Attached is my Monday humour. It is a copy of the Swiss constitution as agreed in 1998. Now the question is, is this lived by the Swiss? Or is it completely and utterly ignored

Enjoy...

Is this bit true (my italics) ?? Amazing if it is.

"Art. 25 [/B][/SIZE][/FONT]Protection against expulsion, extradition, and removal by force
1 Swiss citizens may not be expelled from the country; they may be extradited to a foreign authority only with their consent."

dave[/LEFT]

time to get that passport and a criminal record then

At 64 pages it's quite a long document. Did you have any particular passages in mind?

How about the opening line:
I always find that line a bit odd, especially as the first line in the constitution of a supposedly secular country.

Or was it this:

Perhaps you had a chuckle when you got to diversity - but it is important to note that they aren't talking about diversity in an international sense - this applies to diversity only among themselves.

Anyway, I got as far as page 2, so if you've anything to share, please tell us where it is...

Why would that be so amazing? Many countries have the same policy. I doubt very much whether there are many countries which engage in forced removal - extra-legal procedures such as extended holidays in Guantanamo excluded

I just find it to be so funny in many places. Such as equality um... Religious freedom as long as you don't disturb us that is, that border to border lorries over the alps ***must*** go by rail - but SBB aren't so keen and so on and so on...

Would you really like to stuck in any one country without pssibility of leaving it?

isn't that the same as saying FFS?

This one appeals to me:

Art. 92

.. and this one:

Art. 131

Sorry I was delayed in answering your posts because I couldn't find my magnifying glass...

Biodiesel in its pure form isn't made from mineral forms. My brother is into it in a big way, runs his 4WD on it without modification - it's basically vegetable oil he has a whole forum on it at www.biofuelsforum.com. Sorry a bit off-topic just wanted to point out that this clause means that the Swiss are leaving the door open to tax non-mineral fuels as well.

Didn't the UK just extradite a couple of the guys tied up in the Enron affair to the US? I'm pretty sure that they didn't give their consent.

Were they British? In any case the relationship between the UK and US is a cosy one anyway (see comments in previous post regarding holidays in Cuba)

Yeah, all three were British. But you're right, I'm only surprised that they weren't bundled off to the airport and drugged before turning up in New York for a surprise arrest.

the British dullards, sorry, government, signed a lovely unilateral agreement in 2003 allowing this to happen without "proof"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natwest_three
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition_Act_2003
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prima_facie

Well Done, Tony!

But don't the British government have some provision about not handing people over to countries that engage in torture? Anyway, we disgress...

One other thing struck me in the constitution (apart from the provisions about racial discrimination and women having a right to equal pay which I won't comment on at this time) - namely the fact that disabled people get a special mention:
On the 18th of May 2003 a vote [admin.ch, German] went before the people to enact legislation requiring public buildings to provide facilities for disabled access. This is similar to the legislation which already exists in many other countries. Almost 50% of voters voted - it was rejected 38% to 62%. Background info here [agile.ch, German].

Naturally this would have cost money, just like it has in other countries. It seems that the "eliminate disadvantages" clause of the constitution only goes as far as the first step, so to speak. This leads me to another sentence in the preamble of the constitution.
Indeed.