Diskussion:Gruppe5 EN

Organization

[1]

Love all (Dear all) [2]

No idea how and when you'll want to work on this assignment next week. Just wanted to give you a heads up: I'm occupied in a seminar all day Monday and Tuesday and won't be able to then. So I should be able to make my contribution sometime later. [4]

User124 (discussion) 10:50, 11 May 2022 (CEST) [6]

Hello all [8]

Finding a common time frame is probably difficult. So everyone should probably check in from time to time to see how things are going. [10]

"User149 (discussion) 08:22, 16 May 2022 (CEST)" [12]

For me that would be so i.O if everyone looks in from time to time. Don't forget to sign your comment with the wave characters. ("User139 (discussion) 13:10, 16 May 2022 (CEST)") [14]

Exceptions

[16]

Find it still good to define the exceptions more precisely (Ex: religious festivals). How would you incorporate these into the structure of the decree? [17]

"User149 (discussion) 08:36, 16 May 2022 (CEST)" [19]

In the exceptions, it would probably also be necessary to determine who can determine these exceptions (the legislature itself, the executive, the administration).User121 (discussion) 08:49, 16 May 2022 (CEST) [21]

I also think that the law should state who can grant exceptions in individual cases. That will presumably be an administrative authority, after all. "Federal agency XY may grant exceptions." In order for the law to be sufficiently definite and predictable, however, the legislator himself would still have to describe in the law under what conditions an exception approval is possible. This would also ensure equality of rights. Or one could make a legislative delegation, i.e. write in that the Federal Council specifies the exceptions in an ordinance. "The Federal Council may provide for exceptions." User107 (discussion) 11:22, 16 May 2022 (CEST) [23]

Wouldn't a cantonal administration be responsible for such a permit? [25]

In view of the principle of legality and the fact that we are in the area of criminal law, I think it is necessary to aim for a high density of regulations. It should be clear which behavior is punishable and which is not. Otherwise, there is probably also a lack of the desired possibility of orientation. Therefore, I would agree with you to mention the exceptions explicitly. I tend rather to provide for them in the law itself with a view to Art. 164 BV or to describe the exceptions at least in the broad outlines. How do you see this? ("User139 (discussion) 13:20, 16 May 2022 (CEST)") [28]

@ User 139 That would mean that you would rewrite the concept of unrecognizable in more detail, so that it is clear which actions are punishable and which are not? Which exceptions would you describe more precisely? It would be conceivable to establish abstract conditions that would allow an exception. Do you mean something like this?User108 (discussion) 09:22, 17 May 2022 (CEST) [30]

I agree that the exceptions need to be defined more precisely. The following aspect is unclear to me and would therefore need to be clarified: According to Art. 1 para. 2, exceptions "may be granted". According to Art. 2, an exception "may exist" in the case of religious celebrations --> Does a permit have to be obtained in every case, even in the case of religious celebrations, for making the image unrecognizable? M.E. it would make sense if a permit is always required. It would also make sense if the authority that issues the permit for the event also decides on the permit for masking at the same time (practicability). At the legislative level, as already mentioned by User 108, abstract conditions should be defined as to when an exception is granted. One such abstract condition could be that the masking is necessary to fulfill the purpose of the authorized event. Religious celebrations can (but do not have to) still be explicitly mentioned. Proposal (considering the structure suggested by user 108): Art. 1: "[According to this law, it is punishable] ... Whoever makes himself unrecognizable at meetings, demonstrations or other gatherings of people requiring a permit Art. 2 para. 1: The authority responsible for the permit of the event in terms of Art. 1 may grant exceptions. Art. 2 Para. 2: An exception is granted if the obscuring is necessary to fulfill the purpose of the event as defined in Art. 1. The exception is granted in particular for religious celebrations, where the unrecognition is part of the religious tradition". [32]

I like your wording very much. Can you make the changes right away?User108 (discussion) 15:08, 17 May 2022 (CEST) [34]

The way Art. 2 para. 2 is worded, then only permissions are possible, if the unrecognition is necessary. Without any leeway. If we want it that way, then that's ok. If this should also be only an example and other exceptions should be possible, I would take the "by name" further forward. So "Art. 2 para. 2: An exception is granted by name if making it unrecognizable is necessary to fulfill the purpose of the event as defined in Art. 1, such as religious celebrations." And: we still have the fundamental problem that also people who wear a big scarf in winter can be punished, or those who (have to) wear a Corona mask. What are we going to do with this? User124 (discussion) 21:22, 17 May 2022 (CEST) [36]

You could also write "an exception may be granted for respectable reasons" or "the competent authority may grant an exception to the ban in justified cases" User108 (discussion) 08:11, 18 May 2022 (CEST) [38]

Find the wording of User108 good. The respectable reasons would probably have to be defined more precisely by case law. Then we can leave out the examples and their reasons (can't anticipate everything, so can leave room for case-by-case justice). "User149 (discussion) 11:41, 18 May 2022 (CEST)" [40]

@User124, m.E. one would have to include a twist in the norm text in those cases, which aims at the motivation of the mummery. Namely, it should be possible for individuals who do not want to do without a scarf or a mask to wear them without making themselves liable to prosecution. The associated impediment to identity or disguise must be in line with the purpose of the corresponding covering object. The practical problem will probably be the determination of the inner will. From the outside, it is not possible to determine the intention or the motive of the covering. For this reason, greater control should be exercised and, for example, it should be stipulated that such persons should be more likely to be stopped by the police, etc., or that the organizers should have a greater obligation to observe such persons within the framework of the rally management, and thus possibly be liable for any damage caused by such persons. However, one would still have to clarify to what extent such a liability is permissible at all, I am unsure about that. In this way, an incentive would be set to keep a closer eye on such persons and the general control generated in this way, based on the panoptic principle, would rather prevent deviant behavior.User116 (discussion) 09:57, 20 May 2022 (CEST) [42]

== Concretization of crowds == (People meetings) [44]

m.E. the used term "other gatherings of people" is formulated very openly and would have to be concretized or restricted. The (criminal) legality principle should hardly be satisfied by this formulation? User121 (Discussion) 08:44, 16 May 2022 (CEST) [45]

Would it possibly suffice to concretize the term "other gathering of people" in a regulation or through case law? User107 (discussion) 11:39, 16 May 2022 (CEST) [47]

Personally, I understand "other gatherings of people" as a catch-all from the aforementioned assemblies. Such catch-all elements are not new in criminal law and I think they are not per se incompatible with the principle of legality. Therefore, I would leave the term. ("User139 (discussion) 13:37, 16 May 2022 (CEST)") [49]

At most, exemplary enumerations of crowds could also be made, such as demonstrations or sporting events. This would at least somewhat illustrate what could be meant. This especially in light of the fact that Fasnacht and the like are not (supposed to be) included. (Discussion) 20:56, 19 May 2022 (CEST) [51]

I share the opinion of User139, that gathering of people as a catch-all offense does not need to be further specified. Moreover, a gathering can only be subject to authorization if there is an increased public use. Thus, it depends, among other things, on the local space conditions, how many people are perceived as disturbing. "User149 (discussion) 09:29, 20 May 2022 (CEST)" [53]

I agree with User139 and 149. In the end, it's always about authorized events, and it doesn't matter how exactly the term "crowd" is defined. As soon as there is an authorized event, the prohibition of unrecognition applies. User111 [55]

As I understand the text of the norm so far, the obligation to obtain a permit refers only to "assemblies", not to demonstrations and not to other gatherings of people. The purpose of the law is to prevent riots. In my opinion, there would be no need for a catch-all provision, since such riots usually occur in the context of demonstrations and authorized gatherings. I would therefore delete the "other gatherings of people", but expand the demonstrations by "authorized and unauthorized demonstrations". This would cover the main applications of the ban on mummery, but at the same time would not uncontrollably expand the scope of the norm. "User121 (discussion) 07:54, 22 May 2022 (CEST)" [57]

@User 121 Why would the permit requirement only apply to assemblies, but not to demonstrations and other gatherings of people? As I understand the text, all three are covered. Moreover, I am already of the opinion that a catch-all provision makes sense. Even if the riots mostly take place at demonstrations, that's still a long way from being all the cases of application. I think that with the catch-all "other gatherings of people" all kinds of events are covered, which may not have been thought of yet. User111 (Discussion) 12:37, 22 May 2022 (CEST) [59]

@User111 From a purely linguistic point of view, I understood it that way; however, I see that this can also be understood differently and that there is a need for a catch-all standard. "User121 (discussion) 15:24, 22 May 2022 (CEST)" [61]

Concept of unrecognizability

[63]

The term unrecognizability seems to be very vague. A concretization would probably be desirable. How do you see it?User108 (discussion) 09:17, 17 May 2022 (CEST) [64]

M.E. see no need to concretize the concept of unrecognizability further. The requirement of definiteness should not be understood in an absolute way. A general-abstract norm always needs vague terms. The citizen, knowing the norm, must simply know how to direct his behavior. Personally, I think "make unrecognizable" is clear that it must be a mummery, in which the identity of the person concerned is no longer apparent. how do the others see it? "195.176.96.193 08:46, 18 May 2022 (CEST)" [66]

Well, we could title the article "Vermummungsverbot". Then it would be clear what is meant by "make unrecognizable". I don't see any further need for concretization either. User124 (Discussion) 10:34, 18 May 2022 (CEST) [68]

I think the term unrecognizable seems clear enough. In common usage it should be clear what is meant by it, as has already been brought into the field above.User116 (discussion) 09:29, 20 May 2022 (CEST) [70]

Possibly a trivial question, but isn't "mummery" or "unrecognizability" also covered by the newly adopted ban on veiling in public spaces/publicly accessible spaces? Since events requiring a permit necessarily take place in public spaces. This provision is basically about face veiling and presently also or? User125 (discussion) 14:44, 21 May 2022 (CEST) [72]

Thereby are yes then e.g. Fasnachten/Skibekleidung etc. also excluded, since they are culturally anchored. So this also more in terms of exceptions. User125 (Discussion) 14:47, 21 May 2022 (CEST) [74]

Merging Art. 1 and 2

[76]

I would maybe even merge Art. 1 and 2. Wouldn't it be possible to say in Art. 1 para. 2 exceptions are possible esp. for ...? [77]

I would also merge the two articles, especially because Art. 2 is so short with the possible exceptions. User107 (discussion) 11:26, 16 May 2022 (CEST) [79]

Another possibility would also be to write the principle in Art. 1 for the prohibition and then insert the exceptions in Art. 2: Art. 2 para.1: The competent cantonal authority may provide for exceptions. Art. 2 para. 2: Exceptions can be provided in particular for...User108 (discussion) 11:47, 16 May 2022 (CEST) [81]

I would like the variant of User 108 very much. ("User139 (discussion) 13:22, 16 May 2022 (CEST)") [83]

So should I make the changes in the legal text?User108 (discussion) 09:23, 17 May 2022 (CEST) [85]

I agree with user 108's suggestion as well. Feel free to make the change. [87]

User108's suggestion sounds reasonable. Also, in keeping with the custom, I would divide the article(s) into sections instead of numbers? User121 (discussion) 15:15, 17 May 2022 (CEST) [89]

@user108 Yes, go ahead and make that change, I like it. User124 (discussion) 20:07, 17 May 2022 (CEST) [91]

i think the change is good too. User125 (discussion) 14:37, 21 May 2022 (CEST) [93]

Concept of the obligation to obtain a permit

[95]

To my knowledge, cantonal or even communal(?) law defines the obligation to obtain a permit for demonstrations. Does it make sense to choose a term here, which is defined differently in the cantons? Should the concept of the obligation to obtain a permit be dispensed with? ("User139 (Discussion) 13:34, 16 May 2022 (CEST)") [96]

I'm not sure we know if this is a federal law or a cantonal law. If it were a cantonal law, tying it to the permit requirement would not be problematic.User108 (discussion) 09:26, 17 May 2022 (CEST) [98]

According to the explanations of Prof. Uhlmann, it is the cantonal criminal law of transgressions (Basel Stadt). Thus, it is unproblematic to use the term "subject to approval". [101]

Shouldn't reference be made here to the applicable law/ordinance that governs the requirements for such a permit? Or according to what are the permits issued? On a discretionary basis? And which authority is responsible for issuing one? (Discussion) 21:01, 19 May 2022 (CEST) [103]

@user125 Do you mean the permit for the event? I think this is a permit for increased public use. The granting of the permit is at the discretion of the authority, when exercising liberties there is a conditional right to the granting of the permit. The municipality is responsible for issuing the permit. User107 (Discussion) 09:59, 20 May 2022 (CEST) [105]

What do we actually do with events that do not require a permit? Are we allowed to mask up at those at will? User116 (discussion) 08:16, 21 May 2022 (CEST) [107]

@user116 i would say you can't regulate that. everything that goes under increased public use is subject to permit and falls under this article. for simple public use (i.e. very small gatherings) you can't introduce a permit requirement. but then it's probably not necessary because there are so few people that the police can control them. User124 (discussion) 09:25, 21 May 2022 (CEST) [109]

other cantonal regulations

[111]

I just had a quick look at how other cantons that have a ban on mummery have regulated it. Whether this helps us, I don't know now...? We can probably deduce from this that apparently not too much concretization is necessary... [112]

ZH: § 10. ban on disguising 1 Anyone who disguises himself at meetings, demonstrations and other gatherings of people on public ground requiring a permit shall be punished by a fine. The investigation and assessment of the infringement shall be the responsibility of the governor's office. 2 Exceptions may be granted. [114]

BE: Art. 20 Prohibition of disguise 1 Anyone who disguises himself at meetings or demonstrations requiring a permit shall be liable to a fine. 2 The competent municipal authority may grant exceptions to the ban on disguising oneself if there are worthy reasons for disguising oneself. [116]

LU: (under the chapter "Offences against security") § 9a Disguise 1 Anyone who disguises himself by wearing a disguise at meetings, demonstrations or other gatherings of people on public land requiring a permit shall be liable to a fine. 2 The competent authority may grant exceptions in justified cases. [118]

TG: § 39 Ban on disguising oneself 1 Anyone who disguises himself at gatherings or rallies on public ground requiring a permit shall be liable to a fine. 2 The enforcement of the ban may be waived at the discretion of the police if otherwise the escalation of the situation must be feared. [120]

SO: (under the chapter "Breaches of the public peace") § 21bis Prohibition of disguising oneself 1 Anyone who disguises himself at meetings, demonstrations and other gatherings of people on public ground requiring a permit shall be punished by a fine. Parades and gatherings at which the traditional masking of the face is the actual purpose of the event are exempt. 2 Exceptions may be granted if justified reasons are given for disguising oneself. 3 The police may exceptionally waive the identification of masked persons if the circumstances so require. [122]

SG: Art. 12bis Prohibition of masking 1 Anyone who disguises themselves at meetings or rallies requiring a permit or in the vicinity of sporting or other events shall be liable to a fine. 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. 3 The police command may refrain from enforcing the ban in individual cases if this appears necessary to prevent escalation. [124]

Art. 12ter Prohibition of face covering 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. User124 (discussion) 21:05, 17 May 2022 (CEST) [126]

I like the provision of the canton SO much. As I understood Prof. Uhlmann in the video, we don't have to deal with the question of sufficient definiteness of the norm (therefore we don't have to deal with the terms "crowd" and "unrecognizable" any further). Rather, the point is to narrow down the open norm. Occasions such as carnival should not be covered by the offence in the first place. Paragraph 1 of §21bis of the canton SO therefore also excludes parades and gatherings, where the traditional masking of the face is the actual purpose of the event, from the elements of the crime. Because it is not covered by the offence at all, no exception has to be granted for it. This is practical and it is not the aim of the legislator that a masking at the carnival must always be approved first. M.E. also religious celebrations, with which one masks oneself traditionally, could already be excluded. For this, there would be no need for an explicit exception. What the actual purpose of an event is, is in my opinion sufficiently determinable. It would therefore be an idea to formulate Art. 1 as follows: "[According to this law shall be punished]: [...] Whoever makes himself unrecognizable at meetings, demonstrations and other gatherings of people on public ground requiring a permit. Exempted are processions and gatherings where the traditional masking of the face is the actual purpose of the event." Art. 2 on the exceptions to the permit requirement for masking could be worded as follows. Art. 2: "The authority responsible for authorizing the event referred to in Art. 1 may authorize further exceptions if justified reasons are provided." User107 (discussion) 16:15, 19 May 2022 (CEST) [130]

@User 107 I totally agree with you that from a practicability point of view it can't be that the regulation would necessitate a flood of individual permits. The intrument of the permit should be reduced to a minimum accordingly. User116 (Discussion) 19:46, 19 May 2022 (CEST) [132]

@User 107 Also find it pointless if a permit must now be obtained for every event. Therefore I find your formulation, based on that of the canton SO, very good. Thus, a large part of the permits will already be omitted, for events where the permit would be issued anyway. However, I would also explicitly include the religious events, because I do not see them in your formulation as necessarily covered by the exception, since (from my point of view), the masking is not the actual purpose of the religious event (unlike the carnival). Therefore, I would include the exception of religious events in Art. 1 as well. User111 [134]

@User 111 Thank you for your input. You are absolutely right, the very purpose of religious events is not to masquerade. If we include religious events in Art. 1 as well ("Excluded are processions and gatherings where traditional masking of the face is the actual purpose of the event, as well as religious events"), then that would mean that you can always disguise yourself at all religious events without a permit. Wouldn't it therefore be better to simply include religious events in Art. 2 as an explicit example of a "legitimate reason" for which an exception can be granted? This way, one would really only exempt the events where the traditional masking of the face is the actual purpose of the event from the permit requirement. Everything else would have to be dealt with under Art. 2. Art. 2 could read as follows "The authority responsible for licensing the event referred to in Art. 1 may grant further exemptions if justified reasons are invoked. Justified reasons may exist in particular in the case of religious celebrations." Art. 2 could also be divided into 2 paragraphs. User107 (discussion) 15:30, 20 May 2022 (CEST) [136]

Formulation of the norm

[138]

How about we write wording suggestions in here? Then we can decide on a version and make the change.User108 (discussion) 12:29, 20 May 2022 (CEST) [139]

About the method: I am also in favor of a first consolidation at this point. If there is still a need for discussion on the concrete text, you can open a discussion section for the respective text proposal. I propose to list chronologically numbered standard text proposals here (e.g. proposal 1) and to continue the discussion (e.g. discussion on proposal 1) in a corresponding section. At the end we can have different texts to choose from and can select our "favorite text" based on the discussions and release it for submission.User116 (Discussion) 07:28, 21 May 2022 (CEST) [141]

For the sake of readability and clarity, I would like to make it popular to open a separate section for each standard text proposal.User116 (Discussion) 07:31, 21 May 2022 (CEST) [143]

Proposal 1

[145]

Art.1 [146]

[Punishable by fine under this law]: [...] Whoever disguises himself at gatherings requiring a permit, such as demonstrations or other gatherings of people on public ground. Excluded are processions and gatherings where the traditional masking of the face is the actual purpose of the event. [148]

Art. 2 [151]

Par. 1 The authority responsible for authorizing the event as defined in Art. 1 may grant further exceptions if justified reasons are asserted. [153]

Par. 2 Justified reasons may exist in particular in the case of religious celebrations. [155]

User116 (Discussion) 08:44, 21 May 2022 (CEST) [157]

Discourse on version 1

[159]

I have added the penalty "fine", which I think was missing. User116 (discussion) 08:26, 21 May 2022 (CEST) [160]

M.E. one should discuss whether the obligation to obtain a permit refers only to assemblies or also to gatherings of people etc.. This does not seem clear to me yet. One could also read the provision in such a way that e.g. only gatherings of people requiring a permit fall under the masking ban and unpermitted ones do not. Possibly a clarification is still to be made here. [162]

A specification would be possible, for example, by adding the word "at". For example, "at meetings requiring a permit, at demonstrations, at gatherings of people". [164]

However, authorized demonstrations etc. should also be included. Therefore, one could also formulate as follows: at gatherings requiring a permit, such as demonstrations or other gatherings of people. [166]

I think especially the unauthorized gatherings of people etc. have a great potential danger for "chaos". Therefore, we should also regulate such gatherings with the masking ban in accordance with the regulatory objective. [168]

Accordingly, I have still adapted the proposal 1. User116 (Discussion) 08:35, 21 May 2022 (CEST) [170]

Proposal 2

[172]

Art. 1 ban on mummery [173]

1 Anyone who disguises himself at meetings, demonstrations and other gatherings of people on public ground requiring a permit shall be punished by a fine. Exceptions are processions and gatherings where the traditional masking of the face is the actual purpose of the event. [175]

2 The authority responsible for authorizing the event within the meaning of paragraph 1 may grant further exceptions if there are justified reasons, in particular in the case of religious celebrations. [177]

User124 (discussion) 09:49, 21 May 2022 (CEST) [179]

Discussion on proposal 2

[181]

I didn't reinvent proposal 1. Just structured it a bit differently. I would still put the whole thing under the title "Vermummungsverbot". To clarify what we actually want to ban. And I wouldn't make two different articles. After all, it's not a whole law on the ban on mummery (I assume), but the ban on mummery is simply a part in the police law. User124 (discussion) 09:52, 21 May 2022 (CEST) [182]

I think suggestion 2 is a good one. The article is one of many in the cantonal transgression criminal law. So it really makes more sense to have it all in one article in two paragraphs. The title is also good. Paragraph 2 could possibly be made into two sentences. "The authority responsible for authorizing the event as defined in Art. 1 may grant further exceptions if justified reasons are asserted. Justified reasons may exist in particular in the case of religious celebrations." User107 (discussion) 10:57, 21 May 2022 (CEST) [184]

i think the change to the article is good, it provides more clarity especially regarding exceptions. User125 (discussion) 14:51, 21 May 2022 (CEST) [186]

I think proposal 2 is also good, two articles are not necessary in my opinion. But I agree with User107 that it is clearer if we split para 2 into two sentences. User111 (discussion) 17:33, 21 May 2022 (CEST) [188]

I think proposal 2 is good too. Putting it in one article already makes sense. User116 (discussion) 06:55, 22 May 2022 (CEST) [190]

I think proposal 2 is good too. Just one note: I would not write "the actual purpose" but "part of the purpose". Masking is rarely the main purpose (i.e. the actual purpose) of a meeting but only a part of it. [192]

In principle, I agree with putting the regulation in one article. Personally, I still find something disturbing how the exceptions are regulated. Paragraph 1 sentence 2 already provides for an exception (and then specifically only on traditional?) Personally, I would include the exceptions only in paragraph 2. I think it makes the most sense if the decision of the authorization lies with the competent authority. This can probably in individual cases best the vers. Interests against each other. (my suggestion see suggestion 3)("83.78.59.50 20:51, 22. May 2022 (CEST)") [195]

Levy

[197]

We must not forget to change the "official" text. Should we leave the discussion open until 8pm tonight and then someone could adjust the text tonight or Monday morning with any input that exists by then? [198]

Personally, I think 20:00 is too early. I would like to add sth.and can't look over it until later. [200]

Summary of the suggestions

[202]

I have summarized your suggestions in one text: [203]

Art.1 Ban on mummery [205]

1 [According to this law is punished with a fine]: [...] Whoever disguises himself at meetings, demonstrations and other gatherings of people on public ground requiring a permit. Exceptions are processions and gatherings where the traditional masking of the face is part of the purpose of the event. [207]

2 The authority responsible for authorising the event within the meaning of Article 1 may grant further exceptions if justified reasons are given. Justified reasons may exist in particular in the case of religious celebrations. [209]

If no further suggestions are received I can make the change in the main text tomorrow morning. [211]

User108 (discussion) 20:10, 22 May 2022 (CEST) [214]

I have another suggestion 3. Maybe you can still express your opinion about it? ("83.78.59.50 20:52, 22 May 2022 (CEST)") [218]

Transitional/final provisions?

[220]

With regard to the implementation of the ban on face coverings (Art. 10a BV; referendum of March 7, 2021), would transitional or final provisions have to be created? [221]

The implementation of the initiative is planned through Art. 332a E-StGB (cf. https://www.bj.admin.ch/bj/de/home/aktuell/mm.msg-id-85515.html). Due to the numerous exceptions, the wording of Art. 332a E-StGB is likely to be less far-reaching than the norm we are drafting here. In my opinion, it is an open question whether the cantons may tighten this provision or whether there is no room left for cantonal regulations. In the second case, federal law would take precedence over cantonal regulations due to its derogatory effect (see also Explanatory Report on the Opening of the FOJ Consultation Procedure of 20 October 2021, para. 6.2.). In this case, would it be necessary to stipulate that the regulation ceases to apply when Art. 332a E-StGB enters into force? How do you see this? "User121 (discussion) 10:21, 22 May 2022 (CEST)" [223]

I think there is no need for final/transitional provisions. The task at hand is merely about "improving" a single norm within a law.User108 (discussion) 21:14, 22 May 2022 (CEST) [226]

Proposal 3

[228]

Art.1 Prohibition of mummery [229]

1 [Punishable by fine under this law]: [...] Whoever disguises himself at gatherings requiring a permit, such as demonstrations or other gatherings of people on public ground. [231]

2 The authority responsible for licensing the event within the meaning of para. 1 may grant further exceptions if justified reasons are asserted. [233]

3 Legitimate reasons include, in particular, religious celebrations, local customs, climatic conditions or health measures. " "178.197.216.171 21:23, 22 May 2022 (CEST)" (User 139) [235]

Paragraph 3 is intended to meet the requirement for definiteness. So it gives some nudge/idea as to when an exception might exist. The enumeration should not be exhaustive (therefore by name) and the authority would still be entitled to weigh and decide in individual cases whether there is a legitimate reason in the specific case. "178.197.216.171 21:23, 22 May 2022 (CEST)" (User 139) [238]

I think your suggestion is good.However, I would then delete the word "further" in para. 2 from the legal text, because it no longer fits.User108 (discussion) 21:17, 22 May 2022 (CEST) [240]

Conclusion

[242]

Shall we vote which of the 3 proposals we think is best? Then we can change the text tomorrow morning. ("178.197.216.171 21:26, 22 May 2022 (CEST)") [243]

I think it's good. I am in favor of the suggestion made by user 108 (summary of suggestions). [245]

Good idea. Methodology: everyone has two votes and can distribute them as they like or how do you want to do this? "User121 (discussion) 21:43, 22 May 2022 (CEST)" [247]

Since no one has come forward and at least I won't have time later, I have adjusted the official text once according to suggestion 3. If more people come forward later and are in favor of another proposal, the text can simply be adjusted again. [249]

I find the current proposal very good, I have only written out the abbreviation "i.S.v.", since such abbreviations are not used in laws in principle. "User111 (discussion) 08:01, 23 May 2022 (CEST)" [251]

I think the current proposal is good too. Thanks for the change!User108 (discussion) 08:07, 23 May 2022 (CEST) [254]

I am also for proposal 3 (current change) [257]

Great, thank you guys! User124 (discussion) 08:28, 23 May 2022 (CEST) [259]

Thanks, agree with it as well. I still added "buses", which obviously got lost somewhere. User116 (discussion) 08:31, 23 May 2022 (CEST) [261]

Perfect, thanks to all involved. "User121 (discussion) 08:50, 23 May 2022 (CEST)" [263]

A bit late, but I think the change is good too. Thank you very much. User125 (discussion) 09:21, 23 May 2022 (CEST) [265]

Thank you for accepting the change. It is soon levy and I would also no longer make a change, but the definitive proposal I now understand again that a permit must be obtained for mummery, for example, at the carnival. Because it is listed as a legitimate reason for a permit in paragraph 3. Wasn't the idea to exempt such events as the carnival already in a first step from the obligation to obtain a permit and not only to list them as a justified reason for obtaining a permit? The expansion of the reasons to include native customs, climatic conditions or health measures I find good. User107 (discussion) 09:33, 23 May 2022 (CEST) [267]