“I am not afraid of the many asylum applications”

class=”sc-3778e872-0 cKDKQr”>

The new SP federal councilor Elisabeth Baume-Schneider (59) has been in office for about 100 days. On December 7, 2022, Jura surprisingly managed to get elected to the state government. “But I am not a random federal council member,” she emphasizes again and again.

Baume-Schneider welcomes Blick to her office in Bern for an interview. Over coffee, the new Minister of Justice explains what she wants to tackle in her department.

Blick: Madam Bundesrat, the number of asylum seekers increased significantly last year and up to 40,000 new applications are expected this year. Doesn’t that scare you?
Elisabeth Baume-Schneider: No, that doesn’t scare me. 40,000 asylum applications is the maximum scenario, about 25,000 to 27,000 people is more realistic. Due to the war in Ukraine, the number of current cases increased last year, but now we can deal with current cases more quickly. However, the reception of those seeking protection remains a major challenge that we can only take on together with the cantons and municipalities. I am also in talks with my colleague Viola Amherd to create additional capacity for the summer, when experience shows that numbers will increase.

Do you want to provide more army housing?
Yes, exactly.

Also to alleviate the situation in the cantons? The Windisch case caused enormous waves. You’ve never spoken about it publicly before.
The communication between those responsible was a cacophony, a big misunderstanding. At the end of the story, however, little was left of the initial proposition ‘tenants out, refugees in’. The Secretariat of State for Migration and the Federal Government had nothing to do with the homeowner firing his tenants for allegedly taking in asylum seekers! The Windisch case, however, is a seismograph for issues that we should take seriously. It is not acceptable that vulnerable groups are played off against each other.

The risk remains that tenants will be evicted elsewhere to make way for asylum seekers.
When a single mother with two children is put on the street like this, it is a scandal. But you have to talk to the landlord. It has nothing to do with the refugees. The homeowner wants to demolish and build a new one. That’s why he fired his tenants. Mistakes were made in the Windisch case. The lesson from this should be that it is crucial to always maintain a dialogue and to build a relationship of trust.

For the SVP, the case is grist to the mill. In the election year, you yourself increasingly become the target of the party. How do you deal with that?
It’s not fun, but it doesn’t scare me either. Rather, it encourages me to find solutions to the problems as a member of the Bundesrat. We must try to solve the migration issue in a pragmatic way at European level. We must respect the right of asylum. We must provide protection to those who need it. But also be strict if there is no right to asylum. However: if SVP targets me, they must not forget who caused this situation: Mr. Putin. He started a terrible war that forced millions of people to flee to Europe, including Switzerland.

Speaking of Ukraine, your colleague Alain Berset caused criticism with his statement about “war madness”.
I don’t want to judge his statement. But I agree with him that we should not answer war with war, not with weapons. Switzerland responds through other means: international law, humanitarian aid and admission of Ukrainians. This is Switzerland’s contribution with its neutrality, its legal system and its humanitarian tradition. I think Alain Berset wanted to show that too.

Don’t you believe in the idea of ​​having Germany buy back 25 Leopard tanks?
We will discuss what is legally possible in the Bundesrat. There will certainly be a lot to discuss. I can’t say more about it.

Other topic: You want to enshrine the non-violent upbringing of children in the Civil Code.
With this, Switzerland is sending an important signal! The kids are missing a lobby these days. The principle of a non-violent upbringing values ​​the family. We want to submit the bill to parliament before the end of this year.

So far, the Federal Council has argued that the Penal Code is sufficient because a slap in the face is already considered assault and can be reported. What changes with your template?
It’s about showing that as a society we have expectations of parents. The design therefore wants to prohibit humiliating violence on a physical level, but also on a psychological and verbal level. At the same time, she wants to give children and parents better access to counseling centers to prevent violent situations.

They speak of “degrading” violence that parents should avoid. Is there “dignified” violence that is permissible?
That’s what I wondered at first too!

And?
If a child needs vaccinations and is afraid of needles, hold them too so they can get vaccinated. Or if a child wants to run into the street, pull them back to avoid an accident. In these cases, you use “legitimate” force to protect the child. We must make a clear distinction here.

Some parents think that a “pet in between” can do no harm. Are you defying the police now?
No. Neither the parliament that called for this law nor I want parents to be criminalized. That is why we enshrine it in civil law. However, the law sends a clear signal that violence should not be trivialized just like that. You are not supposed to raise children! Plus, many parents don’t stop at a hit – unfortunately. In such cases, we must intervene in family life.

Has your hand never slipped on your children?
No. But I was quite energetic in getting my sons down from a tall tree when they climbed it and were in danger.

What do you advise parents in a delicate situation to avoid violence?
I don’t do family counseling. But if you realize that you will get angry in a crisis situation, you can back off or let the child play in the nursery for a few minutes so that you can calm down. Or maybe talking to your partner will help you shut down. But ask my husband, he did more educational work with our sons. (laughs)

The tremors of the banks around Credit Suisse are currently the main concern of politicians. Shouldn’t the federal government attach additional conditions to its state guarantees, such as the preservation of jobs?
We intervened to prevent the collapse of Credit Suisse and to protect the Swiss financial center. We can only apply emergency law to what we consider to be a compelling need for protection. Further terms would be legally questionable. For this reason, the federal government cannot draw up specifications for the field of employment. We should leave that to the companies.

How do you rate Sergio Ermotti’s return to the top of UBS?
I don’t know him personally, but he is recognized in the banking world. He formed UBS for many years.

Do you have an account with CS, just like your colleague Karin Keller-Sutter?
No, I’m from the Jurassic Cantonal Bank.

And would you welcome a Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry (PUK) into the CS crisis?
That decision rests solely with Parliament.

Source:Blick