Diskussion:Gruppe1 EN

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 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]