The past few weeks have seen two related episodes involving Muslims’ refusal to shake hands—a religious dictate against members of different sexes touching each other (the same holds, I believe, for ultra-Orthodox Jews). The New York Times has a note that, in Austria, a female schoolteacher sued a Muslim father who refused to shake hands with her.
And, as the Inquisitr reports the government of the Swiss canton Basel-Landschaft overturned a local school’s ruling exempting Muslim students from shaking hands with their teachers. Apparently in Switzerland it’s the custom, and a sign of respect, for students to shake their teachers’ hands. (I encountered a similar behavior in a French laboratory, where I shook everybody’s hand at the beginning and end of the day.) The government ruled not only was the religious exemption for cross-sex touching a violation of Swiss policy mandating gender equality, but also that handshakes were an integral part of Swiss academic culture (“a teacher has a right to demand a handshake”). Violating this new law (remember that so far it’s limited to one canton of Switzerland) could cost the student’s parents the equivalent of US $5000 per violation.
In the U.S. this restriction would not be legal: the First Amendment requires that religious demands be accommodated so long as they don’t impose an onerous burden on the employer (or school). Refusal to shake hands is not an onerous burden, for one can simply stipulate that Muslims can, in its place, be allowed to place their hands over their hearts—another way of greeting. European laws, of course, are different, and the secularism stronger. That’s why banning face covering in public is the law in France, but wouldn’t be legal in the U.S.
I have some sympathy for the Swiss and the French, who are trying to foster secular societies, and I really dislike these religious dictates that promote covering of women and forbid cross-sex touching—both of which demonize sexuality and foster a sexist culture. But so long as we have freedom of religion, and exercising that freedom doesn’t make an onerous burden for the rest of society, we should accommodate these strange notions. I don’t see handshakes as so integral to Swiss culture that they can’t replace touching with a hand over the heart. And one should realize that such laws can also be divisive in themselves.
But, as always, I invite readers to weigh in.
h/t: Grania
I recall shaking hands with a Saudi doctor (head scarf wearing) & it was only after that I wondered if she felt uncomfortable… a limp handshake is worse than none at all!
They should be forbidden.
Typo in title? Must for much?
It much be.
/@
This Swiss law does go past accommodation of secular values and seems to be attempting to deprivilege religion.
I’m not sure in my own mind if this law is a bad thing.
On the one hand, freedom of conscience and belief is important.
On the other, religion has been the exception to the rules of civil society – and even of criticism – for far too long. This situation is beginning to change and, in Europe at least, the distaste for religious idiocy is much higher than in North America.
While the formal respect for freedom of belief is and should be paramount, hustling these primitive superstitions out the door may be worth the minor infringement thereof this law implies.
—Gideon
Respect for freedom of belief needs to end where that religious belief dictates unacceptable and / or harmful behaviour.
Surely deprivileging religion is exactly what secular values are all about?
That doesn’t mean that behaviour from a religious motive should be restricted more than similar non-religious behaviour, but nor should it have any degree of privilege.
Thus, the relevant issue here is whether a refusal to shake hands for a secular reason would be accepted or not.
I agree. Refusing to shake someones hand should warrant no more, and possibly less of course, than a clever insult in return. Involving law enforcement or the justice system is ridiculous.
If the Swiss didn’t allow students a refusal for a secular reason, then that would be wrong too. Treating two groups equally bad in terms of freedom of expression should not be the outcome we fight for. Rather, we should fight for the freedom of the Muslim students to refuse this gesture because we don’t want anyone forced to do it – including them.
Personally, I don’t think the law will ever accomplish what the Swiss supporters want it to. You cannot coerce respect. Coerce “respectful” shows of behavior, and it makes the victim think less of you rather than more of you.
Eric, you are right, of course, but I find it a bit humorous that the fanatics of Islam have come up against an equal but opposite dictate in Switzerland.
Yes. Whether much or nothing, this law is infinitely less intrusive than the average islamic rule. In that context, it’s ridiculous even discussing it.
I disagree. This is the old “well there are people being killed in China so don’t fight this battle” excuse. To which I say: baloney.
Its practically impossible to rank order all the bad actions in the world and then address them in order: we have to fight injustice where we are aware of it and where our personal capabilities lie. Sure, the Swiss are orders of magnitude better than ISIS or Boko Haram. But I (more realistically – Jerry) have zero impact on ISIS and Boko Haram, while the Swiss might listen to international, popular internet arguments in favor of freedom of expression. So we fight the battle we can.
Don’t make good the enemy of perfect. Its perfectly fine to try and make the world a better place in little ways even though you can’t make it better in big ways.
The law is way over the top to the point of being oppressive … $5,000 per incidence?
‘Coerce “respectful” shows of behavior, and it makes the victim think less of you rather than more of you.’
I’m reminded of Hitch’s perorations on compulsory love. Same with hand-shaking/respect? I wonder if he would have shaken Henry Kissinger’s hand as the price to pay to get to confront him.
I contemplate turning the corner and running into Donald Trump, and whether I should shake his proffered hand in order to Keep The Peace. Anyone here ever shaken some SOB’s hand in public so as to keep the peace? Anyone ever in a public situation where you were implacably resolved to not do so and let the chips fall where they may?
I’m reminded of that 1983 film clip of Donald Rumsfeld shaking Saddam Hussein’s hand.
I think though that we must also look at what the religous reason for not shaking hands actually is. It’s not just a non-specified religious reason. The reason is that the other person is of a different sex. This clashes directly with the principle of equality of the sexes which is a core tenet of our secular and liberal societies. I don’t think we would allow people to refuse to shake hands for a secular reason if that secular reason is “because she is a woman” or “he’s a man”. Or extrapolating this, surely a secular teacher would not be allowed to refuse teaching to a particular person because they are islamic, or of a certain sex. If we allow the islamic person to refuse to shake hands, shouldn’t we also allow the teacher the freedom to refuse to teach this person?
Well now that I think about it, I guess refusing teaching could be seen as being more severe burden on the other party than not shaking hands would be the other way around (if replaced by another show of respect at least, like touching hand over heart).
On the other hand, freedom of action, while important, is also generally restrained. Sticking to the religious examples (not the traditional “yelling Fire in a theatre”), the Swiss have specifically had to deal with the 1994 Order of the Solar Temple mass suicide/ mass murder (53 deaths, if I count correctly). For example, the Swiss may have a gun in every house – by law (it’s a militia thing) – but that militia thing involves considerable restraints on the actions you can perform with those guns.
There is no law saying that there should be a gun in every house. In the past, Swiss men who were still part of the army/militia had to keep their basic equipment at home, including their assault rifle and a sealed box with seven bullets, but this no longer is the case. In fact, the army encourages them to deposit their assault rifle and handgun (officers also have handguns) in their local arsenal, and growing numbers of the men are doing that.
OK ; I wasn’t aware of those details. But as you say, their actions were constrained.
I checked the Swedish laws on this a while ago. [Disclaimer: As I commented below the practice is to grant the behavior.]
And, as I remember it, there is a passage that states roughly that freedom of religion does not allow you to infringe on the individual’s right of freedom of religion in the sense that you can’t subject them involuntarily to your religious rituals.
Now whether or not the religious party will claim it is a ritual or “religious custom” is questionable. And it seems like so much splitting hairs, especially since it may be the infringed party that should have the interpretation privilege.
It is entirely reasonable for a country to expect immigrants to follow local customs. Maybe the US law has it backwards. If it is not an onerous imposition on the immigrant to follow the custom, they should be obliged to do so. The melting pot concept has actually worked very well throughout US history, while attempts at multiculturalism beyond accommodating and celebrating harmless religious holidays and occasion specific rituals has been and is an ongoing disaster in Europe. The Swiss (and lately the Norwegians and Danes) are coming to realize this fact and are beginning to act on it. Kudos to them.
It sounds to me like you’re describing law not custom. Nobody should be obliged to follow anyone else’s customs. The “war on Christmas” is a right-wing example of trying to force people to follow a custom: if you think that’s wrong-headed, then surely you’re not going to suggest we turn around and do the same thing to others, are you?
Where the immigrant customs are harmless, they should be allowed. Where they infringe on local customs which promote mutual respect as this handshaking thing does, immigrant customs should be expected to give way to local customs. In general, no one should be obliged to follow another culture’s customs but where there is a direct conflict in customs as in this case, local customs should prevail. Especially, as in this case and in the case with Orthodox Jews, the immigrant religious custom is based on dehumanizing women. If the Swiss only applied these fines to Muslims, it would be a clear case of discrimination and I would protest it, but if applied equally to everyone, there is no problem.
It is always a student saying “I won’t shake hands because of my Islamic beliefs” and not “I will waive the prohibition on handshakes with the opposite sex because I am Swiss”. Negotiable cultural norms cannot win in a debate against rigid religious dogma. This, frankly, is one reason why religion just needs to bugger off
Great point, Pete. That is the key point. If you immigrate to another country, you need to first be a resident and eventually citizen of that country and 2nd or 3rd be a member of a foreign culture and religion. When Ted Cruz and other dominionist Christian Fascists proclaim they are Christians first and Americans 2nd, they are proclaiming themselves to be traitors.
what happens if someone calls them the A-word? Will they get sued?
Sorry if I can’t say “A-word”, but for goodness sake, shaking hands? I never knew/realized this before.
Side note : I saw a whole family stay seated during the United States national anthem at a non-sporting event in the United States. Sure I think they are free to do so. BUT….
So, what’s your take on the prospect of forcing a student in a U.S. PUBLIC school to say the pledge of allegiance – certainly a non-sporting venue? As it is (per the U.S. Supreme Court, IIRC), they can’t be forced, but that’s not to say they aren’t ostracized, shunned for it.
I gather that a student in a private school can be forced to say the pledge, or be expelled, since the school is, after all, PRIVATE.
I’m a British subject living in the US. When the pledge is given or the US national anthem is played, I stand up as a sign of respect. I would expect a US citizen to do the same if they were living in the UK
I would stand if everyone else did so; not doing so wouldn’t be a sign of indifference, but outright hostility.
I gather that it is “customary” to stand during Handel’s “Messiah” when the “Hallelujah Chorus” is played. (Why – because King George once felt compelled to stand?) I once attended a community chorus performance which included the “Hallelujah Chorus” at a community/convention center. No one around me remained seated. I declined to stand. Ought I have stood since, after all, it was apparently, at least, local custom? Yet I can hardly believe that everyone who stood thought they ought to have to. I speculate that they did it to Keep The Peace.
On the other hand, some years later I went to see it in the chapel of a notable private university, and no one stood.
An early example of audience partici…
…
…
… pation?
/@
Sure. But if the foreigner did not stand would you expect them to be fined $5000?
I am wondering if this would have gendered more respect from my students when I was a substitute teacher… or when I was a full time teacher for than matter…
I’ve substitute taught full-time for over ten years in a public system.
I put my hand to heart during the pledge of allegiance, but I don’t say anything as I certainly don’t think I should be forced to say it. I monitor the students for anyone skylarking. They don’t have to say it of course, but I won’t tolerate anyone talking or otherwise interrupting/disrupting.
Should anyone call on me for not saying it, I’m prepared to reference my military service as evidence of my having significantly walked that particular talk.
I’d like to see hand shaking, kiss, and hug greetings just stop outright in favour of hand over the heart greeting or something similar. It would go far to reduce the transmission of communicable diseases and basically eliminate any of these petty squabbles. Just my 2 cents.
I agree completely. The custom of physical contact with strangers should have gone out of the window as soon as the germ theory of disease was discovered.
I don’t refuse to shake hands under normal circumstances, but I hike a lot, and I certainly won’t do it in the backcountry, where personal hygiene tends to go out of the window. Studies of water quality in the lakes and streams of the Sierras showed that the majority of Giardia cases were contracted not from the water, but from hiking partners.
How far? Do you have any reputable epidemiologists who’d support you (e.g. with a published peer-reviewed journal paper to that effect)?
What proportion of communicable disease is transmitted by skin-to-surface-to-skin contact? By aerosol? And we haven’t even got onto STIs.
Well, I have little doubt that I could find at least enough to counter the peer-reviewed studies on the impact of declined handshakes.
Really I think we should take religion right out of this. The reason the Muslim students don’t want to shake hands is, of course, based on a religious dictate, but so what? I just don’t think handshaking should ever be compulsory; indeed that completely removes the point of it. So I support the Muslim students’ right not to shake hands. But not because their reason happens to be religious. I’d also support that right if their reason was cultural but nonreligious; or if it wasn’t cultural at all but just a personal idiosyncrasy or antipathy. Refusing to shake hands is rude, of course. I disapprove of rudeness. But (if we’re liberals) we shouldn’t ban things just because we disapprove of them.
We cannot take the religion out of this. Why does this religious dictate exist? Muslims who do not wish to touch women or infidels do not touch them because Islam itself does not respect women and infidels.
I see your point but as I understand, these students refused to shake hands with FEMALE teachers only. Religion cannot trump gender equality. And this is the main reason I do not support the Muslim students.
I agree. Women are less and are considered tempting to men. They are hypersexualized and refusing to touch them reflects this belief.
Legally forcing a cultural tradition is wrong no matter what the tradition is (within reason, the tradition of not going on a murderous rampage out to remain in force). Culture and religion run hand in hand, we merely call one the other when there are appeals to the supernatural involved. If I didn’t shake hands with this teacher because I’m just an asshole, would this woman have still sued me? That would decide whether this was bigotry or simply more culturally hurt feelings.
Forcing anyone to “show respect” or “be respectful” merely generates fake respect theater. Someone who shakes my hand out of respect when they don’t have to, or when it’s not expected shows me more respect than than someone who does so out of decorum or by rule of law.
I find this suit distasteful and in direct contradiction to the principals of freedom of speech, thought and inquiry. This is no more in line with liberal principals than enforcing the salut of generals or averting the eyes from a king.
There are reasonable reasons to ban veils in certain public places, and to combatting oppression by regulating the tools of that oppression. But this is about hurt feelings, not the oppression of one person by another.
I would support the refusal to shake hands with any teacher by students as a perfectly valid and peaceful display of protest.
I do not, however, support a specialized exemption for Muslim men, I simply support removing the requirement altogether. Let social pressure dictate the value of this tradition and not the law of the land.
While I don’t agree with the idea, in the context of a country that has blasphemy laws because blasphemy offends the religious, why should the religious be allowed to offend women.
I take an extremely dim view of religion. Nevertheless regional customs differ widely, sometimes because of religion, sometimes tradition. The spectrum of prudishness varies from India to Saudi Arabia to Denmark to the United States. Norms about things like sex, nudity, dress, personal space, touching etc also change rapidly along the timescale. It boils down to this: whether or not religion is involved why put another person in a position that makes them uncomfortable? In this case the Muslim dad obviously intended no hostility. A warm greeting, a head bow, or a smile often serves just as well. I am personally not fond of handshakes knowing there are folks who will blithely shake their paws away even when down with a cold or flu.
I’m a french citizen and secular, I believe these behaviours should be stopped at every opportunity.
Not shaking hands, insisting for Hallal food in schools or asking for gendered time in swimming pools for ex. are harmless requests in themselves but these come with a package:
-If fosters a “them and us” mentality.
-It create a sense of entitlment, and will only lead to more requests if we cave in.
-It prevents proper integration in society. And shows a will not to integrate.
-It is a sign of radicalisation.
Religion is not a good excuse for antisocial behaviour. I don’t think what the Swiss did goes against free speech.
To me this type of special requests is reminiscent of students demands for safe spaces.
I agree.
I agree as well. The people asking for these things clearly do not want to be part of the French society, yet they do want to reap the benefits of it.
We’re talking about legislation here. I don’t think that there should be any religious considerations in legislation whatsoever.
On the one hand: mandatory taxation and vaccination are good for society – no religious exemptions.
On the other hand: the fact that there may be a “package” of religious beliefs and behaviors is irrelevant. We should not be legislating to address such a thing. We must address each issue on its secular merits.
Is there a good secular reason to have faces visible? If so, no religious exemption.
Is it reasonable for special diets to be accommodated? If so, allow Hallal along with
vegetarian, paleo or whatever else.
Is it reasonable for an individual to wish not to be physically touched, whatever his reason?
I think the last question, like all the others, should be answered without reference to religion or motivation. And I think the answer is indisputably yes.
I think its up to the individual school but if theres a cascade of requests or any individual request considered excessively segregating (e.g. separate times at swimming pool,prayer rooms, halal food which frankly they can make and bring themselves unless muslim (women i suppose) volunteer to make this for muslim kids at tuckshop and there is non halal made available or made by them too etc) then I think the State should be obligated to support the school and legislation should make clear that religious accommodation must not lead to significant segregation or inconvenience to the operation and costs of the school or interfere with values of the school that are being taught. It would be up to interpretation and common sense but it could be enforced. There is a problem though, when liberal guilt leads to ever more concessions eroding liberalism and raising kids in an enclave mentality
I had all my schooling in Switzerland, and I don’t remember shaking hands with my teachers, except exceptionally to say goodbye to a really liked one the last day of the term. But of course, Switzerland is culturally very diverse. If Basler teachers like to shake twenty sticky hands every morning, well, it’s their problem.
I nevertheless suspect that this law was triggered by conservative (and therefore christian) people with the aim of “educate” (read “bother”) these foreigners who invade our beloved country, rather than of promoting secularism. But if shaking hands with teachers is actually the rule or the tradition in this corner of Switzerland, I agree that religious motives are a poor excuse for being rude.
Requiring me to shake hands with someone seems far more intrusive (or whatever the right word is) than asking me to endure seeing someone wearing a veil or hijab or whatever. I don’t really mind shaking hands with most people but I don’t really care for it, either. I have no particular desire to touch most other people. It’s really a pretty dumb ritual that’s likely to spread germs…
A few years ago I had an opportunity to meet a famous musician and we were told by his handlers that he “doesn’t shake hands”. I suspect he was a germaphobe (is that a word?) or may even have a susceptibility to communicable illnesses, since he always looks rather frail. Anyway I think there are perfectly legitimate secular reasons to avoid hand-shaking.
So I guess I would side with the Muslim students in this case. Let them abstain from the hand-shaking if they wish…
I remember reading one article talking about germ transmission from handshakes. It suggested that the Japanese custom of bowing instead of shaking hands was actually better.
In that vein, would Swiss school teacher have anything against my own favorite, the Vulcan salute? Live long and prosper, O teacher.
One place where I worked in the UK, there was a British muslim women of some south Asian background, who wore long-sleeve tops with extra long sleeves, and would happily shake hands, but with the end of the sleeve covering her hand so that technically it wasn’t touching.
Also, gloves. Wasn’t there an old tradition of ladies wearing gloves for this sort of thing?
They could have gone for a pragmatic solution, but instead seem to have reached for the sledgehammer.
Bad cases make bad laws. This is an instance.
1. Religions consist of a few core beliefs and an ever expanding nebula of subsidiary ones veering into superstition. USSC notwithstanding, I do not think that one could draw an operable boundary around the idea of religion.
2. In interpersonal relations, the interests and beliefs of both parties deserve equal consideration. Respect is mutual. One cannot subordinate the teacher’s right to shake hands to the right of the student to hold his hand to the heart.
3. One of the school’s core functions is acculturation. Shaking hand signifies this. Not to do so, expresses refusal “to get along” and debases the school to a supermarket of skills.
Whether a fine of up to $ 5000 is a wise decision is best decided in the context. It is unfortunate that the world feels obliged to pass judgment without an understanding of the many layers of context.
“the interests and beliefs of both parties deserve equal consideration. ”
No. Some interests have a higher legitimacy than others.
If your belief requires you to murder me, my interest in not being murdered has greater legitimacy.
n * (n-1) gets large very quickly as n increases in size. All that hand shaking would be quite unproductive in a large work place. Luckily you don’t have to shake your own hand but as n gets big you might as well replace n-1 with n as shaking your own hand is the least of your worries.
Divide by 2 unless you count a single handshake as two handshakes which it is in a way.
“Apparently in Switzerland it’s the custom, and a sign of respect, for students to shake their teachers’ hands.”
How can any action be a sign of respect if it’s required by law? That makes about as much sense as mandatory tipping.
Religion shouldn’t even enter into this discussion. Nobody should ever be required to shake anyone’s hand, nor should anyone have to provide a reason for declining. It’s as simple as that.
There were penalties at my high school for students who did not stand when the “platform party” entered during an assembly or when either the vice-principal or principal entered a classroom. This is mandated respect but only enforced by school rules. Do you oppose this too?
As it happens, *I* oppose mandated respect, and did then, and said so at the time, and nearly got in trouble for just *saying* that. It came up because some student hadn’t heard that one is supposed to do the latter bit yet and didn’t stand or something. So I am just curious where *you* draw the line.
Hi Keith.
I experienced the swiss and the spanish school system. The swiss system can sound very strict and harsh, but in reality there are just a few simple rules you should obey, and it succeeds in creating a disciplined and respectful environment. In Spain things were different. Many teachers, especially progressives, were against formalities because they considered that they were authoritarian, and some linked them even with the Franco dictatorship. They thought that being on equal terms with students would lead students to have voluntary respect and create a better study environment. But they were wrong. Problematic students played a power game against professors and created and environment were teachers could not teach as they wished. I can say that the very problematic students I knew in Switzerland didn’t dare to insult teachers, walk freely out of the class when they pleased, create mayhem so that the teacher can’t be heard, and worst, that the teacher gives up and walks impotently out of the the class. All this things were unimaginable to me until I got to Spain. And the students who did this were not even very problematic. It’s just that they knew that they could do this kind of stuff without having to face any consequence.
Teachers and students are in a sense natural enemies. If you don’t impose respect, there will be always students who will take the opportunity to revolutionise and prejudice students that have a real interest in learning. It’s important that there is a balance, but there must be always a clear authority.
“Teachers and students are in a sense natural enemies.”
Sounds like a real “carrot” to motivate one to enter the teaching profession.
Would you say that parents and children are no less in a sense “natural enemies”?
No, I think that between parents and children there is a bond of mutual love and necessity. Although parents are still an authority and there is a natural tendency to resist it, I would distinguish it clearly from the relationship between teachers and children.
I’m astonished by this.
The Swiss are suggesting, in effect, that it’s a fundamental human right to physically touch a stranger against their will.
I feel exactly the opposite. I have a right to NOT be physically touched if I choose, without any burden on me to state the reason.
Religion has nothing to do with this.
They should just remove the handshaking all together. It’s just not sanitary.
If they really need to greet they could learn from Asia and simply bow.
Switzerland: Muslim students much shake teachers’ hands or get fined
In my opinion any governing of human activity based solely on the dictates of non-existent sky-fairies is insane. Muslims and christians are two prime examples of this form of insanity.
This is a terrible issue to take a stand on against religious entitlement. People have a secular right to refuse physical contact. If you want to strike at Islamic supremacism, ban headscarves on minors in public. The promotion of gender equality validates such a move and sends a powerful message.
I have lived in Switzerland since 1948 and I have never heard that it is a custom for pupils to shake hands with their teacher. It might be in some schools, but it certainly is not a widespread custom at all.
Also Switzerland’s commitment to gender equality must be very recent. Women didn’t get the right to vote in federal elections until 1971. In 1959 67% of Swiss men voted against allowing women the vote
Yet, I gather female teachers could compel students to shake hands? (I guess on the basis of students being “minors.”)
I don’t think that fining people for going against social norms is at all appropriate, whatever their reasons for doing so. Having said that, I do think that, out of all the immigrants that have come to my country (the UK), there is one, and only one, group of people who are a constant source of conflict because they go out of their way not to fit in. I can never understand why someone would leave an Islamic country because it was an awful place to live, come to a western country because it is an infinitely better place to live and then act as if their culture is somehow superior to ours.
Most commenters do not seem to realize that the muslim father refused to shake hands because the teacher is a woman. That is the only reason. This is not about shaking the hands of teachers in general, but it’s about shaking the hands of female teachers. It’s pure islamic misogyny
And equality for women > religion.
I seriously doubt that a significant number of commenters missed that. I think rather that despite their opposition to religion, they think that instituting laws to make it a criminal offense for a Muslim man to refuse to shake a woman’s hand because of his religious beliefs, or for any person to refuse to shake another person’s hand for any reason, is a bad idea.
The majority seems to be speaking about a refusal to shake hands in general terms. To me, this is on the same level as an orthodox jew refusing to sit next to a woman on an airplane.
I don’t agree – it’s not on the same level at all. A desire not to shake hands with somebody causes no inconvenience to anyone whatsoever. I think the idea that this is somehow a big deal for social integration is manufactured outrage on the part of the teacher & school, on a par with the manufactured outrage that radical Muslims frequently exhibit.
I understand that his motivation is misogynistic, and I despise that. But we’re talking about legislation here. You don’t legislate against belief, however evil and misguided the belief. You legislate against actions, based on an analysis of the significance of those actions per se. You don’t legislate against trivialities simply because their motivation is undesirable.
In order to be fair in a legal sense I think it does need to be considered as a general case.
The comparison to an OJ refusing to sit next to a woman on a plane is not quite equivalent. One major difference is that the OJ’s refusal impacts many other people. At least given the way most airlines have handled such situations. The airlines could avoid the impact on other passengers by simply escorting the OJ off the plane without delay.
Also note that, at least so far, refusing to sit next to a woman on a plane has not been criminalized.
I am really surprised by how many people think that this rather mild rudeness should be criminalized. There is a world of difference between agreeing that something is rude and contributing to some social consequences for the rudeness on the one hand VS instituting laws to criminalize the behavior.
Re the seating. We wouldn’t arrest the man. We’d tell him he can leave the bus and walk. We’d refuse to discomode others at his behest but wouldn’t punish him legally.
I would be outraged if I were forced to shake hands with my teacher, and I would imagine it would be a big burden on the teacher to have to shake hands with hundreds of students every day.
In the US, there seems to be some magic number than when the number of people you meet at one time exceeds X, you can get away with nodding or waving, rather than having to shake hands.
“remember that so far it’s limited to one canton of Switzerland”
I’m bemused at the number of people in the US who are hostile to federal government “overreach”, which it seems far more common for local government to overreach
Aren’t there two quite separate things getting often confused here:
(1) On religious grounds, a law of the country, or canton, or whatever, is being rejected, resulting in illegal behaviour based on religious, in this case anti-woman, sentiment.
(2) Some law, in this case the one above, is a bad idea.
One can very well disagree with (1) and agree with (2) at the same time, without being the least bit inconsistent.
I’m close to that position, though am uncertain on (2), where agreement with it here seems to be a very USish thing.
On that point, but more to do with clothing, it is not nearly so obvious to me that laws about clothing which can conflict with religious nonsense are a bad idea for reasons of personal freedom. For me a law against face covering in any public place (modulo silly little exceptions such as kiddies at halloween and people braving -40 degrees and 80 mph winds) is not always a bad idea, usually a good one. People of the opposite view don’t seem to mind a law against me wearing no clothing midday below my hat on the main street of Omaha. Isn’t my personal freedom being curtailed there, and in that place most would be offended on religious grounds in that city, I’d bet.
Don’t need a religious exemption. The law should not enforce norms of politeness like this. The student is rude and can be rebuked, or treated to a hint of rudeness in return. The law is a blunt instrument.
Sweden has been terrible here, because the courts have decided that misogynistic refusal is okay in work places, and will sue the employers that fire personal that is practicing it. That is putting freedom of religion before the individual’s right not to be dragged into a religious ritual.
But on the other hand a politician from the green, feminist party had to quit when he refused to shake hands with the female reporter in state television. That he couldn’t support the party values of gender equality and behave differently towards the sexes hadn’t crossed his mind. In fact, from his not-pology he still thinks he treats females ‘better’.
That was Yasri Khan, a 30 year old running for a seat on the Green party’s executive board.
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/04/sweden-green-party-infiltrated-islamists-160426130534157.html
The Swedish greens have a number of hardline muslims in their ranks and in typical pomo crittheory fashion think this squares with other rights such as gender equality … or for that matter religious equality (e.g. links to Turkish extremist groups that hate Christians and non muslims such as Chinese)
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/18/swedens-housing-minister-resigns-amid-extremist-links-row
http://www.politico.eu/article/turkish-grey-wolves-target-chinese/
References re your comment on
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/04/sweden-green-party-infiltrated-islamists-160426130534157.html
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/18/swedens-housing-minister-resigns-amid-extremist-links-row
I like the Maori (NZ) tradition of rubbing noses (as do staphylococci).
I grew up in Switzerland and I had to shake the teachers hand and it was also mandatory to call them Herr/Frau followed by their surname. This and other customs in the educational system have to do with respecting your teachers, which helps create discipline and a good environment for teaching without students causing problems. I don’t think that any student should have a special right to disrespect a woman teacher because of religious reasons in front of the eyes of other students. What message are you giving? That some people have the right to skip every rule and disrespect women? What if their religion teaches them that women should not be allowed to talk to them? Should it be accepted? I know that a handshake seems a ridiculous thing to complain about, but in Switzerland any form of disrespect against teachers has serious consequences. If you call teachers by their nick names as if they were your buddies after several warnings, you would be in trouble. The reason for the handshake drama is that it is a relative new form of disrespect and goes contrary to the equality between sexes respected in this country. I remember my muslim friends shaking hands with teachers, and they were free to exercise their religion. There was no problems with this.
I do not agree that all religious practice should be respected, and in this case, the religious practice to disrespect a woman in an environment where there are certain rules. I think that it’s ridiculous to be forbidden to shake a woman’s hand and that this creates segregation and hate. The swiss educational system does not go against minorities or different religions. It is actually celebrated and welcomed. But you don’t go to school with your personal believes to do what ever you want or believe on the basis of freedom of religion. I personally don’t remember choosing freely to go to school, learn maths, do homework, and respecting my teachers. Lets not forget that schools have rules, and students and parents have to respect them. And when you’re out of school you can always choose not to shake the hands of women.
In trouble with who? The police? Or the school administration? Is there a law that stipulates a fine of $5000 each time a student disrespects a teacher by calling them by a nickname rather than their proper title and name? Or is the punishment something administered by the school?
I have no idea but I hope that whatever punishment might be administered is done by the school and not the law. I think it would be much better if this handshake issue also were handled by the school administration and not the law.
Depending on what the student has done there could be fines and police intervention. Sometimes the school administration can handle the problem without further intervention. In this particular case it was handled first by the school, and than it was elevated further, since there is a conflict between religious freedom, school discipline/rules and gender equality. So it’s normal that this kind of conflict is elevated to the state. The state must decide if religious rights apply in this case or not. And since the father of the two boys is an Imam that encourages the behaviour of their children, there will be fines. A particular case I remember was I boy who didn’t go to school faking being sick and they parents allowed it. Due to suspicion an investigation was done, the police intervened and there were fines for their parents.
Don’t get me wrong, I know that this can sound very stupid for anyone that did not experienced the swiss school system. There are formalities in the school system that create a certain discipline and respect towards teachers, like in every other country. It happens that in many schools and parts of Switzerland handshaking is one of those formalities, and every student should obey them equally. This students are demanding an exception to this formalities towards female teachers on a basis of religious freedom. I don’t think that students can be misogynistic towards female teachers due religious reasons. In every environment there are certain rules and requirements, and in the swiss school system not every capricious religious believes and practices apply. And as far as I know it’s not even a mandatory law in islam.
It seems that this case is long not over and there could be a change in events that favour the student’s religious rights. I personally hope not.
Cheers.
Thank you for taking the time to explain further.
I do agree that protecting people from discrimination based on, well, anything, and defining what constitutes discrimination and what doesn’t is properly accomplished by the state via its justice system. I do see how this case could end up in court to determine if the school is allowed to punish / sanction the student or if that would be, per the law, religious discrimination. Whatever the current law I definitely agree that punishing the student in this case should not be considered religious discrimination.
But, a law specifically for criminalizing the offense of refusing to shake a teacher’s hand doesn’t sound like a good idea to me.
As far as I know they didn’t create a specific law. Their behaviour goes against the school conduct, and since the father of the children is involved, fines would apply. It’s like when in Switzerland muslim children didn’t want to go to swim classes due religious reasons, and it’s a mandatory class. I think they decided that this two boys were breaking existing laws with the excuse of religious freedom. But I’m not sure of that.
I think the shake hands tradition is unnecessary, possibly contributes to cold etc spread and should be phased out. I can understand though that the teacher might feel her classes really aren’t being taken seriously by some if even the parents are making a point of not shaking hands. I think though that shaking hands at parent teacher meetings is just a form of formal introduction and respect.
In terms of freedom of religion I think its oppressive and causes resentment to make the students shake hands publicly every day but I wouldn’t be averse to mild fine on the parents for not showing reciprocal respect to the teacher at least once a year – added to school expenses which there must be some of even if its a public school. Its how its applied.
A suggested compromise: Students can substitute a bow for a handshake. The Japanese have had this right all along.
Whether shaking hands is good or bad is not important, it is important not to give way in this case to stupid religious misogyny, the self inflation of the male ego at another persons expense.
But the muslims claim it is not because of the male ego. It is because the men get horny touching women.
If you want people to integrate though, you want firm but reasonably sensitive pressure combined with incentives. You don’t want to go out of the way to single them out and humiliate them, or actively marginalise them, and I think the public enforced handshake twice a day is that.
My concern is that one shouldn’t have to give any reason for being unwilling to touch, or be touched by, another person.
The misogynistic religious excuses that are given in this case are deplorable, but that shouldn’t be a reason to take away bodily autonomy.
I am a person that is big on shaking hands… and like Dominic said, I hate a limp handshake.
I have to admit that I am always thrown off guard, and even feel a bit slighted, when someone refuses to shake hands… and even endured the pain of shaking hands with a sprained wrist, partially out of habit, and partially for fear of slighting someone… but that is because I was raised thinking that it was disrespectful to decline to shake hands… I kinda wish that hadn’t been the case.
There have been times that I have encountered people who, when I offered my hand, responded with some variation of “I don’t shake hands.” Some explain why, some don’t. Even with an explanation, it feels a bit like a slight… and that is ridiculous. My need for “respect” does not and should not give me the right to demand that another person allow me to touch them, regardless of their reason for not wanting me to touch them.
Perhaps they are afraid of germs, perhaps they have had a traumatic experience that causes them to avoid physical contact, perhaps they have a religious or otherwise bigoted reason for not touching someone of my physical description, perhaps they have a contagion that they don’t want to spread, perhaps they have an injury that they don’t want to aggravate, perhaps they just don’t like people… the reason shouldn’t matter.
There should be no coercion to any kind of physical contact.
My general modus operandi is to try to do my best to say hello, briefly hesitate to extend the hand, allowing the other person a reasonable opportunity to control that aspect of the situation, and cheerily accept whatever the other person wants to do about that.