This page collects pages on Switzerland. I live in this country and I think Switzerland has a lot to give to the world. Switzerland has a lot of foreigners, several official languages, and a political system that merits analysis. (RSS, Search)
Ich merke, wie ich immer mehr politische Meldungen auf Facebook schreibe. Wahrscheinlich habe ich das Gefühl, dass ich nur dort mit Leuten befreundet bin, für die meine Gedanken überhaupt relevant sind, da die Leser stimmberechtigt sein könnten.
Gerade eben, beispielsweise, zum Thema 1984. Philip Wampfler schreibt auf Twitter: “Damit Überwachung nicht negativ empfunden wird, »1984« an Schulen nicht mehr lesen. Can’t make this shit up.”
Gemeint ist diese Passage aus der Sonntagszeitung: “Sinnvoller wäre die Forderung, «1984» als Lektüre an den Schulen abzuschaffen. Das Buch, erschienen 1949, war eine Anspielung auf den Überwachungswahnsinn in den mittlerweile längst implodierten kommunistischen Diktaturen. Wer Orwell heute noch anführt und laut «Big Brother» schreit, sobald irgendwo eine Kamera aufgestellt wird, hat das Buch nicht verstanden und verunglimpft die erfolgreichen Bemühungen demokratischer Staaten zum Schutze seiner Bürger.”
Hier meint jemand, dass Leute, die Bilder von sich auf Facebook posten, offensichtlich nichts dagegen haben könnten, auch sonst von Überwachungskameras gefilmt zu werden. Und weil es doch einige Leute gibt, denen die Kameras nicht passen, kommt der Autor zur überspitzten Aussage, dass es wohl besser wäre, das Buch 1984 nicht mehr in den Schulen zu lesen. Auf Google+ habe ich folgenden Kommentar hierzu gelesen: “Grandios! Man weiß gar nicht wo man hinsehen soll, Realität, Satire, Dystopie, abgedrehteste Spin-Doctor Nummer… es scheint alles Eins zu werden.” Dem ist nichts hinzuzufügen.
Um zu verstehen, wie der Nachrichtendienst funktioniert, ist folgender Artikel in der NZZ vielleicht hilfreich. Der letzte Paragraph ist entscheidend: “Die rechtlichen Grundlagen für die Massnahme waren 2011 in Kraft getreten. Gemäss diesen hätte der Geheimdienst nur diejenigen Passagiere überprüfen dürfen, die Staatsangehörige der jeweiligen Abflug-Länder waren. Der Nachrichtendienst hielt sich aber nicht daran, und nach einer Intervention der Geschäftsprüfungsdelegation des Parlaments änderte der Bundesrat letztes Jahr kurzerhand die rechtlichen Bestimmungen.”
Oder wie Thomas Stadler zur Situation in Deutschland auf seinem Blog schreibt: “Geheimdienste können also in einem rechtsstaatlichen Vakuum agieren und die Politik lässt sie gewähren.”
I’m still waiting for the future Keynes promised. Where is my 8h work week? More to the point: If we want to do anything about climate change, the economy will have to slow down. I don’t see how we can keep manufacturing and building things at the current pace. That means existing economy will shrink as less people will be able to manufacture all the things we need. All the rest cannot be musicians and dancers and painters (and look at how little most of them make). So we can call it the service industry and return to a feudal systems of master and servants that are happy to work for food and lodging, or … something.
For the moment, basic income seems like a feasible option. The alternative would be starting at the other end: increases taxes, provide more public services for free. So now we’ll try to get basic income and have to pay for it by … increasing taxes. I don’t like to increase VAT, but an energy tax makes sense to me. Specially as oil prices are down, right now. Climate change again: how will we reduce our consumption if we don’t make it significantly more expensive? Thus, I think we need to go there, and we need to find more money, and the initiative could push us.
In terms of election tactics, I’d say that the NZZ is pushing its right-wing agenda because the initiative itself doesn’t say how we will finance it. Let parliament decide once we have it in our constitution. “Das Gesetz regelt insbesondere die Finanzierung und die Höhe des Grundeinkommens.”  An initiative should not specify a new law.  It specifies an intent. Remember the Mutterschaftsversicherung was added to the constitution in 1945 and the law actually implementing it was passed in 2004.  Dismissing the initiative because we don’t know what taxes to raise in order to pay for it is not how this system needs to work. But it’s a good argument for the initiative’s opponents, granted.
Then again, I don’t actually think the Swiss is socialist enough to vote for the initiative no matter what. Sadly.
I’ve seen a few posts in my Google+ stream happy with the 18 years a revenge porn guy got. They linked to news items like this Revenge Porn" Defendant Sentenced to 18 Years, “Kevin Bollaert was found guilty of posting sexually explicit photos of women online to extort them.”✎
I’m happy revenge porn guy gets punished. Fuck him! But, as I live in a country where a life sentence means 25 years (17 years if you behave well in prison), 18 years seems incredibly harsh. Well, at least he’s “eligible for parole after 10 years” as reported by the same news article.✎
I’m unaware of a similar case here in Switzerland. I’ll have to ask my wife. She’s the expert when it comes to crime and punishment in the family. ✎
I looked at a few of the Facebook comments below the article and saw a few comments regarding revenge porn guys inadequate expression of remorse. I’m always suspicious when the punishment depends on the punished showing adequate remorse or some other reaction that depends on their social graces. If they have none, if the convicted are emotionally stunted, do they deserve harsher punishment?✎
- Any person who, with a view to securing an unlawful gain for himself or for another, induces another person by using violence or the threat of seriously detrimental consequences to behave in such a way that he or another sustains financial loss is liable to a custodial sentence not exceeding five years or to a monetary penalty.✎
- If the offender acts for commercial gain, or if he repeatedly commits the offence against the same person, he is liable to a custodial sentence of from one to ten years.✎
- If the offender uses violence against another or if he threatens another with an immediate danger to life and limb, a penalty in accordance with Article 140 hereof is imposed.✎
- If the offender threatens to endanger the life and limb of a large number of persons or to cause serious damage to property in which there is a substantial public interest, he is liable to a custodial sentence of not less than one year. ✎
I’m not sure what would happen if a person is convicted of multiple cases of extortion. I’m guessing that in Switzerland, Kevin Bollaert would have gotten ten years at most, eligible for parole after ⅔ of that.✎
What about the ex-husbands and ex-boyfriends, I wonder. Somebody sent those pictures to revenge porn sites. Shouldn’t they all get punished as well? It may not be extortion but I’m sure it’s something. Maybe Art. 177 is appropriate?✎
- Any person who attacks the honour of another verbally, in writing, in pictures, through gestures or through acts of aggression is liable on complaint to a monetary penalty not exceeding 90 daily penalty units.✎
- If the insulted party has directly provoked the insult by improper behaviour, the court may dispense with imposing a penalty on the offender.✎
- If there is an immediate response to the insult by way of a retaliatory insult or act of aggression, the court may dispense with imposing a penalty on either or both offenders. ✎
- Unless the law provides otherwise, a monetary penalty amounts to a maximum of 360 daily penalty units. The court decides on the number according to the culpability of the offender.✎
- A daily penalty unit amounts to a maximum of 3000 francs. The court decides on the value of the daily penalty unit according to the personal and financial circumstances of the offender at the time of conviction, and in particular according to his income and capital, living expenses, any maintenance or support obligations and the minimum subsistence level.✎
- The authorities of the Confederation, the cantons and the communes shall provide the information required to determine the daily penalty unit.✎
- The number and value of the daily penalty units must be stated in the judgment. ✎
Some people commented and said they agreed. I wrote that from what I heared Germans in Switzerland say, many like it here as well. I love the Swiss system. And the weird thing is: the Swiss Federal Constitution of 1848 “was influenced by the ideas of the constitution of the United States of America and the French Revolution.” (Emphasis mine.)
I just finished listening to the latest bunch of episodes about the American Revolution and the drafting of the United States Constitution, and the List of amendments to the United States Constitution, at the Revolutions Podcast. Excellent material if you’re into podcasts at all.
When I read the FP article, I felt disappointed because of its shallow analysis. What about Exportweltmeister and the price the Germans paid, stagnating wages? What about the discussions of the 5% hurdle after recent elections? What about the historic justifications for the Senate in order to convince smaller entities to join the federation? These can be an important issue in heterogeneous federation like Switzerland (there was a time when each canton had its own currency)—and possibly also of interest for nations after a civil war (Bosnia and Herzegovina, Lebanon, Syria) or countries where so many regions strive for more autonomy and the state is always in fear of breaking apart (Spain, Italy). So yes, the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany is great. But the US has its United States Bill of Rights, and a Constitutional Court, and that’s great. In contrast, Switzerland allows its citizens to easily amend the constitution, but there is no constitutional court, so sometimes issues linger for years before appropriate laws get passed! So it would seem to me that the US has all the tools it needs. I suspect it has mostly a broken process. Something needs reform, but I’m not sure that the German system is a good place to start looking.
Almost every country has some exceptions to copyright law. You need those in order for a modern society to work. In the US, it is called Fair Use. In Switzerland, the exceptions are listed in the copyright act itself. My favorite of these is for personal use. In other words, you are allowed to make copies of protected works for personal use. You are not allowed to distribute copies to strangers on the Internet, but amongst friends and family, copying is OK. In fact, you pay a tax on all consumer goods on which copies can be stored in order to remunerate authors. Empty tapes (remember those?), blank CDs, iPods and other MP3 players, hard disks… all of these are more expensive because of this tax. In return, you are allowed to copy things from friends and family. This is great. 👌
Yesterday I was talking to a friend about a PDF for a game one of us might possibly have and he said he wouldn’t mind sharing with us since we were only going to play it once or twice. I was confused and explained that it was perfectly legal for him to share it with us. He laughed and said “but, you know, on moral grounds…” I was even more confused. Apparently the constant propaganda of the recording associations, of the movie associations, of the various collecting societies had already convinced him that he was doing something wrong even though it was perfectly legal and even though he had paid for the right to do it. 👎
Remember how the Swiss government said in 2011 that there was no need to change copyright. Most significantly: there was no need to criminalize downloads for personal use. This was around the time of SOPA and NDAA. Sad panda times. And they just won’t stop. In 2012 the government decided to create a commission to investigate the need for reform and in 2013 they delivered a report. On Twitter, @olknz sent me a link to a discussion of the AGUR12 results (the German “Abschlussbericht”). It has some recommendations which look mostly helpless (IP and DNS blocks, best effort to not overblock, make sure there’s legal recourse), the need to inform the public about its rights (my point when I started writing this post), a general inability to adapt to the future of e-books (failing to see how and why the future is being dominated by Google, Amazon, Apple and Barnes & Noble, all of them US companies).
It’s a good read, if you read German. Thanks, Oliver Kunz.
I have a cold. Third day at home. No more fever today, but my nose still seems to contain more on the inside than one would have thought possible when looking at it from the outside.
When I’m awake, I play a lot of Skyrim. Amazing how closely the weather seems to match the weather outside. Switzerland in winter… To be more precise, all the big cities are in the flat lands north of the Alps and south of the Jura Mountains (a bunch of hills, we’d say). In winter, the sky is usually overcast. If you want to see the sun, you have to go up. We live under a leaden sky. In the cities, the snow melts quickly. Outside, patches of white on brown grass.
The terms and conditions of the iTunes app store have changed. I need to agree to them. There’s 110 fucking pages of legal mumbo jumbo to read. I click the button to get on with the show, thinking that this can’t possibly be a contract I’m signing.
Meeting Creative Commons Switzerland – if you’re in Switzerland, and interested in copyright law, and Free Software or Creative Commons, this meeting is for you.
18.1.2010, 19:00, ETH Zürich, HG F33.5.
The stupid church bell rings at seven at night, at nine in the morning – I can’t sleep with the window open, I can’t talk with friends in the courtyard, I can’t walk past the church with my headphones on listening to music because of the noise.
This Sunday the Swiss accepted an initiative that runs counter to anything reasonable people would expect: Did they forbid the ringing of church bells? No. Did they stop the state church from getting their tithes via the state as part of ordinary tax payment? It’s true, if you belong to one of the state churches you have to opt out if you don’t want to pay church tax as part of your ordinary tax payment. The answer is “No” to both of these.
Instead, they voted to outlaw the construction of Minarets for fear of Islamification of the country. 
Yay for boneheads!
PS: Also, the initiative to ban the export of weapons didn’t win, so we’re still allowed to sell weapons and continue the disgraceful charade of “not dealing with warring nations" – but only by behaving like dogs and being faster than Bush in declaring hostilities in Iraq over so as not to endanger a major sale of armoured personnel carriers. Blech!