Diskussion:Gruppe2 EN

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]