears necessary to prevent escalation. [37]

I find this norm quite successful and differentiated. It is clear what is at stake (triggered by acts of violence around football matches) and it is also clear that events like the carnival are not covered. In addition, proportionality is preserved by making it clear in paragraph 3 that the police will decide on a case-by-case basis whether to enforce the ban. Copying legal texts is allowed and quite common among the cantons. I don't see why this rule should not be adopted as it is. User168 (discussion) 17:52, 16 May 2022 (CEST) [39]

How do we actually proceed now? Do we have to decide on a text by next week and add it under the "Page" "Exercise" tab? User168 (discussion) 17:57, 16 May 2022 (CEST) [41]

I think your approaches are very good. Also the Art 12bis fits well, but I would word para 2 and para 3 of the provision so that they are not "may" provisions. Regarding further procedure - exactly @168, we must then insert our proposal under the tab "Page". You can then also edit directly there User150 (Discussion) 20:56, 16 May 2022 (CEST) [43]

113: To include the input of 150 one can also split the paragraph 2 into two paragraphs. First the "carnival provision" and then the general exception provision. Also, the exceptions for health or safety reasons are missing. [45]

148: I think your approaches are good. Do you think that a collision regulation is still needed? I am thinking, for example, of the case of the obligation to wear masks at sporting events. [47]

112 @all: How do we want to proceed now (I have easily lost the overview of our brainstorming)? Do we want to take one of the variants as a basis (e.g. Art. 12bis) or would someone like to "assemble" the various proposals in a different way? And do we then want to insert this wording already on the "page" so that it can be written on there and we can make the changes more visible by means of italic, bold or underlined font? (new sentences / parts of sentences in italics, bold or underlined, old crossed out, possibly "sign" corrections) What do you think? User112 (discussion) 22:08, 18 May 2022 (CEST) [49]

172: My suggestion: Otherwise, everyone could also write down his preferred variant under text variants and we decide until Sunday evening for a variant, which we will then finally submit? 14:21, 19 May 2022 (CEST) [51]

We can also do so from me User112 (Discussion) 21:31, 19. May 2022 (CEST) [53]
148: We can do from me also gladly so. [54]

== Concretization "crowd of people" (gathering of people) ==
[56]

Proposal 1: [57]

[Under this law, punish]: [59]

"Whoever, in the case of gatherings of people (of a certain size, e.g. in which more than 30 people participate), especially gatherings requiring a permit, demonstrations and ... makes himself unrecognizable." [61]

Advantages: More examples possible, because not exhaustive, but you can see in which direction it goes. [63]

: Here you could possibly add sporting events as an example. User112 (Discussion) 13:34, 16 May 2022 (CEST) [65]
Possible problem with this: I find it problematic that with this wording it is not clear whether it depends on the permit requirement. Because especially if there are spontaneous (counter-) demonstrations, they are rarely authorized and could have some potential for violence. That is why I would completely dispense with the criterion of the obligation to obtain a permit. [66]

: As I understand it, the permit requirement above refers only to the assemblies and the demonstrations as such are also covered, whether with or without a permit. Therefore, such a wording would be fine for my sensibilities. User112 (discussion) 13:13, 16 May 2022 (CEST) [68]

== Concretization "make unrecognizable" ==
[70]

Proposal 1: [Under this law, punishment is]: Whoever makes himself [...] unrecognizable, especially by covering his face. [71]

: Proposal 2: ... of the face [by means of a cloth, scarf, or mask], so that identification is rendered impossible. [73]

I think this is a good proposal. However, one could "tighten" the regulation a bit by saying that already an "impediment to identification" is sufficient for a punishment. After all, this is already associated with an additional effort for the prosecution authorities. Or do you think this is too restrictive? User152 (discussion) 10:17, 18 May 2022 (CEST) [75]

172: In my opinion, I would leave it at the wording: "by covering the face without Konkretisieung of the veiling means since the enumeration (cloth, scarf, etc.) has the risk of potential gaps. [77]

Regarding the suggestion that 152 made: I think your approach is good, perhaps one could add "coverings that aim to make identification more difficult" so that, for example, in winter scarf, hat and sunglasses are not already sufficient, but only, for example, balaclavas for football fans. 13:02, 19 May 2022 (CEST) [79]

== Concretization "Exceptions ==
[81]

Proposal 1: "The Government Council may provide for exceptions. Permitted are in particular the making unrecognizable in the context of religious occasions, on holidays and for the protection of health." [82]

Proposal 2: "Par. 1 Exceptions are to be approved by the competent authority. [84]

Par. 2 Permitted are in particular the making unrecognizable for health reasons, for safety reasons as well as for reasons of the enheimischen customs." User150 (discussion) 21:15, 16 May 2022 (CEST) [86]

I'm not sure that mentioning "indigenous customs" is not entirely unproblematic from a legal equality point of view. What about customs from foreign cultures then? They would probably not fall under the other exceptions if the legal text explicitly mentions "native". Or is a custom by definition local? If so, it would probably be less problematic. User152 (discussion) 10:27, 18 May 2022 (CEST) [88]

@152 True, I hadn't thought of it that way. I think by native customs one already understands only the Swiss ones, there would be then the customs from foreign cultures excluded. I would delete this part from my proposal. User150 (Discussion) 17:16, 18 May 2022 (CEST) [90]

172: My suggestion would be to give the exception authority to the police, since they usually have to decide on the spot if someone is misbehaving and the governing council is too far away for that. In this context, I find the arrangement of the Canton of Thurgau to be successful: proposal "The enforcement of the prohibition may be waived at the discretion of the police if otherwise the escalation of the situation must be feared." This puts the clear purpose of the provision in the foreground namely the risk of escalation. 12:48, 19 May 2022 (CEST) [92]

== Text variants ==
[94]

"[Punished under this law is]: [...] [95]

Variant 1: [97]

Whoever makes himself unrecognizable at gatherings of people with more than [15 or 30] participants, in particular at gatherings, demonstrations and sporting events requiring a permit, in particular by covering his face. [99]

The Government Council may provide for exceptions. In particular, disguising is permitted in the context of religious and cultural events, on public holidays and for the protection of health. [101]

Variant 2: [104]

Who makes himself unrecognizable at gatherings of people with more than [15 or 30] participants, especially at meetings and demonstrations requiring a permit [and / or] in public or private places that are open to the general public for use against payment or free of charge, especially by covering the face. [106]

The Government Council may provide for exceptions. In particular, disguising is permitted in the context of religious and cultural events, on public holidays and for the protection of health. [108]

Variant 3: [111]

Art. 12bis* Prohibition of disguise [113]

(1)Anyone who disguises himself at meetings or demonstrations requiring a permit or in the vicinity of sporting or other events shall be liable to a fine. [115]

(2) The competent authority may grant exceptions if respectable reasons justify disguising oneself. Carnival and other traditional, folkloric events are not covered by the ban. [117]

(3) In individual cases, the head of operations of the police may refrain from enforcing the ban if this appears necessary to prevent escalation. User168 (Discussion) 17:55, 16 May 2022 (CEST) [119]

Variant 172: [122]

(1) Whoever, at gatherings of people with more than [15 or 30] participants, in particular at meetings, demonstrations and sporting events requiring a permit, makes himself unrecognizable by covering his face for the purpose of making identification more difficult, shall be punished by a fine. [124]

(2) Exceptions may be granted by the competent authority for respectable reasons. In particular, traditional and health reasons shall be taken into account. [126]

(3) The enforcement of the ban may be waived at the discretion of the police, if otherwise the escalation of the situation must be feared. [128]

Variant 112: User112 (Discussion) 21:42, 19 May 2022 (CEST) [131]

(1) Anyone who makes himself unrecognizable by covering his face for the purpose of making identification more difficult at gatherings of people with more than 15 participants, in particular at gatherings, demonstrations and sporting events requiring a permit, shall be punished by a fine. [133]

(2) Exceptions may be granted by the competent authority for worthy reasons or reasons in the public interest. In particular, religious, cultural and health reasons shall be taken into account. [135]

(3) Enforcement of the ban may be waived at the discretion of the police if this appears necessary to prevent escalation. [137]

Variant 148: (1) Anyone who disguises himself by covering his face during gatherings of people with more than 15 participants, in particular during gatherings, demonstrations and sporting events requiring a permit, shall be punished by a fine. [140]

(2) Exceptions may be granted by the competent authority for respectable reasons or reasons in the public interest. In particular, religious, cultural and health reasons shall be taken into account. [142]

(3) Enforcement of the ban may be waived at the discretion of the police if this appears necessary to prevent escalation. [144]

I join the variant of 148, I find from the veiling of the face results in the complication of identification, so that does not need to be specifically listed. If we agree, do we want to add a proposal on the first page? After all, you can always make changes there. User150 (discussion) 15:44, 21 May 2022 (CEST) [146]

Join now also 148 and 150, find the proposal of 148 good. I would now also insert a proposal on the first page, so that we have something, User112 (discussion) 15:25, 22 May 2022 (CEST) [148]

102: (1) Whoever makes himself unrecognizable at gatherings of people with more than 15 participants, especially at gatherings, demonstrations and sporting events requiring a permit, shall be punished by a fine. [150]

(2) Religious and cultural events as well as public holidays are exempt from this. Measures to protect health are also permitted. [152]

(3) The Government Council may provide for further exceptions. [154]

135: I also find the variant from 148 the best. I have now added it to the first page. If anyone has any suggestions for changes, these should preferably be placed directly on the front page. [157]

Thank you very much! I agree.User168 (Discussion) 08:59, 23 May 2022 (CEST) [159]

Diskussion:Gruppe1 EN

2023-02-08T10:56:45Z

Wikiadmin:

== Draft law ==
[1]

Thank you very much for preparing the first draft. I think it is very successful. Only in paragraph 3 I am not sure whether we should leave it out. It describes the principles of police action that must be respected by the police in all situations and regulates what is already known. Otherwise I wouldn't change anything else, what do you guys think? User163 (discussion) 11:18, 22 May 2022 (CEST) [3]

I understand what User 163 means, but think that a repetition of what is already known would not hurt at this point. I would leave para 3 as it is. User137 (discussion) 13:52, 22 May 2022 (CEST) [5]

I agree that a repetition of a police principle here does no harm. After all, the Zug version repeats it. So I would leave para 3 as it is. "User129 (discussion) 20:53, 22 May 2022 (CEST)" [7]

For me, our solution including para 3 is fine. I have now changed the title of our text to "New legislative proposal" so that, in view of tomorrow's submission, "draft" no longer occurs. User146 (discussion) 21:23, 22 May 2022 (CEST) [9]

== Exceptions ==
[11]

Perhaps it would be useful to list the exception provision in a paragraph 2? User146 (discussion) 10:52, 22 May 2022 (CEST) [13]

I agree, although it is not clear to me whether the sentence with the exceptions already constitutes a new paragraph or whether this is a new paragraph. In any case, one would have to determine where the exceptions are regulated with a reference or regulate in the article itself as paragraph 2, which these are.User117 (discussion) 09:06, 16 May 2022 (CEST) [15]

I agree that the exception provision needs to be in a second paragraph. In addition, I find the sentence order "Exceptions may be granted" a bit unattractive. Better: "Exceptions may be granted" ("it" does not need it). Further, I also think that it needs to be more specific as to when exceptions are granted. The problem right now is that no one really knows exactly when the provision applies now, because for some reason an exception could be granted. So I would suggest that we say, for example, "exceptions can be granted for reasons of public interest". What do you guys think? "User129 (discussion) 14:54, 19 May 2022 (CEST)" [17]

: you could also refer to BV 10a III. There the exceptions of "security, climatic conditions and native customs" are mentioned. User159 (discussion) 10:58, 16 May 2022 (CEST). [19]

: I would rather refrain from a reference to BV 10a. The whole article is a constitutional misfortune (in the chapter "fundamental rights" a "ban on covering one's own face", that's just how it comes out with an initiative committee as constitutional editors ...). Exceptions should be regulated in any case in a separate paragraph. There are "models" for this penalty provision in various cantonal criminal laws. Zug, for example, currently has the following: [21]
:: § 7 Prohibition of mummery [22]
:: 1 Anyone who disguises himself at meetings, events, demonstrations or other gatherings of people on public or private property requiring a permit shall be punished by a fine. [23]
:: 2 The police may grant exceptions if respectable reasons justify disguising oneself. Fasnacht and other traditional events are not covered by the ban on disguising oneself. [24]
:: 3 The police may refrain from enforcing the ban in individual cases if this is necessary to prevent escalation. [25]

: (I would not take para. 1 as a "model", but it is about para. 2 and 3, which firstly say who can grant exceptions and secondly under which conditions). [27]
: User134 (discussion) 09:13, 17 May 2022 (CEST). [28]
I agree that the provision: "Exceptions may be granted" is too vague. For me it is important which authority can grant exceptions or if courts can provide exceptions in the sense of case by case justice. Basically, the legislature should be clear in this regard, in which situations exceptions are provided for and which authority is responsible. User163 (discussion) 10:55, 17 May 2022 (CEST) [29]

I also think it is important to designate the authority that can grant the exceptions. The police would probably make sense here. Regarding the reasons for the exception, we could make it simple and let the executive branch define the exceptions (e.g. "The government council determines under which conditions exceptions can be granted."). User130 (discussion) 11:19, 17 May 2022 (CEST) [31]

So far I think we agree that a new paragraph is needed for the exceptions. Further, WHO grants the exceptions and WHAT the exceptions are or WHAT exceptions exist. Here I wonder if we better make one paragraph or two. Should we first define WHO regulates the exceptions in one paragraph and define the exceptions in a second one? Or both in one paragraph? [33]

In terms of content, I would not delegate the definition of the exceptions in a general way, but rather define them in the law itself (here I rather agree with user 163 and 134 and not user 130). Or also such as in BV 10a III. However, I think, one cannot determine such conclusively and would have to work with "in particular". User117 (Discussion) 13:35, 17 May 2022 (CEST) [35]

I like the idea of two paragraphs. Like User 130, I think the police are appropriate as the responsible authority. The police are usually close to the action and probably have enough experience with regard to riots during demonstrations. As far as the exceptions themselves are concerned, I think an exemplary list would be useful. However, I would leave it at such a list in order to give the authorities some discretion. I am still left with the question of whether exceptions must be sought from the authority in advance, or whether the competent authority could decide ex post. User163 (Discussion) 14:59, 17 May 2022 (CEST) [37]

Here I would say that if it is a "permit", this is to be obtained up front. Consequently, one might have to consider whether the term "grant" is the right one. In principle, an ex post decision would be possible, but I wonder if this would be compatible with legal certainty.User117 (discussion) 15:10, 17 May 2022 (CEST) [39]

I think the proposal from the Zug Transgression Penal Code (paragraphs 2 and 3) is actually quite appropriate. Are there any reasons why we could not adopt the two paragraphs as they are? I think we can proceed here according to the principle of "copy paste", which is quite common according to Prof. Uhlmann. User 117 sees, as I understand it, with this solution the problem that then the exceptions are defined conclusively, however it is called "Fasnacht and OTHER traditional events", why it is in my opinion already a non-exhaustive enumeration and a "in particular" is therefore not necessary. What do you think? "User129 (Discussion) 14:54, 19 May 2022 (CEST)" [41]

Basically, I like the idea of "copy pasting" the Zug law. That it by the OTHER traditional events not conclusively I see also, however there are yes only the traditional events covered and the exceptions such as security and climatic conditions from BV 10a not. So one would have to mention these in my opinion also still. User117 (Discussion) 15:11, 18 May 2022 (CEST) [43]

I'm not fundamentally against adopting the Zug law text, but I see another problem here: as I understand para. 2, a distinction is made between reasons for which an exception can be granted and reasons (carnival and other traditional events) for which no exception needs to be granted anyway. I find it problematic that there is an indeterminate legal term in sentence 1 for the exceptions to be granted ("respectable reasons") and an indeterminate legal term in sentence 2 for the reasons "excluding the facts" ("traditional events"). I consider a general exclusion of the ban on mummery for the carnival to be reasonable. I also consider the "respectable reasons", although rather vague, to be acceptable. However, I would delete the "other traditional events", because it then has too many indeterminate legal terms for one paragraph. Moreover, I don't see why giving "free passes" for mummery with such an indeterminate term when you have to get permits for all other events. Rather, one could add "respectable reasons" to sentence 1 with an exemplary enumeration. It would then look like this: "Par. 2 The police can grant exceptions if respectable reasons, such as folklore, tradition, security and climatic conditions, justify the disguise. Fasnacht does not fall under the prohibition of disguise." What do you think? [45]

Edit: just notice that the terms mentioned in the enumeration are also quite vague. However, in an enumeration like this I think it's okay.User130 (discussion) 18:16, 18 May 2022 (CEST) [47]

I find respectable motives difficult to define/determine as a competent authority. Such motives are highly subjective in my opinion. I am also not sure that we undermine the meaning and purpose of the law too firmly by providing too many exceptions. I think that even in the case of urgent as well as important issues, making them unrecognizable should not be allowed. Because all too often a rally with convincing and understandable motives is "exploited" by a few people to commit crimes without being detected. User163 (discussion) 11:56, 19 May 2022 (CEST) [49]

I think it's good that user 130 takes the Fasnacht completely out of the permit requirement and lists the security or climatic conditions with in particular. The exception "other traditional events" as the canton of Zug provides, however, I think it makes sense, because otherwise at best a large administrative burden could arise and it could possibly be perceived as discriminatory. User159 (Discussion) 09:04, 20 May 2022 (CEST) [52]

To prevent the Group1 page from remaining completely unchanged until just before the deadline, I have added a first suggestion. The paragraphs 2 and 3 correspond for the time being to the wording from the Zuger ÜStG (with minimal adjustment "to make oneself unrecognizable" → "to mask the face"). You are welcome to continue to make changes. User134 (Discussion) 17:29, 20 May 2022 (CEST) [54]

Thanks User 134 for the suggestion. I agree with paragraph 1. Regarding para 2 of your suggestion: here I think you could shorten the sentence by writing "The police can grant exceptions for respectable reasons. Fasnacht ...." Do you guys agree with that? User117 (discussion) 11:42, 21 May 2022 (CEST) Thank you for adding it. So I'm pretty happy with the current proposal. No changes are imposing themselves on me. "User129 (discussion) 20:18, 20 May 2022 (CEST)" [56]

Thanks User 134 for your suggestion. The title of the law is called Vermummungsverbot. I think the term "Vermummung" should be paraphrased in the law text (cf. Zug law text "make unrecognizable"). For example, we could use "cover face". User166 (Discussion) 17:38, 21 May 2022 (CEST) [58]

Thanks user 134, for me the current version fits. "Masking" doesn't need to be further paraphrased in my opinion, but wouldn't hurt either. I would leave it though for time reasons. User130 (discussion) 10:36, 22 May 2022 (CEST) [60]

Thanks User134. Re User166 and 130: Perhaps you could add the following to para 1: "who makes himself unrecognizable by masking his face at ...."? That would have included a paraphrase. User146 (Discussion) 11:08, 22 May 2022 (CEST) [62]

We deviate with "disguising" from BV 10a, which speaks of "veiling". But this is ok in my opinion, because vermummen is still a bit more specific for our topic (compare something to verhüllen at Duden the following example: "Wolken verhüllten die Bergspitzen"). Besides, "Vermummung" is used e.g. in the Zug decree (and in numerous others) User146 (Discussion) 11:08, 22 May 2022 (CEST) [64]

I think user 146's suggestion is a good one. This would concretize and paraphrase the term "Vermummung" and it should be clear what is meant. User137 (discussion) 13:46, 22 May 2022 (CEST) [66]

I also thought about it again and I think "unrecognizable" is better than "Vermummung". Vermummen somehow implies that the face has to be "wrapped" in a scarf or something. "Make unrecognizable" would be more accurate. But I'm probably already too late with my input "User129 (discussion) 20:57, 22 May 2022 (CEST)" [68]

"Vermummen" is paraphrased in a widely used dictionary as "to make unrecognizable by disguise and the like", i.e. "to make unrecognizable by disguising one's face" would be relatively pleonastic. User134 (discussion) 07:09, 23 May 2022 (CEST) [70]

== Use of "approve" ==
[72]

I find it unfortunate that "bewilligen" or "bewilligungspflichtig" is used 2x. Maybe we could change the second sentence to "Exceptions may be approved." or something like that? I'm just not sure if "approve" and "authorize" can really be used as synonyms. [73]

In principle, however, it makes sense to use the same terms consistently User159 (Discussion) [75]
This problem has now become superfluous, after all, in that the term "bewilligen" is used once in para. 2. Otherwise, I would be with you. User137 (Discussion) 13:48, 22 May 2022 (CEST) [76]

== Indeterminate legal terms ==
[78]

Obviously it is about defining a criminal offense (cf. introduction "According to this law is punished"). So because of nulla poena sine lege certa, in my opinion at least the following terms should be defined more precisely, possibly with legal definitions: [79]

* ''making unrecognizable'' (in the first place the face covering might be meant, cf. in the meantime also BV 10a [https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/1999/404/de#art_10_a BV 10a]) [81]
*' 'demonstrations'' [82]
* ''other gatherings of people'' [83]
It is also unclear what "subject to authorization" refers to (all three of the following terms?) and whether the author of this provision really meant that, conversely, it would not be punishable to make oneself unrecognizable at an event that does not require authorization. [84]

User134 (discussion) 09:34, 16 May 2022 (CEST) [86]

I think the term "requiring a permit" refers to all three of the following terms. Indeed, the Justice and Security Department of the Canton of Basel-Stadt always requires a permit for demonstrations (https://www.polizei.bs.ch/was-tun/polizeiliche-bewilligungen-dienstleistungen/kundgebungen-demos.html). User166 (discussion) 10:00, 17 May 2022 (CEST) [88]

My interpretation is that the "requiring a permit" refers only to the assemblies. If the whole article would refer only to events that require a permit, someone who, for example, masks himself in a hooligan mob that does not require a permit or a permit would not be liable to prosecution, even though this is precisely the goal of the ban on mummery (User 134 has already addressed this). In my opinion, it is questionable whether a distinction must be made at all between events requiring a permit and other gatherings of people. I don't think there needs to be a distinction, since hooding is/should be punished in both cases. "Requiring a permit" could thus be left out altogether and there would be no need to discuss it at all. User130 (discussion) 11:47, 17 May 2022 (CEST). [90]
Here I agree with User130 that there is no need for a distinction between events requiring a permit and events not requiring a permit. That way we could solve this "problem". User117 (Discussion) 13:39, 17 May 2022 (CEST) [91]

On "making unrecognizable": this could be defined in a paragraph under this art. That such a definition should be consistent with BV 10a I see as reasonable, however I am not quite sure how good a reference to the constitution is and how accurate the definition is there. [93]

On "demonstrations": here I think there is no need for a legal definition. [95]

I agree that the provision wants to criminalize making unrecognizable (1) at gatherings requiring a permit or at (2) demonstrations or at (3) other gatherings of people. I consider the provision - as a punitive provision - too vague. It remains open what "making unrecognizable" means, and finally, the enumeration (1-3) potentially criminalizes "making unrecognizable" per se at any gathering of people, except for the exceptions. User163 (discussion) 11:09, 17 May 2022 (CEST) [97]

Regarding "other gatherings of people": it is questionable whether this term can be defined, it actually only says that the enumeration is not exhaustive. It is to be assumed that such gatherings of people must be to the same extent as the ones mentioned. It is difficult here that above already gatherings requiring a permit are mentioned, does this now mean that all other gatherings of people must require a permit or exactly also those not requiring a permit are included? User117 (Discussion) 10:07, 16 May 2022 (CEST) [100]

In the early days of Covid there was quite a lot of discussion about terms like "event", "gathering" etc. If I see it correctly, in the later course they primarily still used the terms "rally", "event" and "gathering". [103]

My suggestion with regard to the requirement of certainty would be to concretize the "making unrecognizable" and to dispense with stuff like "other", as well as "subject to authorization" (can reasonably make no difference for criminal liability): [105]

: '''Vermummungsverbot''' [107]
: 1 Anyone who masks his face at a public demonstration, event or gathering of people shall be punished by a fine. [108]
: 2... [Regulation of exceptions] [109]
: 3... [Waiver of enforcement in individual cases]. [110]
: User134 (discussion) 07:03, 18 May 2022 (CEST). [111]
To prevent the Group1 page from remaining completely unchanged until just before the deadline, I have added a first suggestion. Feel free to keep adding to it. User134 (discussion) 17:29, 20 May 2022 (CEST) [112]

Thanks User 134 for your suggestion. The title of the law is called Vermummungsverbot. I think the term "Vermummung" should be paraphrased in the law text (cf. Zug law text "make unrecognizable"). For example, we could use "cover face". User166 (Discussion) 17:38, 21 May 2022 (CEST) [114]

To User166: see above my comment at "Exceptions".User146 (discussion) 11:13, 22 May 2022 (CEST) [116]

Here I agree with User 146 that we should add to para 1 as follows: "who at .... disguises himself by masking his face". This will allow us to concretize and rewrite the concept of mummery. User137 (discussion) 13:51, 22 May 2022 (CEST) [118]

I agree here that the term "mummery" needs to be concretized. See my comment above. "User129 (discussion) 20:58, 22 May 2022 (CEST)" [120]

== Concretization of the sanction ==
[122]

As it stands, the article describes the situations in which "disguising" is punishable. However, it is silent about the sanction. I consider a fine or imprisonment disproportionate. Consequently, shouldn't it be mentioned that a fine is threatened in case of violation of "making unrecognizable"? User163 (Discussion) 11:20, 17 May 2022 (CEST) [123]

You can probably leave "According to this law is punished" and not have to specify what the punishment is. Unlike the StGB, after all, many laws have a "Sanctions" section, which then deals with the possible sanctions, and the articles just refer to them in each case. If one adapts this here, it is at most not mer congruent with the other Art. or one would have to adapt all. It would be also possible to write "according to the art. xy of this law is punished". User137 (discussion) 13:10, 17 May 2022 (CEST) [125]

Would also suggest to specify the sanction (we are in cantonal transgression criminal law), see above under #Undefined legal terms. User134 (discussion) 07:03, 18 May 2022 (CEST) [127]

According to the current Übertretungsstrafgesetz Basel-Stadt, all transgressions are prefaced with "Mit Busse wird bestraft...". I therefore agree to concretize the sanction and specifically preface the article with "Mit Busse wird bestraft wer,...". User130 (discussion) 14:16, 20 May 2022 (CEST) [129]

So that the page Group1 does not remain completely unchanged until shortly before the deadline, I have added a first suggestion. Feel free to keep adding to it. User134 (discussion) 17:29, 20 May 2022 (CEST) [131]

Thanks User134 for the suggestion! I agree with the sanction as it is, and I especially disagree with writing a maximum or minimum penalty directly in our article. Otherwise there could be contradictions with the rest of the provisions (which we do not see). User146 (Discussion) 10:48, 22 May 2022 (CEST) [133]

I agree with User146 and also disagree with writing a maximum or minimum penalty directly into the article because of the risk of contradiction. "User129 (discussion) 21:02, 22 May 2022 (CEST)" [135]

== Procedure ==
[137]

How do we want to proceed specifically? Distribute tasks? User137 (discussion) 13:10, 17 May 2022 (CEST) [138]

- I would suggest we first discuss here in general what "problems" arise and then we define the "problem points" and discuss them to come to a "final formulation". Someone can then define the points we want to change and then create new "discussion titles". [141]

- I agree with the procedure. We can wait a few days until everyone has responded. Then we can see in which direction our formulation goes. But the important thing is this: Before opening a new title, everyone should see if there is not already a suitable existing title. If we have too many titles, everything will become confusing at some point.... "User129 (discussion) 14:55, 19 May 2022 (CEST)" [143]

Diskussion:Gruppe1 EN

2023-02-08T10:50:13Z

Wikiadmin: /* Indeterminate legal terms */

== Draft law ==
[1]

Thank you very much for preparing the first draft. I think it is very successful. Only in paragraph 3 I am not sure whether we should leave it out. It describes the principles of police action that must be respected by the police in all situations and regulates what is already known. Otherwise I wouldn't change anything else, what do you guys think? User163 (discussion) 11:18, 22 May 2022 (CEST) [3]

I understand what User 163 means, but think that a repetition of what is already known would not hurt at this point. I would leave para 3 as it is. User137 (discussion) 13:52, 22 May 2022 (CEST) [5]

I agree that a repetition of a police principle here does no harm. After all, the Zug version repeats it. So I would leave para 3 as it is. "User129 (discussion) 20:53, 22 May 2022 (CEST)" [7]

For me, our solution including para 3 is fine. I have now changed the title of our text to "New legislative proposal" so that, in view of tomorrow's submission, "draft" no longer occurs. User146 (discussion) 21:23, 22 May 2022 (CEST) [9]

== Exceptions ==
[11]

Perhaps it would be useful to list the exception provision in a paragraph 2? User146 (discussion) 10:52, 22 May 2022 (CEST) [13]

I agree, although it is not clear to me whether the sentence with the exceptions already constitutes a new paragraph or whether this is a new paragraph. In any case, one would have to determine where the exceptions are regulated with a reference or regulate in the article itself as paragraph 2, which these are.User117 (discussion) 09:06, 16 May 2022 (CEST) [15]

I agree that the exception provision needs to be in a second paragraph. In addition, I find the sentence order "Exceptions may be granted" a bit unattractive. Better: "Exceptions may be granted" ("it" does not need it). Further, I also think that it needs to be more specific as to when exceptions are granted. The problem right now is that no one really knows exactly when the provision applies now, because for some reason an exception could be granted. So I would suggest that we say, for example, "exceptions can be granted for reasons of public interest". What do you guys think? "User129 (discussion) 14:54, 19 May 2022 (CEST)" [17]

: you could also refer to BV 10a III. There the exceptions of "security, climatic conditions and native customs" are mentioned. User159 (discussion) 10:58, 16 May 2022 (CEST). [19]

: I would rather refrain from a reference to BV 10a. The whole article is a constitutional misfortune (in the chapter "fundamental rights" a "ban on covering one's own face", that's just how it comes out with an initiative committee as constitutional editors ...). Exceptions should be regulated in any case in a separate paragraph. There are "models" for this penalty provision in various cantonal criminal laws. Zug, for example, currently has the following: [21]
:: § 7 Prohibition of mummery [22]
:: 1 Anyone who disguises himself at meetings, events, demonstrations or other gatherings of people on public or private property requiring a permit shall be punished by a fine. [23]
:: 2 The police may grant exceptions if respectable reasons justify disguising oneself. Fasnacht and other traditional events are not covered by the ban on disguising oneself. [24]
:: 3 The police may refrain from enforcing the ban in individual cases if this is necessary to prevent escalation. [25]

: (I would not take para. 1 as a "model", but it is about para. 2 and 3, which firstly say who can grant exceptions and secondly under which conditions). [27]
: User134 (discussion) 09:13, 17 May 2022 (CEST). [28]
I agree that the provision: "Exceptions may be granted" is too vague. For me it is important which authority can grant exceptions or if courts can provide exceptions in the sense of case by case justice. Basically, the legislature should be clear in this regard, in which situations exceptions are provided for and which authority is responsible. User163 (discussion) 10:55, 17 May 2022 (CEST) [29]

I also think it is important to designate the authority that can grant the exceptions. The police would probably make sense here. Regarding the reasons for the exception, we could make it simple and let the executive branch define the exceptions (e.g. "The government council determines under which conditions exceptions can be granted."). User130 (discussion) 11:19, 17 May 2022 (CEST) [31]

So far I think we agree that a new paragraph is needed for the exceptions. Further, WHO grants the exceptions and WHAT the exceptions are or WHAT exceptions exist. Here I wonder if we better make one paragraph or two. Should we first define WHO regulates the exceptions in one paragraph and define the exceptions in a second one? Or both in one paragraph? [33]

In terms of content, I would not delegate the definition of the exceptions in a general way, but rather define them in the law itself (here I rather agree with user 163 and 134 and not user 130). Or also such as in BV 10a III. However, I think, one cannot determine such conclusively and would have to work with "in particular". User117 (Discussion) 13:35, 17 May 2022 (CEST) [35]

I like the idea of two paragraphs. Like User 130, I think the police are appropriate as the responsible authority. The police are usually close to the action and probably have enough experience with regard to riots during demonstrations. As far as the exceptions themselves are concerned, I think an exemplary list would be useful. However, I would leave it at such a list in order to give the authorities some discretion. I am still left with the question of whether exceptions must be sought from the authority in advance, or whether the competent authority could decide ex post. User163 (Discussion) 14:59, 17 May 2022 (CEST) [37]

Here I would say that if it is a "permit", this is to be obtained up front. Consequently, one might have to consider whether the term "grant" is the right one. In principle, an ex post decision would be possible, but I wonder if this would be compatible with legal certainty.User117 (discussion) 15:10, 17 May 2022 (CEST) [39]

I think the proposal from the Zug Transgression Penal Code (paragraphs 2 and 3) is actually quite appropriate. Are there any reasons why we could not adopt the two paragraphs as they are? I think we can proceed here according to the principle of "copy paste", which is quite common according to Prof. Uhlmann. User 117 sees, as I understand it, with this solution the problem that then the exceptions are defined conclusively, however it is called "Fasnacht and OTHER traditional events", why it is in my opinion already a non-exhaustive enumeration and a "in particular" is therefore not necessary. What do you think? "User129 (Discussion) 14:54, 19 May 2022 (CEST)" [41]

Basically, I like the idea of "copy pasting" the Zug law. That it by the OTHER traditional events not conclusively I see also, however there are yes only the traditional events covered and the exceptions such as security and climatic conditions from BV 10a not. So one would have to mention these in my opinion also still. User117 (Discussion) 15:11, 18 May 2022 (CEST) [43]

I'm not fundamentally against adopting the Zug law text, but I see another problem here: as I understand para. 2, a distinction is made between reasons for which an exception can be granted and reasons (carnival and other traditional events) for which no exception needs to be granted anyway. I find it problematic that there is an indeterminate legal term in sentence 1 for the exceptions to be granted ("respectable reasons") and an indeterminate legal term in sentence 2 for the reasons "excluding the facts" ("traditional events"). I consider a general exclusion of the ban on mummery for the carnival to be reasonable. I also consider the "respectable reasons", although rather vague, to be acceptable. However, I would delete the "other traditional events", because it then has too many indeterminate legal terms for one paragraph. Moreover, I don't see why giving "free passes" for mummery with such an indeterminate term when you have to get permits for all other events. Rather, one could add "respectable reasons" to sentence 1 with an exemplary enumeration. It would then look like this: "Par. 2 The police can grant exceptions if respectable reasons, such as folklore, tradition, security and climatic conditions, justify the disguise. Fasnacht does not fall under the prohibition of disguise." What do you think? [45]

Edit: just notice that the terms mentioned in the enumeration are also quite vague. However, in an enumeration like this I think it's okay.User130 (discussion) 18:16, 18 May 2022 (CEST) [47]

I find respectable motives difficult to define/determine as a competent authority. Such motives are highly subjective in my opinion. I am also not sure that we undermine the meaning and purpose of the law too firmly by providing too many exceptions. I think that even in the case of urgent as well as important issues, making them unrecognizable should not be allowed. Because all too often a rally with convincing and understandable motives is "exploited" by a few people to commit crimes without being detected. User163 (discussion) 11:56, 19 May 2022 (CEST) [49]

I think it's good that user 130 takes the Fasnacht completely out of the permit requirement and lists the security or climatic conditions with in particular. The exception "other traditional events" as the canton of Zug provides, however, I think it makes sense, because otherwise at best a large administrative burden could arise and it could possibly be perceived as discriminatory. User159 (Discussion) 09:04, 20 May 2022 (CEST) [52]

To prevent the Group1 page from remaining completely unchanged until just before the deadline, I have added a first suggestion. The paragraphs 2 and 3 correspond for the time being to the wording from the Zuger ÜStG (with minimal adjustment "to make oneself unrecognizable" → "to mask the face"). You are welcome to continue to make changes. User134 (Discussion) 17:29, 20 May 2022 (CEST) [54]

Thanks User 134 for the suggestion. I agree with paragraph 1. Regarding para 2 of your suggestion: here I think you could shorten the sentence by writing "The police can grant exceptions for respectable reasons. Fasnacht ...." Do you guys agree with that? User117 (discussion) 11:42, 21 May 2022 (CEST) Thank you for adding it. So I'm pretty happy with the current proposal. No changes are imposing themselves on me. "User129 (discussion) 20:18, 20 May 2022 (CEST)" [56]

Thanks User 134 for your suggestion. The title of the law is called Vermummungsverbot. I think the term "Vermummung" should be paraphrased in the law text (cf. Zug law text "make unrecognizable"). For example, we could use "cover face". User166 (Discussion) 17:38, 21 May 2022 (CEST) [58]

Thanks user 134, for me the current version fits. "Masking" doesn't need to be further paraphrased in my opinion, but wouldn't hurt either. I would leave it though for time reasons. User130 (discussion) 10:36, 22 May 2022 (CEST) [60]

Thanks User134. Re User166 and 130: Perhaps you could add the following to para 1: "who makes himself unrecognizable by masking his face at ...."? That would have included a paraphrase. User146 (Discussion) 11:08, 22 May 2022 (CEST) [62]

We deviate with "disguising" from BV 10a, which speaks of "veiling". But this is ok in my opinion, because vermummen is still a bit more specific for our topic (compare something to verhüllen at Duden the following example: "Wolken verhüllten die Bergspitzen"). Besides, "Vermummung" is used e.g. in the Zug decree (and in numerous others) User146 (Discussion) 11:08, 22 May 2022 (CEST) [64]

I think user 146's suggestion is a good one. This would concretize and paraphrase the term "Vermummung" and it should be clear what is meant. User137 (discussion) 13:46, 22 May 2022 (CEST) [66]

I also thought about it again and I think "unrecognizable" is better than "Vermummung". Vermummen somehow implies that the face has to be "wrapped" in a scarf or something. "Make unrecognizable" would be more accurate. But I'm probably already too late with my input "User129 (discussion) 20:57, 22 May 2022 (CEST)" [68]

"Vermummen" is paraphrased in a widely used dictionary as "to make unrecognizable by disguise and the like", i.e. "to make unrecognizable by disguising one's face" would be relatively pleonastic. User134 (discussion) 07:09, 23 May 2022 (CEST) [70]

== Use of "approve" ==
[72]

I find it unfortunate that "bewilligen" or "bewilligungspflichtig" is used 2x. Maybe we could change the second sentence to "Exceptions may be approved." or something like that? I'm just not sure if "approve" and "authorize" can really be used as synonyms. [73]

In principle, however, it makes sense to use the same terms consistently User159 (Discussion) [75]
This problem has now become superfluous, after all, in that the term "bewilligen" is used once in para. 2. Otherwise, I would be with you. User137 (Discussion) 13:48, 22 May 2022 (CEST) [76]

== Indeterminate legal terms ==
[78]

Obviously it is about defining a criminal offense (cf. introduction "According to this law is punished"). So because of nulla poena sine lege certa, in my opinion at least the following terms should be defined more precisely, possibly with legal definitions: [79]

* ''making unrecognizable'' (in the first place the face covering might be meant, cf. in the meantime also BV 10a [https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/1999/404/de#art_10_a BV 10a]) [81]
*' 'demonstrations'' [82]
* ''other gatherings of people'' [83]
It is also unclear what "subject to authorization" refers to (all three of the following terms?) and whether the author of this provision really meant that, conversely, it would not be punishable to make oneself unrecognizable at an event that does not require authorization. [84]

User134 (discussion) 09:34, 16 May 2022 (CEST) [86]

I think the term "requiring a permit" refers to all three of the following terms. Indeed, the Justice and Security Department of the Canton of Basel-Stadt always requires a permit for demonstrations (https://www.polizei.bs.ch/was-tun/polizeiliche-bewilligungen-dienstleistungen/kundgebungen-demos.html). User166 (discussion) 10:00, 17 May 2022 (CEST) [88]

My interpretation is that the "requiring a permit" refers only to the assemblies. If the whole article would refer only to events that require a permit, someone who, for example, masks himself in a hooligan mob that does not require a permit or a permit would not be liable to prosecution, even though this is precisely the goal of the ban on mummery (User 134 has already addressed this). In my opinion, it is questionable whether a distinction must be made at all between events requiring a permit and other gatherings of people. I don't think there needs to be a distinction, since hooding is/should be punished in both cases. "Requiring a permit" could thus be left out altogether and there would be no need to discuss it at all. User130 (discussion) 11:47, 17 May 2022 (CEST). [90]
Here I agree with User130 that there is no need for a distinction between events requiring a permit and events not requiring a permit. That way we could solve this "problem". User117 (Discussion) 13:39, 17 May 2022 (CEST) [91]

On "making unrecognizable": this could be defined in a paragraph under this art. That such a definition should be consistent with BV 10a I see as reasonable, however I am not quite sure how good a reference to the constitution is and how accurate the definition is there. [93]

On "demonstrations": here I think there is no need for a legal definition. [95]

I agree that the provision wants to criminalize making unrecognizable (1) at gatherings requiring a permit or at (2) demonstrations or at (3) other gatherings of people. I consider the provision - as a punitive provision - too vague. It remains open what "making unrecognizable" means, and finally, the enumeration (1-3) potentially criminalizes "making unrecognizable" per se at any gathering of people, except for the exceptions. User163 (discussion) 11:09, 17 May 2022 (CEST) [97]

Regarding "other gatherings of people": it is questionable whether this term can be defined, it actually only says that the enumeration is not exhaustive. It is to be assumed that such gatherings of people must be to the same extent as the ones mentioned. It is difficult here that above already gatherings requiring a permit are mentioned, does this now mean that all other gatherings of people must require a permit or exactly also those not requiring a permit are included? User117 (Discussion) 10:07, 16 May 2022 (CEST) [100]

In the early days of Covid there was quite a lot of discussion about terms like "event", "gathering" etc. If I see it correctly, in the later course they primarily still used the terms "rally", "event" and "gathering". [103]

My suggestion with regard to the requirement of certainty would be to concretize the "making unrecognizable" and to dispense with stuff like "other", as well as "subject to authorization" (can reasonably make no difference for criminal liability): [105]

: '''Vermummungsverbot''' [107]
: 1 Anyone who masks his face at a public demonstration, event or gathering of people shall be punished by a fine. [108]
: 2... [Regulation of exceptions] [109]
: 3... [Waiver of enforcement in individual cases]. [110]
: User134 (discussion) 07:03, 18 May 2022 (CEST). [111]
To prevent the Group1 page from remaining completely unchanged until just before the deadline, I have added a first suggestion. Feel free to keep adding to it. User134 (discussion) 17:29, 20 May 2022 (CEST) [112]

Thanks User 134 for your suggestion. The title of the law is called Vermummungsverbot. I think the term "Vermummung" should be paraphrased in the law text (cf. Zug law text "make unrecognizable"). For example, we could use "cover face". User166 (Discussion) 17:38, 21 May 2022 (CEST) [114]

To User166: see above my comment at "Exceptions".User146 (discussion) 11:13, 22 May 2022 (CEST) [116]

Here I agree with User 146 that we should add to para 1 as follows: "who at .... disguises himself by masking his face". This will allow us to concretize and rewrite the concept of mummery. User137 (discussion) 13:51, 22 May 2022 (CEST) [118]

I agree here that the term "mummery" needs to be concretized. See my comment above. "User129 (discussion) 20:58, 22 May 2022 (CEST)" [120]

== Concretization of the sanction ==
[122]
As it stands, the article describes the situations in which "disguising" is punishable. However, it is silent about the sanction. I consider a fine or imprisonment disproportionate. Consequently, shouldn't it be mentioned that a fine is threatened in case of violation of "making unrecognizable"? User163 (Discussion) 11:20, 17 May 2022 (CEST) [123]

You can probably leave "According to this law is punished" and not have to specify what the punishment is. Unlike the StGB, after all, many laws have a "Sanctions" section, which then deals with the possible sanctions, and the articles just refer to them in each case. If one adapts this here, it is at most not mer congruent with the other Art. or one would have to adapt all. It would be also possible to write "according to the art. xy of this law is punished". User137 (discussion) 13:10, 17 May 2022 (CEST) [125]

Would also suggest to specify the sanction (we are in cantonal transgression criminal law), see above under #Undefined legal terms. User134 (discussion) 07:03, 18 May 2022 (CEST) [127]

According to the current Übertretungsstrafgesetz Basel-Stadt, all transgressions are prefaced with "Mit Busse wird bestraft...". I therefore agree to concretize the sanction and specifically preface the article with "Mit Busse wird bestraft wer,...". User130 (discussion) 14:16, 20 May 2022 (CEST) [129]

So that the page Group1 does not remain completely unchanged until shortly before the deadline, I have added a first suggestion. Feel free to keep adding to it. User134 (discussion) 17:29, 20 May 2022 (CEST) [131]

Thanks User134 for the suggestion! I agree with the sanction as it is, and I especially disagree with writing a maximum or minimum penalty directly in our article. Otherwise there could be contradictions with the rest of the provisions (which we do not see). User146 (Discussion) 10:48, 22 May 2022 (CEST) [133]

I agree with User146 and also disagree with writing a maximum or minimum penalty directly into the article because of the risk of contradiction. "User129 (discussion) 21:02, 22 May 2022 (CEST)" [135]

== Procedure ==
[137]
How do we want to proceed specifically? Distribute tasks? User137 (discussion) 13:10, 17 May 2022 (CEST) [138]

- I would suggest we first discuss here in general what "problems" arise and then we define the "problem points" and discuss them to come to a "final formulation". Someone can then define the points we want to change and then create new "discussion titles". [141]

- I agree with the procedure. We can wait a few days until everyone has responded. Then we can see in which direction our formulation goes. But the important thing is this: Before opening a new title, everyone should see if there is not already a suitable existing title. If we have too many titles, everything will become confusing at some point.... "User129 (discussion) 14:55, 19 May 2022 (CEST)" [143]

Diskussion:Gruppe1

2023-02-08T10:19:00Z

Wikiadmin: Änderung 1044 von Wikiadmin (Diskussion) rückgängig gemacht.

== Gesetzesentwurf ==

Danke vielmals für das Ausarbeiten des ersten Entwurfs. Ich finde ihn sehr gelungen. Nur bei Abs. 3 bin ich mir nicht sicher, ob wir diesen weglassen sollten. Dieser umschreibt Grundsätze polizeilichen Handelns, dass in allen Situationen von der Polizei geachtet werden muss und regelt bereits bekanntes. Sonst würde ich nichts mehr ändern, was meint ihr? [[Benutzer:User163|User163]] ([[Benutzer Diskussion:User163|Diskussion]]) 11:18, 22. Mai 2022 (CEST)

Ich verstehe was User 163 meint, denke aber, dass eine Repetition von bereits Bekanntem an dieser Stelle nicht schaden würde. Ich würde den Abs. 3 so lassen. [[Benutzer:User137|User137]] ([[Benutzer Diskussion:User137|Diskussion]]) 13:52, 22. Mai 2022 (CEST)

Ich bin auch der Meinung, dass eine Repetition eines polizeilichen Grundsatzes hier nicht schadet. Die Zuger Version wiederholt diesen ja auch. Also würde ich Abs. 3 auch so lassen. «[[Benutzer:User129|User129]] ([[Benutzer Diskussion:User129|Diskussion]]) 20:53, 22. Mai 2022 (CEST)»

Für mich ist unsere Lösung inkl. Abs. 3 in Ordnung. Ich habe den Titel unseres Textes nun zu "Neuer Gesetzesvorschlag" geändert, damit mit Blick auf die morgige Abgabe "Entwurf" nicht mehr vorkommt. [[Benutzer:User146|User146]] ([[Benutzer Diskussion:User146|Diskussion]]) 21:23, 22. Mai 2022 (CEST)

== Ausnahmen ==

Vielleicht wäre es sinnvoll, die Ausnahmebestimmung in einem Abs. 2 aufzuführen? [[Benutzer:User146|User146]] ([[Benutzer Diskussion:User146|Diskussion]]) 10:52, 22. Mai 2022 (CEST)

Sehe ich auch so, mir ist zwar nicht ganz klar, ob der Satz mit den Ausnahmen schon ein neuer Abs. darstellt oder ob dies ein neuer Abs. ist. Auf jeden Fall müsste man bestimmen, wo die Ausnahmen geregelt sind mit einem Verweis oder im Art. selber als Abs. 2 regeln, welches diese sind.[[Benutzer:User117|User117]] ([[Benutzer Diskussion:User117|Diskussion]]) 09:06, 16. Mai 2022 (CEST)

Ich bin auch der Meinung, dass die Ausnahmebestimmung in einem zweiten Absatz aufgeführt werden muss. Zudem finde ich die Satzstellung "Es können Ausnahmen bewilligt werden" ein bisschen unschön. Besser: "Ausnahmen können bewilligt werden" ("es" braucht es nicht). Weiter denke ich auch, dass spezifischer bestimmt werden muss, wann Ausnahmen bewilligt werden. Das Problem momentan ist, dass eigentlich keiner so genau weiss, wann die Bestimmung jetzt genau gilt, weil ja aus irgendeinem Grund eine Ausnahme bewilligt werden könnte. Also würde ich vorschlagen, dass wir z.B. sagen "Ausnahmen können aus Gründen des öffentlichen Interesses" bewilligt werden. Was meint ihr? "[[Benutzer:User129|User129]] ([[Benutzer Diskussion:User129|Diskussion]]) 14:54, 19. Mai 2022 (CEST)"

: man könnte auch auf BV 10a III verweisen. Dort werden die Ausnahmen der "Sicherheit, der klimatischen Bedingungen und des einheimischen Brauchtums" genannt. [[Benutzer:User159|User159]] ([[Benutzer Diskussion:User159|Diskussion]]) 10:58, 16. Mai 2022 (CEST)

: Von einem Verweis auf BV 10a würde ich eher absehen. Der ganze Artikel ist ein verfassungstechnisches Unglück (im Kapitel "Grundrechte" ein "Verbot der Verhüllung des eigenen Gesichts", so kommt's halt raus bei einem Initiativkomitee als Verfassungsredaktion …). Ausnahmen sollten auf jeden Fall in einem eigenen Absatz geregelt werden. "Vorbilder" für diese Strafbestimmung gibt's ja in diversen kantonalen Übertretungsstrafgesetzen. Die [https://bgs.zg.ch/app/de/texts_of_law/312.1/versions/2335 Zuger] z.B. haben aktuell Folgendes:

:: § 7 Vermummungsverbot

:: 1 Mit Busse wird bestraft, wer sich bei bewilligungspflichtigen Versammlungen, Veranstaltungen, Demonstrationen oder sonstigen Menschenansammlungen auf öffentlichem oder privatem Grund unkenntlich macht.

:: 2 Die Polizei kann Ausnahmen bewilligen, wenn achtenswerte Gründe es rechtfertigen, sich unkenntlich zu machen. Fasnacht und andere traditionelle Veranstaltungen fallen nicht unter das Vermummungsverbot.

:: 3 Die Polizei darf im Einzelfall ereignisbezogen von der Durchsetzung des Verbots absehen, wenn dies zur Verhinderung einer Eskalation geboten ist.

: (Abs. 1 würde ich nicht als "Vorbild" nehmen, sondern es geht hier um die Abs. 2 und 3, die erstens sagen, ''wer'' Ausnahmen bewilligen kann und zweitens unter welchen Voraussetzungen)

: [[Benutzer:User134|User134]] ([[Benutzer Diskussion:User134|Diskussion]]) 09:13, 17. Mai 2022 (CEST)

Ich bin auch der Meinung, dass die Bestimmung: "Es können Ausnahmen bewilligt werden", zu unbestimmt ist. Für mich ist es wichtig, welche Behörde Ausnahmen bewilligen kann oder ob Gerichte im Sinne der Einzelfallgerechtigkeit Ausnahmen vorsehen können. Grundsätzlich sollte sich der Gesetzgeber diesbezüglich klar äussern, in welchen Situationen Ausnahmen vorgesehen sind und welche Behörde zuständig ist. [[Benutzer:User163|User163]] ([[Benutzer Diskussion:User163|Diskussion]]) 10:55, 17. Mai 2022 (CEST)

Ich denke auch, dass es wichtig ist, die Behörde zu bezeichnen, die die Ausnahmen bewilligen kann. Sinnvoll dürfte hier die Polizei sein. Bezüglich der Gründe für die Ausnahme könnten wir es uns einfach machen und die Ausnahmetatbestände durch die Exekutive festlegen lassen (bspw. "Der Regierungsrat bestimmt, unter welchen Voraussetzungen Ausnahmen bewilligt werden können.") [[Benutzer:User130|User130]] ([[Benutzer Diskussion:User130|Diskussion]]) 11:19, 17. Mai 2022 (CEST)

Bis jetzt denke ich sind wir uns einig, dass es für die Ausnahmen einen neuen Absatz braucht.
Weiter ist zu regeln, WER die Ausnahmen bewilligt und WAS die Ausnahmen sind bzw. WELCHE Ausnahmen existieren.
Hier frage ich mich, ob wir besser einen oder zwei Absätze machen. Sollen wir zuerst in einem Absatz festlegen WER die Ausnahmen regelt und ein einem zweiten die Ausnahmen festlegen? Oder beides in einem Absatz?

Inhaltlich würde ich das Festlegen der Ausnahmen nicht pauschal delegieren, sondern diese gleich im Gesetz selber festhalten (hier stimme ich eher User 163 und 134 und nicht User 130 zu)
Zu den Ausnahmen an sich: Dass man Ausnahmen wie aus dem Beispiel des Kantons Zug festlegt (Fasnacht und traditionelle Veranstaltungen) finde ich gut. Oder auch solche wie in BV 10a III. Jedoch denke ich, kann man nicht abschliessend solche festlegen und müsste mit «insbesondere» arbeiten. [[Benutzer:User117|User117]] ([[Benutzer Diskussion:User117|Diskussion]]) 13:35, 17. Mai 2022 (CEST)

Ich finde die Idee mit zwei Absätzen gut. Wie auch User 130 finde ich die Polizei als zuständige Behörde geeignet. Die Polizei ist meistens nahe am Geschehen und verfügt wohl über genügend Erfahrungen im Hinblick auf Ausschreitungen während Demonstrationen. Was die Ausnahmen an sich betrifft, finde ich eine beispielhafte Aufzählung für sinnvoll. Jedoch würde ich es bei einer solchen belassen, um der Behörde einen gewissen Ermessenspielraum einzuräumen. Mir stellt sich noch die Frage, ob Ausnahmen im vornherein bei der Behörde eingeholt werden müssen oder ob die zuständige Behörde ex post entscheiden könnte. [[Benutzer:User163|User163]] ([[Benutzer Diskussion:User163|Diskussion]]) 14:59, 17. Mai 2022 (CEST)

Hier würde ich sagen, wenn es sich um eine "Bewilligung" handelt, ist dies im vornherein einzuholen. Folglich müsste man sich vielleicht überlegen, ob der Begriff "bewilligen" der richtige ist. Grundsätzlich wäre ein ex post Entscheid möglich, jedoch frage ich mich ob dies mit der Rechtssicherheit vereinbar wäre.[[Benutzer:User117|User117]] ([[Benutzer Diskussion:User117|Diskussion]]) 15:10, 17. Mai 2022 (CEST)

Ich finde den Vorschlag aus dem Zuger Übertretungsstrafgesetz (Absätze 2 und 3) eigentlich ziemlich passend. Gibt es Gründe, warum wir die beiden Absätze so nicht übernehmen könnten? Ich denke, wir können hier nach dem Prinzip "copy paste" verfahren, was ja gemäss Prof. Uhlmann durchaus üblich ist. User 117 sieht, so wie ich das verstehe, bei dieser Lösung das Problem, dass dann die Ausnahmen abschliessend festgelegt werden, jedoch heisst es ja "Fasnacht und ANDERE traditionelle Veranstaltungen", weshalb es sich m.E. bereits um eine nicht abschliessende Aufzählung handelt und ein "insbesondere" deshalb nicht nötig ist. Was meint ihr? "[[Benutzer:User129|User129]] ([[Benutzer Diskussion:User129|Diskussion]]) 14:54, 19. Mai 2022 (CEST)"

Grundsätzlich finde die Idee des "copy paste" des Zuger Gesetzes gut. Dass es durch das ANDERE traditionelle Veranstaltungen nicht abschliessend sehe ich auch, jedoch sind da ja nur die traditionellen Veranstaltungen erfasst und die Ausnahmen wie Sicherheit und klimatische Bedingungen aus BV 10a nicht. So müsste man diese meines Erachtens auch noch erwähnen. [[Benutzer:User117|User117]] ([[Benutzer Diskussion:User117|Diskussion]]) 15:11, 18. Mai 2022 (CEST)

Ich bin nicht grundsätzlich gegen ein Übernehmen des Zuger Gesetzestextes, jedoch sehe ich hier noch ein anderes Problem: So wie ich Abs. 2 verstehe, wird zwischen Gründen, bei denen eine Ausnahme bewilligt werden kann, und Gründen (Fasnacht und anderen traditionellen Veranstaltungen) bei denen sowieso keine Ausnahme bewilligt werden muss, unterschieden. Problematisch dabei finde ich, dass man dabei einen unbestimmten Rechtsbegriff in Satz 1 bei den zu bewilligenden Ausnahmen hat ("achtenswerte Gründe") und einen unbestimmten Rechtsbegriff bei den "tatbestandsausschliessenden" Gründen in Satz 2 hat ("traditionelle Veranstaltungen").
Einen generellen Ausschluss des Vermummungsverbotes für die Fasnacht halte ich für sinnvoll. Auch die "achtenswerten Gründe" halte ich, obschon ziemlich unbestimmt, für tragbar. Ich würde jedoch die "anderen traditionellen Veranstaltungen" streichen, da es dann für einen Absatz zu viele unbestimmte Rechtsbegriffe hat. Zudem sehe ich nicht ein, wieso dass man "Freipässe" für das Vermummen bei einem solchen unbestimmten Begriff gibt, wenn man sich für alle anderen Veranstaltungen Bewilligungen holen muss.
Vielmehr könnte man bei Satz 1 "achtenswerte Gründe" mit einer beispielhaften Aufzählung ergänzen.
Würde sich dann etwa so gestalten: "Abs. 2 Die Polizei kann Ausnahmen bewilligen, wenn achtenswerte Gründe, wie insb. Folklore, Tradition, Sicherheit und klimatische Bedingungen, es rechtfertigen, sich unkenntlich zu machen. Fasnacht fällt nicht unter das Vermummungsverbot." Was meint ihr?

Edit: merke gerade, dass die in der Aufzählung genannten Begriffe auch recht vage sind. In einer Aufzählung wie dieser finde ich es aber okay.[[Benutzer:User130|User130]] ([[Benutzer Diskussion:User130|Diskussion]]) 18:16, 18. Mai 2022 (CEST)

Achtenswerte Gründe finde ich schwierig, als zuständige Behörde zu definieren/bestimmen. Solche Motive sind m.M. nach stark subjektiv geprägt. Ich bin mir auch nicht sicher, ob wir Sinn und Zweck des Gesetzes allzu fest aushöhlen, indem wir zu viele Ausnahmen vorsehen. Ich denke, dass auch bei dringenden sowie auch wichtigen Themen das unkenntlich machen nicht gestattet sein soll. Denn allzu oft wird eine Kundgebung mit überzeugenden und nachvollziehbaren Motiven von wenigen Personen "ausgenützt", um Delikte unerkannt zu verüben. [[Benutzer:User163|User163]] ([[Benutzer Diskussion:User163|Diskussion]]) 11:56, 19. Mai 2022 (CEST)

Ich finde gut, dass User 130 die Fasnacht komplett aus der Bewilligungspflicht rausnimmt und die Sicherheit bzw. klimatischen Bedingungen mit insbesondere aufzählt.
Die Ausnahme «andere traditionelle Veranstaltungen» wie dies der Kanton Zug vorsieht halte ich jedoch für sinnvoll, da sonst allenfalls ein grosser administrativer Aufwand entstehen könnte und es evtl. als diskriminierend empfunden werden könnte. [[Benutzer:User159|User159]] ([[Benutzer Diskussion:User159|Diskussion]]) 09:04, 20. Mai 2022 (CEST)

Damit die Seite [[Gruppe1]] nicht bis kurz vor der Deadline völlig unverändert bleibt, habe ich einen ersten Vorschlag hinzugefügt. Die Abs. 2 und 3 entsprechen dabei vorderhand der Formulierung aus dem Zuger ÜStG (mit minimaler Anpassung "sich unkenntlich machen" → "das Gesicht zu vermummen"). Es darf gerne weiter Hand angelegt werden. [[Benutzer:User134|User134]] ([[Benutzer Diskussion:User134|Diskussion]]) 17:29, 20. Mai 2022 (CEST)

Danke User 134 für den Vorschlag. Mit Abs. 1 bin ich einverstanden. Zu Abs. 2 deines Vorschlages: hier könnte man meines Erachtens den Satz kürzen, indem man schreibt: "Die Polizei kann aus achtenswerten Gründen Ausnahmen bewilligen. Fasnacht ...." Seid ihr damit einverstanden? [[Benutzer:User117|User117]] ([[Benutzer Diskussion:User117|Diskussion]]) 11:42, 21. Mai 2022 (CEST)
Danke dir fürs Einfügen. Also ich bin ziemlich zufrieden mit dem jetzigen Vorschlag. Es drängen sich mir keine Änderungen auf. «[[Benutzer:User129|User129]] ([[Benutzer Diskussion:User129|Diskussion]]) 20:18, 20. Mai 2022 (CEST)»

Danke User 134 für deinen Vorschlag. Der Gesetzestitel heisst Vermummungsverbot. Meines Erachtens sollte der Begriff "Vermummung" im Gesetzestext umschrieben werden (vgl. Zuger Gesetzestext "unkenntlich machen"). Wir könnten z.B. "Gesicht bedecken" nehmen. [[Benutzer:User166|User166]] ([[Benutzer Diskussion:User166|Diskussion]]) 17:38, 21. Mai 2022 (CEST)

Danke User 134. Für mich passt die momentane Version. "Vermummung" muss meiner Meinung nach nicht weiter umschrieben werden, würde aber auch nicht schaden. Ich würde es aber aus zeitlichen Gründen lassen. [[Benutzer:User130|User130]] ([[Benutzer Diskussion:User130|Diskussion]]) 10:36, 22. Mai 2022 (CEST)

Danke User134. Zu User166 und 130: Vielleicht könnte man den Abs. 1 wie folgt ergänzen: "wer sich bei .... durch Vermummung seines Gesichts unkenntlich macht"? Damit hätte man eine Umschreibung aufgenommen. [[Benutzer:User146|User146]] ([[Benutzer Diskussion:User146|Diskussion]]) 11:08, 22. Mai 2022 (CEST)

Wir weichen mit "Vermummung" von BV 10a ab, der von "Verhüllung" spricht. Dies ist m.E. aber in Ordnung, da vermummen noch etwas spezifischer ist für unsere Thematik (vgl. etwas zu verhüllen bei Duden folgendes Beispiel: "Wolken verhüllten die Bergspitzen"). Ausserdem wird "Vermummung" ja eben z.B. im Zuger Erlass (und in zahlreichen weiteren) verwendet [[Benutzer:User146|User146]] ([[Benutzer Diskussion:User146|Diskussion]]) 11:08, 22. Mai 2022 (CEST)

Ich finde den Vorschlag von User 146 gut. Dadurch würde man den Begriff "Vermummung" konkretisierten und umschreiben und es sollte klar sein, was gemeint ist. [[Benutzer:User137|User137]] ([[Benutzer Diskussion:User137|Diskussion]]) 13:46, 22. Mai 2022 (CEST)

Ich habe auch nochmals darüber nachgedacht und finde "unkenntlich machen" besser als "Vermummung". Vermummen impliziert irgendwie, dass das Gesicht in einen Schal oder so "eingehüllt" werden muss. "Unkenntlich machen" wäre präziser. Aber wahrscheinlich bin ich mit meinem Input schon zu spät «[[Benutzer:User129|User129]] ([[Benutzer Diskussion:User129|Diskussion]]) 20:57, 22. Mai 2022 (CEST)»

"vermummen" wird in einem weitverbreiteten Wörterbuch umschrieben mit "durch Verkleidung u. Ä. unkenntlich machen", d.h. "durch Vermummung seines Gesichts unkenntlich machen" wäre relativ pleonastisch. [[Benutzer:User134|User134]] ([[Benutzer Diskussion:User134|Diskussion]]) 07:09, 23. Mai 2022 (CEST)

== Verwendung von "bewilligen" ==

Unglücklich finde ich, dass "bewilligen" bzw. "bewilligungspflichtig" 2x verwendet wird. Vielleicht könnten wir den zweiten Satz ändern zu "Ausnahmen können genehmigt werden." oder dergleichen? Ich bin mir nur nicht sicher, ob "bewilligen" und "genehmigen" wirklich als Synonyme verwendet werden können.

: grundsätzlich ist es aber doch sinnvoll dieselben Begriffe einheitlich zu verwenden [[Benutzer:User159|User159]] ([[Benutzer Diskussion:User159|Diskussion]])

Dieses Problem hat sich jetzt ja erübrigt, in dem der Begriff "bewilligen" einmalig in Abs. 2 verwendet wird. Ansonsten wäre ich bei dir. [[Benutzer:User137|User137]] ([[Benutzer Diskussion:User137|Diskussion]]) 13:48, 22. Mai 2022 (CEST)

== Unbestimmte Rechtsbegriffe ==

Offenbar geht es um die Festlegung eines Straftatbestands (vgl. Einleitung ''«Nach diesem Gesetz wird bestraft»''). So von wegen ''nulla poena sine lege certa'' müssten m. E. mindestens folgende Begriffe genauer bestimmt sein, evtl. mit Legaldefinitionen:

* ''unkenntlich machen'' (in erster Linie dürfte die Gesichtsverhüllung gemeint sein, vgl. mittlerweile auch [https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/1999/404/de#art_10_a BV 10a])

* ''Demonstrationen''

* ''sonstige Menschenansammlungen''

Unklar ist auch, worauf sich ''«bewilligungspflichtigen»'' bezieht (auf alle drei nachfolgenden Begriffe?) und ob der Autor dieser Bestimmung wirklich meinte, dass im Umkehrschluss nicht strafbar wäre, wer sich bei einer ''nicht'' bewilligungspflichtigen Veranstaltung unkenntlich macht.

[[Benutzer:User134|User134]] ([[Benutzer Diskussion:User134|Diskussion]]) 09:34, 16. Mai 2022 (CEST)

Der Begriff "bewilligungspflichtigen" bezieht sich meiner Meinung nach auf alle drei nachfolgenden Begriffe. Das Justiz- und Sicherheitsdepartement des Kantons Basel-Stadt sieht nämlich für Demonstrationen immer eine Bewilligungspflicht vor (https://www.polizei.bs.ch/was-tun/polizeiliche-bewilligungen-dienstleistungen/kundgebungen-demos.html).
[[Benutzer:User 166|User166]] ([[Benutzer Diskussion:User166|Diskussion]]) 10:00, 17. Mai 2022 (CEST)

: Meiner Interpretation nach bezieht sich das "bewilligungspflichtig" nur auf die Versammlungen. Würde sich der ganze Artikel nur auf bewilligungspflichtige Veranstaltungen beziehen, würde sich jemand, der sich bspw. in einem nicht bewilligten bzw. nicht bewilligungspflichtigen Hooligan-Mob vermummt, gerade nicht strafbar machen, obwohl gerade dies das Ziel des Vermummungsverbotes ist (User 134 hat dies schon angesprochen). Fraglich ist meiner Meinung nach, ob überhaupt zwischen bewilligungspflichtigen Veranstaltungen und anderen Menschenansammlungen unterschieden werden muss. Ich denke nicht, dass es eine Unterscheidung braucht, da das Vermummen in beiden Fällen bestraft wird/werden sollte. "Bewilligungspflichtig" könnte damit ganz weg gelassen werden und man müsste gar nicht darüber diskutieren. [[Benutzer:User130|User130]] ([[Benutzer Diskussion:User130|Diskussion]]) 11:47, 17. Mai 2022 (CEST)

Hier stimme ich User130 zu, dass es keine Unterscheidung zwischen bewilligungspflichtigen und nicht bewilligungspflichtigen Veranstaltungen braucht. So könnten wir dieses "Problem" lösen. [[Benutzer:User117|User117]] ([[Benutzer Diskussion:User117|Diskussion]]) 13:39, 17. Mai 2022 (CEST)

zum "unkenntlich machen": Dies könnte man in einem Abs. unter diesem Art. definieren. Dass eine solche Definition mit BV 10a übereinstimmen sollte sehe ich als sinnvoll, jedoch bin ich mir nicht ganz sicher wie gut ein Verweis auf die Verfassung ist und wie genau die Definition dort ist.

zu "Demonstrationen": hier denke ich braucht es keine Legaldefinition.

Ich bin der gleichen Meinung, dass die Bestimmung das unkenntlich machen (1) an bewilligungspflichtigen Versammlungen oder an (2) Demonstrationen oder bei (3) sonstigen Menschenansammlungen unter Strafe stellen möchte. Die Bestimmung erachte ich - als eine Strafbestimmung - zu unbestimmt. Es bleibt offen, was "unkenntlich machen" bedeutet und schliesslich wird durch die Aufzählung (1-3) das "unkenntlich machen" potenziell bei jeder Menschenansammlung, abgesehen von den Ausnahmen, per se unter Strafe gestellt. [[Benutzer:User 163|User163]] ([[Benutzer Diskussion:User163|Diskussion]]) 11:09, 17. Mai 2022 (CEST)

zu "sonstige Menschenansammlungen": fraglich ist, ob man diesen Begriff definieren kann, er besagt eigentlich nur, dass die Aufzählung nicht abschliessend ist. Anzunehmen ist, dass solche Menschenansammlungen in einem gleichen Mass sein müssen wie die genannten. schwierig ist hier, dass oben schon von bewilligungspflichtigen Versammlungen gesprochen wird, heisst das jetzt, dass alle sonstigen Menschenansammlungen bewilligungspflichtig sein müssen oder eben genau auch nicht bewilligungspflichtige darunterfallen? [[Benutzer:User117|User117]] ([[Benutzer Diskussion:User117|Diskussion]]) 10:07, 16. Mai 2022 (CEST)

In den Covid-Anfangszeiten gab es ja ziemlich viele Diskussionen um Begriffe wie "Veranstaltung", "Versammlung" usw. Wenn ich es richtig sehe, hat man im späteren Verlauf primär noch die Begriffe "Kundgebung", "Veranstaltung" und "Menschenansammlung" verwendet.

Mein Vorschlag im Hinblick auf das Bestimmtheitsgebot wäre, das "unkenntlich machen" zu konkretisieren und auf Zeugs wie "sonstige" zu verzichten, ebenso auf "bewilligungspflichtig" (kann vernünftigerweise keinen Unterschied machen für die Strafbarkeit):

: '''Vermummungsverbot'''

: 1 Mit Busse wird bestraft, wer bei einer öffentlichen Kundgebung, Veranstaltung oder Menschenansammlung sein Gesicht vermummt.

: 2… [Regelung der Ausnahmen]

: 3… [Absehen von Durchsetzung im Einzelfall]

: [[Benutzer:User134|User134]] ([[Benutzer Diskussion:User134|Diskussion]]) 07:03, 18. Mai 2022 (CEST)

Damit die Seite [[Gruppe1]] nicht bis kurz vor der Deadline völlig unverändert bleibt, habe ich einen ersten Vorschlag hinzugefügt. Es darf gerne weiter Hand angelegt werden. [[Benutzer:User134|User134]] ([[Benutzer Diskussion:User134|Diskussion]]) 17:29, 20. Mai 2022 (CEST)

Danke User 134 für deinen Vorschlag. Der Gesetzestitel heisst Vermummungsverbot. Meines Erachtens sollte der Begriff "Vermummung" im Gesetzestext umschrieben werden (vgl. Zuger Gesetzestext "unkenntlich machen"). Wir könnten z.B. "Gesicht bedecken" nehmen. [[Benutzer:User166|User166]] ([[Benutzer Diskussion:User166|Diskussion]]) 17:38, 21. Mai 2022 (CEST)

Zu User166: s. oben meine Anmerkung bei "Ausnahmen".[[Benutzer:User146|User146]] ([[Benutzer Diskussion:User146|Diskussion]]) 11:13, 22. Mai 2022 (CEST)

Hier bin ich mit User 146 einverstanden, dass wir Abs. 1 wie folgt ergänzen sollten: "wer sich bei .... durch Vermummung seines Gesichts unkenntlich macht". Damit können wir den Begriff der Vermummung konkretisieren und umschreiben. [[Benutzer:User137|User137]] ([[Benutzer Diskussion:User137|Diskussion]]) 13:51, 22. Mai 2022 (CEST)

Ich bin hier auch der Meinung, dass der Begriff "Vermummung" konkretisiert werden muss. Siehe mein Kommentar oben. «[[Benutzer:User129|User129]] ([[Benutzer Diskussion:User129|Diskussion]]) 20:58, 22. Mai 2022 (CEST)»

== Konkretisierung der Sanktion ==

In der bisherigen Fassung beschreibt der Artikel, in welchen Situationen das "unkenntlich machen" unter Strafe gestellt wird. Allerdings schweigt er über die Sanktion. Eine Geldstrafe oder Freiheitsstrafe erachtet ich als unverhältnismässig. Sollte folglich nicht erwähnt werden, dass eine Busse bei Verstoss gegen das "unkenntlich machen" droht? [[Benutzer:User163|User163]] ([[Benutzer Diskussion:User163|Diskussion]]) 11:20, 17. Mai 2022 (CEST)

Man kann vermutlich "Nach diesem Gesetz wird bestraft" lassen und muss nicht konkretisieren, was die Strafe ist. Anders als im StGB gibt es ja in vielen Gesetzen einen Abschnitt "Sanktionen", in dem dann die möglichen Sanktionen behandelt werden und die Artikel jeweils nur darauf verweisen. Wenn man das hier anpasst, ist es allenfalls nicht mer kongruent mit den anderen Art. bzw. man müsste alle anpassen. Es wäre auch möglich zu schreiben "nach den Art. xy dieses Gesetzes wird bestraft". [[Benutzer:User137|User137]] ([[Benutzer Diskussion:User137|Diskussion]]) 13:10, 17. Mai 2022 (CEST)

Würde auch anregen, die Sanktion festzulegen (wir befinden uns im kantonalen Übertretungsstrafrecht), s.o. unter [[#Unbestimmte Rechtsbegriffe]]. [[Benutzer:User134|User134]] ([[Benutzer Diskussion:User134|Diskussion]]) 07:03, 18. Mai 2022 (CEST)

Nach dem aktuellen Übertretungsstrafgesetz Basel-Stadt sind alle Übertretungstatbestände mit "Mit Busse wird bestraft.." eingeleitet. Ich stimme deshalb zu, die Sanktion zu konkretisieren und konkret den Artikel mit "Mit Busse wird bestraft wer,..." einzuleiten. [[Benutzer:User130|User130]] ([[Benutzer Diskussion:User130|Diskussion]]) 14:16, 20. Mai 2022 (CEST)

Damit die Seite [[Gruppe1]] nicht bis kurz vor der Deadline völlig unverändert bleibt, habe ich einen ersten Vorschlag hinzugefügt. Es darf gerne weiter Hand angelegt werden. [[Benutzer:User134|User134]] ([[Benutzer Diskussion:User134|Diskussion]]) 17:29, 20. Mai 2022 (CEST)

Danke User134 für den Vorschlag! Ich bin mit der Sanktion so einverstanden und lehne es insb. auch ab, eine Höchst- oder Mindeststrafe direkt in unserem Artikel festzuschreiben. Ansonsten könnte es zu Widersprüchen mit den restlichen Bestimmungen (die wir nicht sehen) kommen. [[Benutzer:User146|User146]] ([[Benutzer Diskussion:User146|Diskussion]]) 10:48, 22. Mai 2022 (CEST)

Ich stimme User146 zu und lehne es wegen der Widerspruchsgefahr auch ab, eine Höchst- oder Mindeststrafe direkt im Artikel festzuschreiben. «[[Benutzer:User129|User129]] ([[Benutzer Diskussion:User129|Diskussion]]) 21:02, 22. Mai 2022 (CEST)»

== Vorgehen ==

Wie wollen wir konkret vorgehen? Aufgaben verteilen? [[Benutzer:User137|User137]] ([[Benutzer Diskussion:User137|Diskussion]]) 13:10, 17. Mai 2022 (CEST)

- Ich würde vorschlagen wir diskutieren hier zuerst allgemein, was sich für "Probleme" ergeben und dann legen wir die "Problempunkte" fest und diskutieren über diese um so zu einer "Endformulierung" zu kommen. Jemand kann dann ja die Punkte festlegen, die wir ändern wollen und dann neue "Diskussionstitel" erstellen.

- Ich bin mit dem Vorgehen einverstanden. Wir können ja mal ein paar Tage warten, bis sich alle gemeldet haben. Dann können wir schauen, in welche Richtung unsere Formulierung geht. Wichtig ist aber Folgendes: Bevor man einen neuen Titel eröffnet, soll jeder schauen, ob es nicht schon einen passenden bestehenden Titel gibt. Wenn wir zu viele Titel haben, wird alles irgendwann unübersichtlich... "[[Benutzer:User129|User129]] ([[Benutzer Diskussion:User129|Diskussion]]) 14:55, 19. Mai 2022 (CEST)"

Diskussion:Gruppe1

2023-02-08T10:11:27Z

Wikiadmin: Die Seite wurde geleert.

Diskussion:Gruppe1 EN

2023-02-08T10:10:20Z

Wikiadmin: /* Use of "approve" */

== Draft law ==
[1]

Thank you very much for preparing the first draft. I think it is very successful. Only in paragraph 3 I am not sure whether we should leave it out. It describes the principles of police action that must be respected by the police in all situations and regulates what is already known. Otherwise I wouldn't change anything else, what do you guys think? User163 (discussion) 11:18, 22 May 2022 (CEST) [3]

I understand what User 163 means, but think that a repetition of what is already known would not hurt at this point. I would leave para 3 as it is. User137 (discussion) 13:52, 22 May 2022 (CEST) [5]

I agree that a repetition of a police principle here does no harm. After all, the Zug version repeats it. So I would leave para 3 as it is. "User129 (discussion) 20:53, 22 May 2022 (CEST)" [7]

For me, our solution including para 3 is fine. I have now changed the title of our text to "New legislative proposal" so that, in view of tomorrow's submission, "draft" no longer occurs. User146 (discussion) 21:23, 22 May 2022 (CEST) [9]

== Exceptions ==
[11]

Perhaps it would be useful to list the exception provision in a paragraph 2? User146 (discussion) 10:52, 22 May 2022 (CEST) [13]

I agree, although it is not clear to me whether the sentence with the exceptions already constitutes a new paragraph or whether this is a new paragraph. In any case, one would have to determine where the exceptions are regulated with a reference or regulate in the article itself as paragraph 2, which these are.User117 (discussion) 09:06, 16 May 2022 (CEST) [15]

I agree that the exception provision needs to be in a second paragraph. In addition, I find the sentence order "Exceptions may be granted" a bit unattractive. Better: "Exceptions may be granted" ("it" does not need it). Further, I also think that it needs to be more specific as to when exceptions are granted. The problem right now is that no one really knows exactly when the provision applies now, because for some reason an exception could be granted. So I would suggest that we say, for example, "exceptions can be granted for reasons of public interest". What do you guys think? "User129 (discussion) 14:54, 19 May 2022 (CEST)" [17]

: you could also refer to BV 10a III. There the exceptions of "security, climatic conditions and native customs" are mentioned. User159 (discussion) 10:58, 16 May 2022 (CEST). [19]

: I would rather refrain from a reference to BV 10a. The whole article is a constitutional misfortune (in the chapter "fundamental rights" a "ban on covering one's own face", that's just how it comes out with an initiative committee as constitutional editors ...). Exceptions should be regulated in any case in a separate paragraph. There are "models" for this penalty provision in various cantonal criminal laws. Zug, for example, currently has the following: [21]
:: § 7 Prohibition of mummery [22]
:: 1 Anyone who disguises himself at meetings, events, demonstrations or other gatherings of people on public or private property requiring a permit shall be punished by a fine. [23]
:: 2 The police may grant exceptions if respectable reasons justify disguising oneself. Fasnacht and other traditional events are not covered by the ban on disguising oneself. [24]
:: 3 The police may refrain from enforcing the ban in individual cases if this is necessary to prevent escalation. [25]

: (I would not take para. 1 as a "model", but it is about para. 2 and 3, which firstly say who can grant exceptions and secondly under which conditions). [27]
: User134 (discussion) 09:13, 17 May 2022 (CEST). [28]
I agree that the provision: "Exceptions may be granted" is too vague. For me it is important which authority can grant exceptions or if courts can provide exceptions in the sense of case by case justice. Basically, the legislature should be clear in this regard, in which situations exceptions are provided for and which authority is responsible. User163 (discussion) 10:55, 17 May 2022 (CEST) [29]

I also think it is important to designate the authority that can grant the exceptions. The police would probably make sense here. Regarding the reasons for the exception, we could make it simple and let the executive branch define the exceptions (e.g. "The government council determines under which conditions exceptions can be granted."). User130 (discussion) 11:19, 17 May 2022 (CEST) [31]

So far I think we agree that a new paragraph is needed for the exceptions. Further, WHO grants the exceptions and WHAT the exceptions are or WHAT exceptions exist. Here I wonder if we better make one paragraph or two. Should we first define WHO regulates the exceptions in one paragraph and define the exceptions in a second one? Or both in one paragraph? [33]

In terms of content, I would not delegate the definition of the exceptions in a general way, but rather define them in the law itself (here I rather agree with user 163 and 134 and not user 130). Or also such as in BV 10a III. However, I think, one cannot determine such conclusively and would have to work with "in particular". User117 (Discussion) 13:35, 17 May 2022 (CEST) [35]

I like the idea of two paragraphs. Like User 130, I think the police are appropriate as the responsible authority. The police are usually close to the action and probably have enough experience with regard to riots during demonstrations. As far as the exceptions themselves are concerned, I think an exemplary list would be useful. However, I would leave it at such a list in order to give the authorities some discretion. I am still left with the question of whether exceptions must be sought from the authority in advance, or whether the competent authority could decide ex post. User163 (Discussion) 14:59, 17 May 2022 (CEST) [37]

Here I would say that if it is a "permit", this is to be obtained up front. Consequently, one might have to consider whether the term "grant" is the right one. In principle, an ex post decision would be possible, but I wonder if this would be compatible with legal certainty.User117 (discussion) 15:10, 17 May 2022 (CEST) [39]

I think the proposal from the Zug Transgression Penal Code (paragraphs 2 and 3) is actually quite appropriate. Are there any reasons why we could not adopt the two paragraphs as they are? I think we can proceed here according to the principle of "copy paste", which is quite common according to Prof. Uhlmann. User 117 sees, as I understand it, with this solution the problem that then the exceptions are defined conclusively, however it is called "Fasnacht and OTHER traditional events", why it is in my opinion already a non-exhaustive enumeration and a "in particular" is therefore not necessary. What do you think? "User129 (Discussion) 14:54, 19 May 2022 (CEST)" [41]

Basically, I like the idea of "copy pasting" the Zug law. That it by the OTHER traditional events not conclusively I see also, however there are yes only the traditional events covered and the exceptions such as security and climatic conditions from BV 10a not. So one would have to mention these in my opinion also still. User117 (Discussion) 15:11, 18 May 2022 (CEST) [43]

I'm not fundamentally against adopting the Zug law text, but I see another problem here: as I understand para. 2, a distinction is made between reasons for which an exception can be granted and reasons (carnival and other traditional events) for which no exception needs to be granted anyway. I find it problematic that there is an indeterminate legal term in sentence 1 for the exceptions to be granted ("respectable reasons") and an indeterminate legal term in sentence 2 for the reasons "excluding the facts" ("traditional events"). I consider a general exclusion of the ban on mummery for the carnival to be reasonable. I also consider the "respectable reasons", although rather vague, to be acceptable. However, I would delete the "other traditional events", because it then has too many indeterminate legal terms for one paragraph. Moreover, I don't see why giving "free passes" for mummery with such an indeterminate term when you have to get permits for all other events. Rather, one could add "respectable reasons" to sentence 1 with an exemplary enumeration. It would then look like this: "Par. 2 The police can grant exceptions if respectable reasons, such as folklore, tradition, security and climatic conditions, justify the disguise. Fasnacht does not fall under the prohibition of disguise." What do you think? [45]

Edit: just notice that the terms mentioned in the enumeration are also quite vague. However, in an enumeration like this I think it's okay.User130 (discussion) 18:16, 18 May 2022 (CEST) [47]

I find respectable motives difficult to define/determine as a competent authority. Such motives are highly subjective in my opinion. I am also not sure that we undermine the meaning and purpose of the law too firmly by providing too many exceptions. I think that even in the case of urgent as well as important issues, making them unrecognizable should not be allowed. Because all too often a rally with convincing and understandable motives is "exploited" by a few people to commit crimes without being detected. User163 (discussion) 11:56, 19 May 2022 (CEST) [49]

I think it's good that user 130 takes the Fasnacht completely out of the permit requirement and lists the security or climatic conditions with in particular. The exception "other traditional events" as the canton of Zug provides, however, I think it makes sense, because otherwise at best a large administrative burden could arise and it could possibly be perceived as discriminatory. User159 (Discussion) 09:04, 20 May 2022 (CEST) [52]

To prevent the Group1 page from remaining completely unchanged until just before the deadline, I have added a first suggestion. The paragraphs 2 and 3 correspond for the time being to the wording from the Zuger ÜStG (with minimal adjustment "to make oneself unrecognizable" → "to mask the face"). You are welcome to continue to make changes. User134 (Discussion) 17:29, 20 May 2022 (CEST) [54]

Thanks User 134 for the suggestion. I agree with paragraph 1. Regarding para 2 of your suggestion: here I think you could shorten the sentence by writing "The police can grant exceptions for respectable reasons. Fasnacht ...." Do you guys agree with that? User117 (discussion) 11:42, 21 May 2022 (CEST) Thank you for adding it. So I'm pretty happy with the current proposal. No changes are imposing themselves on me. "User129 (discussion) 20:18, 20 May 2022 (CEST)" [56]

Thanks User 134 for your suggestion. The title of the law is called Vermummungsverbot. I think the term "Vermummung" should be paraphrased in the law text (cf. Zug law text "make unrecognizable"). For example, we could use "cover face". User166 (Discussion) 17:38, 21 May 2022 (CEST) [58]

Thanks user 134, for me the current version fits. "Masking" doesn't need to be further paraphrased in my opinion, but wouldn't hurt either. I would leave it though for time reasons. User130 (discussion) 10:36, 22 May 2022 (CEST) [60]

Thanks User134. Re User166 and 130: Perhaps you could add the following to para 1: "who makes himself unrecognizable by masking his face at ...."? That would have included a paraphrase. User146 (Discussion) 11:08, 22 May 2022 (CEST) [62]

We deviate with "disguising" from BV 10a, which speaks of "veiling". But this is ok in my opinion, because vermummen is still a bit more specific for our topic (compare something to verhüllen at Duden the following example: "Wolken verhüllten die Bergspitzen"). Besides, "Vermummung" is used e.g. in the Zug decree (and in numerous others) User146 (Discussion) 11:08, 22 May 2022 (CEST) [64]

I think user 146's suggestion is a good one. This would concretize and paraphrase the term "Vermummung" and it should be clear what is meant. User137 (discussion) 13:46, 22 May 2022 (CEST) [66]

I also thought about it again and I think "unrecognizable" is better than "Vermummung". Vermummen somehow implies that the face has to be "wrapped" in a scarf or something. "Make unrecognizable" would be more accurate. But I'm probably already too late with my input "User129 (discussion) 20:57, 22 May 2022 (CEST)" [68]

"Vermummen" is paraphrased in a widely used dictionary as "to make unrecognizable by disguise and the like", i.e. "to make unrecognizable by disguising one's face" would be relatively pleonastic. User134 (discussion) 07:09, 23 May 2022 (CEST) [70]

== Use of "approve" ==
[72]

I find it unfortunate that "bewilligen" or "bewilligungspflichtig" is used 2x. Maybe we could change the second sentence to "Exceptions may be approved." or something like that? I'm just not sure if "approve" and "authorize" can really be used as synonyms. [73]

In principle, however, it makes sense to use the same terms consistently User159 (Discussion) [75]
This problem has now become superfluous, after all, in that the term "bewilligen" is used once in para. 2. Otherwise, I would be with you. User137 (Discussion) 13:48, 22 May 2022 (CEST) [76]

== Indeterminate legal terms ==
[78]
Obviously it is about defining a criminal offense (cf. introduction "According to this law is punished"). So because of nulla poena sine lege certa, in my opinion at least the following terms should be defined more precisely, possibly with legal definitions: [79]

* ''making unrecognizable'' (in the first place the face covering might be meant, cf. in the meantime also BV 10a [https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/1999/404/de#art_10_a BV 10a]) [81]
*' 'demonstrations'' [82]
* ''other gatherings of people'' [83]
It is also unclear what "subject to authorization" refers to (all three of the following terms?) and whether the author of this provision really meant that, conversely, it would not be punishable to make oneself unrecognizable at an event that does not require authorization. [84]

User134 (discussion) 09:34, 16 May 2022 (CEST) [86]

I think the term "requiring a permit" refers to all three of the following terms. Indeed, the Justice and Security Department of the Canton of Basel-Stadt always requires a permit for demonstrations (https://www.polizei.bs.ch/was-tun/polizeiliche-bewilligungen-dienstleistungen/kundgebungen-demos.html). User166 (discussion) 10:00, 17 May 2022 (CEST) [88]

My interpretation is that the "requiring a permit" refers only to the assemblies. If the whole article would refer only to events that require a permit, someone who, for example, masks himself in a hooligan mob that does not require a permit or a permit would not be liable to prosecution, even though this is precisely the goal of the ban on mummery (User 134 has already addressed this). In my opinion, it is questionable whether a distinction must be made at all between events requiring a permit and other gatherings of people. I don't think there needs to be a distinction, since hooding is/should be punished in both cases. "Requiring a permit" could thus be left out altogether and there would be no need to discuss it at all. User130 (discussion) 11:47, 17 May 2022 (CEST). [90]
Here I agree with User130 that there is no need for a distinction between events requiring a permit and events not requiring a permit. That way we could solve this "problem". User117 (Discussion) 13:39, 17 May 2022 (CEST) [91]

On "making unrecognizable": this could be defined in a paragraph under this art. That such a definition should be consistent with BV 10a I see as reasonable, however I am not quite sure how good a reference to the constitution is and how accurate the definition is there. [93]

On "demonstrations": here I think there is no need for a legal definition. [95]

I agree that the provision wants to criminalize making unrecognizable (1) at gatherings requiring a permit or at (2) demonstrations or at (3) other gatherings of people. I consider the provision - as a punitive provision - too vague. It remains open what "making unrecognizable" means, and finally, the enumeration (1-3) potentially criminalizes "making unrecognizable" per se at any gathering of people, except for the exceptions. User163 (discussion) 11:09, 17 May 2022 (CEST) [97]

Regarding "other gatherings of people": it is questionable whether this term can be defined, it actually only says that the enumeration is not exhaustive. It is to be assumed that such gatherings of people must be to the same extent as the ones mentioned. It is difficult here that above already gatherings requiring a permit are mentioned, does this now mean that all other gatherings of people must require a permit or exactly also those not requiring a permit are included? User117 (Discussion) 10:07, 16 May 2022 (CEST) [100]

In the early days of Covid there was quite a lot of discussion about terms like "event", "gathering" etc. If I see it correctly, in the later course they primarily still used the terms "rally", "event" and "gathering". [103]

My suggestion with regard to the requirement of certainty would be to concretize the "making unrecognizable" and to dispense with stuff like "other", as well as "subject to authorization" (can reasonably make no difference for criminal liability): [105]

: '''Vermummungsverbot''' [107]
: 1 Anyone who masks his face at a public demonstration, event or gathering of people shall be punished by a fine. [108]
: 2... [Regulation of exceptions] [109]
: 3... [Waiver of enforcement in individual cases]. [110]
: User134 (discussion) 07:03, 18 May 2022 (CEST). [111]
To prevent the Group1 page from remaining completely unchanged until just before the deadline, I have added a first suggestion. Feel free to keep adding to it. User134 (discussion) 17:29, 20 May 2022 (CEST) [112]

Thanks User 134 for your suggestion. The title of the law is called Vermummungsverbot. I think the term "Vermummung" should be paraphrased in the law text (cf. Zug law text "make unrecognizable"). For example, we could use "cover face". User166 (Discussion) 17:38, 21 May 2022 (CEST) [114]

To User166: see above my comment at "Exceptions".User146 (discussion) 11:13, 22 May 2022 (CEST) [116]

Here I agree with User 146 that we should add to para 1 as follows: "who at .... disguises himself by masking his face". This will allow us to concretize and rewrite the concept of mummery. User137 (discussion) 13:51, 22 May 2022 (CEST) [118]

I agree here that the term "mummery" needs to be concretized. See my comment above. "User129 (discussion) 20:58, 22 May 2022 (CEST)" [120]

== Concretization of the sanction ==
[122]
As it stands, the article describes the situations in which "disguising" is punishable. However, it is silent about the sanction. I consider a fine or imprisonment disproportionate. Consequently, shouldn't it be mentioned that a fine is threatened in case of violation of "making unrecognizable"? User163 (Discussion) 11:20, 17 May 2022 (CEST) [123]

You can probably leave "According to this law is punished" and not have to specify what the punishment is. Unlike the StGB, after all, many laws have a "Sanctions" section, which then deals with the possible sanctions, and the articles just refer to them in each case. If one adapts this here, it is at most not mer congruent with the other Art. or one would have to adapt all. It would be also possible to write "according to the art. xy of this law is punished". User137 (discussion) 13:10, 17 May 2022 (CEST) [125]

Would also suggest to specify the sanction (we are in cantonal transgression criminal law), see above under #Undefined legal terms. User134 (discussion) 07:03, 18 May 2022 (CEST) [127]

According to the current Übertretungsstrafgesetz Basel-Stadt, all transgressions are prefaced with "Mit Busse wird bestraft...". I therefore agree to concretize the sanction and specifically preface the article with "Mit Busse wird bestraft wer,...". User130 (discussion) 14:16, 20 May 2022 (CEST) [129]

So that the page Group1 does not remain completely unchanged until shortly before the deadline, I have added a first suggestion. Feel free to keep adding to it. User134 (discussion) 17:29, 20 May 2022 (CEST) [131]

Thanks User134 for the suggestion! I agree with the sanction as it is, and I especially disagree with writing a maximum or minimum penalty directly in our article. Otherwise there could be contradictions with the rest of the provisions (which we do not see). User146 (Discussion) 10:48, 22 May 2022 (CEST) [133]

I agree with User146 and also disagree with writing a maximum or minimum penalty directly into the article because of the risk of contradiction. "User129 (discussion) 21:02, 22 May 2022 (CEST)" [135]

== Procedure ==
[137]
How do we want to proceed specifically? Distribute tasks? User137 (discussion) 13:10, 17 May 2022 (CEST) [138]

- I would suggest we first discuss here in general what "problems" arise and then we define the "problem points" and discuss them to come to a "final formulation". Someone can then define the points we want to change and then create new "discussion titles". [141]

- I agree with the procedure. We can wait a few days until everyone has responded. Then we can see in which direction our formulation goes. But the important thing is this: Before opening a new title, everyone should see if there is not already a suitable existing title. If we have too many titles, everything will become confusing at some point.... "User129 (discussion) 14:55, 19 May 2022 (CEST)" [143]

Diskussion:Gruppe1 EN

2023-02-08T10:09:04Z

Wikiadmin:

== Draft law ==
[1]

Thank you very much for preparing the first draft. I think it is very successful. Only in paragraph 3 I am not sure whether we should leave it out. It describes the principles of police action that must be respected by the police in all situations and regulates what is already known. Otherwise I wouldn't change anything else, what do you guys think? User163 (discussion) 11:18, 22 May 2022 (CEST) [3]

I understand what User 163 means, but think that a repetition of what is already known would not hurt at this point. I would leave para 3 as it is. User137 (discussion) 13:52, 22 May 2022 (CEST) [5]

I agree that a repetition of a police principle here does no harm. After all, the Zug version repeats it. So I would leave para 3 as it is. "User129 (discussion) 20:53, 22 May 2022 (CEST)" [7]

For me, our solution including para 3 is fine. I have now changed the title of our text to "New legislative proposal" so that, in view of tomorrow's submission, "draft" no longer occurs. User146 (discussion) 21:23, 22 May 2022 (CEST) [9]

== Exceptions ==
[11]

Perhaps it would be useful to list the exception provision in a paragraph 2? User146 (discussion) 10:52, 22 May 2022 (CEST) [13]

I agree, although it is not clear to me whether the sentence with the exceptions already constitutes a new paragraph or whether this is a new paragraph. In any case, one would have to determine where the exceptions are regulated with a reference or regulate in the article itself as paragraph 2, which these are.User117 (discussion) 09:06, 16 May 2022 (CEST) [15]

I agree that the exception provision needs to be in a second paragraph. In addition, I find the sentence order "Exceptions may be granted" a bit unattractive. Better: "Exceptions may be granted" ("it" does not need it). Further, I also think that it needs to be more specific as to when exceptions are granted. The problem right now is that no one really knows exactly when the provision applies now, because for some reason an exception could be granted. So I would suggest that we say, for example, "exceptions can be granted for reasons of public interest". What do you guys think? "User129 (discussion) 14:54, 19 May 2022 (CEST)" [17]

: you could also refer to BV 10a III. There the exceptions of "security, climatic conditions and native customs" are mentioned. User159 (discussion) 10:58, 16 May 2022 (CEST). [19]

: I would rather refrain from a reference to BV 10a. The whole article is a constitutional misfortune (in the chapter "fundamental rights" a "ban on covering one's own face", that's just how it comes out with an initiative committee as constitutional editors ...). Exceptions should be regulated in any case in a separate paragraph. There are "models" for this penalty provision in various cantonal criminal laws. Zug, for example, currently has the following: [21]
:: § 7 Prohibition of mummery [22]
:: 1 Anyone who disguises himself at meetings, events, demonstrations or other gatherings of people on public or private property requiring a permit shall be punished by a fine. [23]
:: 2 The police may grant exceptions if respectable reasons justify disguising oneself. Fasnacht and other traditional events are not covered by the ban on disguising oneself. [24]
:: 3 The police may refrain from enforcing the ban in individual cases if this is necessary to prevent escalation. [25]

: (I would not take para. 1 as a "model", but it is about para. 2 and 3, which firstly say who can grant exceptions and secondly under which conditions). [27]
: User134 (discussion) 09:13, 17 May 2022 (CEST). [28]
I agree that the provision: "Exceptions may be granted" is too vague. For me it is important which authority can grant exceptions or if courts can provide exceptions in the sense of case by case justice. Basically, the legislature should be clear in this regard, in which situations exceptions are provided for and which authority is responsible. User163 (discussion) 10:55, 17 May 2022 (CEST) [29]

I also think it is important to designate the authority that can grant the exceptions. The police would probably make sense here. Regarding the reasons for the exception, we could make it simple and let the executive branch define the exceptions (e.g. "The government council determines under which conditions exceptions can be granted."). User130 (discussion) 11:19, 17 May 2022 (CEST) [31]

So far I think we agree that a new paragraph is needed for the exceptions. Further, WHO grants the exceptions and WHAT the exceptions are or WHAT exceptions exist. Here I wonder if we better make one paragraph or two. Should we first define WHO regulates the exceptions in one paragraph and define the exceptions in a second one? Or both in one paragraph? [33]

In terms of content, I would not delegate the definition of the exceptions in a general way, but rather define them in the law itself (here I rather agree with user 163 and 134 and not user 130). Or also such as in BV 10a III. However, I think, one cannot determine such conclusively and would have to work with "in particular". User117 (Discussion) 13:35, 17 May 2022 (CEST) [35]

I like the idea of two paragraphs. Like User 130, I think the police are appropriate as the responsible authority. The police are usually close to the action and probably have enough experience with regard to riots during demonstrations. As far as the exceptions themselves are concerned, I think an exemplary list would be useful. However, I would leave it at such a list in order to give the authorities some discretion. I am still left with the question of whether exceptions must be sought from the authority in advance, or whether the competent authority could decide ex post. User163 (Discussion) 14:59, 17 May 2022 (CEST) [37]

Here I would say that if it is a "permit", this is to be obtained up front. Consequently, one might have to consider whether the term "grant" is the right one. In principle, an ex post decision would be possible, but I wonder if this would be compatible with legal certainty.User117 (discussion) 15:10, 17 May 2022 (CEST) [39]

I think the proposal from the Zug Transgression Penal Code (paragraphs 2 and 3) is actually quite appropriate. Are there any reasons why we could not adopt the two paragraphs as they are? I think we can proceed here according to the principle of "copy paste", which is quite common according to Prof. Uhlmann. User 117 sees, as I understand it, with this solution the problem that then the exceptions are defined conclusively, however it is called "Fasnacht and OTHER traditional events", why it is in my opinion already a non-exhaustive enumeration and a "in particular" is therefore not necessary. What do you think? "User129 (Discussion) 14:54, 19 May 2022 (CEST)" [41]

Basically, I like the idea of "copy pasting" the Zug law. That it by the OTHER traditional events not conclusively I see also, however there are yes only the traditional events covered and the exceptions such as security and climatic conditions from BV 10a not. So one would have to mention these in my opinion also still. User117 (Discussion) 15:11, 18 May 2022 (CEST) [43]

I'm not fundamentally against adopting the Zug law text, but I see another problem here: as I understand para. 2, a distinction is made between reasons for which an exception can be granted and reasons (carnival and other traditional events) for which no exception needs to be granted anyway. I find it problematic that there is an indeterminate legal term in sentence 1 for the exceptions to be granted ("respectable reasons") and an indeterminate legal term in sentence 2 for the reasons "excluding the facts" ("traditional events"). I consider a general exclusion of the ban on mummery for the carnival to be reasonable. I also consider the "respectable reasons", although rather vague, to be acceptable. However, I would delete the "other traditional events", because it then has too many indeterminate legal terms for one paragraph. Moreover, I don't see why giving "free passes" for mummery with such an indeterminate term when you have to get permits for all other events. Rather, one could add "respectable reasons" to sentence 1 with an exemplary enumeration. It would then look like this: "Par. 2 The police can grant exceptions if respectable reasons, such as folklore, tradition, security and climatic conditions, justify the disguise. Fasnacht does not fall under the prohibition of disguise." What do you think? [45]

Edit: just notice that the terms mentioned in the enumeration are also quite vague. However, in an enumeration like this I think it's okay.User130 (discussion) 18:16, 18 May 2022 (CEST) [47]

I find respectable motives difficult to define/determine as a competent authority. Such motives are highly subjective in my opinion. I am also not sure that we undermine the meaning and purpose of the law too firmly by providing too many exceptions. I think that even in the case of urgent as well as important issues, making them unrecognizable should not be allowed. Because all too often a rally with convincing and understandable motives is "exploited" by a few people to commit crimes without being detected. User163 (discussion) 11:56, 19 May 2022 (CEST) [49]

I think it's good that user 130 takes the Fasnacht completely out of the permit requirement and lists the security or climatic conditions with in particular. The exception "other traditional events" as the canton of Zug provides, however, I think it makes sense, because otherwise at best a large administrative burden could arise and it could possibly be perceived as discriminatory. User159 (Discussion) 09:04, 20 May 2022 (CEST) [52]

To prevent the Group1 page from remaining completely unchanged until just before the deadline, I have added a first suggestion. The paragraphs 2 and 3 correspond for the time being to the wording from the Zuger ÜStG (with minimal adjustment "to make oneself unrecognizable" → "to mask the face"). You are welcome to continue to make changes. User134 (Discussion) 17:29, 20 May 2022 (CEST) [54]

Thanks User 134 for the suggestion. I agree with paragraph 1. Regarding para 2 of your suggestion: here I think you could shorten the sentence by writing "The police can grant exceptions for respectable reasons. Fasnacht ...." Do you guys agree with that? User117 (discussion) 11:42, 21 May 2022 (CEST) Thank you for adding it. So I'm pretty happy with the current proposal. No changes are imposing themselves on me. "User129 (discussion) 20:18, 20 May 2022 (CEST)" [56]

Thanks User 134 for your suggestion. The title of the law is called Vermummungsverbot. I think the term "Vermummung" should be paraphrased in the law text (cf. Zug law text "make unrecognizable"). For example, we could use "cover face". User166 (Discussion) 17:38, 21 May 2022 (CEST) [58]

Thanks user 134, for me the current version fits. "Masking" doesn't need to be further paraphrased in my opinion, but wouldn't hurt either. I would leave it though for time reasons. User130 (discussion) 10:36, 22 May 2022 (CEST) [60]

Thanks User134. Re User166 and 130: Perhaps you could add the following to para 1: "who makes himself unrecognizable by masking his face at ...."? That would have included a paraphrase. User146 (Discussion) 11:08, 22 May 2022 (CEST) [62]

We deviate with "disguising" from BV 10a, which speaks of "veiling". But this is ok in my opinion, because vermummen is still a bit more specific for our topic (compare something to verhüllen at Duden the following example: "Wolken verhüllten die Bergspitzen"). Besides, "Vermummung" is used e.g. in the Zug decree (and in numerous others) User146 (Discussion) 11:08, 22 May 2022 (CEST) [64]

I think user 146's suggestion is a good one. This would concretize and paraphrase the term "Vermummung" and it should be clear what is meant. User137 (discussion) 13:46, 22 May 2022 (CEST) [66]

I also thought about it again and I think "unrecognizable" is better than "Vermummung". Vermummen somehow implies that the face has to be "wrapped" in a scarf or something. "Make unrecognizable" would be more accurate. But I'm probably already too late with my input "User129 (discussion) 20:57, 22 May 2022 (CEST)" [68]

"Vermummen" is paraphrased in a widely used dictionary as "to make unrecognizable by disguise and the like", i.e. "to make unrecognizable by disguising one's face" would be relatively pleonastic. User134 (discussion) 07:09, 23 May 2022 (CEST) [70]

== Use of "approve" ==
[72]
I find it unfortunate that "bewilligen" or "bewilligungspflichtig" is used 2x. Maybe we could change the second sentence to "Exceptions may be approved." or something like that? I'm just not sure if "approve" and "authorize" can really be used as synonyms. [73]

In principle, however, it makes sense to use the same terms consistently User159 (Discussion) [75]
This problem has now become superfluous, after all, in that the term "bewilligen" is used once in para. 2. Otherwise, I would be with you. User137 (Discussion) 13:48, 22 May 2022 (CEST) [76]

== Indeterminate legal terms ==
[78]
Obviously it is about defining a criminal offense (cf. introduction "According to this law is punished"). So because of nulla poena sine lege certa, in my opinion at least the following terms should be defined more precisely, possibly with legal definitions: [79]

* ''making unrecognizable'' (in the first place the face covering might be meant, cf. in the meantime also BV 10a [https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/1999/404/de#art_10_a BV 10a]) [81]
*' 'demonstrations'' [82]
* ''other gatherings of people'' [83]
It is also unclear what "subject to authorization" refers to (all three of the following terms?) and whether the author of this provision really meant that, conversely, it would not be punishable to make oneself unrecognizable at an event that does not require authorization. [84]

User134 (discussion) 09:34, 16 May 2022 (CEST) [86]

I think the term "requiring a permit" refers to all three of the following terms. Indeed, the Justice and Security Department of the Canton of Basel-Stadt always requires a permit for demonstrations (https://www.polizei.bs.ch/was-tun/polizeiliche-bewilligungen-dienstleistungen/kundgebungen-demos.html). User166 (discussion) 10:00, 17 May 2022 (CEST) [88]

My interpretation is that the "requiring a permit" refers only to the assemblies. If the whole article would refer only to events that require a permit, someone who, for example, masks himself in a hooligan mob that does not require a permit or a permit would not be liable to prosecution, even though this is precisely the goal of the ban on mummery (User 134 has already addressed this). In my opinion, it is questionable whether a distinction must be made at all between events requiring a permit and other gatherings of people. I don't think there needs to be a distinction, since hooding is/should be punished in both cases. "Requiring a permit" could thus be left out altogether and there would be no need to discuss it at all. User130 (discussion) 11:47, 17 May 2022 (CEST). [90]
Here I agree with User130 that there is no need for a distinction between events requiring a permit and events not requiring a permit. That way we could solve this "problem". User117 (Discussion) 13:39, 17 May 2022 (CEST) [91]

On "making unrecognizable": this could be defined in a paragraph under this art. That such a definition should be consistent with BV 10a I see as reasonable, however I am not quite sure how good a reference to the constitution is and how accurate the definition is there. [93]

On "demonstrations": here I think there is no need for a legal definition. [95]

I agree that the provision wants to criminalize making unrecognizable (1) at gatherings requiring a permit or at (2) demonstrations or at (3) other gatherings of people. I consider the provision - as a punitive provision - too vague. It remains open what "making unrecognizable" means, and finally, the enumeration (1-3) potentially criminalizes "making unrecognizable" per se at any gathering of people, except for the exceptions. User163 (discussion) 11:09, 17 May 2022 (CEST) [97]

Regarding "other gatherings of people": it is questionable whether this term can be defined, it actually only says that the enumeration is not exhaustive. It is to be assumed that such gatherings of people must be to the same extent as the ones mentioned. It is difficult here that above already gatherings requiring a permit are mentioned, does this now mean that all other gatherings of people must require a permit or exactly also those not requiring a permit are included? User117 (Discussion) 10:07, 16 May 2022 (CEST) [100]

In the early days of Covid there was quite a lot of discussion about terms like "event", "gathering" etc. If I see it correctly, in the later course they primarily still used the terms "rally", "event" and "gathering". [103]

My suggestion with regard to the requirement of certainty would be to concretize the "making unrecognizable" and to dispense with stuff like "other", as well as "subject to authorization" (can reasonably make no difference for criminal liability): [105]

: '''Vermummungsverbot''' [107]
: 1 Anyone who masks his face at a public demonstration, event or gathering of people shall be punished by a fine. [108]
: 2... [Regulation of exceptions] [109]
: 3... [Waiver of enforcement in individual cases]. [110]
: User134 (discussion) 07:03, 18 May 2022 (CEST). [111]
To prevent the Group1 page from remaining completely unchanged until just before the deadline, I have added a first suggestion. Feel free to keep adding to it. User134 (discussion) 17:29, 20 May 2022 (CEST) [112]

Thanks User 134 for your suggestion. The title of the law is called Vermummungsverbot. I think the term "Vermummung" should be paraphrased in the law text (cf. Zug law text "make unrecognizable"). For example, we could use "cover face". User166 (Discussion) 17:38, 21 May 2022 (CEST) [114]

To User166: see above my comment at "Exceptions".User146 (discussion) 11:13, 22 May 2022 (CEST) [116]

Here I agree with User 146 that we should add to para 1 as follows: "who at .... disguises himself by masking his face". This will allow us to concretize and rewrite the concept of mummery. User137 (discussion) 13:51, 22 May 2022 (CEST) [118]

I agree here that the term "mummery" needs to be concretized. See my comment above. "User129 (discussion) 20:58, 22 May 2022 (CEST)" [120]

== Concretization of the sanction ==
[122]
As it stands, the article describes the situations in which "disguising" is punishable. However, it is silent about the sanction. I consider a fine or imprisonment disproportionate. Consequently, shouldn't it be mentioned that a fine is threatened in case of violation of "making unrecognizable"? User163 (Discussion) 11:20, 17 May 2022 (CEST) [123]

You can probably leave "According to this law is punished" and not have to specify what the punishment is. Unlike the StGB, after all, many laws have a "Sanctions" section, which then deals with the possible sanctions, and the articles just refer to them in each case. If one adapts this here, it is at most not mer congruent with the other Art. or one would have to adapt all. It would be also possible to write "according to the art. xy of this law is punished". User137 (discussion) 13:10, 17 May 2022 (CEST) [125]

Would also suggest to specify the sanction (we are in cantonal transgression criminal law), see above under #Undefined legal terms. User134 (discussion) 07:03, 18 May 2022 (CEST) [127]

According to the current Übertretungsstrafgesetz Basel-Stadt, all transgressions are prefaced with "Mit Busse wird bestraft...". I therefore agree to concretize the sanction and specifically preface the article with "Mit Busse wird bestraft wer,...". User130 (discussion) 14:16, 20 May 2022 (CEST) [129]

So that the page Group1 does not remain completely unchanged until shortly before the deadline, I have added a first suggestion. Feel free to keep adding to it. User134 (discussion) 17:29, 20 May 2022 (CEST) [131]

Thanks User134 for the suggestion! I agree with the sanction as it is, and I especially disagree with writing a maximum or minimum penalty directly in our article. Otherwise there could be contradictions with the rest of the provisions (which we do not see). User146 (Discussion) 10:48, 22 May 2022 (CEST) [133]

I agree with User146 and also disagree with writing a maximum or minimum penalty directly into the article because of the risk of contradiction. "User129 (discussion) 21:02, 22 May 2022 (CEST)" [135]

== Procedure ==
[137]
How do we want to proceed specifically? Distribute tasks? User137 (discussion) 13:10, 17 May 2022 (CEST) [138]

- I would suggest we first discuss here in general what "problems" arise and then we define the "problem points" and discuss them to come to a "final formulation". Someone can then define the points we want to change and then create new "discussion titles". [141]

- I agree with the procedure. We can wait a few days until everyone has responded. Then we can see in which direction our formulation goes. But the important thing is this: Before opening a new title, everyone should see if there is not already a suitable existing title. If we have too many titles, everything will become confusing at some point.... "User129 (discussion) 14:55, 19 May 2022 (CEST)" [143]

Gruppe7 EN

2023-02-08T10:08:07Z

Wikiadmin: Die Seite wurde neu angelegt: „== Exercise == Text: 1 Anyone who makes himself unrecognizable at gatherings or processions in public spaces is punished by a fine. 2 The Government Council…“

== Exercise ==
Text:

1 Anyone who makes himself unrecognizable at gatherings or processions in public spaces is punished by a fine.

2 The Government Council may grant exceptions, in particular for reasons of local customs.

Gruppe6 EN

2023-02-08T10:07:28Z

Wikiadmin: Die Seite wurde neu angelegt: „== Art. X "Prohibition of unrecognition"== According to this law shall be punished, 1 Anyone who makes himself unrecognizable at meetings and other gatherings…“

== Art. X "Prohibition of unrecognition"==
According to this law shall be punished,

1 Anyone who makes himself unrecognizable at meetings and other gatherings of people in public spaces.

2 Anyone who deliberately makes it impossible or significantly more difficult to identify himself by covering his face or his overall appearance makes himself unrecognizable.

3 This does not apply to making oneself unrecognizable for special reasons, namely for health, cultural and religious reasons.

4 The competent authority may grant further exceptions, provided that public safety and order are not impaired thereby.

Gruppe5 EN

2023-02-08T10:05:50Z

Wikiadmin: /* Exercise */

== Exercise ==
=== Art. 1 Prohibition of disguise ===

#"[According to this law is punished with a fine]: [...] Whoever disguises himself at meetings, demonstrations and other gatherings of people on public ground requiring a permit.
#The authority responsible for authorizing the event within the meaning of paragraph 1 may grant exceptions if justified reasons are asserted.
#Justified reasons may include religious celebrations, local customs, climatic conditions or health measures.

Gruppe5 EN

2023-02-08T10:05:25Z

Wikiadmin: /* Exercise */

== Exercise ==
Art. 1 Prohibition of disguise

"[According to this law is punished with a fine]: [...] Whoever disguises himself at meetings, demonstrations and other gatherings of people on public ground requiring a permit.
The authority responsible for authorizing the event within the meaning of paragraph 1 may grant exceptions if justified reasons are asserted.
Justified reasons may include religious celebrations, local customs, climatic conditions or health measures.

Gruppe5 EN

2023-02-08T10:05:16Z

Wikiadmin: Die Seite wurde neu angelegt: „== Exercise == Art. 1 Prohibition of disguise "[According to this law is punished with a fine]: [...] Whoever disguises himself at meetings, demonstrati…“

== Exercise ==
Art. 1 Prohibition of disguise
"[According to this law is punished with a fine]: [...] Whoever disguises himself at meetings, demonstrations and other gatherings of people on public ground requiring a permit.
The authority responsible for authorizing the event within the meaning of paragraph 1 may grant exceptions if justified reasons are asserted.
Justified reasons may include religious celebrations, local customs, climatic conditions or health measures.

Gruppe4 EN

2023-02-08T10:04:36Z

Wikiadmin: Die Seite wurde neu angelegt: „== Exercise == Text: "[Punished under this law is]: [...] Whoever at meetings requiring a permit, demonstrations and other gatherings of people. Exceptions…“

== Exercise ==
Text:

"[Punished under this law is]: [...]

Whoever at meetings requiring a permit,

demonstrations and other gatherings of people.

Exceptions may be granted."

== Proposed solution Variant 4 ==
Art. 1

"[Punishable by fine under this Act]: [...]

1 Anyone who makes the face unrecognizable at gatherings of people requiring a permit and thus makes identification by the law enforcement authorities in connection with criminal acts more difficult.

2 A crowd is a group of people in which the number of individuals cannot be determined at first glance.

3 The face must be made recognizable when requested by the authorities for the purpose of identifying the person.

== Proposed solution Variant 5 ==
Art. 1

"[Pursuant to this Act, the following shall be punished by fine]: [...]

1 Whoever, in the case of gatherings of people requiring a permit, makes the face unrecognizable and thus makes identification by the law enforcement authorities in connection with criminal acts more difficult or does not make the face recognizable when requested by the authority for the purpose of identification.

2 A gathering of people is a group of people in which the number of individuals cannot be determined at first glance.

Gruppe3 EN

2023-02-08T10:02:48Z

Wikiadmin: Die Seite wurde neu angelegt: „== Exercise == Art. X Par. 1: Anyone who covers his face in publicly accessible places at meetings or other gatherings of people shall be punished by a fine.…“

== Exercise ==

Art. X

Par. 1: Anyone who covers his face in publicly accessible places at meetings or other gatherings of people shall be punished by a fine.

Par. 2: Not punishable are face coverings:

a. for religious purposes;

b. for the protection and restoration of health;

c. to ensure safety;

d. to maintain local customs and artistic and entertainment performances;

e. for performances for advertising purposes.

Gruppe2 EN

2023-02-08T10:02:06Z

Wikiadmin:

Text:

"[Punished under this law is]: [...]

(1) Anyone who makes himself unrecognizable by covering his face at gatherings of people with more than 15 participants, in particular at gatherings, demonstrations and sporting events requiring a permit, shall be punished by a fine.

(2) Exceptions may be granted by the competent authority for respectable reasons or reasons in the public interest. In particular, religious, cultural and health reasons shall be taken into account.

(3) Enforcement of the ban may be waived at the discretion of the police if this appears necessary to prevent escalation.

Gruppe1 EN

2023-02-08T10:00:51Z

Wikiadmin:

== New bill ==
Ban on face coverings

1 Anyone who masks his face at a public demonstration, event or gathering of people shall be punished by a fine.

2 The police may grant exceptions if respectable reasons justify masking the face. Fasnacht and other traditional events are not covered by the ban on masking.

3 The police may refrain from enforcing the ban in individual cases if this is necessary to prevent escalation.

Gruppe1 EN

2023-02-08T10:00:01Z

Wikiadmin: Die Seite wurde neu angelegt: „New bill Ban on face coverings 1 Anyone who masks his face at a public demonstration, event or gathering of people shall be punished by a fine. 2 The police…“

New bill
Ban on face coverings

1 Anyone who masks his face at a public demonstration, event or gathering of people shall be punished by a fine.

2 The police may grant exceptions if respectable reasons justify masking the face. Fasnacht and other traditional events are not covered by the ban on masking.

3 The police may refrain from enforcing the ban in individual cases if this is necessary to prevent escalation.

Diskussion:T EN

2023-02-08T09:59:04Z

Wikiadmin: Die Seite wurde geleert.

Diskussion:T EN

2023-02-08T09:52:57Z

Wikiadmin:

Diskussion:T EN

2023-02-08T09:52:01Z

Wikiadmin:

: I would rather refrain from a reference to BV 10a. The whole article is a constitutional misfortune (in the chapter "fundamental rights" a "ban on covering one's own face", that's just how it comes out with an initiative committee as constitutional editors ...). Exceptions should be regulated in any case in a separate paragraph. There are "models" for this penalty provision in various cantonal criminal laws. Zug, for example, currently has the following:
:: § 7 Prohibition of mummery
:: 1 Anyone who disguises himself at meetings, events, demonstrations or other gatherings of people on public or private property requiring a permit shall be punished by a fine.
:: 2 The police may grant exceptions if respectable reasons justify disguising oneself. Fasnacht and other traditional events are not covered by the ban on disguising oneself.
:: 3 The police may refrain from enforcing the ban in individual cases if this is necessary to prevent escalation.

2023-02-08T09:21:30Z

Wikiadmin:

2023-02-08T09:01:27Z

Wikiadmin: Die Seite wurde geleert.

Diskussion:Gruppe1 EN

2023-02-08T09:01:05Z

Wikiadmin: Die Seite wurde neu angelegt: „[1] == Draft law == [2] [3] Thank you very much for preparing the first draft. I think it is very successful. Only in paragraph 3 I am not sure whether we sho…“

[1] == Draft law ==
[2]
[3] Thank you very much for preparing the first draft. I think it is very successful. Only in paragraph 3 I am not sure whether we should leave it out. It describes the principles of police action that must be respected by the police in all situations and regulates what is already known. Otherwise I wouldn't change anything else, what do you guys think? User163 (discussion) 11:18, 22 May 2022 (CEST)
[4]
[5] I understand what User 163 means, but think that a repetition of what is already known would not hurt at this point. I would leave para 3 as it is. User137 (discussion) 13:52, 22 May 2022 (CEST)
[6]
[7] I agree that a repetition of a police principle here does no harm. After all, the Zug version repeats it. So I would leave para 3 as it is. "User129 (discussion) 20:53, 22 May 2022 (CEST)"
[8]
[9] For me, our solution including para 3 is fine. I have now changed the title of our text to "New legislative proposal" so that, in view of tomorrow's submission, "draft" no longer occurs. User146 (discussion) 21:23, 22 May 2022 (CEST)
[10]
[11] == Exceptions ==
[12]
[13] Perhaps it would be useful to list the exception provision in a paragraph 2? User146 (discussion) 10:52, 22 May 2022 (CEST)
[14]
[15] I agree, although it is not clear to me whether the sentence with the exceptions already constitutes a new paragraph or whether this is a new paragraph. In any case, one would have to determine where the exceptions are regulated with a reference or regulate in the article itself as paragraph 2, which these are.User117 (discussion) 09:06, 16 May 2022 (CEST)
[16]
[17] I agree that the exception provision needs to be in a second paragraph. In addition, I find the sentence order "Exceptions may be granted" a bit unattractive. Better: "Exceptions may be granted" ("it" does not need it). Further, I also think that it needs to be more specific as to when exceptions are granted. The problem right now is that no one really knows exactly when the provision applies now, because for some reason an exception could be granted. So I would suggest that we say, for example, "exceptions can be granted for reasons of public interest". What do you guys think? "User129 (discussion) 14:54, 19 May 2022 (CEST)"
[18]
[19] : you could also refer to BV 10a III. There the exceptions of "security, climatic conditions and native customs" are mentioned. User159 (discussion) 10:58, 16 May 2022 (CEST).
[20]
[21] : I would rather refrain from a reference to BV 10a. The whole article is a constitutional misfortune (in the chapter "fundamental rights" a "ban on covering one's own face", that's just how it comes out with an initiative committee as constitutional editors ...). Exceptions should be regulated in any case in a separate paragraph. There are "models" for this penalty provision in various cantonal criminal laws. Zug, for example, currently has the following:
[22] :: § 7 Prohibition of mummery
[23] :: 1 Anyone who disguises himself at meetings, events, demonstrations or other gatherings of people on public or private property requiring a permit shall be punished by a fine.
[24] :: 2 The police may grant exceptions if respectable reasons justify disguising oneself. Fasnacht and other traditional events are not covered by the ban on disguising oneself.
[25] :: 3 The police may refrain from enforcing the ban in individual cases if this is necessary to prevent escalation.
[26]
[27] : (I would not take para. 1 as a "model", but it is about para. 2 and 3, which firstly say who can grant exceptions and secondly under which conditions).
[28] : User134 (discussion) 09:13, 17 May 2022 (CEST).
[29] I agree that the provision: "Exceptions may be granted" is too vague. For me it is important which authority can grant exceptions or if courts can provide exceptions in the sense of case by case justice. Basically, the legislature should be clear in this regard, in which situations exceptions are provided for and which authority is responsible. User163 (discussion) 10:55, 17 May 2022 (CEST)
[30]
[31] I also think it is important to designate the authority that can grant the exceptions. The police would probably make sense here. Regarding the reasons for the exception, we could make it simple and let the executive branch define the exceptions (e.g. "The government council determines under which conditions exceptions can be granted."). User130 (discussion) 11:19, 17 May 2022 (CEST)
[32]
[33] So far I think we agree that a new paragraph is needed for the exceptions. Further, WHO grants the exceptions and WHAT the exceptions are or WHAT exceptions exist. Here I wonder if we better make one paragraph or two. Should we first define WHO regulates the exceptions in one paragraph and define the exceptions in a second one? Or both in one paragraph?
[34]
[35] In terms of content, I would not delegate the definition of the exceptions in a general way, but rather define them in the law itself (here I rather agree with user 163 and 134 and not user 130). Or also such as in BV 10a III. However, I think, one cannot determine such conclusively and would have to work with "in particular". User117 (Discussion) 13:35, 17 May 2022 (CEST)
[36]
[37] I like the idea of two paragraphs. Like User 130, I think the police are appropriate as the responsible authority. The police are usually close to the action and probably have enough experience with regard to riots during demonstrations. As far as the exceptions themselves are concerned, I think an exemplary list would be useful. However, I would leave it at such a list in order to give the authorities some discretion. I am still left with the question of whether exceptions must be sought from the authority in advance, or whether the competent authority could decide ex post. User163 (Discussion) 14:59, 17 May 2022 (CEST)
[38]
[39] Here I would say that if it is a "permit", this is to be obtained up front. Consequently, one might have to consider whether the term "grant" is the right one. In principle, an ex post decision would be possible, but I wonder if this would be compatible with legal certainty.User117 (discussion) 15:10, 17 May 2022 (CEST)
[40]
[41] I think the proposal from the Zug Transgression Penal Code (paragraphs 2 and 3) is actually quite appropriate. Are there any reasons why we could not adopt the two paragraphs as they are? I think we can proceed here according to the principle of "copy paste", which is quite common according to Prof. Uhlmann. User 117 sees, as I understand it, with this solution the problem that then the exceptions are defined conclusively, however it is called "Fasnacht and OTHER traditional events", why it is in my opinion already a non-exhaustive enumeration and a "in particular" is therefore not necessary. What do you think? "User129 (Discussion) 14:54, 19 May 2022 (CEST)"
[42]
[43] Basically, I like the idea of "copy pasting" the Zug law. That it by the OTHER traditional events not conclusively I see also, however there are yes only the traditional events covered and the exceptions such as security and climatic conditions from BV 10a not. So one would have to mention these in my opinion also still. User117 (Discussion) 15:11, 18 May 2022 (CEST)
[44]
[45] I'm not fundamentally against adopting the Zug law text, but I see another problem here: as I understand para. 2, a distinction is made between reasons for which an exception can be granted and reasons (carnival and other traditional events) for which no exception needs to be granted anyway. I find it problematic that there is an indeterminate legal term in sentence 1 for the exceptions to be granted ("respectable reasons") and an indeterminate legal term in sentence 2 for the reasons "excluding the facts" ("traditional events"). I consider a general exclusion of the ban on mummery for the carnival to be reasonable. I also consider the "respectable reasons", although rather vague, to be acceptable. However, I would delete the "other traditional events", because it then has too many indeterminate legal terms for one paragraph. Moreover, I don't see why giving "free passes" for mummery with such an indeterminate term when you have to get permits for all other events. Rather, one could add "respectable reasons" to sentence 1 with an exemplary enumeration. It would then look like this: "Par. 2 The police can grant exceptions if respectable reasons, such as folklore, tradition, security and climatic conditions, justify the disguise. Fasnacht does not fall under the prohibition of disguise." What do you think?
[46]
[47] Edit: just notice that the terms mentioned in the enumeration are also quite vague. However, in an enumeration like this I think it's okay.User130 (discussion) 18:16, 18 May 2022 (CEST)
[48]
[49] I find respectable motives difficult to define/determine as a competent authority. Such motives are highly subjective in my opinion. I am also not sure that we undermine the meaning and purpose of the law too firmly by providing too many exceptions. I think that even in the case of urgent as well as important issues, making them unrecognizable should not be allowed. Because all too often a rally with convincing and understandable motives is "exploited" by a few people to commit crimes without being detected. User163 (discussion) 11:56, 19 May 2022 (CEST)
[50]
[51]
[52] I think it's good that user 130 takes the Fasnacht completely out of the permit requirement and lists the security or climatic conditions with in particular. The exception "other traditional events" as the canton of Zug provides, however, I think it makes sense, because otherwise at best a large administrative burden could arise and it could possibly be perceived as discriminatory. User159 (Discussion) 09:04, 20 May 2022 (CEST)
[53]
[54] To prevent the Group1 page from remaining completely unchanged until just before the deadline, I have added a first suggestion. The paragraphs 2 and 3 correspond for the time being to the wording from the Zuger ÜStG (with minimal adjustment "to make oneself unrecognizable" → "to mask the face"). You are welcome to continue to make changes. User134 (Discussion) 17:29, 20 May 2022 (CEST)
[55]
[56] Thanks User 134 for the suggestion. I agree with paragraph 1. Regarding para 2 of your suggestion: here I think you could shorten the sentence by writing "The police can grant exceptions for respectable reasons. Fasnacht ...." Do you guys agree with that? User117 (discussion) 11:42, 21 May 2022 (CEST) Thank you for adding it. So I'm pretty happy with the current proposal. No changes are imposing themselves on me. "User129 (discussion) 20:18, 20 May 2022 (CEST)"
[57]
[58] Thanks User 134 for your suggestion. The title of the law is called Vermummungsverbot. I think the term "Vermummung" should be paraphrased in the law text (cf. Zug law text "make unrecognizable"). For example, we could use "cover face". User166 (Discussion) 17:38, 21 May 2022 (CEST)
[59]
[60] Thanks user 134, for me the current version fits. "Masking" doesn't need to be further paraphrased in my opinion, but wouldn't hurt either. I would leave it though for time reasons. User130 (discussion) 10:36, 22 May 2022 (CEST)
[61]
[62] Thanks User134. Re User166 and 130: Perhaps you could add the following to para 1: "who makes himself unrecognizable by masking his face at ...."? That would have included a paraphrase. User146 (Discussion) 11:08, 22 May 2022 (CEST)
[63]
[64] We deviate with "disguising" from BV 10a, which speaks of "veiling". But this is ok in my opinion, because vermummen is still a bit more specific for our topic (compare something to verhüllen at Duden the following example: "Wolken verhüllten die Bergspitzen"). Besides, "Vermummung" is used e.g. in the Zug decree (and in numerous others) User146 (Discussion) 11:08, 22 May 2022 (CEST)
[65]
[66] I think user 146's suggestion is a good one. This would concretize and paraphrase the term "Vermummung" and it should be clear what is meant. User137 (discussion) 13:46, 22 May 2022 (CEST)
[67]
[68] I also thought about it again and I think "unrecognizable" is better than "Vermummung". Vermummen somehow implies that the face has to be "wrapped" in a scarf or something. "Make unrecognizable" would be more accurate. But I'm probably already too late with my input "User129 (discussion) 20:57, 22 May 2022 (CEST)"
[69]
[70] "Vermummen" is paraphrased in a widely used dictionary as "to make unrecognizable by disguise and the like", i.e. "to make unrecognizable by disguising one's face" would be relatively pleonastic. User134 (discussion) 07:09, 23 May 2022 (CEST)
[71]
[72] == Use of "approve" ==
[73] I find it unfortunate that "bewilligen" or "bewilligungspflichtig" is used 2x. Maybe we could change the second sentence to "Exceptions may be approved." or something like that? I'm just not sure if "approve" and "authorize" can really be used as synonyms.
[74]
[75] In principle, however, it makes sense to use the same terms consistently User159 (Discussion)
[76] This problem has now become superfluous, after all, in that the term "bewilligen" is used once in para. 2. Otherwise, I would be with you. User137 (Discussion) 13:48, 22 May 2022 (CEST)
[77]
[78] == Indeterminate legal terms ==
[79] Obviously it is about defining a criminal offense (cf. introduction "According to this law is punished"). So because of nulla poena sine lege certa, in my opinion at least the following terms should be defined more precisely, possibly with legal definitions:
[80]
[81] * ''making unrecognizable'' (in the first place the face covering might be meant, cf. in the meantime also BV 10a [https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/1999/404/de#art_10_a BV 10a])
[82] *' 'demonstrations''
[83] * ''other gatherings of people''
[84] It is also unclear what "subject to authorization" refers to (all three of the following terms?) and whether the author of this provision really meant that, conversely, it would not be punishable to make oneself unrecognizable at an event that does not require authorization.
[85]
[86] User134 (discussion) 09:34, 16 May 2022 (CEST)
[87]
[88] I think the term "requiring a permit" refers to all three of the following terms. Indeed, the Justice and Security Department of the Canton of Basel-Stadt always requires a permit for demonstrations (https://www.polizei.bs.ch/was-tun/polizeiliche-bewilligungen-dienstleistungen/kundgebungen-demos.html). User166 (discussion) 10:00, 17 May 2022 (CEST)
[89]
[90] My interpretation is that the "requiring a permit" refers only to the assemblies. If the whole article would refer only to events that require a permit, someone who, for example, masks himself in a hooligan mob that does not require a permit or a permit would not be liable to prosecution, even though this is precisely the goal of the ban on mummery (User 134 has already addressed this). In my opinion, it is questionable whether a distinction must be made at all between events requiring a permit and other gatherings of people. I don't think there needs to be a distinction, since hooding is/should be punished in both cases. "Requiring a permit" could thus be left out altogether and there would be no need to discuss it at all. User130 (discussion) 11:47, 17 May 2022 (CEST).
[91] Here I agree with User130 that there is no need for a distinction between events requiring a permit and events not requiring a permit. That way we could solve this "problem". User117 (Discussion) 13:39, 17 May 2022 (CEST)
[92]
[93] On "making unrecognizable": this could be defined in a paragraph under this art. That such a definition should be consistent with BV 10a I see as reasonable, however I am not quite sure how good a reference to the constitution is and how accurate the definition is there.
[94]
[95] On "demonstrations": here I think there is no need for a legal definition.
[96]
[97] I agree that the provision wants to criminalize making unrecognizable (1) at gatherings requiring a permit or at (2) demonstrations or at (3) other gatherings of people. I consider the provision - as a punitive provision - too vague. It remains open what "making unrecognizable" means, and finally, the enumeration (1-3) potentially criminalizes "making unrecognizable" per se at any gathering of people, except for the exceptions. User163 (discussion) 11:09, 17 May 2022 (CEST)
[98]
[99]
[100] Regarding "other gatherings of people": it is questionable whether this term can be defined, it actually only says that the enumeration is not exhaustive. It is to be assumed that such gatherings of people must be to the same extent as the ones mentioned. It is difficult here that above already gatherings requiring a permit are mentioned, does this now mean that all other gatherings of people must require a permit or exactly also those not requiring a permit are included? User117 (Discussion) 10:07, 16 May 2022 (CEST)
[101]
[102]
[103] In the early days of Covid there was quite a lot of discussion about terms like "event", "gathering" etc. If I see it correctly, in the later course they primarily still used the terms "rally", "event" and "gathering".
[104]
[105] My suggestion with regard to the requirement of certainty would be to concretize the "making unrecognizable" and to dispense with stuff like "other", as well as "subject to authorization" (can reasonably make no difference for criminal liability):
[106]
[107] : '''Vermummungsverbot'''
[108] : 1 Anyone who masks his face at a public demonstration, event or gathering of people shall be punished by a fine.
[109] : 2... [Regulation of exceptions]
[110] : 3... [Waiver of enforcement in individual cases].
[111] : User134 (discussion) 07:03, 18 May 2022 (CEST).
[112] To prevent the Group1 page from remaining completely unchanged until just before the deadline, I have added a first suggestion. Feel free to keep adding to it. User134 (discussion) 17:29, 20 May 2022 (CEST)
[113]
[114] Thanks User 134 for your suggestion. The title of the law is called Vermummungsverbot. I think the term "Vermummung" should be paraphrased in the law text (cf. Zug law text "make unrecognizable"). For example, we could use "cover face". User166 (Discussion) 17:38, 21 May 2022 (CEST)
[115]
[116] To User166: see above my comment at "Exceptions".User146 (discussion) 11:13, 22 May 2022 (CEST)
[117]
[118] Here I agree with User 146 that we should add to para 1 as follows: "who at .... disguises himself by masking his face". This will allow us to concretize and rewrite the concept of mummery. User137 (discussion) 13:51, 22 May 2022 (CEST)
[119]
[120] I agree here that the term "mummery" needs to be concretized. See my comment above. "User129 (discussion) 20:58, 22 May 2022 (CEST)"
[121]
[122] == Concretization of the sanction ==
[123] As it stands, the article describes the situations in which "disguising" is punishable. However, it is silent about the sanction. I consider a fine or imprisonment disproportionate. Consequently, shouldn't it be mentioned that a fine is threatened in case of violation of "making unrecognizable"? User163 (Discussion) 11:20, 17 May 2022 (CEST)
[124]
[125] You can probably leave "According to this law is punished" and not have to specify what the punishment is. Unlike the StGB, after all, many laws have a "Sanctions" section, which then deals with the possible sanctions, and the articles just refer to them in each case. If one adapts this here, it is at most not mer congruent with the other Art. or one would have to adapt all. It would be also possible to write "according to the art. xy of this law is punished". User137 (discussion) 13:10, 17 May 2022 (CEST)
[126]
[127] Would also suggest to specify the sanction (we are in cantonal transgression criminal law), see above under #Undefined legal terms. User134 (discussion) 07:03, 18 May 2022 (CEST)
[128]
[129] According to the current Übertretungsstrafgesetz Basel-Stadt, all transgressions are prefaced with "Mit Busse wird bestraft...". I therefore agree to concretize the sanction and specifically preface the article with "Mit Busse wird bestraft wer,...". User130 (discussion) 14:16, 20 May 2022 (CEST)
[130]
[131] So that the page Group1 does not remain completely unchanged until shortly before the deadline, I have added a first suggestion. Feel free to keep adding to it. User134 (discussion) 17:29, 20 May 2022 (CEST)
[132]
[133] Thanks User134 for the suggestion! I agree with the sanction as it is, and I especially disagree with writing a maximum or minimum penalty directly in our article. Otherwise there could be contradictions with the rest of the provisions (which we do not see). User146 (Discussion) 10:48, 22 May 2022 (CEST)
[134]
[135] I agree with User146 and also disagree with writing a maximum or minimum penalty directly into the article because of the risk of contradiction. "User129 (discussion) 21:02, 22 May 2022 (CEST)"
[136]
[137] == Procedure ==
[138] How do we want to proceed specifically? Distribute tasks? User137 (discussion) 13:10, 17 May 2022 (CEST)
[139]
[140]
[141] - I would suggest we first discuss here in general what "problems" arise and then we define the "problem points" and discuss them to come to a "final formulation". Someone can then define the points we want to change and then create new "discussion titles".
[142]
[143] - I agree with the procedure. We can wait a few days until everyone has responded. Then we can see in which direction our formulation goes. But the important thing is this: Before opening a new title, everyone should see if there is not already a suitable existing title. If we have too many titles, everything will become confusing at some point.... "User129 (discussion) 14:55, 19 May 2022 (CEST)"

Gruppe2 EN

2023-02-02T07:35:13Z

Wikiadmin: Leere Seite erstellt

Gruppe7

2022-05-16T05:15:22Z

Wikiadmin: /* Übung */

Benutzer, die dieser Gruppe angehören:

* User123
* User128
* User131
* User140
* User142
* User151
* User158
* User164
* User169
* User171

== Übung ==

Text:

"[Nach diesem Gesetz wird bestraft]: […]

Wer sich bei bewilligungspflichtigen Versammlungen,

Demonstrationen und sonstigen Menschenansammlungen unkenntlich macht.

Es können Ausnahmen bewilligt werden."

Gruppe6

2022-05-16T05:13:53Z

Wikiadmin: /* Übung */

Benutzer, die dieser Gruppe angehören:

* User101
* User115
* User119
* User120
* User133
* User141
* User154
* User155
* User156
* User165

== Übung ==

Text:

"[Nach diesem Gesetz wird bestraft]: […]

Wer sich bei bewilligungspflichtigen Versammlungen,

Demonstrationen und sonstigen Menschenansammlungen unkenntlich macht.

Es können Ausnahmen bewilligt werden."

Gruppe5

2022-05-16T05:13:40Z

Wikiadmin: /* Übung */

Benutzer, die dieser Gruppe angehören:

* User104
* User107
* User108
* User111
* User116
* User121
* User124
* User125
* User139
* User149

== Übung ==

Text:

"[Nach diesem Gesetz wird bestraft]: […]

Wer sich bei bewilligungspflichtigen Versammlungen,

Demonstrationen und sonstigen Menschenansammlungen unkenntlich macht.

Es können Ausnahmen bewilligt werden."

Gruppe4

2022-05-16T05:13:27Z

Wikiadmin: /* Übung */

Benutzer, die dieser Gruppe angehören:

* User103
* User105
* User114
* User132
* User138
* User145
* User147
* User157
* User160
* User161
* User167

== Übung ==

Text:

"[Nach diesem Gesetz wird bestraft]: […]

Wer sich bei bewilligungspflichtigen Versammlungen,

Demonstrationen und sonstigen Menschenansammlungen unkenntlich macht.

Es können Ausnahmen bewilligt werden."

Gruppe3

2022-05-16T05:13:15Z

Wikiadmin: /* Übung */

Benutzer, die dieser Gruppe angehören:

* User106
* User110
* User122
* User126
* User127
* User136
* User143
* User144
* User153
* User170

== Übung ==

Text:

"[Nach diesem Gesetz wird bestraft]: […]

Wer sich bei bewilligungspflichtigen Versammlungen,

Demonstrationen und sonstigen Menschenansammlungen unkenntlich macht.

Es können Ausnahmen bewilligt werden."