Swiss Review 6/2019

15 Swiss Review / November 2019 / No.6 Flight to the foreign legion Peter Paul Moser was 21 years old when he was adminis- tratively detained in 1947 by the Grisons’ guardianship authority in the Herdern labour colony, canton of Thurgau. The young man did not understand the drastic measure; he had been working as a showman’s assistant and before that in a factory. As he was of Yenish origin, the authorities had been on his trail for some time. As a small child, the Pro-Juventute aid organisation Kinder der Landstrasse had separated him from his family and placed him in an or- phanage. The goal was to turn the children of travelling folk into settled citizens. Later, his guardian, aid worker Alfred Siegfried, placed him in a foster family on a farm. Siegfried was a convicted paedophile, which highlighted the unbelievable double standard. In his three-volume autobiography, Moser later wrote: “Separation from one’s family heralded the start of the persecution of a member of an ethnic minority: attacks on the human sphere, dis- crimination, loss of freedom, detentions, admission to labour colonies, through to deprivation of liberty in a closed institution with the intention of destroying an entire ethnic group.” With the help of his employer, he initially escaped internment in 1947. Out of fear, he crossed the Swiss border in Geneva and applied to join the Foreign Legion in Annecy, France. The police returned him to Swit- zerland, where the authorities again admitted him to the labour colony. However, Moser ran away again and got a job in a machine factory. On the way there, his guardian had him arrested and transported to Bellechasse Prison in the canton of Fribourg. He describes the regime there as inhuman. After he was discharged from the prison, his guardian placed him on a farm and forbade him from mar- rying. It was not until the 1950s that Moser was able to escape their clutches and start a family. Later, he got in- volved in the association Naschet Jenische for the apprais- al and redress of the systematic removal of the children of travelling folk. Moser lived to hear the apology to the Yenish folk given by the Federal Council in 1986; however, not his own rehabilitation as an administrative detainee. He passed away of a heart attack at the age of 77 in 2003. councils, communal welfare commit- tees and legal guardians. Tradespeo- ple, housewives and bookkeepers all decided the fate of their fellowcitizens in the evenings after work. Regional councillors and government officials were also involved. The step was jus- tified bywelfare and educational goals, or as ameans to protect society. Moral assessments and traditional gender images were prevalent in the judge- ments. Men, whomade up 80 per cent of the detainees, were accused of be- ing work-shy and alcoholics; women were accused of licentiousness. ■ ■ Some of the many institutions in Switzerland had multiple purposes, which resulted in administrative de- tainees living in jails under the same roof as convicted criminals. Detain- ees were also admitted to forced la- bour facilities, labour colonies, re- form schools, alcohol rehabilitation facilities, and workhouses. In the un- derequipped, badly supervised insti- tutions, men had to do physical la- bour outside, while women were put to work in the household. Forced la- bour was either badly paid or not paid at all. ■ ■ The life-changing experience of in- stitutionalisation also affected vic- tims after theywere released, often for the rest of their lives. Some suffered a nervous breakdown, while others em- igrated. Some of them are still living in precarious conditions to this day. The authorities did not succeed in their goal of integrating “vulnerable persons” into society. The detain- ments actually increased the prob- lems and marginalisation. Unjust even back then From today’s perspective, the attacks on personal freedom seem extreme; thewelfaremeasures brutal. However, these were different times and the de- tainments were based on laws. Did they only become unjust with hind- sight? Not according to the Commis- sion. The detainment laws were lever- aged on applicable laws and constitu- tional principles. People were often detained indefinitely, not listened to, often locked up without any legal rul- ing; in many places, there was no pos- sibility of legal recourse to an inde- pendent court. The laws were also vague, which allowed the authorities to interpret themflexibly. Initially, the admissions to institutions were a cheap way for the state tomanage the poor. However, over the course of the 20 th century, they became instru- ments of social control. Throughout the country, people knew that who- ever strayed fromthe path of common decency risked losing their liberty. It was not only the authoritieswhowere actively locking up people. The re- searchers also determined that the measures were often prompted by family, neighbours, priests or teachers. They talk of “marginalisation prac- tices that were deeply rooted in Swiss society”. This is probably another reason why the detainment laws lasted so long. Switzerland’s social-political back- wardness also played a part: support- ive social insurance benefits were in- troduced to the Confederation later than in other European countries. Whatever the case, it is now officially time to reconcile the self-image of Switzerland – a country of geraniums, prosperity, freedom and direct de- mocracy – with its other side. The re- membrance work will be important, says IEC member Thomas Huonker who was one of the first historians to research the forced interventions. He emphasises: “Just as the wonderful story of Wilhelm Tell is retold over and over, the murky chapter of Swit- zerland’s abusive administrative care measures also has to be retold time and again”. The ten volumes of the Expert Commission are available free of charge online: www.uek-administrative-versorgungen.ch