As described in the document, it's not simply perjury, but also false accusations and what in English would be called perverting the course of justice.

Yes, what better way to get rid of English football hooligans!

Tom

Well if we want to impose draconian measures for minor infringements, is a separate discussion. All I was addressing was the claim that the initiative did not impose draconian measures for minor infringements - a claim that turned out to be a big porkie pie.

As to a better way to get rid of English football hooligans, just cancel all return Ryanair or Cityjet flights from popular stag party destinations.

It is little bit more than that:
Art. 291 Swiss Criminal Code.
https://www.admin.ch/opc/en/classifi...ndex.html#a291

Edit: anti-social behavour is more like Art. 292.

False accusation is Art. 303 and perverting the course of justice is partely Art. 304

"Trespass + damage == Break in."

Well I will quote the codes. Break-in is included but it is not exclusively break-in. Even with "break-in" could be minor!

I agree about perjury.

Art. 186 Unlawful entry

Unlawful entry

Any person who, against the will of the lawful occupants enters a building, an apartment, a self-contained room within a building, an enclosed area, courtyard or garden forming a direct part of a building, or a clearly demarcated workplace or, despite requests from the lawful occupants to leave, remains in such a location, is liable on complaint to a custodial sentence not exceeding three years or to a monetary penalty.

Art. 144 1. Offences against property. / Criminal damage

Criminal damage

1 Any person who damages, destroys or renders unusable property belonging to another or in respect of which another has a right of use is liable on complaint to a custodial sentence not exceeding three years or to a monetary penalty.

Only both commited at the same time would have led to a deportation.
One of the minor cases which was discussed prior to the vote was a youngster breaking into a garden shed or club house. Another case would be a sprayer climbing over a fence and tagging a building. Or a client with hausverbot, comming back and smashing something. Yes, it is not break ins only.

Comparison of Ausschaffungsinitiative, Durchsetzungsinitiative and the implementing of the former.

http://www.ejpd.admin.ch/content/dam...rschiede-d.pdf.

I do not think this exists in English.

While googling around I found the European Sourcebook of Crime and Criminal Justice Statistics 2014.

According to this Switzerland rarely gives custodial sentences for burgary; ca. 13%. So when the AI is in place we will be a nice holiday destination for foreign burglars; if caught they will get a free trip home.

Well you are right with that. However, having been sentenced for speeding does indeed qualify as a first sentence. Thus if you speed and then commit another crime or offense sanctioned by the DSI in the 2nd part (e.g. trespass plus theft) you get deported. However if you commit the same crimes in inverse order (e.g. trespass plus theft followed by speeding) you don't get deported.

Doesnt' make much sense to me as the two are roughly on the same rung on the seriousness ladder so the seqeunce they're committed in shouldn't matter.
That's not the judges' own doing; in fact they are ordered to use descretion by the law itself, the very law the Federal Parliament wrote as base of their work (Strafgesetzbuch article 23 paragraph 2, among others).

If for instance you get somebody killed due to your own negligence you may get sentenced to some punishment.

If however you're the father of the person killed due to your own negligence you will probably go without punishment by the judge because your causing your son's death in and of itself is more punishment already than the law would have you punished with.

That's called using discretion, taking circumstances into consideration.

YOU can(!). Just go back and read the mainstream media / opposition articles about the initiative, then compare that with the initiative as written (rather than as reported by [the mainstream media / opposition]), plus whatever its authors have subsequently stated about its meaning and intent.

Did they back that up? If yes, exactly how?

Exactly which "minor offences" would "qualify for automatic deportation"? And exactly where is this officially documented?

For exactly what "assertion" of mine are you seeking "more back-up"?

No matter that the "vast bulk of published opinion" is purely that — opinion, contrived without regard to genuine facts, although truth and truthfulness have long — until recently — formed a fundamental pillar in Swiss politics of consensus, something that appears to be a thing of the past.

__________________
"Live every day as if it were going to be your last; for one day you're sure to be right." — Harry Morant

I'm not aware that anybody said it was(?).

About "Just go back and read the mainstream media / opposition articles about the initiative, then compare that with the initiative as written (rather than as reported by [the mainstream media / opposition]), plus whatever its authors have subsequently stated about its meaning and intent."

I did read these articles and there is nothing that supports your claims of the hyperbolic falsehoods conjured up by the SVP-haters
So you are wrong and must withdraw your claims

I don't even have to go that far. In an attempt to 'prove' that claims that minor offences would get someone deported were false, we've actually seen the official list of offences listed. And guess what, it does turn out that one could fall foul of automatic deportation.

Now you can witter all you want about the media, but those are the facts.
Clearly you've not been paying attention.
I quoted it in my previous response to you.
Except we have pointed out facts. You, despite talking about facts, have offered none.

And this "the official list of offences listed" may be viewed by all exactly where?

Paying attention, yes. Reading Italian, no.

There's nothing quoted or linked in that post. Just your opinion and questions.

So far you've pointed out rather view facts, though you've made numerous unsubstantiated assertions. Perhaps if you would substantiate your own assertions before asking others to "back up" their reluctance to believe them, you'd gain more credibility around here.

Here

By going back one page, given I just told you where it was.
I quoted you. As it turned out you would not have gotten deported for a traffic violation, but such a violation would have counted towards the two offences over a ten-year period.
I have in the last two pages of posts. Cited minor offences that one could be deported for. Perhaps you might read them.

And please back up your own assertions, how minor violations would not have gotten anyone deported, given you've offered absolutely no facts whatsoever, in Italian or any other language.

"And this "the official list of offences listed" may be viewed by all exactly where?"
You know so very little about this topic I am astounded you feel empowered to make comments!

The "official list of offences" was provided in post 10 of this thread and multiple times since; apologies it is written in the local languages for some obscure reason like "these are the official languages".

It is post #10 of the other thread (the one which is on-topic).
Feb. 28th vote on enforced implementation of the deportation initiative

LOL! Who am I? Where am I? I had a dream!