Trelleborg’s decision not to employ people who refuse to shake hands with members of the opposite sex is entirely reasonable. Refusing to shake hands is an ideological statement, and ideological special interests should not be allowed to take precedence over secular values.
In Sweden, we make a fist and raise our thumb to signal approval. Try the same gesture in parts of the Middle East and it may be perceived as obscene or deeply offensive. A gesture, in other words, is never merely a gesture. It carries connotations and cultural associations that shape its meaning and determine how it is interpreted. Those meanings cannot simply be ignored.
In Sweden, as in much of the world, the handshake is regarded as a significant social ritual. Its origins are obscure, but today it functions as both a gesture of courtesy and a symbol of equality. As the Prime Minister once put it: “In Sweden, we greet one another. We shake hands with both men and women.”
The Handshake as Norm and Symbol
Refusing to shake hands is widely perceived as both an insult and a statement about the person whose hand is rejected. It is sufficiently norm-breaking to generate headlines, whether the individuals involved are politicians, athletes, or people whose religious beliefs prohibit physical contact with members of the opposite sex.
Even if the handshake is not inherently superior to other forms of greeting, it cannot be reduced to a trivial hand movement—easily interchangeable with any other gesture—as some would have us believe.
The unrestricted right to decline a handshake does not automatically entail a right to avoid the social consequences of that choice.
In contemporary society, conflicts increasingly arise from the friction between different cultural perspectives and systems of norms. To manage such conflicts, the state must develop a coherent approach to balancing multiculturalism, secularism and gender equality. Public institutions need to address these tensions rather than sweeping them aside or dismissing them as insignificant, because they are clearly neither.
This issue was recently brought into focus by Trelleborg Municipal Council’s decision that individuals who refuse to shake hands with members of the opposite sex for cultural or religious reasons should not be employed by the municipality.
Several legal scholars criticised the decision, arguing that refusing to shake hands constitutes a religious manifestation protected under the European Convention on Human Rights. Yet the unrestricted right to decline a handshake does not automatically include a right to be shielded from the social consequences of doing so.
Freedom of Religion, Secularism and the Limits of the State
Today, refusing to shake hands is not merely regarded as discourteous. In many cases it functions as an ideological signal, symbolising a desire for gender segregation and separation between Muslims and non-Muslims. Such aspirations largely reflect a particular Islamist interest rather than a universal religious requirement. Refusing to shake hands is an expression of a conservative interpretation of Islam—one that many Muslims do not share—just as it is Hasidic Jews, rather than Jews in general, who commonly avoid handshakes.
Yet while employers are generally entitled to prohibit ideological and religious symbols, no equivalent right exists with regard to symbolic actions. This is despite the fact that refusing to shake hands communicates an individual’s beliefs just as clearly as a political badge, and may similarly lead citizens to perceive representatives of the state as biased or even hostile.
In a secular state, religious beliefs cannot be allowed to take precedence over citizens’ right to neutral treatment.
Indeed, the state’s obligation to uphold objectivity and equal treatment arguably implies a duty not to employ individuals who insist on performing ideological symbolic acts while carrying out public duties, regardless of the reasons behind them.
The alternative—continuing to compromise secular values in favour of ideological special interests—creates an artificial and imagined conflict between diversity and gender equality. The resulting ambiguity undermines trust in the state, makes multicultural coexistence more difficult, and lays the groundwork for escalating conflicts framed in ethical and cultural terms.
This article was originally published in Smedjan (Timbro) on 4 January 2020.
