Standers Stocker is subject to the Federal Supreme Court: Duty to residence ensures criticism
« This decision is from the last century »: politicians criticize the residence for residual councils
The Schaffhausen Council of States Simon Stocker has to give up his office because of a controversy around his place of residence. Critics accuse the highest court of deciding past the reality of young families.
The Judgment of the federal judges is bitter for Simon Stocker – not only because of the consequences it has for him and his family. The decision is also a cancellation of an equal family model, says the Schaffhauser SP politician, who has to submit its state office overnight.
Politicize for the canton of Schaffhausen, while women and children live in Zurich: that is not possible, the highest court ruled. Stocker may be so rooted in his home canton, the judge from Lausanne is injured. As a married couple, the rule has the same place of residence.
This not only thinks Stocker is outdated. « This decision is from the penultimate century, » says the Bernese GLP national councilor Kathrin Bertschy. «In the Federal Constitution, the right to marriage and family is anchored. In our highly praised democracy, this does not apply to people who look after children and are politically active, »she says.
In fact, this means that the partner has to do without a career – or you have to decide as a councilor between the city or the city council between the children and the political office. So democracy does not represent the population.
« No wonder if only older men will soon sit in the Council of States »
Lisa Mazzone, former Geneva Councilor.
Baptiste Hurni can only shake their heads like such discussions. The Neuchâtel SP Council of States says that he regrets that the Federal Supreme Court has not taken into account the fact that society has developed in the past decades. He also considers the decision to be « very restrictive ». «I am not entitled to assess the Schaffhaus laws. But I think that the cantons should be more aware of today’s situation and think about the duty of residence. »
Stocker demands amendment to the law
In the case of Stockers, Lisa Mazzone also became incomprehensible that the will of the Schaffhaus voters were not weighted higher. After all, Stocker never made a secret of his living situation.
This was also emphasized by Stocker. The two residences had made life a little more complicated. But « we were always proud of how we solved it ».
In his view, the determination of the place of residence would not have to be covered in general. The civil law must finally « reproduce » that « what takes place in reality ». Namely, that married couples with children can also have two different residence.
