I don’t think the Koran would be the equivalent. She shot a picture of a painting of Jesus and mummy in a catalogue. I guess the equivalent would be a picture of a painting of the Prophet Mohammed but they don’t exist, I’m told.
Yes, public.
Malicious: I also don’t see malice.
Insulting/mocking: the issue here is that religions are diverse. Some religions are more abstract with far less objects and symbols, take Buddhism. Christianity has different flavors from the relaxed Reformed with churches and cruxes, to the idolatry of Catholicism with thousands of dolls…errr Saints. So, try the idolatry perspective for a 1 min, is this insulting or mocking?
Object of religious veneration: it’s a photo not owned by someone else, so not an object of religious veneration. Please consider some people collect the stamps of religious symbols as if they were the Panini football cards. So, a photo may not only be a photo. I guess the issue here is if you take the photo venerated by someone else (someone else’s property) and shoot it publicly.
If you exclude the religious symbolism from that photo, it is still the depiction of a woman with a child…shooting at these symbols seems what a nut job would do but I’m told here she’s only stupid not malicious or whatever.
Nah, I don’t buy the whole mental gymnastics here but on the other hand there are a lot of idiots in this world, she’s one of them and we should move on with our lives… 
That is the issue. Hopefully no idiot has been triggered into violent action. Here in CH or some other country.
Cambrige dictionary:
malicious
intended to harm or upset other people
That condition is clearly met.
Also, it might be interesting to learn where she took the shots. The building looks like it’s centuries old, possibly of a religious nature.
No painting necessary.
The caricaturists with Charlie Hebdo got murdered for mere caricatures, in 2016 IIRC.
3 Likes
Despite her best efforts, I have the feeling this will pass as a yet another brain fart, and rightly so. 
Do you see the Swiss being “triggered”? I don’t.
What exactly do you think people will do and who or where?
They do, in the offices of Charlie Hebdo.
I’m not sure it is a religious outcry really in this case (apart from the young SVP and even in their case I’d claim it’s 1000 other reasons)
- Ameti studied law = she knows Article 261 = unsuitable for the job
- she worked as communication expert = she knows what pictures induce = unsuitable for the job (at her specific workplace, maybe she should change to SVP?)
- She’s in politics (aimed for a seat in Nationalrat 2023) = Swiss politicians don’t shoot at people - on pictures or in reality = unsuitable for the job.
I think in the end, it’s that simple. In German it’s said “Sie hat sich ins Abseits geschossen” (kind of literally). She shot herself offside.
Off to professions and hobbies more to her abilities is what I suggest.
1 Like
Sure but I meant in the context of the art catalogue in the article.
Or most anyone else, I would hope!! (well apart from police etc.)
She literally shot herself in the foot.
1 Like
Cultural interlude, the painting being auctioned: Madonna and Child with the Archangel Michael. Circa 1375 by Tommaso del Mazza
The whole series of event may just be guerilla marketing for the auction
Back to the painting, I thought it was Christian Orthodox art, the characteristic lack of depth or perspective in the painting.
Well, time to chill. No one is framing this event as Muslim from Kosovo uploads video to instagram of shooting Virgin Mary in 2D which means something to the Orthodox from Bosnia. Hopefully, no one sees this.
yeah but the German version “offside” fits better here. She’s fine and will be - just in other fields that she chose so far.
Yeah. In Gaza they are killing mothers and children every day and it does not upset people more than this jesus thing.
Now that would have been a brain fart taken too far. But I doubt people didn’t see right through it.
In the end I think she wanted to provoke and failed; however, she’s also some sort of “victim” now. It’s just silly. The whole thing - social media “coverage”, everything. You’d think this kind of people wouldn’t make it to politics or wouldn’t last one day there…
Anyway, she’ll probably inspire copycats…it’s very plausible.
1 Like
The fact that she used an image of a mother and child and then took head shots head shots is pretty sick in itself, let alone the religious baiting she is trying to do.
Having resigned as leader, she should be expelled from her party.
2 Likes
You should! Such poor judgement and lack of understand is the last thing need in people who are law makers, expected to act in the best interests of the country and expected to represent the views of those in their electorate.
But this law doesn’t apply just to politicians. It applies to everybody.
Others might disagree, but I’m against criminalising insults and mockery unless it borders on things like harassment or assault (in which case it can be dealt with under those laws).
If someone wants to mock or question somebody’s beliefs, go ahead. Whether that is regarding God, the Standard Model or Flat Earth.
She was asked to resign not because she broke any law, but because she became a liability for her party which doesn’t represent whatever she was trying to convey as a message. As we said, a pretty dumb move for a career politician with ambition, but almost certainly this is within the law.
3 Likes
I don’t see shooting equal mockery.
As for firing her, that’s up to the employer. But corporate communications isn’t the best industry to be in when pulling that kind of shit.
Dont forget. John Lennon said he was more famous than Jesus and the Amis crucified him for that statement.
1 Like