Lukas Berfuss on the deception of the Federal Council: the ballad of the widower Bieler and the Swiss Confederation

class=”sc-cffd1e67-0 iQNQmc”>

Domine conservare no inpacem “God keep us in peace” is written in stone inscription on the façade of the Swiss National Museum in Zurich. But even in the Swiss Confederation, no god protects from fate. And here it strikes people unexpectedly, with extreme cruelty, without guilt and unpreparedness. It makes more sense to rely on social solidarity and reduce risk through social insurance, old-age and survivors insurance, and AHV.

Max Beeler thought the same. He was 41 years old when he lost his wife. Accident. The father was alone with two small children. All three lived on the AHV. So, everything went wrong and right. The children have grown up. When the youngest daughter turned 18, the family received mail. It was a compensation fund. The fun is over, and so is the pension. “Already?” – asked Mr. Beeler, – I thought I would get this for life. If you were a woman, the cashier would say, you would do it. But that’s not true. Mr. Beeler, unfortunately you’re out of luck right now.

Max Beeler thought this was unfair. Is it not in the sacred Federal Constitution that men and women are equal to each other?

Max Beeler filed a complaint. Papperlapp, the compensation service replied, what do we care about the constitution, haven’t you read the social security law?

Max Bieler adhered to this position and took the case to a higher court. It supported the position of the compensation fund, and Mr. Bieler had to appeal to the Federal Court in Lausanne. And what was the verdict of the venerable, senior judges? Dear Mr. Beeler, you are right! This law is unjust, it violates the constitution. You know it. We know this. Everyone knows this. Change something about this? Unfortunately, no one can do this. We therefore reject your complaint.

And this is how Max Bieler found out: there is no constitutional court in Switzerland. Here Parliament can pass laws that violate the Constitution, and no one, not even the highest court, can do anything about it.

Max Bieler did not want to put up with this. Now in his late fifties, he brought the case to Strasbourg, the European Court of Human Rights. Incredible! Max Beeler sued the Confederacy! Even more incredible: Max Bieler was right even twice – before the Small Chamber and before the Grand Chamber. The ruling states that unequal treatment of the sexes is a violation of human rights. It couldn’t stay. The Confederacy should compensate Mr. Beeler and change the law.

It hurts. The Confederation, the Swiss Federal Council as the highest authority, was deceived. Impudence. A widower, a father, a citizen dares to sue us, the Confederation, the Federal Council, in court, and a foreign one at that? Outrageous! If only everyone did this!

This was not a financial problem: paying a lifelong pension to widowed men cost only twelve million Swiss francs a year. A stick of cardboard. However, in principle this was a problem. If only everyone had an idea and moved to Strasbourg! The Confederacy could not tolerate this. And I thought about revenge, about the example that needs to be set.

This Beeler and all other troublemakers in justice would have been taught more. Is he complaining about inequality? Is this unfair? Let him have equality! Why give pensions to men if we can take pensions away from women? We are submitting a law that would immediately cut everyone’s pensions. Then Beeler has his own equality, then everyone feels equally bad. And if no one receives a pension, no one can complain about inequality. Engrave!

So the Federal Council was laughing up its sleeve, and the good thing was that there was a lot of money up its sleeve. Almost a billion francs by 2040. This is exactly the amount they wanted to steal from the survivors. This is what you get out of it, widowers and widowers! Thanks to your friend, Mr. Max Beeler!

He had to learn: the Federal Council had turned a successful fair claimant into a useful idiot for social cuts.

It was ugly, and like any ugly act, I wanted to hide it behind beautiful words. The Federal Council sent the law for consultation and attached an “explanatory report.” It explained nothing, explained nothing, on the contrary, it was a document of deceit, deceit and malice.

It said that you cannot steal from anyone, on the contrary: you need to take into account social changes. Today people live in patchwork and cohabitation arrangements, but the old law only favored married couples. It’s old-fashioned and unfair. The Federal Council said it wanted the new law to be progressive and emancipatory. But this was only half the truth, and therefore it was a complete lie, even the report timidly admitted as early as page 36. Because this change “would result in only relatively small additional costs, because a small number of cases would be expected.” Between 2016 and 2020, Switzerland recorded just 123 average annual deaths of unmarried parents whose youngest child was under 25 years of age.

Ha! Twice as cunning, twice as cunning! Give it with a coffee spoon and take it with an excavator shovel.

What about the victims, widows and needy widowers? Didn’t the Strasbourg verdict also mention how difficult it was for her to re-establish herself in the economy after decades of family work? Well, the Federation Council explained how these low-income people should compensate for the lack of a pension: namely, through other “social payments, namely additional payments and social assistance.”

Triple the nasty and duck shit! The law stripped needy people of their insurance coverage and sent them on welfare. This is what you get for surrendering to the Confederacy! In Strasbourg! This should be a lesson for you!

And so inflated with satisfaction, so excited by a sense of revenge, the Federal Council knew no bounds in its deception. The main purpose of this template? Of course, implement the decision of Strasbourg! That’s what it says at the beginning of the report, that’s what it says at the beginning of the press release. But the judges in Strasbourg knew their Pappenheimers and took precautions. They explicitly emphasized that the ruling “should not be understood as encouraging the Swiss government to abolish or reduce qualifying pensions for women in order to correct the unequal treatment identified.”

It was stupid and the Federal Council didn’t want it to spread. And so he kept silent about it. There is not a word about this in his report, not even further than page 36. There is nothing special to fear: who in this country reads court decisions, especially if they come from Strasbourg?

But was this omission a deliberate deception of citizens? Didn’t the Federal Council overturn the sentence with this amendment? And was this not a violation of Article 5 of the Federal Constitution, which obliges the government to act in good faith? And wasn’t the Federation Council afraid of Article 312 of the Criminal Code, which threatens government officials with up to five years in prison if “they abuse their official powers in order to obtain unlawful benefits for themselves or someone else or with the aim of causing harm to another”?

None of this mattered to the Federal Council. For the Federal Department of the Interior this did not matter; the head of the Social Democrats, Alain Berset, was not as worried about this as his successor and party friend Elisabeth Bohm-Schneider. And the Federal Social Insurance Office also risked perverting the law by ignoring decency and the law, the director and Social Democrat Stefan Rossini, as well as Colette Nova, its deputy director and responsible for the AHV.

And here’s how Max Beeler learned the tale from history:
Don’t rely on the Swiss government
believe the Zurich inscription and your need
trust only the good Lord.

Source: Blick