Swiss Senator Dick Marty: “Something is culturally wrong in Switzerland” - Page 3

Principia Discordia · #41 11.12.2009, 14:46

	Quote:	Gastro Gnome
	Aren't religious leaders who spread hate or incite violence subject to the same laws as anyone else? Laws against this do exist here?

I think the protective umbrella for religious dogma must be bit larger than that of, say, holocaust deniers or your average racist on the street. I can't think of any other reason why people who publicly and vocally support suicide bombing or violence against jews and christians, as the Weltwoche article alleges, aren't hed legally accountable.

Gastro Gnome · #42 11.12.2009, 14:55

	Quote:	Principia Discordia
	I can't think of any other reason why people who publicly and vocally support suicide bombing or violence against jews and christians, as the Weltwoche article alleges, aren't hed legally accountable.

Are there laws against this here or not?

I think there would be in the UK. Maybe I'm wrong.

Principia Discordia · #43 11.12.2009, 14:57

	Quote:	Gastro Gnome
	Are there laws against this here or not? I think there would be in the UK. Maybe I'm wrong.

I don't know specifics, but I do know there are definitely laws here and in the UK preventing people from inciting religious or racial hatred. Maybe someone can elaborate, I'm from the US where everything goes.

Gastro Gnome · #44 11.12.2009, 15:00

	Quote:	Principia Discordia
	I don't know specifics, but I do know there are definitely laws here and in the UK preventing people from inciting religious or racial hatred. Maybe someone can elaborate, I'm from the US where everything goes.

So it could be a case here of either:

1) Extremists (on any side) not breaking existing laws
2) Existing laws not being enforced

I think we need some facts here before we can progress . . .

Principia Discordia · #45 11.12.2009, 15:19

Here are the Swiss laws

	Quote:
	Rassendiskriminierung Wer öffentlich gegen eine Person oder eine Gruppe von Personen wegen ihrer Rasse, Ethnie oder Religion zu Hass oder Diskriminierung aufruft, wer öffentlich Ideologien verbreitet, die auf die systematische Herabsetzung oder Verleumdung der Angehörigen einer Rasse, Ethnie oder Religion gerichtet sind, wer mit dem gleichen Ziel Propagandaaktionen organisiert, fördert oder daran teilnimmt, wer öffentlich durch Wort, Schrift, Bild, Gebärden, Tätlichkeiten oder in anderer Weise eine Person oder eine Gruppe von Personen wegen ihrer Rasse, Ethnie oder Religion in einer gegen die Menschenwürde verstossenden Weise herabsetzt oder diskriminiert oder aus einem dieser Gründe Völkermord oder andere Verbrechen gegen die Menschlichkeit leugnet, gröblich verharmlost oder zu rechtfertigen sucht, wer eine von ihm angebotene Leistung, die für die Allgemeinheit bestimmt ist, einer Person oder einer Gruppe von Personen wegen ihrer Rasse, Ethnie oder Religion verweigert, wird mit Freiheitsstrafe bis zu drei Jahren oder Geldstrafe bestraft.

Essentially says that calling for discrimation or hatred against an individual or group based on religion, race, or ethnic background is illegal, as is denying genocide or other proven crimes against humanity.

If the Weltwoche is correct, than what some these Imams said is clearly illegal, but its obviously pretty hard to prove and probably illegal to put tape recorders in Mosques.

Gastro Gnome · #46 11.12.2009, 15:23

	Quote:	Principia Discordia
	Here are the Swiss laws Essentially says that calling for discrimation or hatred against an individual or group based on religion, race, or ethnic background is illegal, as is denying genocide or other proven crimes against humanity. If the Weltwoche is correct, than what some these Imams said is clearly illegal, but its obviously pretty hard to prove and probably illegal to put tape recorders in Mosques.

There are plenty of examples of tape recorders being used in mosques in other countries to gather evidence. Do you have any evidence that that's illegal here?

Would you even need a tape recorder? Are witnesses and transcripts not sufficient?

Principia Discordia · #47 11.12.2009, 15:44

The Weltwoche article linked to earlier mentions this: (Sorry for the lousy google translate speak)

	Quote:
	Dies weist auf ein grundsätzliches Problem des Schweizer Inlandgeheimdienstes hin: Von Gesetzes wegen endet seine Arbeit an den Türen der Moscheen. This indicates a fundamental problem in the Swiss domestic intelligence: By law, his work ends at the doors of the mosques. Denn muslimische Gotteshäuser gelten als Privaträume. For Muslim houses of worship are considered private areas. Dem Nachrichtendienst sind somit die Hände gebunden. The intelligence service are thus bound by his hands. Er darf Predigten weder per Video aufzeichnen noch mit einem Tonband aufnehmen. He may not preaching by video recording for recording with a tape recorder. Um Klarheit zu haben, was in den muslimischen Gotteshäusern unterwiesen wird, müsste folglich dauernd ein Mitglied der Schweizer Behörden mit profunden Kenntnissen der jeweiligen Sprache in den Moscheen einsitzen und die Predigt memorieren. In order to have clarity about what is being taught in Muslim houses of worship, and therefore would have permanently a member of the Swiss authorities with intimate knowledge of the relevant language in the mosques incarcerated and memorize the sermon.

Gastro Gnome · #48 11.12.2009, 15:52

	Quote:	Principia Discordia
	The Weltwoche article linked to earlier mentions this: (Sorry for the lousy google translate speak)

Sounds like we need a whole new thread on Swiss privacy laws, surveillance and evidence gathering. This has wider implications.

Mikers · #49 11.12.2009, 16:14

	Quote:	HashBrown
	Even if there are 12 "extreme" imams, islamic fundamentalism is not an issue in CH. Please give evidence that it is. I bet you there are just as many white supremacists/nazis preaching in CH, but I don't think white supremancy is an issue in CH either.

Im not sure it would be the same applicable laws. White supremacists preach against a race - they dont like non-white people. Religious fanatics preach against "opposing" religions. It would be inciting racial hatred which is pretty clear cut and is definitely illegal full stop against statements against other religions which is inciting religous hatred but it doesnt (in england anyway) seem quite as easy to get people arrested on this. Some success but there is a lot of grey.

Gastro Gnome · #50 11.12.2009, 16:27

	Quote:	MikeB
	Im not sure it would be the same applicable laws. White supremacists preach against a race - they dont like non-white people. Religious fanatics preach against "opposing" religions. It would be inciting racial hatred which is pretty clear cut and is definitely illegal full stop against statements against other religions which is inciting religous hatred but it doesnt (in england anyway) seem quite as easy to get people arrested on this. Some success but there is a lot of grey.

I think incitement to violence could be observed from both. I'm not clear on the law though.

When a documentary crew from the UK made a documentary undercover in a mosque the results seem to have been terribly muddied:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undercover_Mosque

The main question appears to have been the extent and effect of the editing of the programme. The police did not bring any charges, but in this case they were looking at incitement to racial hatred, not simply violence.

It does indicate that it would be possible in the UK to work undercover somewhere and then present raw footage to the police as evidence.

Could this happen here?

Gastro Gnome · #51 11.12.2009, 16:41

Existing laws worked against Abu Hamza al-Masri in the UK:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4690078.stm

So, over there it is possible to bring incitement charges against an Imam.

Is it really totally impossible to gather information on what's being said in mosque's here? In that case how do we know there's a problem in the first place?

Mikers · #52 11.12.2009, 16:45

	Quote:	Gastro Gnome
	Existing laws worked against Abu Hamza al-Masri in the UK: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4690078.stm So, over there it is possible to bring incitement charges against an Imam. Is it really totally impossible to gather information on what's being said in mosque's here? In that case how do we know there's a problem in the first place?

It can work in individual cases, however there have been a number of people that have not been so clear cut - this person was invited in by the then mayor Ken Livingstone - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3888419.stm - who has controversial views but the crown prosecution service was unable to do anything. Another trick in the UK for organizations as well is if they are banned then they dissolve the organisation and reform under another name - rather like unscrupulous companies do.

Not I might add that this has much to do with the thread topic before a Moderator goes loopy - its just an interesting aside.

cannut · #53 11.12.2009, 16:47

	Quote:	Principia Discordia
	Here are the Swiss laws Essentially says that calling for discrimation or hatred against an individual or group based on religion, race, or ethnic background is illegal, as is denying genocide or other proven crimes against humanity. If the Weltwoche is correct, than what some these Imams said is clearly illegal, but its obviously pretty hard to prove and probably illegal to put tape recorders in Mosques.

You Forgot one word 'Oeffentlich = In Public. Der-for it is not illegal

Phos · #54 11.12.2009, 17:02

	Quote:	cannut
	You Forgot one word 'Oeffentlich = In Public. Der-for it is not illegal

Is what is said in a mosque service public or private?

Also, isn't there a legal difference between inciting and condoning? To incite is to call on someone to take on a act, while condoning is after the fact. Do news reports differentiate between them? I'm sure the law does.

simon_ch · #55 11.12.2009, 17:16

Well generally spoken I much rather have the Schengen area proactively ban entrance for all Imams who are considered extreme (evidence or not) than having to alter privacy and surveillance law in Switzerland altogether.

Phos · #56 11.12.2009, 17:17

Regarding Die Weltwoche, I'd just like to point out to those who are unaware that the magazine is well aligned with the SVP.

I happen to like the magazine because of the quality of the articles, and the thought that go into them. It is written from a perspective I would deem conservative or neo-conservative, at least by US standards. But in regards to impartiality... hmmm, I believe it is aligned with SVP themes and issues.

Gastro Gnome · #57 11.12.2009, 17:26

	Quote:	simon_ch
	Well generally spoken I much rather have the Schengen area proactively ban entrance for all Imams who are considered extreme (evidence or not) than having to alter privacy and surveillance law in Switzerland altogether.

You want to ban them without evidence?

On what basis would you ban them then? Because they look a bit shifty?

Uncle Max · #58 11.12.2009, 17:45

	Quote:	ch-expat
	...Swiss politics used to be so boring. Not anymore.

Boring as in functioning peacefully and operating reasonably smoothly compared to polarised politics elsewhere? God / spaghetti monster save us since Herr Blocher opened the box...

	Quote:	Phos
	... And this ban does not hurt anybody at all. Please tell me if otherwise. ...While the subject matter is wrong and misguided, I do like how it sought to address the future. For that aspect of it, I'd give the Swiss voters high marks...

Ooh you almost baited me to post Off Topic. So I won't.

However, I find your Christian Charity to be way stronger than mine in finding the tiniest glimmer of positivity in this story: "it sought to address the future". Well, in a sledgehammer / nut fashion, you're right, but there were plenty who were making more considered dialogue before someone plugged in the jackhammer and stirred the pot of FEAR. I feel this was the point of the article.

	Quote:	Principia Discordia
	...If the Weltwoche is correct, than what some these Imams said is clearly illegal, but its obviously pretty hard to prove and probably illegal to put tape recorders in Mosques.

Yeah, I don't really recall the Weltwoche banging on about <insert Large Swiss Bank CEO's name here> illegal conversations and a desire to put recording equipment in the Boardrooms of Paradeplatz

Sorry, OT I know, but what's good for the goose, etc.

	Quote:	MikeB
	...Not I might add that this has much to do with the thread topic before a Moderator goes loopy - its just an interesting aside.

Cheers, it's not that bad. Yet.

simon_ch · #59 11.12.2009, 17:59

	Quote:	Gastro Gnome
	You want to ban them without evidence? On what basis would you ban them then? Because they look a bit shifty?

If there are hints from abroad or recorded speeches from elsewhere suggesting they do that then I think we don't necessarily need to invite them to Switzerland, change our privacy laws just that we can record him preaching hate in Switzerland.

#60 11.12.2009, 18:31

	Quote:	Gastro Gnome
	Are there laws against this here or not? I think there would be in the UK. Maybe I'm wrong.

We had the example of the Imam of Fribourg that was an extremist. The authorities did nothing to not create waves.

http://translate.google.com/translat...A_enUS313US313