Even empty phrases occasionally provide insights. For example, in the case of Federal Councilor Alain Berset. As a Social Democrat, he is a member of a party that constantly and rightly emphasizes and laments the social differences in Switzerland and the world and tries to reduce them. Berset said last week in the National Council that the current and heated debate about Swiss historical images was dividing the country "unnecessarily". Interposed question: Are there necessary divisions that the country has to endure? The striking differences in income and wealth, for example? Unquestionably acceptable, since they are important for the success of the big banks and for their shareholders at home and abroad? And what about the increasingly difficult access for foreigners to citizenship - and thus to political rights? One question remains: What kind of democrats are these who deprive other residents and taxpayers - sometimes for decades - of political participation? Is this a society with limited democracy, a GmbD?

No, such questions were not Berset's intention. He was guided by the bourgeois and boring national tradition of talking down contradictions. Anyone who asks questions and makes demands outside of this unwritten agreement remains an outsider. This happened to the Social Democrats until they accepted national defense and stopped talking about the class struggle that the bourgeoisie continued to wage.

Where rifts open up, calls for harmonization no longer help. Specifically, in Switzerland - as in other European countries - a culture war has been steaming for years, driven by traditionalist/fundamentalist Christians, pro-lifers and nationalist economic liberals. Battlegrounds are topics like families (exclusively for heteros?), registered partnerships, abortion, drugs and national identity in a Christian-Jewish Occident (with or without Muslims?). Or in other words: Many social liberalizations of past decades are to be stopped or reversed. (If you want to read how intolerant, narrow-minded and joyless Swiss society was in the 1950s to 1970s, read for an hour in the late journalist Max Schmid's book. Democracy from Case to Case. Zurich 1976.)

This national-conservative alliance has a starting advantage. It cultivates images of history that were still a bourgeois consensus until the mid-1980s, summarized in the formula "Switzerland as a special case," which could also be used to justify political isolation (no membership in international organizations such as the UN or the EU). The rest was and is folklore: no battle celebration without men in Landsknecht uniforms, no OLMA guest canton without halberd bearers.

These Swiss myths dominate even in places where one would not expect it. Historian Thomas Maissen, once NZZ editor, then history professor in Heidelberg, now director of the German Historical Institute in Paris, mentions an illuminating example: almost all of his interviews on Swiss historical images were illustrated in the print media by the editors either with "some copperplate engraving of the federal oath" or with a photograph from World War II. They would thus "reduce Swiss history to two phases of heroic resistance against foreign villains," on the one hand the Habsburg bailiffs, on the other the "Nazi henchmen. This is the construct that Blocher & Mörgeli & Köppel are trying to spread in these weeks. They respond to criticism with insinuations, like Christoph Blocher: Maissen is belittling Switzerland because he wants to lead it into the EU. Conclusion: Controversy is necessary. Even media professionals, whether in editorial offices, PR bureaus or advertising agencies, cannot avoid turning more to the enlightened and urban Switzerland. And to the liberal traditions that were able to develop in Switzerland against the resistance of patricians, clergy and mountain farmers.

Hans Stutz is a journalist in Lucerne. He is also a member of the Cantonal Council and the Green Party.
 

Christmas is so close' and that's why we're giving the NZZ a gift for once and claiming that it is the intellectual flagship of the Swiss-German bourgeoisie and thus of Switzerland. But will this remain so after the ousting of the previous editor-in-chief Markus Spillmann, also head of journalism? After all, the NZZ Board of Directors has done quite a bit in recent weeks to minimize the paper's journalistic reputation.

The disputes over Spillmann's successor reflect the disagreement over the direction of Swiss domestic politics and its disconnection from the internationally oriented economic world. This is not the first time.

But let's take things one step at a time. Weltwoche publisher Roger Köppel opened the national conservative wish list: The new editor-in-chief must reconcile the bourgeois camp, defuse the neurotic trench warfare. And "bring the SVP and FDP onto a more or less common line against the left". Weeks ago, another Blocher apologist had already called for something similar. At stake is "the future of civic Switzerland," wrote BaZ head and FDP member Markus Somm on All Saints' Day: If the FDP and SVP did not find each other, we would be facing "very difficult times." The two parties would therefore have to enter into list combinations and, after the 2015 elections, be in a position "to determine the composition of the Federal Council by means of their own majority in parliament." Somm can only make this demand because he downplays the differences between the two parties on foreign policy. Specifically: How does Switzerland develop its relationship with international organizations, from the UN to the EU to the European Court of Human Rights? And thus also with international law, not only with mandatory law.

The two right-wing bourgeois editors-in-chief as well as their political foster father are still fighting against the paradigm shift in federal politics. Until the mid-1980s, the motto of all right-wing parties and the national government was "special case" (international trade YES, political integration into international organizations NO), but now the slogan is that Switzerland is a special case like other countries. This means that it is economically integrated into the global economy (especially in the financial and raw materials sectors) and is also politically active in international organizations. This policy is well supported democratically. The national conservatives have lost many referendums on foreign policy in recent decades (UN accession, bilateral treaties, etc.). The fight for EU accession is the last remaining contest. This accession is just as inevitable as the case of freedom from tax evasion. We remember Federal Councillor Rudolf Merz: "You will cut your teeth on banking secrecy".

Bourgeois Switzerland can no longer do otherwise. Since the collapse of "real existing socialism" and since the almost worldwide implementation of neoliberal economic ideas and the corresponding dismantling of national obstacles, the Swiss economic world is also no longer oriented toward national disputes. Even SVP tribune Christoph Blocher has noticed that people read "the NZZ today primarily because of the business section and possibly the foreign section, no longer because of the political reporting. The NZZ board of directors endangered this strong journalistic pillar by flirting with an isolationist like Markus Somm. It was the NZZ correspondents who first warned the board of directors of the "end of the culture of a liberal and cosmopolitan NZZ.

The cost to bourgeois Switzerland of evading international debates with nationalist rabble-rousing has been precisely described by historian Thomas Maissen - once also an NZZ editor - in his book "Verweigerte Erinnerung. Dormant Assets and the Swiss World War Debate 1989-2004" precisely described. He ends: "In order to be competitive worldwide and to be perceived at all, however, the necessary interpretative alternatives must be anchored supra- and transnationally, and that means in the Swiss context: European."

Hans Stutz lives in Lucerne. He is a journalist and cantonal councilor for the Green Party.
 

The Neue Zürcher Zeitung has rarely received praise for dedicated research. At least during the many decades of liberal dominance at the federal level and bourgeois dominance in the cantons, its editors and correspondents lived comfortably as embedded journalists, like private scholars, aware of their importance to the state. That is history. Today's working conditions, especially in the private and for-profit media houses, are less comfortable: In the thinned-out editorial offices, there is little time for reflection and follow-up; the news has to go online or over the air immediately. Be first, maybe be right. Corrections can always be made later, if absolutely necessary. Messages processed by media departments reduce production stress as well as editorial costs.

Last weekend, NZZ editor Adi Kälin complained that "the information behavior of the authorities" had "changed considerably" over the past twenty years. It would be embarrassing if they had closed their minds to developments in technology and the media. Kälin then criticizes: "Negative information" would be disseminated by government and administration "as casually as possible" or they would even hide it "quite well", for supposedly "great and important things". In plain language: More and more "public relations instead of information".

Kälin's description is not new, but accurate, except where he constructs a contradiction "principle of publicity", according to which "in principle" everything is public if no personal rights are violated. The list of exceptions is longer, but that is a detail. It is also undisputed that the principle of publicity is unpopular with many administrations and governments. The only thing is: it is not an obligation for the authorities to provide information according to the ideas of individual media professionals. It is a tool that curious media professionals could use. The only thing is that there are many indications that the introduction was preceded by heated discussions, and that in practice only a few media professionals invoke it. One example. In 2013, just 469 applications were submitted across the entire federal administration. Every application means work, but there is hardly any time for that in the editorial stress. Conclusion: If you want more media control of government and administration, you have to increase the editorial budget again. And perhaps this even requires increased state support for the media.

And finally this: Transparency is also unloved in the private sector. In the last session, the conservative-dominated Council of States passed a whistleblower law. It decided that employees should not be allowed to go to the media in the event of internal misconduct. They would only be able to go to an internal reporting office or to external authorities. This solution is a step backwards. Until now, the Federal Supreme Court has stated that employees may go to the media "if the authority remains inactive - and if the circumstances justify it". Lawyer Dominique Strebel, once a journalist and now head of studies at the Media Training Center (MAZ), even considers the Council of States' regulation to be a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights. He points to a Strasbourg decision that ruled in favor of a German geriatric nurse: Although she had damaged the reputation and business interests of her employer, in a democratic society the public's interest in learning about abuses in geriatric care prevails. Let's see if NZZ editors will lobby for a strong whistleblowing regulation in the coming weeks, so that the National Council corrects the Council of States.

Hans Stutz is a journalist in Lucerne. He also sits on the Cantonal Council for the Green Party.
 

The same parties, associations, and commentators have been harping on the "Anti-Racism Law ARG" for almost twenty years, using the same set pieces over and over again. Particularly popular is the complaint about "attacks on the freedom of expression", also put forward by bourgeois right-wing extremists who like to cover up media representatives with defamation suits. The accusation of "political correctness" is also rarely missing. Not even Arthur K. Vogel, editor-in-chief of Der Bund. As early as winter, he was already getting worked up "about the Sharia of political correctness," about "a body of laws and sanctions whose authors and enforcers" were unknown. Now, at the beginning of summer, he comments on the acquittal obtained by Dominic Lüthard, president of the right-wing extremist party National Oriented Swiss PNOS, before the Supreme Court. Lüthard had first warned of the threat of "Islamization" at a rally in Langenthal in October 2010, then wiped five cardboard minarets off a Swiss flag with a broom. Is Lüthard really just saying that the five existing Swiss minarets should disappear? After all, those who want to discriminate have practice in speaking in symbols when they want to exclude or disenfranchise minorities. Two organizations file criminal charges. Vogel accuses them of wanting to "prosecute unpopular political actions or expressions of opinion". In plain language: Vogel discredits what he claims to defend. He does not consider that Lüthard, with the five cardboard minarets that stand for the five existing Swiss minarets, may also have wanted to expel all Muslims from the country, which would then be punishable. Conclusion: The acquittal of the Bernese chief justice is understandable, but Vogel's reservations against the complainants and the public prosecutor are not.

Incidentally, a second observation is remarkable: The media persistently pay attention to questionable criminal charges against celebrities, leaving other criminal proceedings against racism to the left. The proceedings against Willy Schmidhauser, once president of the Swiss Democrats SD of the canton of Thurgau, only received coverage in the local media recently. The proceedings began in November 2009, a few days before the vote on the ban on minarets, with a nationally reported story in the SonntagsZeitung. The SD man claimed at that time - after arbitrarily selected Koran quotations - in Ulrich Schlüer's Schweizerzeit column that a "friendly federal coexistence" with Muslims was impossible. Immigration and naturalization of Muslims would have to be reconsidered. Yes, it remains "only the mass home creation of Muslims ". After the first media reports, the SVP National Councilor Schlüer hurriedly wrote of a "blunder ". Geneva Muslims filed a criminal complaint months later, because no one else had done it and also the prosecution authorities had not become active, although the racism criminal norm is one of the official offenses. After almost three years, the public prosecutor discontinued the proceedings against Schlüer. With understandable reasoning, in the first place the author is responsible for a published text. Remarkable, however: the discontinuation order proves the lack of quality control on the Schweizerzeit editorial staff. Both editor-in-chief Schlüer and "final editor" Reinhard Wegelin successfully defended themselves by pointing out that they had not looked at Schmidhauser's text at all before putting it in the paper. The main thing was that the length was right. Now the district court of Andelfingen has ruled in the first instance: Schmidhauser's text is racially discriminatory. The verdict is not yet legally binding. Some regional media report, the rest remain silent. Also Arthur K. Vogel's Der Bund. Silence can also be used to create an atmosphere.

Hans Stutz, Lucerne
Cantonal Councilor for the Green Party and author of the chronology "Racism in Switzerland".
 

Oscar Freysinger, the big shot of Lower Valais and Swiss politics, has already come a long way, even on Russian television. He recently gave an interview to the state-affiliated broadcaster Pro Russia on the ousting of the government in Ukraine: "Two out of three people involved in this coup are Nazis or fascists." Freysinger, who has also appeared in front of right-wing extremist audiences, criticizes the fact that right-wing extremists are in the Ukrainian government. Shouldn't he actually be supporting them? The opportunist politician wants to get even closer to the EU, which is why he rails against "the big politicians of the EU" who make "big speeches about democracy on the main square in Kiev".

However, although Freysinger is exaggerating, he is basically right. It is gradually dawning on the German-language media that the new Ukrainian government may be aligned with Europe and the European Union, but two members of the transitional government (Right Sector and Svoboda) represent extreme right-wing positions. The "Right Sector" is a conglomerate of racist to openly neo-Nazi groups that have increasingly been acting as vigilantes or free corps since the change of government. And in December 2012, the EU Parliament was still concerned about Svoboda's election success, stating that it was an expression of a "growing nationalist mood in Ukraine" and that "racist, anti-Semitic and xenophobic views" were at odds with the EU's fundamental values. This is now irrelevant, as European politicians see an opportunity to detach Ukraine from Russia's sphere of influence.

The populist Freysinger, on the other hand, is once again exploiting a gap in the media. In the days of the Ukrainian government coup, the Swiss media ignored the presence of right-wing extremists on the Maidan. The first reports that right-wing extremists were also active among the demonstrators and revolters were followed by a reference to Russian propaganda. (Which it was.) But even from a distance, the interested observer could see signs. A Swiss television news report was revealing: the announcer reported on "radical nationalists" among the demonstrators, and the film showed a group of men marching behind a Celtic flag. This is seen as a sign of the supremacy of the white race and is often used by neo-fascist groups. This is not the first time that Swiss television journalists have failed to recognize the political message of a flag. Media representatives also had to explain the meaning of Freysinger's imperial war flag ("popular with right-wing extremists today") to the people from Leutschenbach after the broadcast.

For years, Swiss media professionals have shown a remarkable unwillingness to clearly name parties or politicians to the right of the bourgeois right, whether as radical right, right-wing radicals, neo-Nazis, fascists or right-wing extremists. They take refuge in empty phrases, especially the popular "ultra-nationalist". The NZZ, for example, wrote in recent months about "Serbia's election winner Aleksandar Vucic", who "only six years ago was the anti-Western ultra-nationalist with Greater Serbian ideas". He belonged to the party of Vojislav Seselj, "a warmonger of the worst kind" (NZZ). And another time, the NZZ mused about the "influence of ultra-nationalists" who would further restrict "Netanyahu's ability to compromise with the Palestinians". And in May 2013, the paper from Falkenplatz reported that the "ultra-nationalists" of "Ataka" were present in the Bulgarian parliament alongside two major parties and representatives of the Turkish minority. Ataka, however, is committed to marginalizing the Turkish minority and Muslims in Bulgaria. According to the NZZ, the Ukrainian "Right Sector" is also "ultra-nationalist". But so far, there is no ultranationalist party, neither a program nor an ideology nor a definition derived from a scientist. Just media and politician chatter. Not even Wikipedia knows what to do and directs searchers straight to the term "right-wing extremism".

Hans Stutz lives in Lucerne and works as a journalist specializing in racism and right-wing extremism.
 

Scandals have their regularity, one might think: The revelation is followed by the media and politicians charging and enriching it, it ends in a resignation, an apology or criminal proceedings, sometimes even in changes to the law. But, of course, only if the media professionals making the revelations have worked seriously. However, even nasty accusations end without scandal if nobody wants to be outraged, whatever the motives (consideration? dependency?).

Specifically: In Weltwoche, the retired journalist Urs Paul Engeler publishes a total slating of FDP President Philipp Müller, based on SVP positions. However, he also mentions: "In a witty conversation with good colleagues, he warns (always with a cowardly ban on quoting him verbatim) of an 'impending negation' of Switzerland." He also describes Müller as anti-African. As a reminder: Müller began his national political career as a propagandist of xenophobic issues and initiatives, usually without making defamatory remarks about foreigners. This was in contrast to the traditional xenophobes, such as the Swiss Democrats (SD). However, the aim of the political initiatives was no different: to make it more difficult for foreigners to enter and settle in Switzerland and to weaken their rights, whether in terms of entry, the labor market or access to political rights. This is still the case today. Just recently, the FDP party president called on the Council of States to follow the National Council's anti-naturalization stance on the new naturalization law.

There is another story: In spring 2002, Müller writes to the columnist, also the author of the chronology "Racism in Switzerland": it seems to him "very questionable that a publication deals exclusively with incidents involving foreigners". It is in the nature of racism and discrimination that it is directed against minorities, even if the victims have a Swiss passport. The columnist also cites an attack by three young Swiss men on a Swiss man of black skin as evidence. Müller dismisses this with the comment that the victim was hardly recognizable as a typical Swiss. So is he a Swiss with limited rights? Engeler's accusation is explosive; the terms "Vernegerung" and "Verjudung" come from National Socialist jargon, not to mention the fact that the term "Negro" is derogatory. But it was not until two days later that the Tages-Anzeiger published a carefully worded summary. Müller says for the first time what he will repeat in the coming days: "It is well known that Mr. Engeler has been systematically and viciously attacking FDP politicians such as Federal Councillors Johann Schneider-Ammann and Didier Burkhalter, Karin Keller-Sutter and myself for years. The latest tirade fits perfectly into this scurrilous collection of misrepresentations and distorted facts by this writer." Wherever Müller makes himself heard, he never explicitly denies the accusation, not even on his homepage. He also told Blick-Online that he would not be filing a defamation suit. The tabloid leaves it at that.

Would things have been different a few years ago? Former Blick editor-in-chief Werner de Schepper, now at Tele Bärn, writes in the Aargauer Zeitung: "No president who stands on the ground of democracy can leave this accusation standing. It is too outrageous for that." Then there is media silence. Only questions remain: Do journalists and politicians already regard Weltwoche and Urs Paul Engeler as so untrustworthy that they no longer respond to their accusations? Are the editorial offices afraid that they will become part of an SVP campaign to discipline the FDP and therefore refrain from asking further questions? Is this still critical journalism? Or do media professionals only consider racist statements to be an issue if they come from right-wing extremists or SVP men?

Hans Stutz, Lucerne.
Journalist specializing in racism and right-wing extremism, also a Green cantonal councillor.
 

Bürglen is a municipality in the canton of Thurgau, not far from Weinfelden, with around 3,000 inhabitants, including families who practice the Islamic faith. Around 50 Muslim schoolgirls are said to attend school in the community. Around two years ago, two 14-year-old girls applied to wear headscarves to school. The school board rejects the request, based on the school regulations. The Federal Supreme Court ruled that this rejection could not be based on a sufficient legal basis and that the case was not suitable as a "landmark judgment". Daniel Vischer, lawyer for the two schoolgirls and a member of the National Council of the Greens, gained the impression during the public discussion of the ruling that "a general ban on headscarves will have a very difficult time", but the question remains open.

The verdict is the news of the day. Most of the media - with the exception of the NZZ and NZZ am Sonntag - acted as the Blick editorial team once did in the 1960s, in the early years of the National Action NA. The tabloid didn't want to scare off the Italophobes, so the editors decided to give the xenophobes the floor and back it up with a "sharp commentary". This is how Turi Honegger, editor of Blick at the time, describes it in his novel "Nightmares". Kari Kälin, editor of the Neue Luzerner Zeitung NLZ, once editor of Weltwoche for a short time, is a good example. He sees "no good reason to curtail the religious freedom of Muslim schoolgirls". Kälin publishes a total of three reports, all of which are "a steep pass for opponents of the headscarf", with only one left-wing dissenting vote. On the other hand, he gives a detailed interview to Necla Kelek, a leading critic of Muslims, and later acts as a mouthpiece for those anti-Muslim national conservatives who are about to launch an initiative for a general ban on veils.

The tabloid takes a different approach today. It lets lawyer Vischer and a federal judge have their say, with Britta Krauss' commentary ending: "Ultimately, integration is the goal. And the headscarf gets in the way." She thus confirms a well-known observation: the demand for "integration" provides the pretext for discrimination or for the propagation of conventional patterns of behavior. Integration appears - as the NZZ commentator Christoph Wehrli fears - as "complete assimilation to a supposed majority culture and average secularism".

The selection of quoted voices also confirms the widespread distorted image. The fundamental rights ignoramus Christophe Darbelley and well-known Islamophobic voices such as Alice Schwarzer and Necla Kelek make appearances, as do the SVP men of the minaret ban initiative and the women of the "Forum for a Progressive Islam", who want to enforce an enlightened religion through secular bans. Always popular as defenders of the headscarf is the fundamentalist convert group of the Islamic Central Council, as if to give the impression that Islam is fundamentalist in itself. Only the St. Galler Tagblatt inquires with a representative Islamic umbrella organization, no one inquires with those Muslims who - like the majority of members of Christian denominations - belong to the community but do not or hardly practice the faith.

Discriminatory proposals against Muslims enjoy majority support in Swiss society, as was previously the case against other minority religions. Political scientist Adrian Vatter noted shortly after the adoption of the minaret ban initiative: "The popular decisions on religious minorities over the last 160 years are, in short, a cascade of decisions to delay, reject and tighten." The Swiss-German media are currently doing a lot to ensure that this remains the case.

Andres Büchi, editor-in-chief of the Beobachter, demonstrates what is in store for us. Just a few hours after the decision, he was already spreading a line of thought on his homepage that is commonplace among Muslim enemies. He refers to intolerant Muslim countries and the "fundamental interpretation of Islamic values" to then call for intolerance here, all in the tone of a concerned citizen.

Hans Stutz lives in Lucerne. He is an atheist, journalist and Green cantonal councillor.