Diskussion:T EN: Unterschied zwischen den Versionen
| Zeile 1: | Zeile 1: | ||
| + | == Draft law == |
||
| − | : 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: |
||
| + | [1] |
||
| − | :: § 7 Prohibition of mummery |
||
| + | |||
| − | :: <sup>1</sup> 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. |
||
| + | 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] |
||
| − | :: <sup>2</sup> 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. |
||
| + | |||
| − | :: <sup>3</sup> The police may refrain from enforcing the ban in individual cases if this is necessary to prevent escalation. |
||
| + | 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] |
||
Version vom 8. Februar 2023, 10:52 Uhr
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]