Which Swiss court case involved prosecution over statements about sex differences in skeletons?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
A Swiss wind‑instrument repairman, Emanuel Brünisholz, was convicted in a Bern regional court for a Facebook comment saying “you’ll only find men and women based on their skeletons,” fined 500 CHF and—after refusing to pay—set to serve a 10‑day jail term as the custodial alternative [1] [2]. Reporting and commentary frame the conviction as discrimination/incitement to hatred under Swiss anti‑discrimination law; supporters call it a free‑speech case, critics call the ruling an overbroad application of hate‑speech provisions [1] [3].
1. Who was prosecuted and what did he say?
Emanuel Brünisholz, a wind‑instrument repairman from Burgdorf in the canton of Bern, replied to a December 2022 Facebook post by saying that if remains of today’s LGBTQI people were excavated in 200 years, “you’ll only find men and women based on their skeletons” and that “everything else is a mental illness,” language that led to a complaint and police questioning [4] [2].
2. What did the Swiss court rule?
The Emmental‑Oberaargau regional court in Bern convicted Brünisholz of discrimination and incitement to hatred, finding his online comment “publicly denigrated” the LGBT(Q)I group in a way that violated human dignity; the court imposed a 500 CHF fine and suspended additional penalties, with the fine convertible into a 10‑day custodial term when unpaid [1] [4].
3. How has the sentence been implemented and publicised?
Brünisholz refused to pay the 500 CHF fine and announced he would serve the 10‑day jail term instead; his case has been amplified by UK and international free‑speech campaigners and aligned online commentators, including publication of his statement by Graham Linehan and coverage across libertarian and conservative outlets [2] [5] [4].
4. Legal basis and contested interpretation
Swiss criminal law prohibits publicly belittling or denigrating persons based on protected characteristics; courts applied that statute here to comments addressing sexual orientation and gender identity as part of the protected group called “LGBTQI,” a categorisation noted in analysis of the case [3] [1]. Commentators dispute whether sex‑based biological claims fall outside or inside the statute’s protective scope; supporters of the conviction argue the Facebook post denigrated a protected group, while critics say the law was applied too broadly to a purportedly factual biological claim [3] [4].
5. Scientific and rhetorical context the parties invoke
Supporters of Brünisholz portray his comment as a biological assertion about skeletal dimorphism and stress that male and female skeletons typically show morphological differences (density, pelvic shape)—points cited in mainstream reporting to explain his defence—while critics of his wording note he linked that observation to labelling trans people as mentally ill, which the court treated as denigration [1] [2].
6. Media and advocacy framing: competing narratives
Conservative and free‑speech outlets frame the case as criminalising “biological truth” and warn about censorship of gender‑critical views; those outlets emphasize the fine, the custodial alternative, and Brünisholz’s refusal to pay [6] [4]. Other reporting focuses on the court’s reasoning that the post publicly denigrated LGBT(Q)I people and presents the conviction as enforcement of anti‑discrimination law rather than a direct ban on scientific statements [1] [3].
7. Limitations of available reporting
Available sources are primarily English‑language commentary and advocacy pieces with overlapping excerpts of court findings and Brünisholz’s own statement; official Swiss court documents or statements from prosecutors are not present in the collected reporting, and there is little independent forensic or medical analysis in these pieces to substantiate broader claims about the legal standard applied [1] [2]. Available sources do not mention detailed court transcripts or appellate rulings beyond the regional conviction and the convertible custodial term [1] [4].
8. Why this matters beyond a single Facebook post
The case illustrates a legal tension between anti‑discrimination laws and public debate on sex, gender and scientific claims: courts must decide when critical or factual statements about biology cross into public denigration of protected groups. Observers warn the ruling could chill gender‑critical speech; others argue enforcement targets overtly demeaning rhetoric rather than sober scientific discussion [3] [4].
If you want, I can pull together the exact quoted Facebook post, link the timeline of filings reported, or collate direct excerpts of advocacy statements published around the sentence (sources above include Brünisholz’s statement and multiple outlet reports) [5] [1] [2].