Switzerland discriminating against men on pension benefits, ECHR finds(bbc.com)
bbc.com
Switzerland discriminating against men on pension benefits, ECHR finds
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-63217557
36 comments
Switzerland also recently stopped using gender as a factor in determining retirement age
This is about whether a pensioner is a widow or widower -where a widow gets her pension for life in the event of the husband's death, but a widower only receives it if they have children under 18 and stop receiving it once their children become adults.
Note the word “also” in the original comment.
How recently? I remember there was a referendum to make the age equal in 2017 or 2018, but the proposal was rejected at the time.
Lots of countries are discriminating against men - just look as the discrepancy between maternity and paternity leave.
I was HORRIFIED when I discovered that in Italy, fathers get 4 days of PTO (recently doubled, up from TWO), compared to 1 (or 2,can't remember) months for the mother. Of course there is a difference in physical impact, but 4 days versus 30 feels like a joke. I'm glad I moved to a different country before having children.
As a dad, I wanted to stay with my children as much as possible, especially as soon as they were born. I was seriously sleep deprived (2 hours per week sleep deprived) for almost 1 month, until we figured out a few tricks.
This law reminds me of that. All these laws should be realigned.
This law reminds me of that. All these laws should be realigned.
And apparently the ECHR had no problem with Switzerland denying women the right to vote … so WTF?
Women have been able to vote in Switzerland for, what, 30 years now? A bit behind a lot of other countries for sure, but let's not act like that has or should have any bearing on this subject of this post.
I think the GP's comment is meant to preempt the normal HN comment chum on these topics, i.e. the tendency for HN to go out of its way to claim reactionary sex-based discrimination against men. Given that Switzerland has had universal suffrage for barely longer than I've been alive, it's hard to make that claim about them.
(This instead seems to be good old-fashioned sex-based discrimination, like the draft in the US.)
(This instead seems to be good old-fashioned sex-based discrimination, like the draft in the US.)
The fact that Swiss women didn’t vote until (relatively) recently is not important.
The fact that the were subject to ECHR jurisdiction is.
The ECHR has immense respect for countries political processes, and allows all sorts of nasty laws (gay marriage bans, etc).
My point is that this sort of micromanagement does not seem consistent with the ECHRs usual hands-off approach.
The fact that the were subject to ECHR jurisdiction is.
The ECHR has immense respect for countries political processes, and allows all sorts of nasty laws (gay marriage bans, etc).
My point is that this sort of micromanagement does not seem consistent with the ECHRs usual hands-off approach.
That’s typical for courts in Europe. For example, I don’t think any EU country legalized same-sex marriage by court order. I’m also not aware of any European country where abortion was legalized by court ruling. The US Supreme Court is unusual in running roughshod over the political process as much as it does.
> The US Supreme Court is unusual in running roughshod over the political process as much as it does.
This is in part because the US legal system is based on common law / case law, whereas most of Europe is based on civil law.
This is in part because the US legal system is based on common law / case law, whereas most of Europe is based on civil law.
I've been thinking of late that the role of lawyers in shaping US laws and institutions is under appreciated. Deference to courts is probably a result of that.
That’s not really true - because most other common law jurisdictions aren’t like the US in this regard, the US is actually an outlier among common law countries, most of which prefer to resolve controversial social issues through legislative rather than judicial processes
I don't disagree that the US is an outlier even compared to other common law jurisdictions such as the UK, but I'd argue that the common law framework is a necessary (albeit insufficient) condition for what the US judiciary is doing.
For instance, decriminalization of abortion in Canada: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Morgentaler
For instance, decriminalization of abortion in Canada: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Morgentaler
> I don’t think any EU country legalized same-sex marriage by court order. I’m also not aware of any European country where abortion was legalized by court ruling. The US Supreme Court is unusual in running roughshod over the political process as much as it does.
Any thoughts about whether, in EU countries, it might be easier for the political process to make changes via legislation and constitutional amendment --- as opposed to the U.S. system of giving minority interest groups such extensive blocking rights?
(The U.S. system sometimes reminds me — and not in a good way — of the liberum veto of the old Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, in which every (noble) member of the Sejm, or parliament, could block government action. Historians seem to agree that, over the long term, this arrangement was seriously-bad news for the Polish nation; quaere whether the U.S. might go down that path itself.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberum_veto
Any thoughts about whether, in EU countries, it might be easier for the political process to make changes via legislation and constitutional amendment --- as opposed to the U.S. system of giving minority interest groups such extensive blocking rights?
(The U.S. system sometimes reminds me — and not in a good way — of the liberum veto of the old Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, in which every (noble) member of the Sejm, or parliament, could block government action. Historians seem to agree that, over the long term, this arrangement was seriously-bad news for the Polish nation; quaere whether the U.S. might go down that path itself.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberum_veto
Australia’s constitution was partially based on that of the US. We are also a federation of states, with a federal Senate in which the least populous state has the same number of senators as the most populous. So we have rather similar potential for “blocking minorities” as the US.
And yet we have a reasonably liberal abortion regime nationwide - which is not due to the courts (we have no constitutional right to abortion), but simply the outcome of the democratic legislative process in each state. I think it never became quite the political/cultural hot potato here as it did in the US, in part because it was left up to elected officials rather than unelected judges. Even if someone doesn’t like the current situation, it is harder to object to the legitimacy of it when the people the voters voted for are responsible for it.
I think one relevant difference is that as a country with a smaller population and a shorter (post-colonisation) history, there is arguably less inter-state cultural diversity in Australia. We don’t really have “red states” and “blue states” - some states lean more one way than the other, but it is much less polarised than the US.
And yet we have a reasonably liberal abortion regime nationwide - which is not due to the courts (we have no constitutional right to abortion), but simply the outcome of the democratic legislative process in each state. I think it never became quite the political/cultural hot potato here as it did in the US, in part because it was left up to elected officials rather than unelected judges. Even if someone doesn’t like the current situation, it is harder to object to the legitimacy of it when the people the voters voted for are responsible for it.
I think one relevant difference is that as a country with a smaller population and a shorter (post-colonisation) history, there is arguably less inter-state cultural diversity in Australia. We don’t really have “red states” and “blue states” - some states lean more one way than the other, but it is much less polarised than the US.
Austria would be one such country. Technically, a law was passed but a court decided that a law must be passed and if the government didn't it would have been dismissed.
Why doesn’t that restraint apply in this situation?
Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights is pretty cut and dry:
> ARTICLE 14 Prohibition of discrimination The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.
I suspect the fiction of fitting a “male breadwinner” exception into this clear language became unsustainable.
> ARTICLE 14 Prohibition of discrimination The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.
I suspect the fiction of fitting a “male breadwinner” exception into this clear language became unsustainable.
I don’t know how to read this as saying it’s ok to prohibit choosing based on sex.
Doesn’t this forbid restrictions on same-sex marriage?
Doesn’t this forbid restrictions on same-sex marriage?
I'm sure if a court case were brought to their attention they'd agree with you. Might be similar to how the US SC (and other high courts) doesn't weigh in until lower courts have made a ruling, which means someone had to file suit for them to even take a look.
The European Court of Human Rights has repeatedly faced the question of gay marriage and has denied the find such a right each time. One of the more recent cases is Chapin and Charpentier v. France, 2016:
> In Chapin and Charpentier v. France, 2016, the Court reiterated that neither Article 12, nor Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8, which was more general in purpose and scope, could be interpreted as imposing an obligation on the Contracting States to open marriage to same sex couples.
https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Guide_Art_12_ENG.pdf (see also https://eclj.org/marriage/the-echr-unanimously-confirms-the-...)
I don't know much about European law but it seems one of the principal reasons is that Articles 8 and 12 specifically speak to marriage and are worded in a manner (in the court's opinion) which presume heterosexual marriages, effectively circumscribing the scope of potential Article 14 anti-discrimination protections wrt marriage.
> In Chapin and Charpentier v. France, 2016, the Court reiterated that neither Article 12, nor Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8, which was more general in purpose and scope, could be interpreted as imposing an obligation on the Contracting States to open marriage to same sex couples.
https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Guide_Art_12_ENG.pdf (see also https://eclj.org/marriage/the-echr-unanimously-confirms-the-...)
I don't know much about European law but it seems one of the principal reasons is that Articles 8 and 12 specifically speak to marriage and are worded in a manner (in the court's opinion) which presume heterosexual marriages, effectively circumscribing the scope of potential Article 14 anti-discrimination protections wrt marriage.
Article 12 states: “Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and to found a family, according to the national laws governing the exercise of this right.”
The EHCR has found the use of “men and women,” along with the “historical context” in which the clause was adopted, to mean that Article 12 applies to marriage as traditionally understood: between one man and one woman.
The EHCR has found the use of “men and women,” along with the “historical context” in which the clause was adopted, to mean that Article 12 applies to marriage as traditionally understood: between one man and one woman.
ECHR, petitions, suggestions boxes, Reddit, #TeamTrees, and most forms of protesting: zero-impact.
1971 it's burned into my brain
So even longer! I was under the impression, for whatever reason, that it happened in the 90's. Looks like 50 years would have been closer to the mark.
Some local elections didn't allow women until the 90s, but universal suffrage for national elections was a few decades earlier
I would assume that's because they never ratified the first protocol, so Article 14 wouldn't apply to elections.
Thank you!