On March 3rd, the canton of Zurich will vote on tightening the right to demonstrate. The template at a glance.
In the case of house squatting – in the picture emergency services on the Koch site in Zurich in February 2023 – the squatters should have to bear the costs of the evacuation.
Ennio Leanza / Keystone
the essentials in brief
- In the canton of Zurich Demonstrations and rallies be more strictly regulated. This is what the SVP’s anti-chaotic initiative demands.
- Demonstrations and rallies should generally take place throughout the canton subject to approval become.
- Die Costs for expensive police operations should be passed on to organizers and participants in the event of unauthorized demonstrations and rallies. Organizers and participants should also be held responsible for any damage. At squatting The squatters should have to bear the costs of the eviction.
- A Counterproposal aims in the same direction, but is more moderate and takes legal concerns into account.
Zurich is the Swiss capital of protests. Last year alone there were 338 demonstrations and rallies, i.e. one almost every day.
Most events are approved and proceed peacefully. However, large, unauthorized trains occur again and again, which are accompanied by riots and property damage. The police are always present with a large contingent. The problem is less acute in other communities.
The anti-chaotic initiative, which the canton of Zurich will vote on on March 3rd, is aimed at countering the large, expensive and violent demonstrations and rallies. She makes four demands:
The counterproposal addresses two central points. Firstly, this also requires a permit issued by the municipality for a rally or demonstration. Secondly, the costs for extraordinary police operations should in future be passed on, but only to “intentional polluters”, as the proposal states.
The counterproposal makes no statement about the costs of property damage or house clearances. So nothing should change here compared to today.
The costs for extraordinary police operations can already be imposed on the organizers; but there is no obligation to do so. The city of Zurich in particular does not do this. The city council is of the opinion that it is part of the police’s basic mission to accompany demonstrations, including illegal ones.
The legal situation is also such that impending costs must not result in someone no longer being able to exercise their basic rights. In addition, only those expenses that someone actually caused may be charged, so an act must be clearly assigned. Anyone who takes part in an illegal demonstration but generally behaves peacefully will be treated differently than someone who throws stones.
The approval of demonstrations is now a matter for the municipalities. The city of Zurich only requires this if there are 100 participants, below which one registration is sufficient. The property damage must be claimed through civil proceedings or in criminal proceedings.
The initiators speak of a legal inequality: While innocent citizens would have to pay a fee even for simple administrative procedures, violent and illegal demonstrators would get off scot-free. The costs would have to be borne by the general public – they also have to live with the restrictions caused by demonstrations, for example in traffic.
The number of unauthorized and violent demonstrations has continued to increase, especially in the city of Zurich. The costs have increased accordingly. That’s why the law needs to be tightened.
The supporters of the counter-proposal, including the government council, fundamentally support the initiative’s concerns. However, they believe that some claims are too imprecise and will not hold up in court.
For example, it is not clear how exactly the costs of the initiative should be divided between organizers and participants. The initiative goes further than regulations in other cantons that have already been successfully challenged in court.
Last but not least, the initiative remains unclear as to whether the canton is now responsible for approving rallies. The counterproposal explicitly assigns this task to the municipalities.
In the Zurich Cantonal Council, a red-green minority rejected both the initiative and the counterproposal.
The SP, Greens and AL fear that freedom of expression and assembly would be severely restricted and that peaceful demonstrators and even innocent passers-by could also be prosecuted.
There is a risk of a “chilling effect”. This means that organizers or participants could forego a demonstration and therefore their right to freedom of expression for fear of possible costs. A permit requirement for demonstrations is also a disproportionate interference with community autonomy. Neither the initiative nor the counter-proposal can be implemented in accordance with fundamental rights.
Not all parties have yet decided on a slogan. The list is continually updated.
Anti-chaotic initiative
As of 24 January 2024
AND
Organizations and associations
Counterproposal to the anti-chaotic initiative
As of 24 January 2024
The NZZ recommends the initiative and the counterproposal for acceptance. When it comes to the key question, she prefers the counterproposal because it is formulated more precisely and is legally easier to implement.
The thrust of both proposals is the same: Anyone who blocks streets, sprays walls, loots shops or even attacks police or other demonstrators at an unauthorized rally must expect consequences, including financial ones. In such cases, it cannot be the case that the general public has to bear all the costs of the police operation in addition to the restrictions and damage.
A general permit requirement for demonstrations is also proportionate, especially given the situation in the city of Zurich, and cantonal regulation ensures more legal equality.
2024-01-28 04:22:56
#Zurich #antichaotic #initiative #glance
