Where’s the “intolerance”?

The woman didn’t denounce all handshakers. She didn’t take offense at being offered an opportunity to shake hands.

She just declined. Her hand. Her choice.

And yes, there are idiots within each and every religion. Such as the pharmacists who won’t sell Plan B. Ridiculous… it’s their job to dispense what their customers want. If I was a hiring manager and someone told me that they would be unwilling to dispense certain products because of religious beliefs (whether they were cigs or Plan B), I’d hire someone else.

All I’m saying – and I think all OW is saying – is that in our culture, there are some societal norms that people should accommodate. Shaking hands of your boss (ie, the person whose hand signs your paycheck) is one of them.

But go ahead and call me a racist.

As someone who’s got experience in international business / international relations, the general rule is that the visitor adjusts to the culture in which he/she is visiting… (unfortunately, many ugly Americans do the opposite, leading to ugly American-syndrome.)

Actually, I don’t know of any salutes that involve direct physical contact. In fact, I’ll bet the officer in question saluted Sir Ian at the ceremony. In any case, what was the point of your analogy..?

The physical contact is an inconsequential aspect of the matter. The point was allowing a junior officer to dictate custom to a superior. At what point does the decision to join a group with particular customs and norms (military, police, etc.) mean separating personal belief from professional conduct? Ill take the officer’s own position as being a pretty good yardstick:

The officer maintains that she puts the requirements of being a police officer above her personal beliefs and only exercises the latter when she has choice to do so.

To reiterate, I couldn’t care less if she doesn’t want to shake hands, but some people see such an act as extremely offensive. For many people in western countries, the act of shaking hands carries no religious connotation. It is an act of trust, fealty, companionship, and so on. In other words, it’s meant as an act of bonding, not observance. That probably is a significant part of why this is an issue for some who, on some gut level, see it as an act of rejection and possibly even disrespect.

If the officer is a citizen of the UK, a supposedly open society, then doesn’t she get to decide what ‘customs’ she wishes to honor, and in what way she wishes to honor them?

Actually any society claiming to be open isn’t really about giving everyone free reign to act as they please at any time. That would be anarchy. There has to be a balance between what’s good for the people as a whole and people as individuals. This would be a case where the whole can easily make the effort and allow the individual some room to accommodate personal beliefs in a professional environment. However, taken to another level, that might not be the case and it would be the individual who would have to make the sacrifice. It seems the officer will be able to perform her duties free from restrictions she would have to follow in her personal life, at least for the most part. A good example of faith colliding with professional obligation would be the recent cases of certain pharmacists in the U.S. refusing to dispense certain medications on religious grounds. People rightly argued that such a situation should place the burden on the individual and not the state/business to find the proper balance between faith and profession.

And if there is a large Muslim community in the UK, don’t their ‘customs’ (as varied as they may be, given the panoply of Islamic cultures in the old Empire) count for something?

Are you talking to me or St. Wendeler? The case being argued by OW, I think, was that he felt it was incumbent on the woman to show respect for police customs because she was entering their order, not them entering hers. Maybe he felt that such a non-religious, professional event shouldn’t be subject to change at the behest of everyone with different personal religious beliefs. No doubt there are people who worry that this isn’t the last situation she will find herself in that conflicts with her faith. I can only speculate on why there may be some who take offense where others don’t.

The officer’s pre-ceremony request was a mature, respectful approach to the situation, as was the Metropolitan Police Services’ apparently static-free acceptance. Looks like a win/win for everyone.

That’s pretty much what I said.

The only people who have a problem with this are the knee-jerk reactionary cultural imperialists, who want to simplify this story into a request for ‘those people’ to do things ‘our way.’

Perhaps, I think there may be some who are simply sensitive to the idea that PC behavior can be taken too far. To nit pick a bit, this isn’t a case of cultural imperialism. You could argue it’s intolerance or bigotry, but to be cultural imperialism requires one country forcing it’s norms on another.

Bill, Bill, Bill. I usually only see this sort of thing happen between people who are familiar with each other to know that such physical contact will be acceptable.

Condescending triple repetition of my name aside, you shoot your point in the foot with the “I usually” modifier. That implies that you have seen unrequested physical contact and are simply discounting it because it doesn’t jibe with your argument. I’ve had people touch me on the shoulder when pointing out simple directions, grab my arm when asking for assistance, etc. Just a couple of weeks ago I had a woman at the grocery store take my hand in both of hers as she complimented me for getting a balloon down for a small boy. That’s just off the top of my head. I’m sure there are more that I simply don’t remember because such brief instances of friendly contact don’t register as anything significant. Obviously, someone raised as an observant Muslim would see things differently.

Your imputation of monolithic standards to the concept of personal space in Western culture might support your implication that the Muslim officer’s handshake aversion is going to be a problem, but I doubt the real world in which she moves will agree with such a narrow, cherry-picked view.

I never imputed “monolithic” standards of personal space to western culture, though I more accurately probably should have said “American.” I merely pointed out that westerners are generally more relaxed about casual contact. You don’t get much more casual than a handshake. Her “aversion” (can religious doctrine be accurately defined as an aversion?) isn’t to handshakes, btw, it’s to any physical contact with a male other than her husband or other close relative. It’s the kind of “harmless, symbolic idiosyncracy of Muslim culture” that makes a lot of feminists (and others used to the idea of female equality) cringe.

London is a major international city, a cosmopolitan home to hundreds of different cultures. While benighted yahoos outside of London might blanch at the idea of a swarthy Muslim woman refusing to shake hands with her Anglo boss, I doubt most Londoners will lose sleep over it.

It was the Commissioner, “Sir” Ian Blair, who apparently had voiced doubts about the validity of her request. The article also pretty much states that the main reason the request was allowed wasn’t open mindedness but a desire to avoid trouble:

A spokeswoman for the force said: “This request was only granted by members of training staff out of a desire to minimize any disruption to others’ enjoyment and to ensure the smooth running of what is one of the most important events in an officer’s career.”

I know it’s fashionable to bash American arrogance/ignorance as it’s an easy target, but let’s not turn a blind eye to other instances of racial bigotry. Cultural assimilation is a decidedly tricky issue that, in these times, is particularly hard not only for the Muslim community, but for many who struggle to understand a culture so often in direct opposition to their own (or at least how they like to see their own).
This thread was started, i think, to prompt discussion as to whether ceremonial custom in a professional environment should outweigh personal religious doctrine. Seriously, are you are addressing St. Wendeler or me? London has it’s share of benighted a$$hats, too. Let’s not forget the whole incident involving the Brazilian student (?) who was shot running for the subway, among other issues.

I imagine that others could say the same about you and whatever your religious persuasion is. First off, I don’t see what your point is as in democracy there is freedom of religion as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone else. Second, who are you to judge the veracity of her interpretation of her religion? Muslim women in Britain protest outside of Mosques that don’t allow women to pray inside. Many Christian denominations would argue that allowing a woman to speak in church is ignoring a custom. What difference does any of this make?

Some Jews remain kosher and go to Temple. Some Jews don’t and also go to Temple. Again, what difference does it make?

This is one case where I think if the person in question were a Jew, there wouldn’t be a problem.

Like President Bush and the Chancellor of Germany?

I take it then, that you would accept her joining the military and refusing to salute her superior officers (assuming her faith forbade such a thing)?

Actually, I don’t know of any salutes that involve direct physical contact. In fact, I’ll bet the officer in question saluted Sir Ian at the ceremony. In any case, what was the point of your analogy..?

Isn’t generally the idea that you honor and respect the customs of the place you are visiting/living in and not vice versa?

If the officer is a citizen of the UK, a supposedly open society, then doesn’t she get to decide what ‘customs’ she wishes to honor, and in what way she wishes to honor them? And if there is a large Muslim community in the UK, don’t their ‘customs’ (as varied as they may be, given the panoply of Islamic cultures in the old Empire) count for something?

The officer’s pre-ceremony request was a mature, respectful approach to the situation, as was the Metropolitan Police Services’ apparently static-free acceptance. Looks like a win/win for everyone. The only people who have a problem with this are the knee-jerk reactionary cultural imperialists, who want to simplify this story into a request for ‘those people’ to do things ‘our way.’

How many times have you seen someone give someone else a pat on the back, rest their hand on their shoulder, pinch their cheeks, etc. without first getting permission?

Bill, Bill, Bill. I usually only see this sort of thing happen between people who are familiar with each other to know that such physical contact will be acceptable. Your imputation of monolithic standards to the concept of personal space in Western culture might support your implication that the Muslim officer’s handshake aversion is going to be a problem, but I doubt the real world in which she moves will agree with such a narrow, cherry-picked view. London is a major international city, a cosmopolitan home to hundreds of different cultures. While benighted yahoos outside of London might blanch at the idea of a swarthy Muslim woman refusing to shake hands with her Anglo boss, I doubt most Londoners will lose sleep over it.

No hand on the Bible during a ceremonial swearing in? OK.

No handshake with the police director at a ceremonial swearing in? Not OK.

I don’t see a huge difference between the two. When the act is purely ceremonial (that is, there’s no material effect), I think the individual’s beliefs should be respected.

I take it then, that you would accept her joining the military and refusing to salute her superior officers (assuming her faith forbade such a thing)? Isn’t generally the idea that you honor and respect the customs of the place you are visiting/living in and not vice versa? I’m not saying she did anything wrong, just that I can see how some may see it that way. I even made a point of saying that since it appears she made the request in advance(I’m not entirely clear, but it seems that way), the police had a chance to make a stink or let it slide. Since they let it pass, I have to assume nobody was really all that put out. I do have to ask what the compromise was, though. She asked not to shake hands was given her way. A compromise would have meant shaking hands with gloves on or touching elbows or something. Are you referring to the fact that she is allowed to make casual contact while “on the job” should the circumstances require it? Without that compromise she couldn’t do the job at all, though it is nice to think that such a move demonstrates a gradual relaxation of restrictive rules governing female behavior.

As for the imagination thing, I simply mean that such a rule has got to be terribly hard to live by considering the realities of modern life. How many times have you seen someone give someone else a pat on the back, rest their hand on their shoulder, pinch their cheeks, etc. without first getting permission? That’s the casual nature of western culture. We can and do violate personal space constantly.

Also, Bill, your imagination is the key. I’m throwing stones in this thread precisely because of the utter, pea-brained hypocrisy I’m seeing here. Think about it for a second: how silly is it to castigate an individual for seeking a harmless cultural compromise on behalf of her faith, because her request threatens (or at least ‘insults’) our open-minded, enlightened society?

Did you even read the BBC article, or did you just go straight to your “towel-head” file? The automatic connection of harmless details of one woman’s faith to caricatures of others’ extremism is not only nonsensical, it puts one in the same knee-jerk reactionary category as those nimrods who flew planes into buildings on 9/11. Excepting, of course, that those guys had balls.

(On a side note, did it occur to anyone that maybe she lives in the UK because she wants to practice Islam without having to deal with autocratic fundamentalist knuckleheads? I guess she should show gratitude for her enlightened Western religious freedom by getting drunk and whoring herself out to the nearest Church of England vicar.)

Of course, now Muslim taxi drivers refuse to pickup travelers at the airport, lest they have liquor or a seeing-eye dog in their midsts. Oh, and forget about buying cigs from a Muslim. That’s apparently verboten to some, as well.

I’m surprised that the officer isn’t being more true to her religion – donning a hijab, refusing to operate an automobile, refusing to get an education, and submitting to her male overlords.

It seems that (to her) some Islamic customs require absolute dedication, while others can be ignored.

I think it’s great that a female Muslim has chosen to become a police officer and wish her luck. It’s one of a million indications of how accepting the West can be – and it certainly is an accomplishment for her, given her faith’s view of women.

Sir Ian Blair is a jerk. Again.

So what if the officer didn’t want to shake hands at a ceremony? According Muslim authorities quoted in the same article, the guidelines for male/female touching would, as necessary, take a back seat to the requirements of her duties.

But, no, we didn’t pay attention to that detail. We saw the refusal to shake hands and our panties rolled into a wad.

Our worst idealogues accuse Muslims of hating “our way of life,” yet some of us apparently can’t handle even this harmless, symbolic idiosyncracy of Muslim culture.

Anyway, instead of bitching about a non-problem, why not look at the big picture? Now the Metropolitan Police have a female Muslim officer (probably an Arabic speaker, to boot) who can help smooth relations between the cops and the urban Muslim community. But maybe things were better before when they could just expect the stupid wogs to ‘assimilate’ by flushing all their old ways.

This seems harmless enough. I’d only have a problem with it if it prevents her from doing her job.

From my perspective, the woman is actually assimilating pretty well. She’s a cop, ferchrissakes. An observant Muslim woman, not only working in public, but working in a traditionally male-dominated field? Sounds like progress to me.

The officer, who has not been named, was granted the exemption at a passing-out ceremony where new recruits met Commissioner Sir Ian Blair.

The woman’s refusal was based on her view that her faith prevented her touching a man other than her husband or a close relative.

So, what happens if while on duty she has to apprehend a male suspect? Oh:

The officer maintains that she puts the requirements of being a police officer above her personal beliefs and only exercises the latter when she has choice to do so.

Seems to me that shaking hands during “a passing-out ceremony where new recruits met Commissioner Sir Ian Blair” should have fallen under “the requirements of being a police officer above her personal beliefs.”