Did a Swiss court actually jail someone for discussing sex differences in skeletons?
Executive summary
Multiple conservative and libertarian outlets report that Emanuel Brünisholz, a Swiss wind-instrument repairman, was convicted under Switzerland’s anti-discrimination law for a 2022 Facebook comment asserting that skeletal remains show only “men and women,” fined CHF 500, ordered to pay CHF 600 in costs on appeal, and — after refusing to pay — is reported to begin a 10‑day jail term on 2 December 2025 (reports summarized across several outlets) [1] [2] [3].
1. The basic facts reported: a conviction, fines and jail option
Multiple English-language sites covering the story say Brünisholz replied to a December 2022 Facebook post and wrote, “If you dig up LGBTQI people after 200 years, you’ll only find men and women based on their skeletons,” which led to police complaints, a Bern court conviction for publicly belittling or discriminating against LGBTQI people under Article 261bis, a CHF 500 fine, an added CHF 600 court fee on appeal, and his public announcement that he will serve a ten‑day sentence rather than pay the fine [4] [1] [2].
2. Where this story appears — and where it doesn’t
Coverage is concentrated in conservative, libertarian and activist outlets (Spiked, Townhall, ZeroHedge, Reduxx, Liberty Beacon, Gulf Insider and others) that frame the case as free‑speech suppression; community discussion threads and activist posts amplify those reports [5] [6] [7] [8]. I searched the supplied results for mainstream Swiss or major international outlets corroborating court documents or official statements; available sources in the set do not include Bern court press releases, Swiss federal statements, or reporting from established Swiss national media (not found in current reporting).
3. Legal basis cited in reporting
Reporters say prosecutors applied Article 261bis of the Swiss Criminal Code — the anti‑racism/anti‑discrimination provision expanded in 2020 to include “sexual identities” — to the Facebook comment, treating it as public denigration of a protected class; the conviction, fine and convertible custodial sentence are presented as standard legal mechanics in those accounts [4] [6] [1].
4. How the case is being framed by advocates and critics
Supporters of Brünisholz present the verdict as an assault on scientific fact and free speech, pointing to forensic anthropology norms about sexual dimorphism in skeletons and arguing courts are prioritizing ideological conformity [8] [3]. Critics of Brünisholz’s post — as characterized in the coverage — argued it amounted to denigration of LGBTQI people and thus falls within Switzerland’s hate‑speech prohibitions [3] [1]. The supplied sources show clear advocacy slant on both sides; they disagree sharply about whether the conviction is lawful application of anti‑discrimination rules or an overreach that criminalizes factual statements [5] [7] [9].
5. What the reporting does not establish from the provided set
The supplied sources do not include the Bern regional court’s written judgment, prosecutor filings, police complaint texts, or Swiss government communications that would allow independent verification of precise legal reasoning, the court’s factual findings, or whether the protected‑class definition was interpreted unusually in this case (not found in current reporting). The supplied corpus also lacks reporting from major Swiss newspapers or direct court documents to confirm dates, exact charges, or appeals chronology beyond what activist and partisan outlets summarize (not found in current reporting).
6. Why the case resonates and why verification matters
The story sits at the intersection of forensic science, law and culture‑war politics: forensic anthropologists commonly discuss sexual dimorphism in skeletons, but courts balance scientific claims against whether speech constitutes denigration of protected groups — a legal, not purely scientific, determination [8]. Because most available coverage comes from ideologically aligned outlets, independent confirmation (court text, neutral Swiss media) is necessary before treating every reported legal claim as settled fact [5] [7].
7. How to follow up credibly
To verify and contextualize beyond the currently supplied sources, seek the Bern regional court judgment or prosecutor statement, reporting from mainstream Swiss media (e.g., Le Temps, NZZ, RTS) or an official press office at the Canton of Bern or the Swiss Federal Department of Justice; the supplied set does not provide those documents (not found in current reporting). In the meantime, the consistent elements across the provided accounts are the quoted Facebook comment, the CHF 500 fine, the CHF 600 costs on appeal, and the report that Brünisholz chose jail over paying the fine [4] [1] [2].
Limitations: this analysis uses only the search results you supplied and therefore cannot confirm the Bern court’s written ruling or Swiss official sources absent in that set (not found in current reporting). Sources cited are primarily partisan and activist outlets; they present competing narratives about free speech and discrimination that readers should weigh carefully [5] [7] [8].