In a decision that has reignited debate over the boundaries of political protest and free speech in Europe, Switzerland’s highest court has upheld the convictions of four protesters who displayed a provocative banner targeting Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan more than eight years ago. The ruling, delivered on November 5, 2025, by the Swiss Federal Tribunal, marks the end of a lengthy legal saga that began with a controversial demonstration in Bern in 2017.
The case centers around a rally held in March 2017 in the Swiss capital, where demonstrators unfurled a large banner bearing the image of President Erdoğan with a gun pointed at his temple. The banner also displayed a chilling message: “Kill Erdoğan with his own weapons.” According to the Associated Press, the rally’s organizers intended to protest Turkish government policies, but the banner’s imagery and wording quickly drew widespread condemnation and the attention of Swiss authorities.
Three years later, in 2020, a regional court in Switzerland found four individuals responsible for the banner guilty of public incitement to a crime. The court handed down fines and suspended prison sentences, a decision that the defendants swiftly appealed. They argued that their actions constituted protected political expression, not a call to violence. However, the Swiss legal system saw it differently.
This week, the Swiss Federal Tribunal—the country’s highest court—rejected the protesters’ final appeal, cementing their convictions. In a statement released Wednesday, the court explained its reasoning in unequivocal terms. “Based on the concrete circumstances—the selected image, associated with text—the banner cannot objectively be considered anything else than as a clear and urgent incitement to kill the Turkish president,” the court declared, as reported by the Associated Press and other outlets.
The ruling has sparked renewed discussion across Switzerland and beyond about the limits of free speech, especially when it comes to political dissent and criticism of foreign leaders. The court’s statement made clear that, in its view, the combination of violent imagery and explicit language crossed a red line. “The banner cannot objectively be considered anything else than as a clear and urgent incitement to kill the Turkish president,” the Federal Tribunal stated, reiterating the lower court’s findings. This strong language underscores the seriousness with which Swiss authorities approached the case.
For many, the case is emblematic of the delicate balancing act European democracies face when it comes to upholding freedom of expression while also preventing incitement to violence. Switzerland, known for its tradition of neutrality and robust protections for civil liberties, has often been a stage for heated political demonstrations. Yet this case, involving a foreign head of state and a direct call to violence, presented unique legal and ethical challenges.
The 2017 demonstration in Bern was one of many protests that year against President Erdoğan and his government, as tensions flared over issues ranging from human rights to Turkey’s domestic and foreign policies. But the banner in question stood out for its graphic depiction and explicit message. According to the BBC and other international media, Turkish officials at the time condemned the protest and called on Swiss authorities to take action, arguing that such displays endangered the safety of the Turkish president and incited terrorism.
Swiss prosecutors launched an investigation shortly after the rally, and by 2020, four individuals had been identified and brought to trial. The regional court found them guilty of public incitement to a crime, imposing fines and suspended sentences rather than jail time—a decision that reflected both the gravity of the offense and the defendants’ lack of prior criminal records. The defendants, however, maintained that their actions were a form of political protest, protected under Swiss law and international human rights conventions.
The case wound its way through the Swiss legal system for several years, with both sides presenting arguments about the nature of political speech and the responsibilities of protesters. The defendants’ legal team contended that, while the banner was provocative and even offensive, it did not constitute a genuine call to violence. They argued that political art and protest often use hyperbole and shocking imagery to draw attention to important issues, and that criminalizing such expression would have a chilling effect on free speech.
But the courts disagreed, emphasizing the specific context and content of the banner. The Federal Tribunal’s ruling leaves little room for interpretation. The court found that the combination of the president’s image, the gun, and the explicit call to “Kill Erdoğan with his own weapons” went beyond protected speech and amounted to an incitement to commit a serious crime. As the court put it, the message was “clear and urgent,” leaving no doubt about its intent.
The verdict has drawn mixed reactions in Switzerland and internationally. Some legal experts and free speech advocates have expressed concern that the ruling could set a precedent for the criminalization of political protest, especially when it involves criticism of foreign leaders. Others have praised the court for taking a firm stand against incitement to violence, arguing that freedom of expression must have limits when it comes to direct threats or calls for assassination.
Turkish authorities, for their part, have welcomed the decision. Ankara has long accused European countries of tolerating anti-Turkish sentiment and failing to protect foreign leaders from threats. The Swiss court’s ruling, they argue, sends a message that such behavior will not be tolerated, even under the guise of political protest.
Meanwhile, the defendants and their supporters remain defiant. They insist that their protest was aimed at drawing attention to what they see as repressive policies in Turkey, and that the court’s decision represents an overreach by Swiss authorities. “We were protesting against injustice, not inciting violence,” one of the defendants said after the verdict, according to Swiss media reports.
The case is likely to have lasting implications for how Switzerland and other European countries handle similar incidents in the future. As political tensions continue to spill across borders and protests grow increasingly global in scope, courts will be called upon to navigate the complex interplay between free speech, public safety, and international diplomacy.
For now, the Swiss Federal Tribunal’s ruling stands as a stark reminder that, even in societies that prize open debate and dissent, there are limits to what can be said—and how it can be said—when the line between protest and incitement is crossed.
