Thread: Muslim couple denied Swiss citizenship over handshake refusal.

Fair enough or bigotry?
Should the host country respect the customs of the immigrant or is it the obligation of the immigrant to adapt to the host countries custom, not the other way around.

Muslim couple denied Swiss citizenship over handshake refusal
Couple also ‘showed great difficulty in answering questions asked by people of the opposite sex’


The Swiss city of Lausanne has blocked a Muslim couple’s bid to become Swiss nationals over their refusal to shake hands with members of the opposite sex.


The municipality said it refused to grant the couple’s citizenship application over their lack of respect for gender equality, Lausanne mayor Gregoire Junod said.


He said a municipal commission had questioned the couple several months ago to determine if they met the criteria for citizenship, but had determined in the ruling made public on Friday that they missed the mark on integration.




Swiss ruling overturns Muslim pupils' handshake exemption
Read more
He refused to divulge the couple’s nationalities or other identifying details, but said they “did not shake hands with people of the opposite sex”.


They also “showed great difficulty in answering questions asked by people of the opposite sex,” he said.


Some devout Muslims argue that Islam does not permit physical contact with a person of the opposite sex, with the exception of certain immediate family members.


Junod pointed out that freedom of belief and religion is enshrined in the laws of the Canton of Vaud, which encompasses Lausanne.


But “religious practice does not fall outside the law,” he stressed.


His vice-mayor, Pierre-Antoine Hildbrand, who was on the three-member commission that questioned the couple said he was “very satisfied with the decision” to deny the couple’s application.


“The constitution and equality between men and women prevails over bigotry,” he said.


The couple has 30 days to appeal the decision.


This is not the first time refused handshakes have stirred tensions in Switzerland.


In 2016, there was national uproar over revelations that a middle school in the north of the country had allowed two Syrian brothers not to shake their teachers’ hands after they complained that doing so was against their religious beliefs if the teacher was a woman.


This ran counter to a deeply entrenched Swiss tradition of students shaking their teacher’s hands as a sign of respect, and amid the outcry regional authorities quickly overruled the school’s decision

Freedom of religion is a worldwide human right, protected by the sword for centuries. Why relinquish it now?

The couple has 30 days to appeal the decision.

They will appeal, humbly apologise, shake hands with a smile, get their citizenship stamped through and revert to norm.

It seems an odd thing to refuse citizenship over. I wonder if it was made clear to her what the consequence of not shaking hands was.


Meanwhile in Sweden, a Swedish Muslim won her case after refusing a handshake with a man at a job interview.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...job-interview/

17 August 2018
A Swedish Muslim woman has been awarded compensation after claiming a job interview was ended abruptly when she declined to shake hands with a male interviewer. A labour court ordered a translation company to pay Farah Alhajeh, 24, the sum of 40,000 kronor (£3420). Rather than shake a man’s hand, she said she smiled and placed her hand on her heart while explaining her religious objection to physical. She told the New York Times she was then shown to the lift.

The court ruled in favour of Ms Alhajeh and said that “the woman’s refusal to shake hands with people of the opposite sex is a religious manifestation that is protected under Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights,” according to the ruling obtained by the New York Times. It added that although the company was right to require employees to treat men and women the same, it could not demand that greetings involved shaking hands.

Originally Posted by Cujo

Should the host country respect the customs of the immigrant or is it the obligation of the immigrant to adapt to the host countries custom, not the other way around.

It is ironic because in objective terms, for a net advance in moral progress, the more primitive culture should really give way to the more morally advanced culture.

But because more morally advanced cultures often have a practise of 'multicultural' tolerance it usually ends up going the other way and the more advanced culture gives way to the more primitive culture.

When a visitor from a more advanced culture is a guest of a more primitive culture his fawning multiculturally aware correctness obliges him to adapt to the primitive ways of his hosts.

However, when a visitor form a more primitive culture is a guest in a more advanced culture they often belligerently expect that their hosts adapt to their cultural mores knowing that the 'multicultural' tolerance card will likely allow them to get their way even when their behaviour flies in the face of hard won and important social advances in that host country carved out slowly over decades and centuries of steady progress.

Originally Posted by OhOh

Freedom of religion is a worldwide human right, protected by the sword for centuries. Why relinquish it now?

Given the absurdity of supernatural religious bases for moral frameworks they will have to be abandoned at some point in favour of rational moral frameworks so we should be thinking about getting that process started.

Originally Posted by OhOh

Freedom of religion is a worldwide human right,

really?

protected by the sword for centuries. Why relinquish it now?

No one is denying them the right to their religion. But surely the customs of a host country count for something.
If they want to go to a country then they must adapt to that country. You surely wouldn't expect a society to change their customs to accommodate an immigrant who won't change theirs.

^ The indigenous peoples of Australia didn't have much luck with their immigrants. The original people of the Americas didn't get much cooperation from the European settlers either.

Originally Posted by happynz

^ The indigenous peoples of Australia didn't have much luck with their immigrants. The original people of the Americas didn't get much cooperation from the European settlers either.

Well, yeah. Obviously the roads. I mean, the roads go without saying, don't they? But apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?

Eh?

Originally Posted by Looper

Well, yeah. Obviously the roads. I mean, the roads go without saying, don't they? But apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?

Eh?

Dont forget the ancient Greeks began it all.

Originally Posted by Looper

Well, yeah. Obviously the roads. I mean, the roads go without saying, don't they? But apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?

Eh?

Yeah, the Euros have been angels.

Originally Posted by aging one

Dont forget the ancient Greeks began it all.

And they gave us gayness too which gave us the opportunity to rub our moral superiority in the faces of the primitives by legalising gay marriage much to the lagards' chagrin so good on the greeks.

Huh ?

Originally Posted by BelAir

Huh ?

Agreed on this one.... Huh?

Originally Posted by aging one

Dont forget the ancient Greeks began it all.

Don't forget before the Greeks were the Sumerians.

And there's increasing evidence there was a very highly advanced humanoid civilization long before the Sumerians.

There are some important artifacts discovered in Antarctica which are being kept quiet for now.

We really know precious little about human history and especially the mysteries of our own bodies.

Modern science is just barely scratching the surface of what kind of history is contained in our own DNA.

Compared to the incredibly sophisticated intricacies and complexities of the human organism, modern science is almost hopelessly primitive.

The swiss are generally a rather parochial and pompous bunch.

Apart from the skiing stoners who are 180 degrees the opposite.

And who tend to spend a lot of time outside suisse.

Originally Posted by Neverna

It seems an odd thing to refuse citizenship over.

It seems that you are not aware of the fact how such a granting of Swiss citizenship (that is not cheap) proceeds. A public assembly of the community where the candidate has lived and applied will vote for/against, their is the decision.

Many years ago was a movie "The Swissmaker", a comedy making fun (not funny to Swiss establishment) from "How to became a Swiss":

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078212/?ref_=nv_sr_1

again.

So you're a swissy?

Nope.

Originally Posted by OhOh

There well maybe the arrival of a one global religion. Which "supernatural religion" it is based on has yet to be determined.

It will not be based on any supernatural religion since grounding our moral framework on rational human judgement is the only possible option. Religious moral frameworks are based on our primitive evolved morality that we are born with and which is part of our evolved psychology. But since the dawn of the enlightenment we now have a far more sophisticated rational moral framework which leaves religions trailing in its dust cloud and wondering what hit them.

Originally Posted by OhOh

You are assuming the "more primitive culture" are sub human.

I am asserting that not all cultures are equally morally worthy. Some cultures are more morally advanced than other cultures. The western enlightenment and Gutenberg's printing press has allowed the exchange of fertile ideas about technology, philosophy, culture and morality for several centuries and allowed us to blossom as the paragon of cultures.

The internet is the printing press of the information age and will catapult today's primitive cultures on their catch up journey.

No one is prohibiting their religious beliefs or practices.

If they wish to become Swiss citizens, they must adapt to Swiss society standards, or move on.

They are professional victims, trying to find a way to enforce their own belief systems on the host country. I agree with the Swiss decision. Their conduct is divisive and unacceptable.

I do hope the Swiss are exempt from the barbaric EU courts.

Originally Posted by Switch

the barbaric EU courts.

Last week's ruling on clean beaches was right up there with the 'Skin for Lampshades' days.

You're getting quite 'Ru Paul' these days.