The Swedish National Public Employment Agency has been fined by a Stockholm District Court under charges of discrimination. The fine resulted from the agency’s withdrawal of benefit payments to a Muslim man who refused to shake hands with a female CEO.
According to the ruling made last week the agency must pay SEK 60,000 (USD 8,000) to the Muslim man following his removal from their labour market training scheme. The decision came after he refused to make physical contact with the female CEO at a company where he was looking for work experience. The court deemed that the agency knew that the religious conviction of the man prevented him from making such contact as handshakes with women who were not known to him, and was therefore guilty of discrimination.
The company in question did not decide to offer the man any work experience or internship but claimed that this was due to his lack of necessary skills and relevant experience. The man then had his job seeker’s allowance discontinued by the agency, prompting him to take the matter to the Swedish Discrimination Ombudsman (DO).
DO ruled in favour of the man and agreed that he had suffered discrimination and a court order was applied for seeking compensation worth SEK 120,000 (USD 16,000). The court found that the agency was unable to deny what had happened, which is required by Swedish law, and therefore must payout SEK 60,000. Although acknowledging that the incident may have been unintentional, the court deemed that the man had nonetheless suffered financial loss and emotional distress.
why cant the agency sue the man for sexual discrimination?
it doesn’t take much these days to upset muslims, i wonder what would have happened if the shoe had been on the other foot, would they have won their case, how sad life has become
It isn’t clear from the story precisely what the court’s findings were or why the man was removed from the scheme. However, the implication seems to be that the Agency acted due to his refusal to shake hands with the woman. If it was truly that simple, then they certainly acted rashly. However, that does not mean we should accept the man’s religious convictions unquestioningly. I’m sympathetic with Wally’s suggestion that a case for sexual discrimination needs to be answered. In Western Europe, a handshake is the universally accepted greeting and there is no excuse for discriminating against women. RELIGIOUS convictions, in my view, are no defense for anything. To some extent we can sensibly respect people’s CULTURAL preferences, but we would still reject them if they were discriminatory.
Though the DO was fair still the question of sexual discrimination needs to be answered. To what extent can we allow the religious convictions to be followed unquestioningly?