3 ms·

> Switzerland isn't some rogue state, the population has legal means to force the government to do essentially whatever they want. So the human rights violation

by hnbad 3y ago

> Switzerland isn't some rogue state, the population has legal means to force the government to do essentially whatever they want. So the human rights violation is essentially being committed by the population themselves. Well, no. Switzerland is not an anarchic commune, it's a representational democracy, just one that makes heavy use of referendums. But just like elections, referendums don't establish consent, they establish majority support. "The population" isn't a cohesive entity, even less so than "the government". If the government is failing to take action and there is no sufficient majority to "force it", that's not "the population" doing it, that's just the majority of the population not intervening (and that doesn't even get into the difference between "the population" and "all eligible voters"). By definition, the ECHR court is the right place to take this if the government refuses to take action and there is no democratic majority for this. If you think the ECHR only exists for "rogue states" that flay their own population in public or turn ethnic minorities into lampshades, that should be a learning opportunity for you to read up on human rights and the ECHR specifically. > If Switzerland is commiting a human rights violation by doing this, what monumental human rights violation is committed by India. A country which uses the oceans to distribute it's waste globally? How about China, burning endless coal? This is literally a textbook example of whataboutism but the answer is yes, they're all bad and there are certainly worse offenders than Switzerland. But unlike Switzerland, neither China nor India are signatories to the ECHR so they're irrelevant to this case.

Rochus 3y ago
> it's a representational democracy Switzerland is a direct democracy, not just a representative (i.e. indirect) democracy. In the present case the ECHR is obviously misused with very dubious arguments. The fact that the ECHR does not put a stop to such abuse will not exactly improve its acceptance among the Swiss voters.
- myrion 3y ago
  No, Switzerland is at most a semi-direct democracy. We don't vote on every last decision the government takes, after all - we have a bicameral parliament and an executive branch for those! We just also have votations on a lot of things.
  - Rochus 3y ago
    > No, Switzerland is at most a semi-direct democracy. .. We don't vote on every last decision the government takes Trotzdem nennt man das "direkte Demokratie". Wir hatten noch so etwas wie "Staatskunde" in der Schule. Die Jungen haben das heute anscheinend nicht mehr. Der Punkt ist, dass das Volk per Initiative etc. bei Bedarf eingreifen kann, also nicht nur dem Parlament aus der Ferne zusehen darf. Siehe auch https://www.eda.admin.ch/aboutswitzerland/de/home/politik-geschichte/politisches-system.html https://www.eda.admin.ch/aboutswitzerland/de/home/politik-ge....
    - hnbad 3y ago
      You can call it what you want but even Wikipedia makes a clear distinction between a "direct democracy" without representatives and "instruments for direct democracy in an other representative system": https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direkte_Demokratie https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direkte_Demokratie Of course your "Staatskunde" lesson in school may have handwaved that distinction because the former by definition is stateless and the purpose is to distinguish between the Swiss governance model and other representative democracies, not doing a deep dive on all forms of governance. We had "political science" lessons in school and they were largely about the structure of our own system (e.g. one exam literally involved adjusting the federal budget), maybe with some excursions to contrast it with e.g. the US but I don't think we ever learned about delegative democracy, let alone anarchist, minarchist or Marxist theories. Because it was a public school in Germany, the German model of the "social market economy" was never challenged and implied to be the best possible system because it is written into our constitution. Saying a representative democracy that makes use of instruments for direct democracy is direct democracy is a bit like saying a social market economy (i.e. a market economy with a state-provided, limited, tax-funded social welfare system) is socialism. One may have political motivations to label it as such (either to make it more or less appealing) but it muddies definitions by conflating "pars pro toto", i.e. a part and the whole.
      - Rochus 3y ago
        It's a well defined and established terminology, regardless of opinions.
- hnbad 3y ago
  Semantics aside, this is a red herring. Whether you call it a "direct" democracy or a "representative" democracy, it's a governance system based on majority votes, not consent. Going through the courts is the correct approach in this case if they believed there was a criminal injustice that could not be remedied through electoral means. As the legal basis in this case is the ECHR, not Swiss law, taking this to the ECHR court is the logical conclusion. You can disagree with the ECHR. Not every country is a signatory of the ECHR. Not every country is a signatory of the equivalent UN convention either - notably the US is also not a signatory to the UN convention on the rights of children and there are many people in signatory countries who don't seem to agree with it either. But as long as the Swiss government does not remove itself from the ECHR, it is subject to it. You can't have it both ways - or rather, you can and Switzerland does as it hasn't signed protocols 4 and 12 (pertaining free movement and discrimination respectively) and has only signed but not ratified protocol 1.
  - Rochus 3y ago
    > it's a governance system based on majority votes, not consent. ... Going through the courts is the correct approach in this case This is undemocratic nonsense. The ECHR has well defined concerns. Even the ECHR recognizes the separation of powers, and the court has clear jurisdiction in this system. It is not the court's task to expand the scope of the EHCR. At least that's how it was when I was studying law.

by hnbad 3y ago

Rochus 3y ago

> it's a representational democracy Switzerland is a direct democracy, not just a representative (i.e. indirect) democracy. In the present case the ECHR is obviously misused with very dubious arguments. The fact that the ECHR does not put a stop to such abuse will not exactly improve its acceptance among the Swiss voters.

myrion 3y ago
No, Switzerland is at most a semi-direct democracy. We don't vote on every last decision the government takes, after all - we have a bicameral parliament and an executive branch for those! We just also have votations on a lot of things.
- Rochus 3y ago
  > No, Switzerland is at most a semi-direct democracy. .. We don't vote on every last decision the government takes Trotzdem nennt man das "direkte Demokratie". Wir hatten noch so etwas wie "Staatskunde" in der Schule. Die Jungen haben das heute anscheinend nicht mehr. Der Punkt ist, dass das Volk per Initiative etc. bei Bedarf eingreifen kann, also nicht nur dem Parlament aus der Ferne zusehen darf. Siehe auch https://www.eda.admin.ch/aboutswitzerland/de/home/politik-geschichte/politisches-system.html https://www.eda.admin.ch/aboutswitzerland/de/home/politik-ge....
  - hnbad 3y ago
    You can call it what you want but even Wikipedia makes a clear distinction between a "direct democracy" without representatives and "instruments for direct democracy in an other representative system": https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direkte_Demokratie https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direkte_Demokratie Of course your "Staatskunde" lesson in school may have handwaved that distinction because the former by definition is stateless and the purpose is to distinguish between the Swiss governance model and other representative democracies, not doing a deep dive on all forms of governance. We had "political science" lessons in school and they were largely about the structure of our own system (e.g. one exam literally involved adjusting the federal budget), maybe with some excursions to contrast it with e.g. the US but I don't think we ever learned about delegative democracy, let alone anarchist, minarchist or Marxist theories. Because it was a public school in Germany, the German model of the "social market economy" was never challenged and implied to be the best possible system because it is written into our constitution. Saying a representative democracy that makes use of instruments for direct democracy is direct democracy is a bit like saying a social market economy (i.e. a market economy with a state-provided, limited, tax-funded social welfare system) is socialism. One may have political motivations to label it as such (either to make it more or less appealing) but it muddies definitions by conflating "pars pro toto", i.e. a part and the whole.
    - Rochus 3y ago
      It's a well defined and established terminology, regardless of opinions.
hnbad 3y ago
Semantics aside, this is a red herring. Whether you call it a "direct" democracy or a "representative" democracy, it's a governance system based on majority votes, not consent. Going through the courts is the correct approach in this case if they believed there was a criminal injustice that could not be remedied through electoral means. As the legal basis in this case is the ECHR, not Swiss law, taking this to the ECHR court is the logical conclusion. You can disagree with the ECHR. Not every country is a signatory of the ECHR. Not every country is a signatory of the equivalent UN convention either - notably the US is also not a signatory to the UN convention on the rights of children and there are many people in signatory countries who don't seem to agree with it either. But as long as the Swiss government does not remove itself from the ECHR, it is subject to it. You can't have it both ways - or rather, you can and Switzerland does as it hasn't signed protocols 4 and 12 (pertaining free movement and discrimination respectively) and has only signed but not ratified protocol 1.
- Rochus 3y ago
  > it's a governance system based on majority votes, not consent. ... Going through the courts is the correct approach in this case This is undemocratic nonsense. The ECHR has well defined concerns. Even the ECHR recognizes the separation of powers, and the court has clear jurisdiction in this system. It is not the court's task to expand the scope of the EHCR. At least that's how it was when I was studying law.