Swiss voters on Sunday decisively rejected a call to require women to do national service in the military, civil protection teams or other forms, as all men must do already.

Official results. with counting still ongoing in some areas after a referendum, showed that more than half of Switzerland’s cantons, or states, had rejected the “citizen service initiative” by wide margins. That meant it was defeated, because proposals need a majority of both voters and cantons to pass.

Voters also heavily rejected a separate proposal to impose a new national tax on individual donations or inheritances of more than 50 million francs ($62 million), with the revenues to be used to fight the impact of climate change and help Switzerland meet its ambitions to have net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

all 86 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 21 points 11 months ago (1 child)

It feels very strange to be a US citizen and actually be able to judge another country for making a silly conservative decision. Woo?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] 87 points 11 months ago (12 children)
  • [–] 69 points 11 months ago (3 children)

    Afaik, Switzerland is a very conservative place. So that pretty much aligns with what you said.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 59 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    They are so conservative that women got the right to vote federally in 1971. In one Canton they only got the right to vote at the local level in 1990 after a Supreme Court decision. They were the last Western Democracy to do so.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 34 points 11 months ago

    Sexist is debatable but... yeah

    But everyone worshiping the rich? Yeah, that is Switzerland in a nutshell. A decade or so ago I spent a week in Switzerland on holiday and... even the state funded museums kinda felt like "And then so and so developed a really cool technology that saved countless lives. AND THEN THEY GOT RICH!!! FRANCA FRANCA BILS Y'ALL!!!! And here is what they bought with it and the house they lived in and how much paper it takes to print out their monthly statement and... Oh, the tech? Whatever, nobody cares about that"

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago* (1 child)

    The main counter argument was that this tax would make Switzerland quite unattractive to rich people, and that they would simple leave the country so that they don't have to pay this tax. And then Switzerland would even lose tax income overall.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 72 points 11 months ago (22 children)

    If men have to sign up for the draft then it is only fair that women have to too. It’s unfair that only men have to risk being drafted and losing so much of their life to war.

  • source
  • hideshow 22 child comments
  • [+] -9 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (18 children)

    Oh give me a break, women are getting away worse in so many facets of life. When we have fixed discrimination against women we can talk about them doing mandatory civil service.

    Edit: Did not know that on Lemmy we have such an issue with women's rights.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 11 months ago (11 children)

    So? Are we supposed to have a fair, equal society or are we playing these games of measuring each other's cocks?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [+] -13 points 11 months ago (10 children)

    Measure whatever you want but maybe first make it slightly more equal for the ones who have been disadvantaged for decades? But no, one party always focuses on the few things man have where they are slightly worse of.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 11 months ago (6 children)

    I'm a feminist and I honestly don't understand this mentality. Mixing genders in all activities is good for our society, period.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 11 months ago (5 children)

    Not if said activity is forced upon you. Women can already voluntarily join the military or civil service.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 11 months ago (4 children)

    So can men, but in this instance they're also compelled. The ask here is that if men are compelled to service, women should be too. That's obviously equal treatment and fair.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] -6 points 11 months ago* (3 children)

    Am I in the wrong movie? Women are at a huge disadvantage in life (Gender pay gap, workplace representation, unpaid care and domestic work, education and job positions, healthcare, part-time employment, promotion and career advancement, violence against women, political representation) and we should work to solve that but for some reason we first want to force them to also serve in the military while leaving the current system in place that puts them at a disadvantage? Oh the heavens, men have to serve for a single year...yes that is super important, not all the things they get a huge advantage in life?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    This is super twisted and infantalizing to women to be honest. We don't fight for equality by using equity logic that is faulty, we ask everyone, men and women to see women as equals in all areas of life. We're strong, resilient, capable and independent, and you're philosophy asks to maintain privilege ( not military draft ) because you think we face so much other issues, that you see that as equitable, but equity is often the incorrect solution to fairness, fairness is often blind, it says anything a man can do, women can do too. I want to be seen as an equal, not weaker. Women should be in positions of power, not protected and privileged, we are just as capable.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 11 months ago* (1 child)

    Nobody claimed that women are not capable. Where are all these weird claims coming from that nobody ever said a word about?

    And nobody ever asked to maintain privilege. Claiming however that voting against this was in any way sexist is absolutely ridiculous as long as we maintain a system where women are not seen as equals but as unworthy of equal treatment.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 8 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    You're right, men should just go die in a war they have no reason to fight and be happy about it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -4 points 11 months ago

    No they should not? Nobody said that.

    Also nobody who is in the army here actually believes they will ever see a war. Most people who serve just hate it and see it as a waste of time that will never amount to anything.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (3 children)

    Nope, it is YOU who has an issue with equality. But then Men's blood is cheap to you right. So what if they get their limbs blown up. That's not suffering to you.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] -8 points 11 months ago

    While i see the theoretical point of "if bad happens to men, it should happen to women too", i don't think it applies to heavily bad situations, especially with all the bad things already happening in disadvantage of women, and also especially war and especially from a pacifist perspective. Like no one says "if more women are raped than men, we should rape more men to make it fair". I know it's not the same situation its just a abusive comparison to strongly show the pertinence of a stance like "even if it's not fair, the most people we can get out of horrible situations the better it is".

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 42 points 11 months ago (15 children)

    Insane that any democracy would reject an inheritance tax

  • source
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

    the problem how i understood is, that we are not only talking about cash money but also money that is in businesses. family owned businesess may then be forced to sell their business to shareholder owned foreign corpos, because they could not afford it due to the tax. that sparked some major fear among voters. the result was not even close, it was 78% No! thats hughe and beyond any left/right worldview, not a single canton voted yes, that alone is a clear indicator that this bill was not very well-thought-out

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago* (2 children)

    Not that insane. Most people only concern themselves with their own issues. And if you're a 40 year old whose childhood home is now worth 500k or whatever and you have to pay 200k in taxes in order to inherit it, then you probably want to vote against it because otherwise the government will take it.

    Okay, take all that with a grain of salt because I'm not too familiar with inheritance law, but it's based on multiple similar stories I've heard from people.

    I still think it should be taxed, don't get me wrong. But I understand why people are against it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (1 child)

    with the revenues to be used to fight the impact of climate change and help Switzerland meet its ambitions to have net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

    Maybe the people wanted to have actual social services provided to them instead of climate action.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] -11 points 11 months ago (6 children)

    Because it is theft. If my parents are successful and pay their taxes why is it fair to double tax a child’s inheritance. You tax earnings and income. You don’t the same money multiple times.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 11 months ago (3 children)

    It's more important to prevent an aristocracy than it is to be fair.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (2 children)

    Those things aren’t mutually exclusive. You can be fair as well as tax the rich.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (1 child)

    Over 60 Million dollars is a lot of money. More money than your kid needs to live comfortably and never have to work ever again. That's so much money you are creating a family that never has to experience the life of a normal person and can use that money to influence politics to compound that effect.

    How much money does a person need to live comfortably without having to contribute labor? 2-5 million? Is living in luxury but not so much that someone who's never had a real job can just buy elections unfair?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago

    You are presenting issues that are irrelevant to the tax. Yes those things you mentioned are unfair and should be regulated accordingly. Those are irrelevant to an inheritance tax. If you want to create a wealth tax over a certain amount that’s fine but call a spade a spade. Don’t hide it as inheritance tax and allow wealthy people to hide their money in other ways like trusts and businesses.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    Thing is the same money does regularly get taxed multiple times. You get shafted on money as it comes to you (income tax) and u get shafted on that money once you spend it to (sales tax). Hell I bought a house and will get to pay taxes on that annually for as long as I own it, despite already paying my state and fed govt taxes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago

    Just because everyone is getting fucked doesn’t mean it’s right. Double taxing only hurts the poor because they can’t hide money in tax free investments or businesses that they use to write off expenses.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 13 points 11 months ago (5 children)

    What is not well enough reprensented in this post is that the Service Citoyen was not only about makimg women do a mandatory service. It was to transform the outdated and regressive mandatory service for men into a more general service to the collective that treated security not as a entirely militaristic issue but as a wholistic one.

    Now parliament will interpret this as a mandate to cull the existing useful civil service and force every men (and potentially women too) into the military.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 11 months ago (4 children)

    There shouldn't be mandatory military service at all

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 11 months ago

    I thought everyone had to serve. Sad.

  • source
  • [–] 15 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    ITT: people judging the vote and the voters by the magnanimous title alone.

    The initiatives were worded and implemented so poorly, that it wouldn't surprise me if the initiants wanted to lose both these votes.

    1. The inheritance tax would have caused mass nationalisations and it had pegged the tax proceeds to go towards climate goals instead of let's say the federal pension fund deficit (AHV-Loch). It would be incorrect to state that the voters don't support an inheritance tax or climate goals based on this vote.
    2. The "service citoyen" proposal would have made some kind of civil or military service mandatory for all, but would have essentially reduced the military to a volunteer force, which would be socially unacceptable. The Swiss have a historically repeatedly confirmed will to keep a citizen's militia as the country's only security force.
  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 8 points 11 months ago (9 children)

    The takes on here are wild as a Swiss dude.

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 11 months ago (8 children)

    Hint: Mandatory service is a problem.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago (6 children)

    Mandatory service is not a problem. As long as we live in a world with countries like russia mandatory service does more good than harm.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 11 months ago (3 children)

    It is. Get with the times it's the 21st century. Modern men are equipped with better social tools and technologies to be able to tackle any problems that come their way without resorting to savagery that is violence. There's diplomacy, economic sanctions as well as international agreements to get Russia to stop what they are doing with a strongly worded letter. The sword may seems sharp, but nay the pen is mightier than the sword. Yet, it is men's fragile ego that prevents them from searching alternative solutions other than wanton violence. Oh Vritra, if we could eliminate all the men if the world, the world would a lot more peaceful, as the remaining people eat their crumpets and sips on their tea.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    As an American, I have no room at all to judge this decision. But

    proposals need a majority of both voters and cantons to pass.

    That sounds amazing. Let's do that, please.

    I mean, straight popular vote would probably be better. But this could really do what the Electoral College stans say that it was made to do, without doing what it actually does.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    That sounds amazing.

    It sounds arbitrary and heavily weighted to favor the smaller cantons. Same problem we have with the US Senate and the filibuster. Representatives for a meager 30M voters can obstruct policy championed by the other 300M

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 11 months ago (8 children)

    Nazi collaborators continuing to be backwards idiots. What a surprise.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [+] -6 points 11 months ago (6 children)

    The term Nazi is slung around so loosely now I have become desensitized. Did the guy once post a meme about defunding some government program or did he try to burn down a Jewish synagogue, both will be labeled Nazi in 2025.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (4 children)

    I have become desensitized

    Weird that hearing about fascism has left you incapable of identifying fascists. I never see your type have this problem with Muslims, Feminists, or Tankies.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 11 months ago (3 children)

    Alright well I don't deal in cosplay, sorry.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 11 months ago

    Bunch of morons.

  • source