From the 80 thousand francs for the pro-Palestine protest to the costs attributed to the Flotilla: Switzerland reiterates that those who act against official bans and warnings must bear the resulting costs, without transferring them to the community.
The invoice from 80,000 euros delivered to the organizer of the event pro-Palestine unauthorized of November 1, 2025 in Zion it is not a punitive act, but a logical consequence of an elementary principle: those who decide to ignore the rules and force the State to mobilize extraordinary means must bear the costs it generates. In this case, the protest required the use of around 80 agents for four hours, with an official charge of 250 euros per hour for each operator. The resulting sum, 80,000 euros was communicated to the organizer last week.
The event, let us remember, had already been banned twice. The organizers still chose to continue, aware of the potential risks to public order. It is therefore difficult to maintain that the Canton of Valais has resorted to arbitrariness: it has limited itself to applying legislation that protects not only the institutions, but also the citizens, who cannot be called upon to finance interventions made necessary by unilateral decisions and deliberately in conflict with the law. The Councilor of State Stéphane Ganzer (PLR), responsible for the dossier, recalled it bluntly: «A prohibited demonstration remains prohibited. If you organize it anyway, you are responsible for the consequences». This is not a political orientation, but a pillar of good administration: the principle that prevents the costs of irresponsible behavior from being socialized.
It is therefore not surprising that the Canton of Valais reiterated that the costs must fall on those who chose to proceed despite the bans. The organizers’ argument that the bill is “politically motivated” appears weak: the security device was not optional and was not deployed for ideological reasons, but to ensure the safety of protesters, residents and law enforcement.
The appeal announced by Gaël Ribordy and the challenge to the ban will be able to follow their judicial process, but the substance remains: avoiding the bans would have simply also avoided the costs. Presenting the bill as a form of repression means ignoring a fact: in a democracy, the freedom to demonstrate is guaranteed, but it presupposes rules, coordination with the authorities and respect for the constraints established for security reasons. Here none of these conditions were met.
Valais’ decision is not an isolated one. A significant precedent is that of the Swiss members of the Freedom Flotillawho had been charged for repatriation and consular management costs after stopped in the waters headed for Gaza. Even in that case, the Confederation had reiterated an identical principle: when a citizen decides to take an action voluntarily contrary to official recommendations and this action generates extraordinary costs, the State can – and must – transfer the financial burden to whoever caused them. The protests expressed at the time did not change the legal framework: the principle of individual responsibility prevailed. And today, the Canton of Valais is moving in the same direction, reaffirming a line consistent with the Swiss tradition of protecting the public interest and limiting unnecessary burdens on the taxpayer. The Zion controversy, therefore, does not open a disturbing precedent as some claim: on the contrary, it reaffirms a fundamental balance. The authorities do not prevent the protest, but they expect it to be organized in compliance with the law. If you decide to violate it, you pay for what that violation produces. It is a simple, transparent and, above all, fair principle. Italy does the same.
