Diskussion:Gruppe7 EN

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]