Zug,19.11.2018

Left-wingers left confused by Federal Court's ruling on "Postergate"

Prior to a referendum held in 2017 about obligating the cantonal government to ensure at least 20 per cent of new housing in the canton was affordable, the representatives of two local left-wing parties, the Young Socialists and the Young Alternatives, which supported the move, put up posters at Zug station depicting Matthias Michel, the head of the Cantonal Department of Economic Development, and Heinz Tännler, the current director finance, purporting, falsely “that they were behind the move”, and indicating at the same time the precise amount of their generous salaries, some £63,000 per annum more than that of the prime minister of the United Kingdom. When the cantonal government members discovered these posters had been put up, an injunction was sought to have them removed forthwith as they felt they infringed their personal rights, amid reports at the time, too, that Michel had previously worked with the judge in question in a different capacity in the past, and hence was known to him.

As previously reported, a cantonal government statement issued shortly afterwards said that, while it recognised freedom of expression was important and political satire had a role to play, the posters did not contribute to political fairness and contravened personal rights. Since the organisers behind the campaign declined to withdraw the posters themselves voluntarily, the government said it had had been left with no other option than to seek legal advice.

Within hours, a judge ruled that the posters did indeed infringe the government members’ personal rights and they were ordered to be removed, as they were, from online sources, too. The judge declined to accept that those behind the posters had meant them to be taken in a satirical way.

Furthermore, the judge ruled that the parties behind the posters were to pay court costs amounting to several thousands of francs. This money was to be paid by the Young Socialist and Young Alternative parties, but not all of the ten members of the organising committee behind the campaign, just three of them. In expanding on his ruling, the judge emphasised that no-one may be depicted on such posters without their permission, the professional reputation and social standing of those depicted deemed part of their personal rights.

Both government members had described the posters as misleading and deprecatory, and questioning their honour, depicting, as they did, each of them holding a briefcase out of which thousands of francs were flowing, giving the impression that they were enriching themselves at the expense of the public and also, by the inclusion of the caption, “Yes to the campaign for affordable housing,” inferring, wrongly, that they were behind the campaign. The judge further ruled he could understand if those behind the posters wanted to draw attention to the fact that a certain well-earning sector of local society was hardly likely to be concerned with the problems of others in their search for affordable housing. “And it is important political discussion take place,” added the judge. “However, this does not mean that personal rights of political opponents may be ignored. And there are other ways of provoking political discussion other than by putting up posters.”

It was in August last year, that the leftist parties announced that they had secured financial backing from unnamed private individuals to make sure they could afford the legal costs of taking the matter to a higher court. Speaking on behalf of the Jusos (Young Socialists) at the time, Yannick Ringger said, “We have a number of private sponsors who liked our campaign for affordable housing and disapproved of the reaction of the members of the cantonal government.”  Since last summer, two higher courts in the canton concurred with the ruling of the initial judge, but last January, the leftist parties involved said they would be taking the matter to the highest court in the land, the Swiss Federal Court, which sits in Lausanne. In a press statement they reiterated how little affordable housing there was in the canton, adding how the two afore-mentioned members of the cantonal government seemed to be in denial about this, hence the leftist parties’ decision to organise “a humorous and harmless poster campaign” to show, too, how high-earning Michel and Tännler clearly “did not take locals’ concerns about the lack of affordable housing seriously”.

Konradin Franzini, the co-chairman of the Young Alternative Party said that it was only the Swiss Federal Court which could guarantee their rights. Furthermore, he criticised the amount of funding necessary to take the case further, meaning that only those with sufficient funds could take this course. It was the leftist parties’ general view that the judges’ rulings hitherto had been political. So far, the case has cost them CHF 29,000 with a further CHF 20,000 needed, Franzini adding that now crowdfunding was being used to raise sufficient costs.

It was clearly with great anticipation that representatives of the two left-wing parties looked forward greatly to the final ruling on this by the Swiss Federal Court earlier this month. They were expecting the court to rule on to what extent people in the public eye could expect violation of personal privacy. Had the posters overstepped the mark in the short time they were on public view? Hence it came something of a surprise, or rather shock, that, in its ruling, the Swiss Federal Court simply upheld the previously ruling by the Zug court.

When the representatives of the left-wing parties heard this, having gone to Lausanne themselves, they were initially speechless. Apparently, one critical point revolved around the fact that the core matter of the dispute was no longer extant, i.e. the posters were no longer up and the referendum had passed, hence the situation no longer prevailed, leaving the left-wingers to feel that, in removing them, as they had been ordered to do, they had, in effect, scored an own goal. “This is a verdict, yet not a verdict,” said another representative, confused by the legal complexity of it all. Four out of five federal judges sitting on this case agreed that the Zug supreme court was right not to have allowed an appeal in this matter, after it had been initially heard in the cantonal court. The Lausanne judges’ decision also means the left-wing parties having to pay CHF 9,000 in compensation. And, after all this, it still remains still unclear if the putting up of these posters was within the law or not.

What the representatives of the left-wing parties are awaiting now is a detailed written statement from the court, explaining, in clear language, the reasons for its ruling.