A Eurovision Win, a Bitter Comment, and the Line Switzerland Decided Not to Ignore

Eurovision usually fades quietly once the winner is crowned.
The songs stay, the debates move on, and Europe gets ready for the next season.

But sometimes, what happens after the contest says more than anything that happened on stage.

That’s exactly what’s happened in Switzerland, more than a year after Nemo won the Eurovision Song Contest 2024.

One Comment, Posted Quickly. Remembered for Much Longer.

In the days following Nemo’s victory, Ivan Thévoz, a regional politician from Fribourg, posted a comment online that compared Eurovision unfavourably to traditional Swiss wrestling festivals, suggesting that at least there were “fewer gay people” there.

It wasn’t witty.
It wasn’t clumsy wording.
It wasn’t ambiguous.

People recognised it instantly for what it was, and they reacted accordingly.

From Online Post to Courtroom Reality

Fast forward to May 2025, and the comment had travelled a long way.

Thévoz was found guilty of discrimination based on sexual orientation and received a suspended fine plus a monetary penalty. He appealed the decision, arguing that he was referring to gender identity rather than sexual orientation, and that his words should be protected as free speech.

This week, the Cantonal Court of Fribourg rejected that appeal.

The judges didn’t overcomplicate it. They described the statement as a homophobic insult, one that stigmatised and discriminated against homosexual people or those perceived as such. They also made something else very clear: freedom of expression exists, but it is not unlimited — especially when it targets a group of people in a degrading way.

Thévoz can still appeal to Switzerland’s Federal Supreme Court. But the message from this ruling is already loud enough.

Why Eurovision Is Part of This Story at All

Here’s the uncomfortable truth: this case wouldn’t exist without Eurovision.

Nemo didn’t provoke anyone. They didn’t campaign politically. They didn’t lecture Europe. They won by performing a song that connected with juries and viewers alike.

And yet, that visibility — that simple act of being seen on one of Europe’s biggest stages — was enough to trigger a reaction that crossed a legal line.

That’s why this isn’t just about one politician saying something foolish online. It’s about what happens when representation collides with resistance.

Eurovision as a Cultural Pressure Point

Every year, Eurovision quietly tests how comfortable societies really are with diversity. Not in theory. In practice.

Most of the time, the contest absorbs that tension and moves on. Sometimes, though, the friction spills over into real life — into workplaces, families, comment sections… and occasionally, courtrooms.

Nemo’s win didn’t create intolerance.
It exposed it.

A Line That Was Drawn, Clearly

This ruling isn’t about forcing people to like Eurovision. It’s not about demanding applause or agreement.

It’s about saying that public figures don’t get to dress up insults as opinions and walk away untouched. Especially not when those words land on people who already carry the weight of being scrutinised just for existing.

That distinction matters — far beyond Eurovision.

The Contest Moves Forward. The Conversation Doesn’t.

Eurovision 2024 is already history. New winners have been crowned. New debates have taken over.

But this case lingers because it reminds us of something Eurovision fans know instinctively: the contest isn’t just a TV show. It’s a mirror.

Sometimes it reflects joy, unity and shared madness.
Sometimes it reflects the parts of society that still haven’t caught up.

Nemo won a trophy in 2024.
This court ruling isn’t about that win — but it quietly explains why it mattered.

Source: Blick