Swiss legalize Nazi salute

[Mayer]

Switzerland’s supreme court has ruled that making a Nazi salute in public does not violate the country’s anti-racism law, provided the person “is only expressing their own Nazi convictions”. The defendant was a member of a rightwing extremist group.


The president of the Federal Commission Against Racism has expressed disappointment at the court's decision.

The April 28 ruling by the Lausanne-based Federal Court, released on Wednesday, overturned a lower court’s conviction last year in the case of a man charged with racial discrimination after he took part in a demonstration in 2010.

Apart from the 150 participants and police at the demonstration organised by the Party of Nationally Orientated Swiss People (PNOS) on the Rütli Meadow above Lake Lucerne, some by-standers also witnessed the gesture.

Under Swiss anti-racism law, only racist acts committed in public are criminal offences. The latest ruling has put a finer interpretation on the law, stating that the gesture is a crime only if someone is using it to try to spread racist ideology to others.

“According to the law, spreading racist ideology such as national socialism is a prosecutable racial discrimination offence. The word ‘spreading’ is taken to mean advertising or propaganda,” a statement released by the court read.

This condition did not apply to the Rütli Meadow incident, the judges ruled, because the man was not trying to win others over to the ideology. The gesture is a criminal offence in Germany, Austria and the Czech Republic.

President of the Federal Commission Against Racism, Martine Brunschwig-Graf told swissinfo.ch she was very disappointed in the Federal Court ruling.

“Whatever the judgment, it remains totally unacceptable to carry out activities of this kind. It is not just a judicial problem but a societal problem if the impression is created that such behaviour is permitted,” she said.

Brunschwig-Graf added that the ruling was indicative of the Federal Court’s tendency to apply the anti-racism law restrictively with regard to freedom of expression.

source: swissinfo.ch

Is this gesture acceptable as freedom of expression? Does it have to follow certain restrictions (no racial ideology or no attempt to convert others)?

Will this become a common sight in europe?


Share your opinion.

[Caduet]

Shouldn't have even needed "legalization".

[Pontifex Maximus]

Point: It vexes me that thousands of Americans went to an early grave for Europe's salvation from Hitlerism only to have the European democracies restrict the freedom of speech and expression.

Counterpoint: Hitler assumed power through pseudo legal channels in the Wiemar Republic because authorities and the state did not adequately address the threat of National Socialism to establish a megalomaniac as dictator. Limiting expression is essential to preventing repetition.

Takeaway: This goes equally both ways and I can't feel strongly one way or another.

[Copperknickers II]

Point: It vexes me that thousands of Americans went to an early grave for Europe's salvation from Hitlerism only to have the European democracies restrict the freedom of speech and expression.

So America came to Europe to promote freedom of speech and expression? Its not our fault you think that Europe shares American values. Besides, if you really cared about freedom, you would put a little more value on our democratic right to decide that restrictions on freedom of expression are actually a good thing.

It vexes me that thousands of Americans support other people being sent to an early grave because they think that they have the right to inflict freedom on unwilling people through poorly planned operations of overwhelming force and destruction.

[Vanoi]

It vexes me that thousands of Americans support other people being sent to an early grave because they think that they have the right to inflict freedom on unwilling people through poorly planned operations of overwhelming force and destruction.

Strawman? Yea i think so. Wonder what this has to do with free speech.

[Copperknickers II]

Strawman? Yea i think so. Wonder what this has to do with free speech.

The point was, in a democracy, what people want to do with their own free speech is their decision. Inflicting freedom by undemocratic means rather defeats the point. Right now Switzerland has chosen to increase freedom of expression, but this is the same country that banned minarets and (iirc) burkas.

[Cor De Ferrum]

The point was, in a democracy, what people want to do with their own free speech is their decision. Inflicting freedom by undemocratic means rather defeats the point. Right now Switzerland has chosen to increase freedom of expression, but this is the same country that banned minarets and (iirc) burkas.

Banning minarets and burkas is good.

They're protecting their culture and Swiss identity from falling into invader hands.

[pgt1027]

So Besides, if you really cared about freedom, you would put a little more value on our democratic right to decide that restrictions on freedom of expression are actually a good thing.

Let us suppose, therefore, that the government is entirely at one with the people, and never thinks of exerting any power of coercion unless in agreement with what it conceives to be their voice. But I deny the right of the people to exercise such coercion, either by themselves or by their government. The power itself is illegitimate. The best government has no more title to it than the worst. It is as noxious, or more noxious, when exerted in accordance with public opinion, than when in opposition to it. If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind. Were an opinion a personal possession of no value except to the owner; if to be obstructed in the enjoyment of it were simply a private injury, it would make some difference whether the injury was inflicted only on a few persons or on many. But the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.

-John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

[ahawkTW]

It's actually kinda stupid that it was illegal in the first place. Restricting the ability to express oneself is quite ironically Nazi-like in itself. I wish I could applaud Switzerland for legalizing something um....less controversial? But regardless kudos to Switzerland for legalization political expression/loyalty.

[Col. Tartleton]

The salute itself is harmless, therefore it should be allowed.

[Phier]

Con: None

Pro: Freedom of expression

Best Pro: Easy identification of those who are really fascists.

Think of it as the double yellow triangle of this age, only self imposed.

[Valiant Champion]

finally it will be legal to reach up to a shelf to get the remote without standing to reach down.

[Heathen Hammer]

It shouldn't have been illegal in the first place. Second World War ended 70 years ago. Get over it.

[Copperknickers II]

It shouldn't have been illegal in the first place. Second World War ended 70 years ago. Get over it.

Its not really about the second world war, there are still Nazis who would be killing minorities right now if they were in power. But I agree with Phier: better that they spread their hatred in the open where we can see them, than in private, fearing legal retribution.

[Heathen Hammer]

Its not really about the second world war, there are still Nazis who would be killing minorities right now if they were in power. But I agree with Phier: better that they spread their hatred in the open where we can see them, than in private, fearing legal retribution.

So would communists kill private property owners if they come into power? Plus I haven't heard of any major NS movement in Europe, unless one would label any right-wing nationalist group as "Nazis".

[Mayer]

This was the inspiraton:

Oath of the Horatii by Jacques-Louis David

[Cybermat47]

There are still Nazis out there, and they are still killing minorities. Don't give them any room to breath. Last time we did that, 50,000,000 people died.

[PointOfViewGun]

So, somehow the salutation gesture unlocks a personal traits allowing Nazis to kill more effectively?

[Cybermat47]

So, somehow the salutation gesture unlocks a personal traits allowing Nazis to kill more effectively?

No. But what does the Nazi salute bring to your mind? To me, it brings visions of people being rounded up and gassed to death. That's what that salute represents.

And as Knight of Heaven said:

Alot of people are missing the point, its not about a simple gesture, but instead what it means, and giving the context, there is litle doubt that this was giving Carte blanche to a particular action, or line of thinking. Saying its ok to be a nazi. While i think its not ok to be one.

[War lord]

In my mind, you can't fairly ban the Nazi salute or Nazi symbols unless you ban the Internationale and the Hammer and Sickle. It seems hypocritical to me that a large number of people think its okay to limit freedom of speech when you find that speech objectionable on moral or political grounds when said speech isn't infringing on the rights of others.

Think about it, the same reasoning behind putting people in prison for throwing a Hitler salute, also justifies Putin putting Pussy Riot activists in prison. The idea that feeling threatened by non-violent actions justifies acting as if a threat was made. That something interpreted as an attack warrants the same response as a real attack. This is the basis for restriction of speech.