Controversial sex criminal law
Councils of States strike a compromise on “Yes means yes”.
Parliament wants to modernize sex criminal law. But how? Now there is a solution on the table that could get a majority in the National Council and Council of States.
Published: 16 minutes ago
|
Updated: 13 minutes ago
1/5
Human rights organizations and leftists have been campaigning for the “yes means yes” solution for years.
Leah HartmannEditor Politics
The members of the Council of States are staying. A paradigm shift in sexual criminal law is out of the question for them. However, a possible compromise in the definition of rape is now emerging.
In December, the National Council surprisingly voted in favor of the “Yes means yes” solution. This means that sex should now require the consent of those involved – otherwise it is rape.
The left and human rights organizations have been fighting for this model for years. But the Council of States is going too far. He prefers the “no means no” principle. Instead of consent, contradiction should be decisive.
Mandatory courses for offenders
The Legal Commission of the Council of States is now taking a step towards the National Council. She suggests sticking to “no means no”, with an addition: you want to take into account that victims of rape often freeze and are unable to defend themselves. The law should explicitly mention that it is also a case of rape if someone “takes advantage of a person’s state of shock”.
In addition, the Legal Commission wants to do more to prevent sexual violence. The court should be able to force sex offenders to participate in a prevention program.
It’s not what Geneva National Councilor Lisa Mazzone (35, Greens) advocated. “Of course, we would prefer the consent solution. But it’s important that we quickly find a solution that brings the victims more recognition,” she says. In this sense, the compromise proposal is an important step forward.
The SP women are less willing to compromise. The group writes in a press release that the decision of the legal committee of the Council of States is to be regretted. “This is a missed opportunity,” SP National Councilor Tamara Funiciello is quoted as saying. The Council of States must follow the National Council in the spring and speak out in favor of the consent solution. However, it is unlikely that her wish will come true.