Diskussion:Gruppe6 EN
Procedure
[1]
Good morning [2]
Is the small section that is supposed to go towards the veiling ban our text for editing? [4]
LG User165 (discussion) 08:01, 16 May 2022 (CEST) [6]
My understanding is that this is correct. The small text under the listing of users of group 6. I suggest that we always write changes under the original text, so that we can still see the original at any time. What do you think about this? [9]
Good idea, I would also suggest that we first make sections on individual points here in the discussion, where we can then discuss. User101 (Discussion) 10:19, 16 May 2022 (CEST) [11]
I also think this is a good idea. So should be written directly under each paragraph to be changed or at the very end of the text? Great idea to do a discussion on the paragraphs first. User155 (discussion) 13:48, 16 May 2022 (CEST) [13]
Or does anyone know if in each case the different versions are saved when the text is edited and these can be viewed? Or does a "new" editor only see the revised final product? User155 (Discussion) 13:48, 16 May 2022 (CEST) [15]
Can't answer exactly, however if you enter the character "~" four times in a row i.S.v. "xxxx" you can leave your signature. User165 (discussion) 12:19, 16 May 2022 (CEST) [17]
Alright. And then how do we decide on a final version/create the version for submission? As I understand it,there should just be a text at the end which is also used for ranking. User155 (discussion) 13:48, 16 May 2022 (CEST) [20]
Think we discuss here now and then at the very end write the final version in at the "Page" tab instead of the original text. User165 (discussion) 14:03, 16 May 2022 (CEST) [22]
I would do it the same way. We can create a new section "Final version" at the end at the "Page" tab. User115 (discussion) 16:26, 17 May 2022 (CEST) [24]
Shall we all meet again today Sunday ( 22.5.) suggest 18:00 to agree? User133 (discussion) 14:35, 22 May 2022 (CEST) [26]
Overview of the elements of crime
[28]
For a brief overview, I would suggest that we discuss the elements of the crime in individual sections. These would be (in my opinion) the following: [29]
- Types of assembly (there is already a section) - Act of making unrecognizable - Exceptions [31]
Is there anything missing for you in terms of a delimiting element or similar? User165 (Discussion) 12:22, 16 May 2022 (CEST) [33]
M.E. this listing is complete. User115 (discussion) 16:35, 17 May 2022 (CEST) [35]
Content introduction video
[37]
Are any of you watching the content introduction video on OLAT? This should have been up at 8:00, but nothing is visible on my end yet. Perhaps we should watch this first before jumping into revising the text, as there may be some helpful background information provided. User155 (discussion) 13:49, 16 May 2022 (CEST) [38]
Is there User165 (discussion) 07:49, 17 May 2022 (CEST) [40]
Exceptions
[42]
"Exceptions may be granted." [43]
Here concretization of the exceptions is missing. A reference would be possible, e.g.: [45]
Para. 2: The Federal Council shall determine exceptions. These are subject to approval. [47]
or a (not?) exhaustive list: [49]
Par. 2: Exceptions to the veiling ban include (in particular) veiling for health or metrological reasons, within the framework of folk traditions, or on the basis of official orders. Par. 3: The exceptions are subject to approval. [51]
What should also be added, in my opinion, is the responsibility for the permit. e.g.: [53]
Par. 2/3: The competent authority for the approval of the exceptions is determined by cantonal law. [55]
What do you think is better? and in the list how do you want to supplement/correct it? [57]
User101 (discussion) 10:32, 16 May 2022 (CEST) [59]
The responsibility for granting the permit definitely still needs to be defined: that is, whether the BR can define the exceptions or whether it is the responsibility of the cantons. With the list (I would have said now it would be a non-exhaustive list and one could leave then the "in particular" so) I agree absolutely. By the non-exhaustive list one would still have room for possible further reasons in exceptional cases. User155 (discussion) 13:49, 16 May 2022 (CEST) [61]
In my opinion [63]
"in particular" very good. [65]
No need to specify who determines the exceptions, would standardize them directly in the law and leave enough room for the courts to develop the law à la version "veiling for health or metrological reasons, within the framework of folk traditions or on the basis of official orders". Perhaps I would also add in the sense of a general clause "where the enforcement of the prohibition is unobjectionable from a safety point of view". [67]
User165 (discussion) 12:31, 16 May 2022 (CEST) [69]
Maybe in para 2 you could make a list of fixed exceptions like "Excluded is the wearing of (e.g. face covering) for health, weather, folk traditional reasons, etc. (i.e. things that involve making unrecognizable by e.g. face covering, but which don't have to/can't be approved in individual cases) as well as in private spaces." And in para 3 something like "The Federal Council (or canton/municipality/etc.) may grant further exceptions.", as a catch-all clause? User119 (discussion) 15:31, 16 May 2022 (CEST) [71]
Perhaps we should not provide for exceptions at all, or make exceptions subject to approval? Instead, couldn't we use the criminal law figure of intent and say "Whoever disguises [types of assembly] with the intent to evade identification by the authorities..."? User165 (discussion) 17:06, 16 May 2022 (CEST) [73]
I would still replace with: "by name or in particular" to mark the exceptions as non-exhaustive-> Also, in my opinion, the public health aspects must be taken into account especially in times of a pandemic (very topical) and maybe instead of folk traditional I would write cultural. User133 (discussion) 15:24, 22 May 2022 (CEST) [75]
Enumeration of types of assemblies
[77]
"Assemblies, demonstrations and other gatherings of people requiring a permit". [78]
In my opinion, these terms do not make sense. [80]
- Assemblies requiring a permit: The obligation to obtain a permit is defined by the cantonal or communal authorities. What all falls under this category differs everywhere in Switzerland. - Demonstrations regularly include events that require a permit and are rather a non-technical umbrella term. - Other gatherings of people are then simply the catch-all category, which should be further defined if necessary. In my opinion, however, the term can remain as it is, provided that the enumeration is sensibly designed beforehand. [82]
I would dispense with the term "permit requirement". Instead, a distinction could be made according to how the assemblies are created. [84]
E.g. demonstrations, rallies, public events and other gatherings of people. This also includes spontaneous gatherings of people without a corresponding organization. [86]
What do you think? If necessary, we could also make a separate paragraph with a legal definition? [88]
User101 (Discussion) 10:47, 16 May 2022 (CEST) [90]
Questionable would be then insb. also how the permit requirement for exceptions to the spontaneous gatherings should stand. [92]
True. I meant that for spontaneous rallies generally also no permission must be obtained (only obligation to report that a spontaneous rally is to take place). Then it wouldn't make much sense if the covering had to be approved, but the approval itself not. Otherwise, I am in complete agreement with the enumeration. User155 (discussion) 13:49, 16 May 2022 (CEST) [94]
To more easily get a listing of assembly types, one might first consider what the purpose of the ban on unrecognizable is. In terms of public safety and law enforcement, the background could be that people who have committed crimes in a large crowd are recognized or found in or from the large crowd. Or also that one prevents possible criminal acts by taking away the protection of anonymity by making them unrecognizable. It is questionable at what kind of gathering there are most likely to be potential criminals, and from what size of crowds one does not find them - if they have made themselves unrecognizable? One could say, among others, politically motivated gatherings. Or generally gatherings above a certain (defined) size. But there it is also questionable how far you want to extend the ban or if you want it as specific as possible only for e.g. demonstrations? User119 (discussion) 14:55, 16 May 2022 (CEST) [96]
Draft 1
[98]
Hello together [99]
I have made a first draft. What do you think? Maybe we can use it for further discussion? [101]
Maybe you can make some more drafts, and we can decide for one of them for further work? User165 (Discussion) 07:57, 17 May 2022 (CEST) [103]
Added a few changes as well. I would delete para 1 and 2 and make para 1 as follows: [105]
1 Whoever makes himself unrecognizable at gatherings of people requiring a permit and other gatherings of people with the intention to prevent identification of his person. [107]
I would have shortened para. 1 and 2 in order to shorten something. Instead of an identification by the authorities I would have suggested only an identification of his person. [109]
Paragraph 3 I would draft as follows: [111]
3 The authorization under paragraph 2 may not be granted if public safety is endangered. [113]
I think that some discretion would be appropriate and therefore chose a "may" provision. [115]
Draft 2
[117]
Punishment under this Act: [118]
1 Whoever, at gatherings of people requiring a permit and other gatherings of people, disguises himself with the intention of preventing identification of his person. [120]
2 The absence of intent shall be presumed if there is a permit for the disguise. [122]
3 Authorisation in accordance with paragraph 2 may not be granted if public safety is endangered. [124]
4 The authority responsible for authorizing the assembly shall decide on the authorization in accordance with paragraph 2. [126]
My thoughts on the current status: [129]
- If we are of the opinion that not only gatherings requiring a permit but also other gatherings of people should be covered, then we can actually delete the part "requiring a permit and other". It can be argued that the offence should only apply to gatherings of people requiring a permit, as these already represent an increased threat to public safety (hence the requirement for a permit in the first place). [131]
- The limitation of the "making unrecognizable" with the formulation "with the intention of preventing identification of his person" is certainly sensible, but causes problems with regard to the enforcement of the provision. [133]
- Do I understand correctly that the presumption in item 2 is actually pointless, since the burden of proof never lies with the alleged perpetrator anyway? [135]
- No. 3 would perhaps be better formulated in this way: The granting of a permit according to paragraph 2 may be refused if public safety is endangered. User115 (Discussion) 17:26, 17 May 2022 (CEST) [137]
- I agree, the criterion requiring a permit is unfortunate anyway. [140]
- I agree here too, I think it makes more sense to define "unrecognizable". [142]
- Yes, if there is a permit, concealment is permissible, if not it is impermissible (so also the us originally given text). Here, an additional consideration is proposed, according to which an unauthorized disguise is nevertheless permissible, but no criteria are specified for the consideration of interests, which makes the whole thing very unclear again. [144]
- I think your proposal is well formulated. I think you still have to define criteria, according to which the permit is granted (purely for legal protection interests, you have to know how to argue in the application). [146]
- Paragraph 4 should be adapted in such a way that the responsibility for events requiring a permit and those not requiring a permit is applicable. [148]
I would change the text (also with the changes from the chapter below) as follows: [150]
Under this Act shall be punished: [153]
1 Whoever makes himself unrecognizable at meetings. [155]
2 Making oneself unrecognizable includes any process by which the identification of a person is made more difficult, in which essential parts of the face or the overall appearance of this person are covered. [157]
3 Exceptions may be made to the prohibition on disguise. Exceptions are subject to approval. Reasons for granting exceptions are in particular ... . [159]
4 The granting of a permit in accordance with paragraph 3 may be refused in the event of a threat to public safety. [161]
5 The authority responsible for the authorization of assemblies such as the one in question shall decide on the authorization in accordance with paragraph 3. [163]
User101 (Discussion) 15:17, 18 May 2022 (CEST) [165]
In my opinion, a definition of unrecognizable is superfluous, as it entails a lot of text. Moreover, it narrows down a term that in itself tells each person enough about what is punished, precisely unrecognizing, without unnecessarily narrowing it down. This leaves enough room for case-by-case application without having to accept loopholes. In addition, I would summarize paragraphs 3 and 4 as follows: "Paragraph XY: Exceptions to the prohibition of obliteration are subject to authorization. This will only not be granted in the event of a threat to public safety and order." With this wording of the exception, we create a kind of barrier: The very far-reaching prohibition that we have stated, which is supposed to cover all assemblies, is restricted in the same harsh manner for the authorities. The authorities must approve the unmarking if it does not endanger public safety and order, which is the only purpose we are pursuing. Lastly, I would like to address paragraph 5: I find it poorly worded or simply do not understand, unfortunately, what "The authority responsible for authorizing assembly such as the one in question" means. [168]
User165 (discussion) 15:41, 18 May 2022 (CEST) [170]
Change
[172]
Hi everyone I unfortunately discovered the discussion board here only after I made two changes to our draft. [173]
First, I have changed paragraph 1 to refer to assemblies and not gatherings of people. In my eyes, "assembly" is more concrete and therefore more accurate than the term "gathering of people". [175]
Furthermore, I have added a new second paragraph. The aim of this provision is to prevent crimes from being committed more easily under the cover of disguise. This paragraph 2 would express this even more concretely. [177]
What do you think? [179]
Amendments: 1 Who makes himself unrecognizable at meetings requiring a permit, with the intention of preventing an identification of his person. [182]
2 The disguise must be made in order to achieve a violent purpose at the meeting. [184]
I would delete paragraph 2 completely. Torts can also be non-violent, and limiting it to a violent (or any tortious) purpose undermines the general prohibition on mummery of subsection 1 and raises many additional questions. It serves simplicity if no additional criterion is added. User101 (discussion) 15:03, 18 May 2022 (CEST) [186]
Agree with user 101 in this regard. Would like to additionally underline the statement in that para 2 sounds like an intention to me, which is already stated in para 1. P.S. can we all please work with leaving the username, I find clearer User165 (discussion) 15:29, 18 May 2022 (CEST) [188]
I would also delete para 2 and merge it with para 1. I suggest the following wording: [191]
1 Anyone who makes himself unrecognizable at assemblies requiring a permit in order to realize a violent purpose and to prevent identification of his person. [193]
In the realization of the violent purpose would then be included the intention. User 154 [195]
I agree with that. I would also merge paras 1 and 2, otherwise it gets out of hand with the number of paragraphs. User155 (discussion) 14:55, 20 May 2022 (CEST) [197]
And how would it look then regarding the assemblies that could not be granted, since spontaneous @User154? User165 (Discussion) 22:35, 18 May 2022 (CEST) [200]
true, I disregarded them.... @User165 User 154 [202]
How about" who is at events requiring a permit or notification"? A spontaneous demo doesn't require a permit but as far as I know a report still has to be made to the relevant authority before it can take place. User155 (discussion) 14:55, 20 May 2022 (CEST) [204]
Should the provision only apply to gatherings that require a permit? The original text also mentions other gatherings of people, which can be understood to mean that the ban should apply generally when several people gather. Likewise, reasons for the prohibition are not apparent from the original text (regarding para. 2 to realize a violent purpose). This is certainly one aspect of the prohibition, but are we allowed to limit the law in this way? Or should we stick a bit more to the original text? User119 (discussion) 00:14, 21 May 2022 (CEST) [206]
I'm finally getting to the discussion as well (other commitments this week) :D I find the idea of intent quite difficult. It seems to me that the idea behind the draft is, after all, precisely to make mummery suspect, so to speak. The requirement of intent to prevent identification would result in law enforcement having to prove that intent. Wouldn't an exemption option be a better solution here? A la: [208]
Anyone who makes himself unrecognizable in public gatherings will be fined up to ... francs. Those who disguise themselves for cultural or religious purposes are not punished. [210]
Also a reduction to gatherings requiring a permit or notification - as User119 has already suggested - would not correspond to the meaning of the original regulation. This is not only about demonstrations, but also about gatherings after sporting events or the like. User120 (Discussion) 09:18, 21 May 2022 (CEST) [212]
I see exactly the same. Should best cover all gatherings. Would also just use the word "crowds" or "gatherings" in the article for this (see above), as this also covers demos and other types of gatherings. I disagree with the wording "Not punished is anyone who disguises himself for cultural or religious purposes." - In my opinion, this does not allow for further exceptions, resulting in a "stricter" punishment. I would prefer the mechanism with the permit, the arguments for it: Very many events are already permitted anyway (like e.g. the Basler-Fasnacht etc.) or at least regulated by the authorities (football matches). Within the framework of this normal authorization, an authority can easily make an additional statement on unrecognition (little effort and clear responsibility). This creates legal certainty for a large part of the gatherings. For all other (among others spontaneous events) assemblies, a different criterion is needed. With the above mentioned "will not be punished" one excludes a small part from punishability. Conversely, with the intention: in principle, the unrecognizable is not punishable, unless one wants to escape identification by doing so. One takes thus only a small part into the punishability. With regard to proof: the same as with intent in the case of property crimes and the subjective elements of the crime in general: the proof can rarely be provided in a direct form, but one then concludes from the external circumstances to the internal circumstances, as it has always been done and is done. User165 (discussion) 13:39, 21 May 2022 (CEST) [215]
Draft 3
[217]
I have created (also based on the previous discussion) a new draft 3: [218]
Under this law, punishment is, [220]
who makes himself unrecognizable at meetings, demonstrations and other gatherings of people in public. [222]
Not punished, [224]
who disguises himself for cultural or religious reasons or [226]
who has received an exceptional permit from the competent authority to disguise himself. Permission may be granted if public safety and order are maintained. It specifies the purpose and nature of the disguise. [228]
Thoughts on this: [230]
In my opinion, unrecognition does not have to be defined (cf. User 165). [232] No restriction to gatherings requiring a permit, instead broad definition of gatherings. Here, however, I have added a criterion of "in public", as I think this is still an essential distinction. [233] Exceptions to the ban: [234] religious and/or cultural unrecognizability --> exemption possibility for legitimate purposes. I think these are the two relevant cases, what do you think? Additions welcome. [235] Authorization by an authority --> Here the idea that organizers can establish legal certainty through authorization. User120 (discussion) 09:44, 21 May 2022 (CEST) [236] Thanks for the draft! I think you could combine the assembly types and just write "assemblies." --- On the "cultural or religious reasons", I have made comments above --- On the "may" wording in the permit: I would not grant the authority any discretion here, as they have sufficient leeway in interpreting public safety and order. --- Find the draft a bit unstructured. User165 (discussion) 13:43, 21 May 2022 (CEST) [237]
Thanks for your feedback. As I read the original text, the whole point was to create a strict regulation to make it as easy as possible for law enforcement agencies. You can take that politically however you want (personally, I'm critical of it) but I think we need to live up to that sense and create a template that gives authorities appropriate discretion, etc. In that sense, do you want to design a counter draft? User120 (discussion) 16:00, 21 May 2022 (CEST) [239]
Draft 4
[241]
Here's another draft 4 that also summarizes the thoughts collected so far: [242]
Under this law, it is punishable [...] [244]
1 Who makes himself unrecognizable at gatherings and other gatherings of people in public space requiring a permit. [246]
2 Anyone who makes himself unrecognizable by covering his face or his overall appearance makes identification of his person impossible. [248]
3 This does not apply to disguising oneself for traditional or religious reasons. [250]
4 The competent authority may grant further exceptions, provided that public safety and order are preserved. [252]
Regarding para. 1 This would cover all gatherings of people in public spaces, whether spontaneous or authorized. [255]
Re para. 2 The term 'made impossible' could be replaced by 'made more difficult'. One could also argue with the intention: 'Whoever, with the intention of making the identification of his person impossible, obscures the essential parts of his face or his overall appearance, makes himself unrecognizable.' I think it makes sense to distinguish the concept of making oneself unrecognizable from other concepts such as veiling in the sense of BV 10a. What do you think? [257]
Do you have any additions to paragraph 3? Or this paragraph could also be deleted. What do you think? [259]
Regarding para. 4 I would define the competent authority even more clearly, but since non-permitted assemblies are also covered, the authority that is also responsible for authorizing the assembly cannot be the competent authority. User119 (Discussion) 12:06, 22 May 2022 (CEST) [261]
Re para 2: Find the delineation and definition of unrecognizable is not purposeful. Especially narrowing it down to "obscuring".... one can make oneself unrecognizable e.g. also with make-up. In this respect, I would delete it. [264]
Paragraph 3 and 4 I find good! User165 (Discussion) 13:17, 22 May 2022 (CEST) [266]
Dear All should we write only "make impossible" or also write substantially aggravate? User133 (discussion) 15:02, 22 May 2022 (CEST) [268]
I would have additional suggestions: M.e. Should health aspects be considered in addition to cultural aspects in the exceptions? Furthermore, I would write in paragraph 4 instead of; Provided that public order and safety are preserved. I would write: "Provided that public order and safety are not disturbed" User133 (Discussion) 15:13, 22. May 2022 (CEST) [270]
Draft 5
[272]
Hi all I made another 5th version. I think the health aspects should also be included in the list of exceptions and I would not choose a conclusive wording but have emphasized this with "by name" and added "the special reasons". In addition, I would find the cultural reasons a bit more appropriate than the term "folktraditional", because in my opinion this is only a subset of cultural. Furthermore, I would like to see "significantly complicate" instead of "make impossible", since this gives us some leeway in the evaluation and the term is not too narrow. Kind regards User133 (Discussion) 16:21, 22 May 2022 [273]
Discussion on the selection of the final version (05/22-22 all day)
[275]
Hi all. Think we should slowly decide on a draft? Which one would you guys prefer? User165 (discussion) 13:19, 22 May 2022 (CEST). [276]
I would suggest version 4. Only term subject to approval I would still delete, because it is a reference to cantonal/municipal law and thus not definable from itself. Thank you all :) User101 (discussion) 15:54, 22 May 2022 (CEST) [279]
So can we agree on this version...: [282]
According to this law, it is punished [...] [284]
1 Who makes himself unrecognizable at assemblies in public space. [286]
2 Who makes himself unrecognizable, who makes the identification of his person substantially more difficult. [288]
3 This does not apply to disguising oneself for traditional, religious or health reasons. [290]
4 The competent authority may grant further exceptions, provided that public safety and order are not thereby disturbed. [292]
LG User165 (Discussion) 16:12, 22 May 2022 (CEST) [294]
Input 1: I made another 5th version starting from the 4th version could we consider this as well? User133 (discussion) 16:20, 22 May 2022 (CEST) [297]
Input 2: I have a proposed amendment for 2: "2 Makes himself unrecognizable who makes it difficult to identify himself with the intention of committing crimes". User141 18:31, 22 May 2022 (CEST) [300]
- I would also add intent to para 2 as suggested by User 141. (User 154) [302]
- Thanks @User154. I once planted draft 6 on the page with the suggestion. User141 (discussion) 19:10, 22 May 2022 (CEST) [304]
Discussion on Monday (23.05.22 08:00-10:00)
[306]
Dear all, thank you very much for your great preliminary work! [307]
Could we at most tomorrow at 08:00-10:00 in this section talk about the final version again live and agree on the final version? So that it remains somewhat clear :D Team wööörk. [309]
Would suggest that we each preface the individual comments with "Input 1", "Input 2" etc. in bold. You can write "< b > and < / b >" before and after the text part for this. See example below. [311]
P.S. And for all of you, who are visiting for the first time on Monday : After your comment you can write "~ ~ ~" (all together) and then your username + the time will be posted automatically :) Let the discussion begin! :) User141 (discussion) 19:23, 22 May 2022 (CEST) [313]
Input 1: [316]
According to this law, the punishment is [...] [318]
1 Whoever makes himself unrecognizable at assemblies in public space. [320]
2 Who makes himself unrecognizable, who makes the identification of his person substantially more difficult. [322]
3 This does not apply to disguising oneself for traditional, religious or health reasons. [324]
4 The competent authority may grant further exceptions, provided that public safety and order are not thereby disturbed. [326]
I would take this version, however, in para 1 I would not combine the terms 'gatherings requiring a permit' and 'other gatherings of people' into the term 'assemblies', as I do not think these are synonyms. 'Assemblies' are arranged meetings, whereas 'gatherings of people' means a spontaneous gathering of several people. [328]
The definition in para. 2 could be made a bit clearer. One can argue with intention, however, in my opinion, intention should not refer to 'committing crimes', but to the intention to make oneself unrecognizable. I think paras 3 and 4 are good. User119 (discussion) 07:39, 23 May 2022 (CEST) [330]
Comment 1 on input [332]
@User119, so as follows? [334]
According to this law is punished, [...] [336]
1 Who makes himself unrecognizable at gatherings and other gatherings of people in public space requiring a permit. [338]
2 Anyone who intentionally makes the identification of his person significantly more difficult makes himself unrecognizable. [340]
3 This does not apply to disguising oneself for traditional, religious or health reasons. [342]
4 The competent authority may grant further exceptions, provided that public safety and order are not thereby disturbed. [344]
could you bring any other suggestion for para 2 intention? User141 (discussion) 08:15, 23 May 2022 (CEST) [346]
Comment 2 on input [348]
Comment 3 on input [350]
--- [352]
Input 2: Attempt to summarize all inputs on draft 5 and draft 6 [354]
Under this law, the following shall be punished [...] [356]
1 Whoever makes himself unrecognizable at meetings and other gatherings of people in public spaces. [358]
2 Anyone who deliberately makes it impossible or significantly more difficult to identify himself by covering his face or his overall appearance makes himself unrecognizable. [360]
3 This does not apply to making oneself unrecognizable for special reasons, namely for health, cultural and religious reasons. [362]
4 The competent authority may grant further exceptions, provided that public safety and order are not impaired thereby. [364]
User141 (discussion) 08:54, 23 May 2022 (CEST) [366]
Comment 1 on input [368]
Comment 2 on input [370]
Comment 3 on input [372]
--- [374]
Input 3: short title/suggestion/ZF [376]
Comment 1 on input [378]
Comment 2 on input [380]
Comment 3 on input [382]
--- [384]
Please leave underlined template for copying: [387]
Input 4: short title/proposal/ZF [389]
Comment 1 on input [391]
Comment 2 on input [393]
Comment 3 on input [395]
Vote final version (23.05.22 08:00-09:30)
[397]
Why don't you cast your vote for the final version on Monday at 09:30 by noting your username by the version you like the most. User141 (discussion) 19:01, 22 May 2022 (CEST) There are 10 of us, so hopefully there should be 10 votes in the end :D User141 (discussion) 19:03, 22 May 2022 (CEST) [398]
Draft 1: - e.g.: UserXXX ("~ ~ ~" <- just use that) - -. [400]
Draft 2: - - [402]
Draft 3: - - [404]
Draft 4: - - - [406]
Draft 5: - User101 (discussion) 08:11, 23 May 2022 (CEST) -User133 (discussion) 08:17, 23 May 2022 (CEST) (Good teamwork my dears many thanks to all!) - [408]
Draft 6: -User120 (Discussion) 07:26, 23 May 2022 (CEST) (am working today, so already my vote, thanks everyone for yesterday's work!) -User119 (Discussion) 07:47, 23 May 2022 (CEST) (with the adjustments mentioned in Input 1. Am working today as well, so already my input and vote. Thanks everyone for the cooperation) - User165 (discussion) 07:50, 23 May 2022 (CEST) (am not working but think it doesn't get any better and we have done a solid job so far! Thanks everyone!) - join me :) User141 (discussion) 08:16, 23 May 2022 (CEST) - User115 (discussion) 08:29, 23 May 2022 (CEST) User 154 ("User154 (discussion) 09:42, 23 May 2022 (CEST)" thank you all!) [410]
Draft 7: - - [412]
Draft 8: - - - [414]
etc. (please adjust if more drafts/versions are added). [416]
Publishing our final version on "page" (05/23/22 09:50)
[418]
Dears, do you all agree with the following? [419]
Someone from us will publish the final final version on the page at 09:50 as follows: (1) The exercise including all drafts will be "copied" to this post (for preservation :D) (2) The final version will be pasted. [421]
Please briefly for active opposition and otherwise alternative suggestions :D Thanks User141 (discussion) 19:06, 22 May 2022 (CEST) [423]
Input 1: Thank you for the descriptive presentation! Would you adopt this? @User141 (must also work later) User133 (discussion) 08:23, 23 May 2022 (CEST) [425]
Input 2: I tried to combine the two drafts from the voting (5 and 6) and to consider all the inputs that fell to these two times. You can find this variant in "Input 2" of the discussion. I hope that everyone is OK with me publishing this as the final version. You are still welcome to intervene :D [427]
User141 (discussion) 09:51, 23 May 2022 (CEST) [429]
Copy of the exercise: [431]
Exercise Text: [433]
"[Punished under this law is]: [...] [435]
Whoever at meetings requiring a permit, [437]
demonstrations and other gatherings of people. [439]
Exceptions may be granted." [441]
Copy of the drafts: As of 23.05.22 08:30 [443]
Draft 2 Under this law, the following shall be punished: [445]
1 Whoever, at assemblies requiring a permit, with the intention of preventing identification of his person, makes himself unrecognizable. [447]
2 The disguising must be done in order to achieve a violent purpose at the assembly. [449]
3 The absence of the intention to conceal one's own identification is presumed if there is a permit for the disguise. [451]
4 Authorization under paragraph 3 shall not be granted if public safety and order are endangered. [453]
5 The authority responsible for authorising the assembly shall decide on the authorisation in accordance with paragraph 3. [455]
Draft 3 Under this Act shall be punished, [457]
who makes himself unrecognizable at meetings, demonstrations and other gatherings of people in public. [459]
Not punished, [461]
who disguises himself for cultural or religious reasons or [463]
who has received an exceptional permit from the competent authority to disguise himself. Permission may be granted if public safety and order are maintained. It specifies the purpose and nature of the disguise. [465]
Draft 4 Under this Act shall be punished [...]. [467]
1 Anyone who disguises himself at meetings and other gatherings of people in public spaces requiring a permit. [469]
2 Anyone who makes himself unrecognizable by obscuring his face or his overall appearance makes identification of his person impossible. [471]
3 This does not apply to disguising oneself for reasons of folk tradition, religion or health policy. [473]
4 The competent authority may grant further exceptions, provided that public safety and order are preserved. [475]
Draft 5 According to this law is punished, [...] [477]
1 Anyone who disguises himself or herself at meetings and other gatherings of people in public spaces requiring a permit. [479]
2 Anyone who makes himself unrecognizable by covering his face or his overall appearance makes the identification of his person impossible or substantially more difficult. [481]
3 This does not apply to making oneself unrecognizable for special reasons, namely for health, cultural and religious reasons. [483]
4 The competent authority may grant further exceptions, provided that public safety and order are not impaired thereby. [485]
Draft 6 Under this Act shall be punished [...]. [487]
1 Anyone who makes himself unrecognizable at gatherings in public spaces. [489]
2 Who makes himself unrecognizable, who makes the identification of his person with the intention of committing criminal offences more difficult. [491]
3 This does not include disguising oneself for reasons of folk tradition, religion or health. [493]
4 The competent authority may grant further exceptions, provided that public safety and order are not thereby disturbed. [495]
please copy further drafts here (if any are added) [497]