Switzerland rejects ban on Nazi symbols and salutes

Switzerland has pushed back against a campaign to ban Nazi symbols and salutes, saying the focus should be on prevention rather than punitive action.

A sign from a concentration camp which says 'work will set you free'

Switzerland’s Federal Council said on Wednesday that it would not act on a growing campaign to ban Nazi symbols and salutes. 

While acknowledging that the symbols can be “shocking and stressful” to some, the focus should be on preventing people using those symbols rather than criminalising their use. 

The Federal Council also reaffirmed the position of the Swiss Supreme Court, which held that objectionable and difficult views were protected by free speech, even if they were untenable for some people. 

In a statement, the Federal Council said “the public use of racist symbols without propaganda purposes can only indirectly affect human dignity and public peace” and therefore did not warrant a ban.

What is the legal position in Switzerland? 

Unlike in many other parts of Europe, the use of Nazi symbols such as swastikas and salutes, is not banned in Switzerland. 

Such actions are banned in Poland – where such symbols and salutes are deemed to be “spreading Nazi propaganda” – and much of Europe, including Germany and Austria. 

In Switzerland however such actions only receive legal sanction if they are deemed to be publicly promoting racist ideology.

What are people saying about the decision? 

Jewish groups have been critical of the decision, saying it was an opportunity for Switzerland to combat what they see as rising antisemitism and extremism here and abroad. 

Swiss Federation of Israelite Communities (SIG) said while the misuse of Nazi symbolism has been a consistent issue, the situation has become comparatively urgent in recent times. 

“Recently, however, especially in connection with Holocaust comparisons and the corona pandemic, we have reached a new peak,” a spokesperson told 20 Minutes. 

“We cannot understand why the Federal Council wants to be on the outside here”

Opponents to Covid measures have frequently made direct comparisons between the treatment of Jews and other minorities during the holocaust and restrictions such as the Covid certificate and other restrictions targeted at reducing the spread of the virus.

The SIG also said a focus on prevention was unlikely to be effective against extremists. 

“It would be naïve to believe that awareness training would help here.”

What happens now? 

While the Federal Council’s decision will stand for now, one avenue for advocates of a ban is to push for change via Swiss parliament. 

The SIG said the measure would win widespread support in Swiss parliament.

National Councilor Thomas Burgherr, from the right-wing Swiss People’s Party, agrees. 

“There is zero tolerance for swastikas and such symbols – such tendencies must be nipped in the bud.”

Marianne Binder-Keller, from centrist party Die Mitte, also supported the move. 

Swiss parliament will next convene in spring at the earliest. 

Member comments

Log in here to leave a comment.
Become a Member to leave a comment.


OPINION: Switzerland’s rape laws are not fit for purpose and reforms are long overdue

As they stand Switzerland's rape laws are more useful to perpetrators of sex assaults than to the victims, writes Clare O'Dea as she explains why new reforms are long overdue.

OPINION: Switzerland's rape laws are not fit for purpose and reforms are long overdue

It is widely accepted that Switzerland’s current rape law, last revised thirty years ago, is not fit for purpose. Partly in response to international obligations, the Swiss political system is finally addressing the problem and concrete progress is inching closer.

The failings in the current legal model include a too-narrow definition of what sexual act constitutes rape, the exclusion of male victims of rape, the requirement to prove violence or coercion, and the soft sanctions against convicted rapists.

Taken together, these weaknesses make Swiss rape legislation as it now stands a lot more useful to perpetrators of rape than it is to victims.

There were 757 rapes reported in Switzerland last year, and only 77 rapists convicted, some of whom did not receive custodial sentences. The overall number of reported sex offences in 2021 was 6,909. 

But extensive change is coming in all four problem areas, partly thanks to the Istanbul Convention on violence against women. A revision of the Swiss law, compliant with the Convention, is working its way through parliament. The Council of States has just supported the reform positions of the Federal Council, and the National Council is expected to go at least as far when it takes up the debate later this year.

The definition of rape is set to be expanded to include any kind of penetration against the will of the person, not just vaginal penetration by a penis. This means more sexual acts can be prosecuted as rape. Combined with the use of the gender-neutral word ‘person’, it also means that males will be recognised as victims of rape for the first time under Swiss law.

The Council of States also voted to introduce a minimum two-year prison sentence for convicted rapists. This is important because sentences under two years are automatically suspended in Switzerland, which has meant some rapists walk away without serving any time behind bars.

It is hard to imagine the anguish of victims seeing their abusers get off so lightly, without any prison time or even being named and shamed in their community. In ordinary circumstances, the names of convicted criminals are not made public in Switzerland.

These changes, if accepted by the larger parliamentary chamber, will represent a major step forward for victim’s rights, and bring Switzerland into line with most other European countries on rape law.

The final unresolved issue is how to proceed when the use of force is no longer part of the legal definition of rape. We know it is possible to do something to someone against their will without using force. There are many reasons victims may not resist, including the phenomenon of freezing in shock.

There is a growing international movement to reconceptualise rape and other sexual offences as violations of the victim’s sexual autonomy. More and more European countries – 13 and counting – are moving away from the violence-based definition of rape to a broader definition of rape being sex without consent.

Right now in Switzerland, the camps are split into those who advocate for the explicit expression of consent – ‘Only Yes Means Yes’ – as the best legal formula to establish rape, and those who say it’s the refusal of consent that must be expressed – ‘No Means No’. The Council of States opted for No Means No.

Unfortunately, all of this may be academic in a court setting where there is no record of such statements on the part of the alleged victim either way.  The use of force, threats or psychological pressure, is already hard to prove. So what’s the point of the change?

What it will hopefully do is reinforce the message that it is imperative to listen to the person you are about to have sex with and that what they want matters. Even if you don’t care what they want at that moment, the law does.

It tells potential victims that their wishes matter, that consent is not something to be brushed aside to satisfy one person’s demands. It is good to have this spelled out in law. Remember that marital rape, for example, only entered the Swiss criminal code in 1991.

When it comes to giving consent, I don’t think it matters which model you use – say yes or say no – putting consent at the top of the agenda between sexual partners will help make a cultural difference. But a lot more needs to happen outside the legal arena to make this a safer country for women and girls in particular.

Sadly, the unreported incidence of sexual assault and rape is high. Amnesty International commissioned a survey of women in Switzerland in 2019 in which 12% of respondents said they had had non-consensual sexual intercourse. More than one in five (22%) had been subject to unwanted sexual acts in their lives. Only 8% of these victims notified the police.

Could we produce a new generation of women who feel secure enough to say ‘I don’t want this’ and a new generation of men who would listen to them and respect their wishes? We are not there yet, especially not with the ubiquity of porn culture that has become markedly more violent towards women.

There are still some hard questions to be asked about why rape happens. Why is it that a subset of men will disregard the dignity, comfort or safety of another person for their own sexual gratification? How are we as a society contributing to this sense of entitlement?

Ultimately, weeding out rape culture will achieve a lot more than the courts can, even with this better law.