Social Norms in Switzerland Archives

In the Swiss canton of Berne, a man from Syria received a conditional fine for calling a female doctor “disrespectful” and “inhumane”, among other things. Taking Switzerland’s inhumane art of punishing words to new heights, “the 29-year-old Syrian has now been convicted by the public prosecutor’s office for defamation by summary penalty order” (20min.ch).

Punishing Words

20 Minuten uses a sensationalist headline: “Man (29) calls doctor ‘incompetent’ – now he has a criminal record.” But let’s be honest: calling the doctor ‘incompetent’ is almost certainly not the reason for the conviction.

The decisive word is “inhumane.”

20 Minuten writes: “Specifically, he wrote: ‘How can someone like Dr. (XXXXX) work as a doctor? Cheeky / Incompetent / Inhumane / Disrespectful.’ With this rating, the man degraded the doctor as a human being, according to the prosecutor.”

The phrase “degraded her as a human being” clearly points to “inhumane.”

And yes: calling someone “inhumane” can constitute a criminal offense in Switzerland, because it can be interpreted as an attack on their human dignity – especially when grammatically applied to the person, not to their actions.

Why “inhumane” matters legally

Linguistically, “inhumane” modifies the person, not the conduct.

Had he written:

• “The treatment was inhumane,”

this would have been a figurative description of medical care.

But he wrote:

• “Someone like Dr. X … inhumane.”

This directly targets the human being, not the medical procedure.

Under Swiss law (Art. 177 StGB), that crosses into criminal insult.

The context makes the conviction feel absurd

In a medical context, anyone with basic common sense understands “inhumane” as a metaphor describing harsh, cold, or empathy-lacking treatment, not a biological denial of personhood.
Even a child understands that.

But Swiss prosecutors applied the law in the most rigid, literal, unforgiving way possible, punishing words.

The man did not linguistically attach the adjective to the treatment but to the doctor. That is the entire technicality on which this case rests.

And then there is the human dimension of punishing words

There are several obvious problems:

1. The man is not a native German speaker.

Coming from Syria, it is extremely likely he simply did not grasp the semantic nuance between criticizing a person and criticizing a medical procedure.

Any reasonable person would forgive that instantly.

2. The doctor actually filed a criminal complaint.

That alone tells you everything about their personality.

Most likely a younger doctor, part of the classic “generation assh*le” cohort of physicians: highly educated, financially cushioned (papa paid for university), professionally confident, but emotionally hyper-defensive and authoritarian.

3. Swiss prosecutors love cases like this.

Unlike the UK or US, Swiss prosecution has a deeply rooted authoritarian, formalistic, punitive culture.

Many prosecutors end up in the job precisely because they enjoy exercising power over others. This is a systemic selection issue in Switzerland: give small people a lot of power, and they will (ab)use it.

4. Xenophobia plays a role.

It is no secret that Swiss law enforcement and prosecution act more aggressively against foreigners, especially men from the Middle East or with darker skin.

This pattern repeats itself again and again.

What he was allowed to say

Statements that criticize professional behavior, not the person, are legally protected opinions:

“incompetent”
“cheeky” / “arrogant”
“disrespectful”

As long as they reflect subjective impressions connected to medical interaction, they fall under free expression.

Even if incorrect, they would at worst fall under civil law (unfair competition), not criminal law.

The word “inhumane” is the single pivot that moved this case into the penal code.

Conclusion

Formally, the conviction is legally correct under Swiss law.

But on a substantive, human, and cultural level, it is:

overly harsh
blind to linguistic nuance
unforgiving toward a non-native speaker
and deeply revealing of Swiss prosecutorial and medical power culture (authoritarian)

It exposes a system that reacts with punishment instead of common sense, Switzerland’s inhumane art of punishing words.

Punishment as a Children’s Pop Song – Welcome to Switzerland

The Swiss dialect band “Stärneföifi” turned this form of punishment into a hit song. Their debut song “Heicho, ohni Znacht is Bett” (Come home, no dinner before bed), released in 1995, gained unexpected popularity after a 1994 Swiss TV show appearance, leading to the band’s formation. The song’s chorus is even harsher than the title, saying: “Come home, get slapped, then go to bed without dinner” (original German: “Heicho, eis a d’Ohre und dänn ohni Znacht is Bett”). “Stärneföifi” became a staple in Swiss children’s music, disbanding in 2018.

How Is That Possible?

How could a song about child punishment top the charts? The fact that children find humor in parodying parental threats of slaps and skipped dinners is a positive sign. It shows that they aren’t so oppressed that they can’t laugh at these outdated authoritarian methods – and, together with “Stärneföifi,” feel a sense of rebellion against them. However…

It still says something about the culture when outdated, authoritarian parenting methods are celebrated in songs. The positive side is that the public performance brings the issue into the open. The sad part is that it remains a relevant issue.

The song "Ohni Znacht is Bett" is musically inspired by "Iko Iko" by the Dixie Cups. In 2009, "Stärneföifi" recorded a new version together with the Dixie Cups. Whether the song has earned a place in Swiss folklore remains to be seen.
In Swiss dialect, "Stärneföifi" is a polite expression of annoyance or shock, similar to "holy moly." However, men who use it may no longer be taken seriously in "tough" male circles (except perhaps at a student fraternity drinking party).

Insights Soon on this Blog:

The Zurich Gnomes - Swiss Eugenics Gone Wrong?
The Internet and the Mobification of Society
Understanding Switzerland: "Sauhäfeli, Saudeckeli"
Why the Swiss Legal System is Biased
Why Switzerland is Overrated

SMALL SWITZERLAND: GAPS IN THE MEDIA COVERAGE

In most of its scandals,

Switzerland proves to be too small,
and its elite too tightly interconnected (due to Switzerland’s small size, everyone is practically on top of each other),

for its media to report independently and objectively. At best, one receives politically tinted reports and reports that blatantly reveal who is good friends with whom. Switzerland is simply too small to be independent in its media reporting.

Swiss Media Landscape: Manageable Political Blocks

The Swiss media landscape is neatly divided into political blocks, with the bourgeois block having the far greatest media reach.

Most media are thoroughly entangled with politics and the economy, and with their particular interests.

This division of the media into political blocks should at least ensure that the different political currents of the country are balanced. One would think that for every scandal, there would be a publication interested in reporting it from the perspective of their political masters. But this is not the case. Switzerland is simply too small: there are too few editorially independent media that would cover everything that is objectively considered a scandal in an independent and neutral manner. Too many Swiss media report selectively and distort reality according to the agenda of their paymasters. And too often, this agenda is a bourgeois one. In these editorial offices, reports about grievances, which at least people with a social value attitude would consider grievances, simply do not fit. Such reports are not of interest. Much more interesting are reports that reflect the vain interests of the bourgeoisie. The same phenomenon occurs, in the opposite direction of course, in the few Swiss media with a left-wing profile.

Coverage of Public Interest through Media Diversity

In a large country with a colorful, diverse media landscape, there would surely be a paper for every politically colored scandal. Right-wing papers are interested in the scandals of the Left and vice versa, the papers of the Left in the scandals of the Rich. Thus, the media landscapes of Western countries once comprehensively covered the public interest with reports from various political viewpoints. In Switzerland, this coverage does not work because the Swiss media landscape is one-sidedly right-leaning and reports in a one-sidedly right-leaning filtered manner. The few remaining editorially independent and left-leaning media lack the capacity to counterbalance the one-sidedness of the Swiss media landscape due to their marginalization. Therefore, reports that would be standard for publication in other countries are often overlooked in Swiss media.

Gaps in the Spectrum

Firstly, Swiss media houses fail to fully cover the political spectrum. Almost all of them revel in the bourgeois, right-wing corner. Secondly, reports on matters that do not clearly align with the agenda of a Swiss media house stand no chance of being published. If neither distinctly bourgeois nor distinctly left-wing media pick up a story, it simply falls through the gaps in the spectrum of Swiss media coverage. And no one is interested. Because no one cares. Why should they?

The Primitive Relationship of Switzerland to the ECHR

Switzerland has signed and ratified the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). So far, so good? However, Switzerland has not signed the Additional Protocol to the ECHR that provides effective protection against discrimination. In this regard, Switzerland is in the “good company” of France and the United Kingdom, which also have not signed this protocol. As a result, the scope of discrimination protection under the ECHR for Switzerland is limited to the articles of the ECHR itself. This means that cases of discrimination related to Swiss federal law, cantonal, or municipal laws—which account for the majority of discrimination cases—cannot be brought before the European Court of Human Rights. What would officially be considered a violation of human rights in the sense of discrimination in any civilized European country, cannot, regrettably, be considered “isolated cases” in Switzerland. Rather, discriminatory denials of rights and abuses of law, to name just two examples from the arsenal of discrimination, are commonplace in Switzerland. If the Swiss can afford outright discrimination hunts on minorities, considered regressive in every civilized culture, then we should not hesitate to call Swiss culture primitive by name.