In the last few years, one country in Europe – Switzerland – has offered lessons in how to deal with Muslims that other Western countries might do well to emulate. For the Swiss have taken a tough line on those Muslims living in their country who have been unwilling to adapt to Swiss ways. Swiss authorities have been requiring Muslims to comply not just with Swiss laws, but with Swiss customs, and imposing stiff fines and other penalties for the failure to observe the country’s social norms.
And that’s not all: they’ve banned the minaret, and may soon ban the burka. All this has been accomplished, since 2009, without apparent concern for what might be the potential economic costs. After all, rich Arabs, especially from Saudi Arabia and the U.A.E., have many tens of billions deposited in Swiss banks; Swiss manufacturers count the Gulf Arabs as a major market, and so do the Swiss makers of luxury goods (those celebrated watches). Arab-owned real estate overlooking Lake Geneva and in the Bernese Oberland helps keep property values up. But the Swiss have determinedly ignored all that.
The first significant example of the Swiss pushback to the aggressive Muslim presence came in November 2009. From the New York Times:
In a vote that displayed a widespread anxiety about Islam and undermined the country’s reputation for religious tolerance, the Swiss on Sunday overwhelmingly imposed a national ban on the construction of minarets, the prayer towers of mosques, in a referendum drawn up by the far right and opposed by the government.
The referendum, which passed with a clear majority of 57.5 percent of the voters and in 22 of Switzerland’s 26 cantons, was a victory for the right. The vote against was 42.5 percent. Because the ban gained a majority of votes and passed in a majority of the cantons, it will be added to the Constitution.
When that vote was held, there were only four mosques – out of 150 — with minarets in all of Switzerland, and those minarets were merely of symbolic significance, not even used for the call to prayer. Yet so great was Swiss unease with Islam by that time that many felt it important to ban the building of any more minarets; the measure passed overwhelmingly. And apparently those Swiss voters were not convinced that the banning of minarets constituted an infringement of the guarantee of freedom of religion enshrined in the Swiss Constitution. But that minaret ban was only the opening salvo.
This year, Switzerland was shaken by several cases where Muslim students refused to comply with Swiss traditions. One involved two immigrant boys, aged 14 and 16, the sons of an imam from Syria, who refused to shake their female teacher’s hand. Now in Switzerland, “shaking a teacher’s hand before and after class is part of Switzerland’s social fabric, and is considered an important sign of politeness and respect.” At first, the boys’ school decided to grant the boys an exemption, arguing that Islam did not permit physical contact with people of the opposite sex, other than members of the immediate family. And in order to take gender out of the dispute, the school also decided that the boys would not have to shake male teachers’ hands, either.
There followed a gigantic uproar all over Switzerland, among teachers, school administrators, politicians. And the uproar was not just on the so-called “right” but, as even the New York Times had to admit, “across the ideological spectrum: Justice Minister Simonetta Sommaruga, a social democrat, argued that shaking hands with a teacher was an important part of Swiss culture.”
Bert Zemp, the president of the Swiss teachers’ union, also spoke out against the [local school’s] decision, saying that the rules should apply to all students and that it sent the wrong message, since the boys would need to shake hands with colleagues, both male and female, as their lives progressed.
After this backlash, the boys’ school decided to refer the matter to the regional – i.e., cantonal, higher – authorities in Basel, who decreed that “the integration of foreigners and the fostering of gender equality were in the public interest and that this consideration trumped the private interests of the two students. It acknowledged that forcing the students to shake their female teacher’s hand was an ‘intrusion’ on their religious beliefs but said that it was a proportionate one since, in its view, ‘it did not involve the central tenets of Islam.'”
And so the Canton of Basel decided that “parents whose children refused to obey the longstanding tradition could henceforth be fined up to 5,000 Swiss francs” ($5,050). With a fine that size, one that could be imposed for each separate infraction, Muslim students have been effectively forced to shake hands with their teachers, whatever their sex, and whatever the religious claims made by the students or their parents. Thus was a Swiss “tradition” elevated to the status of law. And the issue has been settled, with the Swiss authorities holding their ground, and then some.
Another example of increasing Swiss intransigence is the current campaign for a national referendum on banning the burka, which will likely be held next year. The burka has already been banned in one Swiss canton, the Ticino, and this month finally went into effect, and the first fine levied, of 10,000 Swiss francs on a burka-wearing female convert who had decided to deliberately ignore the ban.
Walter Wobman of the Swiss People’s Party, a member of Parliament, is leading the effort to collect signatures for the referendum, and he is “confident that the idea is a popular one….Wobman has made it clear that his motive in raising the matter is the promotion of equality and western values, writing: ‘No one should be able to compel another person to conceal their face because of their gender.’” Instead of shunning Wobman as being “far-right,” Swiss feminists have joined his cause, “including the Swiss women’s rights activist Julia Onken…[who] called the burka a ‘material prison’ which ‘makes life no longer worth living.'” As of this writing, it looks as though Wobman will obtain the 100,000 signatures needed in order to hold the referendum, and that the burka ban will be applied throughout Switzerland.
Also in the list of actions taken to ensure that Swiss ways prevail on Muslims in Switzerland, rather than the other way around, is the case of the two Muslim immigrant girls who “refused to swim with boys in a coed class at school…They said that their religion prevents them from participating in compulsory swimming lessons with males in the pool at the same time. Their naturalization application was rejected because the sisters did not comply with the school curriculum.” And that was the end of the matter. No threats, no protests, no riots.
The Swiss want to make sure that Muslim immigrants, whether citizens or not, make a real effort to integrate into Swiss society. They have shown themselves, with the minaret ban, willing, if necessary, to modify their constitution. They have been willing as well to impose enormous fines on the parents of children who fail to comply with school rules, as in the case of the schoolboys who would not shake their teacher’s hand. They have even denied citizenship to those who refuse to accept Swiss ways, as they did with those two Muslim schoolgirls who would not swim with boys in a coed class at school. And now they are considering, and are likely to adopt, a burka ban. The Swiss, you see – strange as it may seem, in the current climate of accommodation — are determined to keep Switzerland Swiss.
That, to me, sounds like a plan.

dumbledoresarmy says
And if everyone else did likewise – whilst *also* taking a leaf out of Trump’s commonsensical book and instituting a ‘moratorium’ on further immigration of Mohammedans (a moratorium that, as its benefits became apparent, could be extended, and extended, and extended) – then the expansion of Islam within non-Muslim countries could be significantly limited. A breathing-space would be gained, during which, as people’s heads began to clear, the next steps in civilisational self-defence could be identified and worked toward.
It’s worth noting that all the measures taken by the Swiss have to do with something that cheerful populariser Malcolm Gladwell discusses in his book ‘Tipping Point’ – something called ‘the power of context’.
Little things matter. Little things matter a lot, because little things give cues, of one sort of another. And little things add up.
I would encourage people to read ‘Tipping Point’, focusing on the chapter about ‘the power of context’ [and especially the chapters on the combatting of crime in NYC, which began with a crackdown on train graffiti and fare-jumping], and then, right alongside it, ex-Muslim Sam Solomon’s book “Al Hijra” and ‘The Mosque and Its Role in Society” and Patrick Sookhdeo’s “Islam in Britain”… and for good measure, the text of ‘the Pact of Omar’. It is *all about* the power of context and what some writers on crime call ‘broken windows’. Islamisation – if not achieved by outright full-frontal military invasion and conquest – relies on one ‘broken window’ after another.
There are lessons in that for the aware non-Muslim; because we can make the *same* principle, in reverse as it were, work for *us*, once we know *how* it works.
When we see those floutings of infidel law and custom – the normalisation of halal, the refusal to integrate, the faceless woman – we will recognise them for what they *are*, and be able to confront them. And *stop* them. And when we stop them, we win. Each minaret that is not built, each *mosque* that is not built, each company that declines to pay a stiff fee for ‘halal certification’, is a very real victory; a holding of Infidel ground.
Keith says
The only other thing that I think should be added to your comment and the only thing that can stop the eventual total Islamification of the world is for governments and western society to expect western women to have at least enough children for population replacement.
As long as we are not having enough children to replace the population we will need immigrants most of whom appear to be muslim.
David says
Thank you for your comments as they are right on the mark. Somehow we must get these ideas across to our thick headed politicians.
abad says
And a moratorium on Muslim migration makes sense.
Muslims do NOT like the western world at all and they particularly hate the USA.
Therefore they need to stop coming here.
I realize Logic 101 is NOT a strong suit among the Looney Left and Muslims (actually both groups are incapable of clear thinking period) so they need to have it spelled out for them.
Muslims can stay in Syria. They’re the ones who voted for al-Nusra in the first place.
They want an Islamic State Paradise they can keep it.
And leave us alone.
Jkissy says
The agenda of Muslims is to Islamize and dominate the world. They will therefore pursue this agenda and achieve it for as long as we have inept and clueless leaders in leadership
gravenimage says
You are right. Muslims are not coming her to integrate, but to take over the civilized West.
dumbledoresarmy says
I would add that even if a particular instance of a non-Muslim entity – a company, or a polity – saying “No” to this or that Muslim demand, or provocation, and then *enforcing* the NO, may appear quite trivial, it is important because, provided the No is maintained, it helps give that infidel entity *practice* in saying NO to Muslims. Our private companies – businesses, banks, you-name-it – and our politicians (and, for that matter, non-Muslim religious organisations) need LOTS of practice in ‘saying NO to Muslism” and MEANING it. And DOING it. If they get used to saying NO in ‘small’ things, then they will be better mentally prepared to say NO on the bigger issues, when those arise.
So all over the lands of the Infidels the infidels have to get behind every such instance of resistance, and PUSH. If we have gained a small advantage… PUSH. Look for the next little victory that might be possible.
Non-Muslims have to become as relentless, on the micro level, as Muslims are and have been. We do still have the numbers in all Western and many non-Western countries. Ground must not be conceded. Little victories, like these that have taken place in Switzerland, need to be approved.
Nothing to stop the Islamoaware, all over Europe and beyond it, from contacting the Swiss to **let them know** that these sensible decisions are *approved of*. Nothing to stop the Islamoaware choosing to holiday in Switzerland, precisely *because* there are no minarets and the burka is being banned; and *saying* so, to the Swiss Tourist Bureau (or whatever it’s called). Nothing to stop the Islamoaware choosing, preferentially, to invest in a Swiss-based business; and letting it be known that they are doing this because they see indications that there is resistance to Islam.
Imagine if Islamoaware tourists, in significant numbers, from the US or elsewhere, let it be known that they were selecting holiday destinations on the basis of… the less Islam, the fewer Muslims, the *better*. “We’re going to Iceland rather than France because it’s safer in Iceland – LOTS FEWER Muslims”.
Neville J. Angove says
I am repeatedly surprised at how often people do not understand, not only in religion but in every other aspect of culture, that little things matter. The idea of “zero tolerance” has often been held up for abuse, but it seems to work. It is working in Switzerland.
IQ al Rassooli says
OUTSTANDING!
Bravo to ALL Swiss people
No none sense. No messing about. Short, sharp and conclusive!
Hijab, Burka, Niqab and NOT shaking hands with women are NOT in Muhammad’s Quran even if for a micro second one may believe that Islam is a Religion which of course it is NOT since it is the CULT of Muhammad
I only wish more Western nations follow suite and put an end forever to Political Correctness gone utterly insane
IQ al Rassooli
Kafir & Proud!
Beckys Angel says
I love it, this is how it should be and I’m sure the young woman The left democrats in America has gone crazy almost bringing our Country to its knees! Donald Trump sounds like he has the same views as Switzerland but unfortunatelily The Democratic still exist we the people have to stand behind him and let him know this is what we want also!
IQ al Rassooli says
For those readers who may still have NO doubts about ‘peaceful Islam’ because they are invariably brain dead, please consider the following verse (I can provide at least another 50 similar deadly ones)~
Al Mai’da 5: 51 “O ye who believe (Muslims)! take not the Jews [Yahood] and the Christians [Nasara] for your friends and protectors: they are but friends and protectors to each other.
And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them…”
*** The implications of the last sentence is of immense importance “And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them…” meaning that any followers of Muhammad who befriend or under the rule of Christians or Jews (or any none Muslim group) would be considered Apostates to Islam, outsiders to Islam, enemies of Islam who must be slaughtered.
In a nutshell, no Muslim in the USA (or any none Muslim country) can ever be loyal to the American Constitution because it is Man Made NOT from Allah’s Sharia nor can any Muslim in the USA be a loyal citizen because none Muslim Americans are called Infidels/ Kuffar/ Unbelievers/ Kafiroon to be either subjugated or exterminated***
IQ al Rassooli
Kafir & Proud!
Angemon says
Feminists opposing islam? Did I wake up today in some sort of bizarro world 😀 ? Anyway, good for Swiss women.
mark says
No it’s the bizarre world we live in, where feminists support those who openly call for women to be treated as chattels.
jewdog says
Integration is a key component of Switzerland, which consists of several distinct nationalities bound into one country, including four public languages; they are separate, but equal. Perhaps the Swiss realize that Islam/Sharia would break the current social contract by its insistence on being separate, but superior.
Don McKellar says
You notice how the New York Times phrases such a thing as the people of a country standing up for their own culture as a bad thing. Look at the language the New York Times uses:
“undermined the country’s reputation”
“drawn up by the far right”
“opposed by the government”
Even in that little snippet we see their agenda over journalism approach.
Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY) says
“In a vote *that displayed a widespread anxiety about Islam and undermined the country’s reputation for religious tolerance*, the Swiss on Sunday overwhelmingly imposed a national ban on the construction of minarets, the prayer towers of mosques, in a referendum drawn up by the far right and opposed by the government.”
This quotation demonstrates the solicitude of the New York Times for its readers. The reader, even before being told what happened, is instructed in the proper attitude to take (the asterisked phrase). And this report fair-mindedly concedes that the credit belongs to “the far right”.
gravenimage says
Yes–dhimmis are quick to demonize anyone who tries to protect themselves from the depredations of Islam.
mortimer says
Many Muslims don’t want to touch a filthy (‘najis’) kafir because they must do ritual washing after.
Among things that are najasun(plural of najis, translated variously as “impure” or “filthy”) are the following:
1. dirt
2. human urine and feces
3. other liquids that come out of private parts (presumably including sperm)
4. excrement from animals
5. menstrual blood
6. dog saliva
7. dead animals
8. donkey’s flesh
9. the foul smell that accrues on a long hem of a woman’s abaya over time from contact with the dirt
10. the urine from a breast-fed baby
11. blood
12. pig
13. Kafir [disbeliever , i.e. non-Muslims]
14. alcoholic liquors
15. sweat of an animal who persistently eats najasat [unclean things].”
And these are not merely “dirty” things for physical hygiene — they directly relate to a Muslim’s “purity” during prayer.
After touching a kafir or a Muslim woman, Muslim males can ‘wash’ with ‘clean dirt’. That means they think we are DIRTIER THAN DIRT.
maghan says
Muslims are very stupid low IQ(~80) persons so most of what they say or prescribe should be summarily dismissed as primitive nonsense. An example of their stupidity is that everything worth knowing is in that confused compilation they call “Qur’an”.
gravenimage says
All true–all “filthy Infidels” are “ritually” unclean in Islam.
Jerry says
It’s perfectly acceptable and good that a culture would expect newcomers to respect social custom. Muslim countries demand religious obedience, then they come to our countries and want to impose those same aggressive delusions on the rest of us. I think the best way to confront this religious retardation is to follow the Swiss lead and insist they respect our way of life, or get out. Right now the west is living a childish goal of being tolerant and accepting of all people, cuz gosh, we so want to be fair. But responsible and caring adults don’t disregard bigotry and murder for the sake of being fair. Instead they should acknowledge the threat honestly and act accordingly. Respecting islam’s bigoted advance in America is not fair because it’s dangerously irresponsible toward the rights of others. A minaret may seem like harmless architecture, but not if it’s a symbol of antisemitism and jihad violence. A hijab or burka may seem like a harmless piece of clothing, but not if it’s imposed under threat of punishment. Not shaking hands may seem like a trivial matter, but not if it’s part of a larger show of contempt by threatening colonizers.
So I don’t see the muslim issue as one big fire, it’s more like a thousand little fires working together burn us down. So yes, we need to tackle as many of these cultural fires as we can. No cultural affront by muslims is an isolated incident. It’s part of a much larger assault on our dignity as people worthy of respect. Wars have started for less.
dumbledoresarmy says
Yes. You got it.
andra says
They said that their religion prevents them from participating in compulsory swimming lessons with males in the pool at the same time. Their naturalization application was rejected because the sisters did not comply with the school curriculum.” And that was the end of the matter. No threats, no protests, no riots.
——————————————–
This sounds really great. But there are two Things that Need to be looked at.
1. When these girls are adults they are allowed to come back with their demand of getting citizenship. And it could happen that they will get it by then, as there won´t be any swimming classes anymore. That means even if their attitudes won´t change they might get the Swiss citizenship only because they don´t swim any more.
2.The second thing is that in Switzerland it is up to each city to decide for itself. If these girls had lived in another city, e.g. Bern or Zürich, they could have got the citizenship already.
Kay says
How sensible!
When the time comes, after the election I guess, I hope these bans will be promoted ( and passed!) here.
Michael Laudahn says
Let’s hope you’re right. According to what the press says, the minaret ban may well be part of the constitution now; still if a mohammedan congregation went for it and appealed to the swiss federal court, it might not last – and if it’s ultimately declared illegal by the european court of justice. And regarding the handshake affair, I’ve mentioned earlier that the imam in question hasn’t accepted the measures, and he is on his way to the federal court, supported by the country’s mohammedan council.
Make no mistake, the fight is not over, not in Switzerland either. In fact, it is never over as long as you have these people clinging to this belief system inside your country.
John A. Marre says
Also, nice Swiss don’t rape women and chop other peoples’ heads off. OK? Be a nice Muslim and don’t chop any heads off.
maghan says
But if one is a Muslim and believes that Muhammad was the most perfect human who ever lived and will ever live, then one will have to agree that chopping off heads and other such savage barbarism are “nice things”. After all, Muhammad chopped off many heads. Example: Muhammad’s beheadings of hundreds of innocents of the Banu Quraya in 627 AD
Carmel says
Sami Aldeeb who live in Switzerland and was against minaret said : « Les musulmans peuvent prier mais pas crier. ( Muslims may pray but not cry .) » He is a charia law specialist. Once he was called as islamic laws specialist to a court .Judge said : « Do you promise to tell the truth , only the truth and all the truth (about Islam here , today ) ? » He answered: « Onlly if I have time , Mrs the judge.
« Well , don,t be to long ,sir .»
gravenimage says
Carmel, Sami Aldeeb is *not* Muslim. He is a “Palestinian” Arab Christian and now proud Swiss citizen.
He is a fine scholar, and has focused on the condition of dhimmis in Islam.
sile reddin says
Well done Switzerland! Just make sure they don’t pay the fine with welfare money!
David says
The Swiss are RIGHT! You just can NOT bow down before a foreign INVASION no matter who the INVADERS may be! If they ever wish to be come as the Swiss, they simply must adapt to that environment.
There is no other path.
Otherwise THROW THE BASTERDS OUT!
davej says
The root of all these backward practices is the Koran itself. The answer is to ban this evil book as the hate speech that it manifestly is. Then let them try to defend it.
citycat says
You cannot integrate Muslims into any infidel society. If they comply then it is a trick.
Banning the burka, yes, because the burka is psychological assault like anything Islamic, because they want to impose Islam on all infidels whether infidels want it or not.
But the same applies to handshaking-
keep your hands to yourself
forcing someone to shake hand against one’s wish is tyranny.
Having to have one’s hand shaken is physical assault.
Keep your filthy hands to your filthy self.
Thank god i don’t live in Switzerland.
gravenimage says
Thank goodness that being ‘forced’ to shake someone’s hand is so much worse than being raped and murdered by ravening Mohammedans!
Klaas de Bakker says
It seems that muslims (and especially their clergy and scholars) are continuously looking for special exceptions they can demand. I think this is a deliberate strategy, and part of jihad. The ordinary muslims are just being misused. They are told that if you do not do this or that you are not a good muslim, and you loose your place in paradise. Usually these special rules do not have any basis in the quran and even in the hadith. Where does it say that you cannot handle pork or alcohol when you work in a restaurant or a supermarket?
So we should take legal measures to stop this, but it is not always easy. I cannot think of a legal text that forbids a minaret without singling out a religion. I am curious how the Swiss are going to solve that. But the call to prayer is easier: it is noise, it is propaganda, and it is even hate speech (jews and christians are implicitly condemned). Refusal to shake hands with women is more complicated. In some cases it can be treated as discrimination. The same is true for a refusal to shake hand with non-muslims. An employer should have the right to fire an employee that refuses to shake hands with customers, if that is standard practice. But I cannot really formulate a law that could force someone to shake hands in general.
I have not been able to find the religious reason behind this. Surah 4:43 says, among other things … (if) you have contacted women and find no water… (i.e. women are unclean) but some translators say that this just refers to sexual relations. The hadith seem to be rather unclear as well. So this looks like another invention just to make islam maximally annoying. If anyone can explain the religious origins of this rule, please help me out.
eduardo odraude says
Perhaps it comes from a general tendency in the core texts to consider non-Muslims as najis, or filth, on a par with various religiously and otherwise unclean things, like pigs, excrement, etc. Remember that the Qur’an refers to non-Muslims as “the worst of creatures,” which means they are lower than cockroaches.
eduardo odraude says
It may also be related to the pact of Umar — according to which non-Muslims were to be pushed to the side of the road if Muslims were moving along it, and were to give up their seats for Muslims, and to accept various other social humiliations adumbrated in Qur’an 9:29, which says unbelievers are to be fought unless they 1) become Muslims, or 2) accept to pay the non-Muslim head tax with humiliation. The Pact of Umar and Qur’an 9:29 are among the foundations for dhimmitude — the deprivation of many basic rights for non-Muslims living among Muslims. The refusal to shake hands is also related to the Qur’an’s rejection of friendship between Muslims and non-Muslims, except in outward show, when Muslims must deceive non-Muslims because of some kind of danger. That does not mean that Muslims are always faking it when they befriend you — many of them either don’t know about the Qur’an verse on friendship, or don’t know how it has generally been interpreted (for example by the most popular Qur’an interpreter, Ibn Kathir) or simply choose not to pay attention to it.
gravenimage says
No, the texts of Islam do not *specifically* forbid shaking hands with women. But shaking hands is something, generally speaking, that one does with *an equal*. There are many, many examples in the texts and tenets of Islam that show that Muslims do not consider women *or* Infidels to be worthy of equal treatment, and *certainly* not of respect.
citycat says
And why shake hands with a Muslim who has your death as part of the Islamic agenda.
If Muslims agree to shake hands then that would be to the detriment of the infidel, because something may be consciously “passed on” from the Muslim, mental physical or spiritual.
Forcing or otherwise getting Muslims into the infidel culture is not a good idea, because you can be as sure as that it will be incorporated into some form of Jihad against the host country, and indeed against all infidels.
Turtler says
Unlike the Minaret and Hijab laws, I have mixed feelings about this. Laws like the minaret ban were a secular democracy’s defense of its’ sovereignty and rejection of the tenants of theocracy, as such I believe it is the government’s just purpose to undertake that and other measures to sldefend its’ citizens and society.
But criminalizing refusal to shake hands strikes me as ludicrous. As someone with Aspergers I can understand there are plenty of people who are not huge on personal contact. And as a conservative I believe that government should not micromanage the behavior of its’ citizens.
Yes, the reasons why these Muslims refused are probably not sympathetic. And the misogyny that underlies that thinking is a nightmare that ties into a larger nightmare. But separate whether we think the reasons for the law are good from the law itself.
Is this kind of invasive law REALLY appropriate?
And how would you feel about an inversion of this law where shaking hands with your teachers is fined? Or perhaps in a Muslim state where shaking hands with the opposite gender is fined?
Just my two cents, but I had a few teachers I would never want to shake hands with.
eduardo odraude says
You may have a point. But the virtue of the Swiss laws is that they may keep religious Muslim from coming to Switzerland, and may also compel the Muslims who do come to integrate.
Marylou says
Hard to believe any country would accept these very questionable “immigrants” or “refugees” (or pick your word-du-jour) into its borders without first having given each a written statement explaining the customs he would be expected to follow and requiring his signature to document that he had read and accepted them.
Wellington says
Kudos, Helvetia.
CH-Arles says
Slight correction:
And in order to take gender out of the dispute, the school also decided that the boys would not have to shake male teachers’ hands, either.
Actually, the school INSTRUCTED its male teachers NOT to shake hands with the two young jihadis. The message being: if you don’t shake hands with female teachers, we won’t shake hands with you at all. This will have had a real impact on the two would-be macho thugs.
QUESTION: Why does any country allow people onto its territory – even as tourists – who are not 100% committed to observing and honoring the countries laws AND CUSTOMS? It would be easy to add a one sentence undertaking to the immigration and customs forms that all travelers are required to sign.
Actually, no country exempts foreigners from its own laws. Even diplomats are required to follow local laws (but face expulsion rather than local punishment in the case of serious problems.)
Every self-respecting country should require an express undertaking of all travelers: “PROMISE TO OBSERVER *ALL* OUR LAWS AND CUSTOMS, OR STAY OUT.”
maghan says
Just amazing that the primitive customs of these Stone Age migrants are taken seriously.
gravenimage says
CH-Arles wrote:
Actually, the school INSTRUCTED its male teachers NOT to shake hands with the two young jihadis. The message being: if you don’t shake hands with female teachers, we won’t shake hands with you at all. This will have had a real impact on the two would-be macho thugs.
………………..
Unfortunately, I doubt it. Muslims don’t like to touch “Najis” (filthy) Infidels in general, unless it is to rob, rape, or murder them.
awake says
Sensible for sure, but it would be easier to simply eliminate them from immigrating at all.
They’ll play the long game and conquer via demographics in the end, otherwise.
gravenimage says
Very true. This may wind up being nothing more than rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. A this point, though, I am grateful for *any* resistance to Islam.
eduardo odraude says
The Swiss canton system is pretty cool. Imagine if those on the boundaries between two states in the US could decide which of the two states they wanted to be part of — thus if those at the edge of a state did not like the policies of that state, they could immediately choose to become part of the neighboring state instead. Thus in theory a state could rapidly shrink to zero territory if those within it did not like the state’s policies — that is apparently how it is with the Swiss cantons. The arrangement gives great power to the Swiss people, and keeps the Swiss pols under control.
b.a. freeman says
i am speechless. FINALLY – a country NOT run by spineless dhimmi fools!!! a populace that actually appears to have some understanding of the evil cult of islam!
thank U, Lord! may other western countries shed their traitorous / stupid leftist leadership as well!
Northern Virginiastan says
Is it relevant that Switzerland is not a member of the EU?
gravenimage says
This may indeed be significant.
David, Thailand says
Don’t be taken in by this, the Swiss are mugs just like the rest of Europe, even if they cloak themselves with the phoney resolve of handshake insistence and other national traditions.
Part of Jihad is for Muslims to engage the infidel through every avenue, including conformity to man-made laws and expectations when that is the only reasonable course to further Islam, and even if that includes a pretence at assimilation. In other words, Switzerland’s Muslims will follow whatever is required of them in a mostly peaceful fashion until they become citizens, after which they cannot be deported or denied the rights of other citizens.
Then we’ll see how peaceful they are, just like the rest of doomed Europe.
gravenimage says
Actually, Switzerland has stood up against Muslim demands *far* more than has most of the rest of Europe. I hope it makes a difference.
PatriotHere says
Because of an over accommodating and submissive attitude that’s also typical in America, Switzerland’s incidence of rape by “migrants” has soared more than 1,000% in a year. Their response to this reprehensible behavior was to have their women and girls wear bracelets that said, “I don’t want to be touched,” which resulted in 45 rapes at a music festival. It looks like they are finally waking up! The prevailing attitudes of multiculturalism, globalism, inclusion and gender blindness has produced some disturbing results which might be coming to Washington state if the residents don’t do something about it!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yA8fgaBSDUw&ab_channel=PravoslavieUSA
Well, heck, it was blue when I copied it! You’ll have to copy and paste, sorry! (It’s definitely worth a watch.) We should insure that our courts make it plain to Muslims that the United States has laws based on our Constitution which trumps any and all comers. The supremacy of the law of the land should never be in question, although there have been many instances of Muslims trying to subvert the Constitution with sharia law and crying “Islamophobia,” what else, when their request is denied. They very much intend to perform stealth Jihad in America by slowly taking over our culture, schools, banks and any other institutions they can insert themselves into, like the Oblameyou administration!
dumbledoresarmy says
The music festival attacks were in *Sweden* NOT Switzerland. The bracelets were also a Sweden thing.
This article we are all discussing is about *Switzerland*.
gravenimage says
PatriotHere wrote:
Because of an over accommodating and submissive attitude that’s also typical in America, Switzerland’s incidence of rape by “migrants” has soared more than 1,000% in a year. Their response to this reprehensible behavior was to have their women and girls wear bracelets that said, “I don’t want to be touched,” which resulted in 45 rapes at a music festival.
…………………….
Sir, you are confusing Switzerland with Sweden. Their general approach to Muslim aggression has been *quite* different.
icefalcon says
Too bad American corporations won’t take a page from the Swiss playbook. I work for a large company in the animal healthcare field. We had to sit through online sensitivity training that specifically addressed hand-shaking, and that we should refrain from this because it can be construed as culturally insensitive.
Needless to say, I take every opportunity to offer my hand when greeting clients.
gravenimage says
Icefalcon, given the Islamic history of horrifying animal abuse, I would hate to see *any* Muslims in this field.
gravenimage says
Bravo, Switzerland!