No democracy can survive without freedom and open exchange of opinions

mw. The outrageous act of the EU Council to place citizens with undesirable opinions on sanctions lists, in disregard of mandatory international law, with far-reaching consequences for their freedom and fundamental rights, was revealed in the last issue of Current Concerns.¹
    It is bad enough that the undemocratic and unwilling EU elite flouts its own Charter of Fundamental Rights, the Charter of the United Nations, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). What is particularly alarming for us Swiss is the fact that the Federal Council, as the guardian of citizens’ freedoms and rights mandated by the Federal Constitution, is rubber-stamping Brussels’ misdeeds and not lifting a finger to help Jacques Baud and Nathalie Yamb, two Swiss citizens who are being sanctioned by the EU. We do not want to waste time with the convoluted and absurd accusations coming out of Brussels. It should be noted that the two are accused of nothing more than expressing their opinions. With their astute geopolitical analyses, they clearly have a great deal of expertise at their disposal, which is not welcome in EU-NATO countries, whether in relation to Western colonialism in the countries of the Sahel region or on the basis of their own views on the Ukraine conflict.
    We must resolutely defend ourselves against this presumption from Brussels. Two of us, National Councillor members and members of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Jean-Luc Addor and Franz Grüter, are leading the way with their interpellations to the Federal Council.² Current Concerns spoke with National Councillor Grüter. In this conversation, it becomes clear that the Federal Council’s “inaction” is in reality a far-advanced entanglement in Brussels’ disastrous spider web – for the purpose of state surveillance of the opinions expressed by all citizens.
    The Federal Council’s planned “Security Policy Strategy 2026” is heading in the same disastrous direction, with plans to eliminate unpopular opinions under the label of “influence activities and disinformation”. The consultation period runs until 31 March 2026. It is high time!

Current Concerns: Mr Grüter, you have submitted an interpellation to the Federal Council, calling on it to finally do its duty and protect Swiss citizen Jacques Baud.
Franz Grüter: This case really moved me deeply. Above all, I was deeply moved by the fact that it is precisely those people, especially in the EU, who constantly talk about democracy, freedom of expression, the rule of law and a community of values, who are the ones trampling democracy and freedom of expression underfoot. Under the banner of “disinformation”, censorship is being introduced and people are being intimidated by showing them: this is what happens when I express my opinion freely. And that is why this case moves me so much. I hope that public pressure will continue to grow so that it becomes clear that such machinations are not acceptable in a free democratic state. This is unworthy of a democracy.

Do you and National Councillor Jean-Luc Addor, who has submitted another interpellation on this issue, already have support from other politicians?
Not from fellow councillors so far, because we can only submit motions during the current session. I submitted my motion at the end of the session because that was when the case first became widely known. I have received a great deal of feedback from the citizenry, including many letters from people all over Switzerland who do not share my political views. For example, a citizen from the canton of Bern wrote to me saying that he was a member of the SP, but that this was not about party membership, but really about democracy, the rule of law and freedom of expression. He was shocked by what was happening and thanked me for asking the Federal Council these critical questions. I am now waiting for the Federal Council’s answers.

When do you expect these answers? Not until the next session [in March 2026]?
No, the answers can be given at any time, but I assume that they want to buy time, that they want to delay the matter. I also sense that the Foreign Department is somehow shirking its responsibilities. It is astonishing what has already come to light in such a short time, for example that Jacques Baud, who lives in Brussels, has not heard from Rita Adam, the Swiss ambassador to the EU in Brussels, for more than ten days. And I must say that what bothers me most is that Switzerland, official Switzerland, the Federal Council, the Foreign Department, the ambassadors, are leaving Swiss citizens out in the cold like this. I have heard, but not yet received confirmation from official sources, that the Federal Council had already been informed about this several weeks in advance, but I do not know in what form.

With your interpellation, you want to know from the Federal Council whether Switzerland, which “normally adopts EU sanctions”, will protect its citizens here.
Yes, my question is of course also: has the Federal Council fought against sanctions being imposed on Swiss citizens solely on the basis of opinions or analyses that one may or may not agree with? Nathalie Yamb, a Cameroonian-Swiss citizen who is also on the sanctions list, is perhaps a comparable case. The mere fact that someone is sanctioned for freely expressing their opinion is brutal for these people! For those sanctioned, it means that they can hardly live anymore. They can neither withdraw money nor meet their obligations. How is Jacques Baud supposed to pay his rent? These people are effectively living in an open prison. You are not even allowed to support them, otherwise you are liable to prosecution.
    This reminds me of times that I thought were over in Europe, but that is clearly not the case. Even after the Fichen scandal, it seems that attempts are being made here to introduce a kind of citizen control again.
    For me, it is important that this issue is not just about Jacques Baud. He is, so to speak, the symbol of this whole development. Tomorrow, it could happen to anyone who expresses criticism of the European Union, publishes analyses that may or may not be correct – that is not the issue. Ultimately, this is part of the fundamental right to freedom of expression. These are not criminal offences. Furthermore, those affected are denied the right to be heard. Jacques Baud was apparently told that he could appeal to the European Court of Justice. Just imagine: that means he has to hire a solicitor, and it will take months, if not years, for a decision to be reached. So, in effect, these people are being denied the right to  be heard. This, too, is miles away from the rule of law.
    It is precisely these people in Brussels who never tire of talking about the rule of law and freedom of expression. J. D. Vance summed it up at the Munich Security Conference: the greatest danger in Europe comes from Europe itself.
    This includes Brussels’ attempts to prevent the spread of so-called misinformation and disinformation in the digital space. This means that people are being cancelled and their information is being blocked in the digital media. They also want to regulate algorithms, which are to be designed in such a way that information unpopular with consumers is no longer displayed. So they are really in the process of introducing state-controlled thinking.

In your interpellation, you also refer to the “Security Policy Strategy 2026” that the Federal Council is planning and recently submitted for consultation. With this strategy, the Federal Council wants to “combat influence operations and disinformation”. It wants to take preventive and reactive measures against its own population in order to push through de facto membership of NATO and military alliance with the EU. Is that correct?
Yes, the part about influence and disinformation is in there, but the connection with NATO is not explicitly described in that way.

Yes, that’s right, they don’t write it that way. But it does say that Switzerland must join NATO and a security alliance with the EU. This raises the question for me: in the future, should anyone who advocates genuine neutrality expect to be silenced by the federal government? Or do you not think it will go that far?
Yes, there is a clear risk of that happening. If the security strategy is to be implemented in this way, then we are essentially copying the European Union’s approach. I assume that most of the wording has been taken from the EU, which in itself is cause for concern.
    And who is to decide what constitutes so-called disinformation or misinformation? In effect, this leads to a kind of state surveillance of information. Then someone has to decide whether this is now “disinformation”. This takes us back to the end of the Cold War, when innocent citizens were monitored and recorded on a large scale, data about them was stored, ultimately leading to state-controlled surveillance of freedom of expression. With the possibility of sanctions! What is happening here is extremely worrying. That is why I have asked explicit questions about this, because Switzerland is striving for exactly the same thing in this area as the EU.

As I have seen, there is a consultation period for this “security policy strategy” running until 31 March. We should take action, shouldn’t we?
Yes, it’s all happening a little under the radar of the general public, because when you read the title “security policy strategy”, your first impression is that, yes, there is war in Europe at the moment, so security policy is important. I think you have to look at the issue in depth to see what else is included under the term “security strategy”.

I am glad that you are addressing this important issue in your interpellation. Shouldn’t we also ask ourselves the question: if the Federal Council is already unable to counter the authoritarian power of Brussels, how would it represent our interests if the electorate were to approve the new framework agreement with the EU?
We have seen once again in the recent past how the European Union behaves. The European Court of Justice recently ruled against Poland again and declared decisions by the Polish Supreme Constitutional Court to be null and void. These are all signs of how the European Union is increasingly distancing itself from democracy.

For Switzerland, this really means that we must be cautious, that we must reflect on our independence and our neutrality. The fact that it could even be risky to stand up for these values, that at some point our state could suddenly come along and label such opinions as disinformation or even ban them from the media – these are worrying developments. These must be called by name at an early stage and combatted. In this respect, the case of Jacques Baud is symbolic of this whole development. I am glad that this is coming to light so clearly, so that the population can recognise the great dangers that lurk here for our freedom and our democracy.

Thank you very much, Mr Grüter, for taking your time to talk to us.•

¹   “EU in the abyss of lawlessness” and Open letter from Associate Professor Pascal Lottaz to the Federal Council, with numerous co-signers

²   “Le retour des procès de … Moscou?” 25.4572 Interpellation by Jean-Luc Addor of 17 December 2025; “How is Switzerland dealing with EU sanctions against Swiss citizens?” 25.4632 Interpellation by Franz Grüter of 18 December 2025