déjeuner, 30 octobre 2023
L'autorisation de manifester a été accordée, puis soudainement retirée pour des raisons discutables.
Selon le Freunde der Verfassung (Friends of the Constitution) ‘initial talks with the authorities already began in June’ regarding a demonstration which was meant to take place in Basel city on the 21st of October. ‘Written permission was granted on Monday 16.10.2023’ and the event was annoncée by FdV the same day.
On the 19.10.2023 FdV published a Communiqué de presse on their website in which they wrote that ‘According to the press release of the Basel police, all demonstrations from Friday, October 20, 2023 5:00 p.m. to Sunday, October 22, 2023 are prohibited in Basel. This also applies to the Trinational demo planned by the Friends of the Constitution’.
Indeed, a Communiqué de presse from the Cantonal police for Basel City on the 18th of October states clearly that:
‘The cantonal police in Basel-Stadt will prohibit any demonstrations, rallies and vigils next weekend by means of a general order.’. The stated reason is ‘the escalating security situation in the international context of the escalation in the Middle East.’.
Question: What does the demonstration of FdV have to do with the stated reason for the ban?
The slogan of the demonstration is ‘Peace, Freedom and Sovereignty’.
The demonstration pamphlet published by FdV lists the topics which the demonstration will focus on:
Only one has a general relation to the ‘escalation in the Middle East’ – the topic of war – however, we should bear in mind such facts as:
Of course, we could have expected there to be a strong anti-War and pro-Peace presence among the would-have-been participants. But then, are we to assume that the responsible authorities are prohibiting demonstrations which promote peace and an end to war?
Basically, it would seem that the general ban on demonstrations in Basel City over the weekend had nothing specifically to do with the FdV’s demonstration, but that, as a matter of sheer coincidence, this previously authorized event was unfortunately caught up in the general ban.
It is interesting to note that Basel seems to be the only place in Switzerland to have implemented a general ban on demonstrations. Zurich, according to various media reports, only banned demonstrations which were directly related to the Middle East conflict – and for this I have some understanding. The last thing we would want is to essentially create the conditions for a mini-version of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict right here in Switzerland. For Bern I have seen conflicting reports from the media – some implying that there too is a general ban like in Basel, and other sources saying the ban was due to a soccer game happening that same weekend. I have not been able to find anything official in writing from Bern or Zurich.
However, doesn’t a demonstration calling for peace, and an end to war, while of course having something to do with the warfare between Israel and Hamas, make the most sense while war is being waged?
But maybe there is something else going on here. Let’s take a look in another direction.
On the website of Basel Nazi-Frei we find a statement published on the 25th of September titled ‘Basel remains Nazi-free. Prevent the march of the Right!’ which claims the following:
‘The upcoming mobilization is an attempt by the New Right, composed of conspiracy theorists: to act together, neo-Nazis and parliamentary rights, to network and to campaign. Their positions stand for an anti-women and anti-queer as well as for a deeply racist and anti-Semitic world view.’
The authorized FdV demonstration was to take place starting from 12:00 on the 21st of October at St. Johannspark in Basel.
Basel Nazi-Frei announced that their unauthorized counter-demonstration would start at 11:30 on the 21st of October at St. Johannspark.
So instead of protecting the legal demonstration, the Basel police decide to move it to another part of the city – a 20 minute walk away!? And this was supposed to negate the risk posed by Basel Nazi-Frei!?
Dr. Stephanie Eymann is the head of the Justice and Security Department for Basel-City.
According to the article, Ms Eymann had written a letter to Basel political parties in which she requested their cooperation in preventing a ‘larger riot’. She asks everyone to ‘recall the democratic rules of the game and the importance of free exchange of views’, while also attempting to make it clear that ‘The cantonal police must not carry out «systematic pre-censorship» and cannot refuse a demonstration request if, «as unfortunately is in the present case, a violent counter-demonstration can be expected». The Basel parties should clearly distance themselves from violence.’.
What is striking to me is that Ms Eymann found herself in a position where she felt she had to write this kind of a letter. What could have prompted her to do this? As far as I know, the letter was sent in confidence to the various political parties, and was not an open letter to the public. Would it be ridiculous to think that perhaps Ms Eymann was coming under immense pressure from politicians, and their associates, to find some way, any way, to revoke the permit given to FdV?
The article goes on to tell us that the Left-wing parties, SP and Greens, were not amused by the letter.
‘Lisa Mathys, President of the SP, writes: «We are disconcerted about this attempted delegation of responsibility.» The SP could not and will not take responsibility for «sensitive situations next Saturday»‘, writes the BaZ.
The SP also downplayed the threat of violence posed by Basel Nazi-Frei by referring to their call for an unauthorized counter-demo as merely a ‘counter-reaction from the civilian population’.
‘Raffaela Hanauer, Co-President of the Basel Greens: «For us it is a sign of weakness. It is Stephanie Eymann’s job to coordinate how to deal with different demands on public space. For this she is chosen»’, continues the BaZ. According to the article, Ms Hanauer also thinks that ‘democracy not only means that the «FdV» could hold their demonstration, but also that the framework is provided, for «a counter attitude to be possible – in this case as part of a demonstration».’.
Article 22 of our Swiss Constitution makes it clear that ‘Freedom of assembly is guaranteed.’, and this unarguably applies to all Swiss citizens.
But is it really the case that it would be undemocratic to permit one demonstration, but not permit a counter-demonstration in the same location at the same time? I don’t see how. Would Ms Hanauer defend a counter-demonstration taking place at the same time and place as the next “Climate” demonstration? I somehow doubt that.
The title refers to a claim made by a Basel-based attorney, Andreas Noll, that ‘«If it sticks by the approval, the Basel government will have willfully sided with the anti-Semites and headed directly for a fiasco: the new edition of Basel Nazifrei…»’, as BaZ reports.
Mr. Noll has apparently submitted a criminal complaint against the Basel police and public prosecutor regarding a previous confrontation in 2018 between far-Left Basel Nazi-Frei and far-Right PNOS – the latter having since disbanded.
Mr. Noll seems confused. Does he believe that fundamental democratic rights should only apply to groups of people in which there exists not a single element of those things which we as a body of people, in overwhelming majority, disapprove of?
This article, along with several others, refers to an AfD politician, Dr. Christina Baum, who was to attend the demonstration, and possibly also give a speech. There are a lot of claims and accusations leveled against her, all revolving around her purportedly being a ‘right-wing extremist figure’.
I assume, if this woman is a sitting member of German parliament, which she is, that she is also not breaking German law. In which case, who has the right to deny her the right to free speech? So long as she is not breaking the law, this fundamental democratic right also applies to her just as it applies to those are the far-left, I would have thought.
SRF reports that ‘Basel is facing a weekend with two demonstrations that have escalation potential.’.
How so? The FdV, and so-called “Corona-Skeptics”, had demonstrated dozens of times between 2020 and 2023, and never were there any ‘escalations’ close to the level that groups like Basel Nazi-Frei have ‘potential’ for.
The article claims that ‘Corona-skeptical movements such as «Mass-Voll» or the «Freedom Trychler» are planning a demonstration train across three national borders.’, but, strangely enough, never do they mention Freunde der Verfassung – the organization which actually submitted the permit request for the demonstration.
But perhaps the most interesting thing about this article is a ‘Correction notice’ at the end which reads:
‘In a first version, the group “Basel Nazifrei” was described as left-wing extremist. Experience has shown that numerous left-wing extremists take part in “Basel Nazifrei” demonstrations. In the past, there have been several riots starting from “Basel Nazifrei”. However, to call the whole group “left-wing extremist” is not correct. We have therefore adapted the text to: “left-wing autonomous grouping”.’
This coming from the same source which refers to those ‘planning the demonstration’, and arguably around 38% of the Swiss electorate, with such nonsensical terms such as ‘Corona-Skeptics’ – which means what exactly? That all of those people are ‘skeptical’ of ‘Corona’? If SRF wants to get analytical about how accurately, or sensibly, they are labeling people, or groups of people, it seem rather too little too late.
Furthermore, if it is ‘not correct’ to call Basel Nazi-Frei ‘left-wing extremist’, are we then saying that they are not extremists, and therefore are to be viewed as conforming to the norm of the political Left – basically on par with the SP and Greens? Interesting.
Additionally, how does referring to them as ‘autonomous’ discount them being ‘extremist’? Could they not be both autonomous and extremist!?
I suspect, however, that they are most likely not as extreme (deviating from the politically-Left norm) as we think they are, and therefore are most likely not autonomous either.
‘The ban therefore also applies to a demonstration of opponent to the Corona-measures in Basel planned for Saturday’ SRF states. And this only because of ‘the tense security situation in the wake of the Middle East war’.
Really!?
Here is what I think transpired.
The Left throughout Switzerland, and especially in Basel, were unhappy to catch wind of the FdV requesting a permit to demonstrate – especially as it was the day before the last day of national elections – elections in which, according to surveys, the Left were not looking too good.
The Left then went on a campaign, behind closed doors, to attempt to pressure those responsible for granting the permit to deny it. It would also not surprise me if Basel Nazi-Frei received encouragement, if not it’s marching orders, from within Leftwing political circles.
Basel Nazi-Frei announced their unauthorized counter-demonstration, which absolutely comes with the threat of violence, giving Leftwing politicians and activists leverage against the office of Ms. Eymann, and the activists in our media had a hay-day attempting to make Ms. Eymann look like a fool for defending fundamental democratic rights.
Finally, and conveniently, the pretext of the ‘escalation in the Middle East’ was used to ban all demonstrations – only in the city where, and only on the very weekend when, the permitted FdV demonstration was planned. How convenient.
From this we can learn the following lessons:
A time of crisis might mean that some rights have to be temporarily suspended. But what happens when the State, with the aid of the Media, keeps the population under a near-constant state of “crisis”?
– The Hopeful Human
French 
English 
German 
Spanish 
Arabic