Diskussion:Gruppe4 EN

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]