280
submitted 2 days ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world

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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] aldhissla@piefed.world 16 points 1 day ago

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.
[-] Leomas@lemmy.world 2 points 21 hours ago

There is no "AHV-Loch", we're doing well in that respect. I'm against the second initiative too, but your rationalization is wild.

[-] kandoh@reddthat.com 46 points 1 day ago

Insane that any democracy would reject an inheritance tax

[-] wooffersyt@lemmings.world 14 points 1 day ago

Most workers have been conditioned to fight tooth and nail for their oppressors.

It's really sad.

[-] Ibisalt@lemmy.world 10 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day 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

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.

[-] wooffersyt@lemmings.world 1 points 4 hours ago

Ok, where are the social services?

[-] kandoh@reddthat.com 4 points 1 day ago

They could light the money on fire and it would still be worth impleminating

[-] nyctre@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

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.

[-] SmoothOperator@lemmy.world 14 points 1 day ago

The text indicates that it's only on inheritances greater than 62 million dollars

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[-] oxysis 78 points 2 days ago

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.

[-] biotin7@sopuli.xyz 6 points 23 hours ago

Actually I rather if Drafting was abolished altogether

[-] Barrington@feddit.org 20 points 1 day ago

Personally, I think having a draft is a terrible idea regardless of gender.

They voted down adding women to this already bad idea. Potentially in the future, they remove the draft altogether.

I guess my point is, why would you want them to make the situation worse just so it is equal?

[-] Rakonat@lemmy.world 4 points 19 hours ago

While I understand the pushback against military drafts/service requirements, they also can be a net positive for a culture that applies them equally regardless of gender, class or ethnicity. You are significantly less likely to support war if your children or grandchildren could potentially get dragged into it. Want to the majority of wars? Make it a law that the heirs of the rich must serve in the infantry during wartime.

Counterpoint: with a draft, people are less willing to support the government going to war.

[-] remon@ani.social 12 points 1 day ago

Potentially in the future, they remove the draft altogether.

Support for mandatory military service in Switzerland has been going up in recent years, so I wouldn't count on it.

[-] JcbAzPx@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

Removing the draft is never on the table.

[-] hubobes@sh.itjust.works 13 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

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.

[-] biotin7@sopuli.xyz 9 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago)

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.

[-] hubobes@sh.itjust.works 2 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 hours ago)

Do not bring up too many arguments.

[-] biotin7@sopuli.xyz 7 points 23 hours ago

I don't have to, you did all the dirty work for me.

[-] hubobes@sh.itjust.works 1 points 23 hours ago

If believing so makes you happy ☺️

[-] Xella@lemmy.world 3 points 20 hours ago

Unfortunately a large majority of people have an issue with women's rights 🥲

[-] ipkpjersi@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 day ago

It doesn't sound like Lemmy has an issue with women's rights, it sounds like you have an issue with equal rights.

[-] drmoose@lemmy.world 16 points 1 day ago

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

load more comments (11 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
[-] SARGE@startrek.website 93 points 2 days ago

Is Switzerland full of sexist people who think "someday I'LL be rich so I don't want to tax MYSELF more, hypothetically maybe in the distant future"?

[-] freijon@lemmings.world 2 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago)

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.

[-] Dragonstaff@leminal.space 1 points 2 hours ago

This argument is the knee jerk reaction to any tax proposal and should be laughed out of town as it has never ever actually happened.

[-] trxxruraxvr@lemmy.world 75 points 2 days ago

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

[-] Kirp123@lemmy.world 65 points 2 days ago

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 30 Nov 2025
280 points (100.0% liked)

World News

51007 readers
2712 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS