Turks protest over headscarf plan

[[R_H]]

BBC

Thousands of Turks have rallied in Ankara to protest against a government plan to allow women to wear the Islamic headscarf in Turkish universities.

The protestors fear such a move would usher in a stricter form of Islam in Turkey, which is a secular state.

Turkey's parliament is expected to approve a constitutional amendment to ease the ban next week.

The ban on the headscarf in higher education was imposed in the 1980s, and has been enforced for the past decade.

A huge crowd gathered at the mausoleum of Ataturk - the man who founded Turkey as a modern, secular republic.

Fearing the gains of his revolution are in danger, the protestors came waving Ataturk's image on banners and carrying the national flag.

Political symbol

The government - which is led by devout Muslims - is pushing a reform that would allow women to wear the religious headscarf to university.

The scarf has been banned outright in private and state universities for almost two decades.

The government argues the ban deprives thousands of women of a higher education.

But Turkey's powerful, secular establishment sees the headscarf as a symbol of political Islam - a threat to their secular way of life, and to the political system here.

Those opposed to the reform include the military, Turkey's judges and university rectors.

They fear it is just the first step to allowing religious symbols into all aspects of public life.

The constitutional amendment is likely to be passed by parliament, where the government has the support of the main nationalist party.

But such is the controversy that the changes are almost certain to be contested in the constitutional court.

Why would the nationalist party (which is, from what I understand secular) support the amendment?

[TithonusSyndrome]

Why would the nationalist party (which is, from what I understand secular) support the amendment?

Without knowing much about Turkish politics, I'd throw out a blind guess that Turkey is coming of age as a secular well-off industrialized nation and getting a Mindless Middle of their own. Whether they're in the party themselves or a voting demographic to be pandered to, they're probably advocating the same baloney that centrists everywhere push for.

[TimothyC]

Why would the nationalist party (which is, from what I understand secular) support the amendment?

The way I understand it is that the AKP is secular in that it isn't a fundamentalist group, although some of the other parties have accused it of holding Islamist sympathies (not without reason).

Is it also wrong that when I first missread the title to say "Turks protest over headscarf porn", that I was enthralled that I might have finally found a source of the afore mentioned material?

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Because the Turks are notoriously worshipful of Atarturk who was a secularist and any attempt to allow for any form of law that smacks of Islamism is met with disdain and scorn.

[[R_H]]

Because the Turks are notoriously worshipful of Atarturk who was a secularist and any attempt to allow for any form of law that smacks of Islamism is met with disdain and scorn.

That explains the protesting of that amendment, but doesn't explain why the nationalist party supports it (other than TS' vote pandering theory). I wonder what the military's response would be if it gets voted through.

[[R_H]]

BBC

The Turkish parliament is meeting for the first round of voting on a proposal to allow girls to wear the Islamic headscarf in universities.

The scarf, seen as a symbol of political Islam in Turkey, was banned from campuses almost two decades ago.

The government now argues that law deprives thousands of an education, but its plan to change the law has sparked large protest rallies by secular Turks.

They fear it may be a first step to eroding the secular system in Turkey.

Changing face of Turkey

In this mainly Muslim, but strictly secular, country the Islamic headscarf is banned from universities as a subversive political symbol.

As two-thirds of all Turkish women cover their heads, that does mean thousands miss out on college.

Many Turks agree that is unfair.

The problem is the leaders of the current government once espoused political Islam and Turkey's powerful secular establishment doesn't trust them.

They fear that lifting the headscarf ban is just the first of many steps to bring Islam into public life here, slowly changing the face of modern Turkey and putting pressure on those who do not cover up to do so.

The government does have the backing of another party in parliament for its proposal, though it is likely to become law after a second voter later this week.

But Turkey's main opposition party has already vowed to contest that in the constitutional court, insisting it is a threat to the secular system.

[Redleader34]

Turkey is the only Islamic country where this would be a fight. Sometimes, it seems that Turkey is the Un-Muslim country

[Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba]

Turkey is the only Islamic country where this would be a fight. Sometimes, it seems that Turkey is the Un-Muslim country

Probably because Turkey not an Islamic country, but a secular one.

[hongi]

The Turkish parliament early Thursday adopted a constitutional amendment allowing women to wear Islamic headscarves in universities, a move that is strongly opposed by secularists and still has to be ratified.

Good. There's a similar ban in France that equally despicable.

[fgalkin]

The Turkish parliament early Thursday adopted a constitutional amendment allowing women to wear Islamic headscarves in universities, a move that is strongly opposed by secularists and still has to be ratified.

Good. There's a similar ban in France that equally despicable.

Why is it despicable?

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Psychic_Sandwich]

Why is it despicable?

Because it doesn't make special exception for Muslims, presumably.

Hongi, the ban in France isn't on headscarfs specifically, it's on all religious clothing and iconography. So you can't wear crosses either, for example, nor can Sikhs wear their knives.

[Korto]

Why is it despicable?

Because it's discriminating against someone based upon their religious beliefs. Same as if you banned a woman from university because she didn't wear a headscarf.

[Stuart Mackey]

Why is it despicable?

Because it doesn't make special exception for Muslims, presumably.

snip

Just what are you insinuating here?

[Psychic_Sandwich]

Because it's discriminating against someone based upon their religious beliefs. Same as if you banned a woman from university because she didn't wear a headscarf.

See my post above. The French ban applies to every bit of religious clothing from every religion, and applies to everyone. It's not discriminatory at all, since even in France, most people still profess some sort of faith if asked, even if that is mostly out of habit and not real belief.

Just what are you insinuating here?

That a number of Muslims fly off the handle completely at anything or anyone that doesn't make special exception for their beliefs or obey their religious laws. Witness the riots over those Muhammed cartoons. In this case, as related to the ban in French universities, it's been Muslims complaining that they're being discriminated against because the law doesn't make an exception for them. I'd be saying the exact same thing about Christianity, but on the subject on the French ban at least, they've been pretty quiet, or at least less noisy than the Muslims.

[Stuart Mackey]

That a number of Muslims fly off the handle completely at anything or anyone that doesn't make special exception for their beliefs or obey their religious laws. Witness the riots over those Muhammed cartoons. In this case, as related to the ban in French universities, it's been Muslims complaining that they're being discriminated against because the law doesn't make an exception for them. I'd be saying the exact same thing about Christianity, but on the subject on the French ban at least, they've been pretty quiet, or at least less noisy than the Muslims.

Oh? your sure your not having ago at Hongi then?

[Korto]

Because it's discriminating against someone based upon their religious beliefs. Same as if you banned a woman from university because she didn't wear a headscarf.

See my post above. The French ban applies to every bit of religious clothing from every religion, and applies to everyone. It's not discriminatory at all, since even in France, most people still profess some sort of faith if asked, even if that is mostly out of habit and not real belief.

A) My response was to fgalkin, and didn't mention or involve the French at all.
B) The French discriminating against a larger pool of people doesn't make it any less discriminatory. It does no harm to me if the person next to me wears a scarf, or a cross, or a stuffed parrot for that matter; therefore I see no logical reason to ban them from university.

Just what are you insinuating here?

That a number of Muslims fly off the handle completely at anything or anyone that doesn't make special exception for their beliefs or obey their religious laws. Witness the riots over those Muhammed cartoons. In this case, as related to the ban in French universities, it's been Muslims complaining that they're being discriminated against because the law doesn't make an exception for them. I'd be saying the exact same thing about Christianity, but on the subject on the French ban at least, they've been pretty quiet, or at least less noisy than the Muslims.

The Turkish ban on scarfs was quite deliberately aimed against moslems by the Attaturk to keep the religious out of university. To claim it applies to everyone is as disingenuous as saying a ban on yarmulka (jewish skull cap) applies to everyone and not just jews.

[hongi]

See my post above. The French ban applies to every bit of religious clothing from every religion, and applies to everyone. It's not discriminatory at all, since even in France, most people still profess some sort of faith if asked, even if that is mostly out of habit and not real belief.

I have an inkling that the law was meant to target Muslims mainly. In any case, I think it's discriminatory against religious people in general and the law was passed for stupid reasons to boot. I do not have a problem with Christians wearing crosses prominently nor orthodox Jews wearing kippahs and yarmulkes or tzniut (headscarfs for girls) or Muslim hijabs. Anyone who tried to pass such a similar bill here in Australia would be laughed at for being a dickwad.

[Stuart Mackey]

See my post above. The French ban applies to every bit of religious clothing from every religion, and applies to everyone. It's not discriminatory at all, since even in France, most people still profess some sort of faith if asked, even if that is mostly out of habit and not real belief.

I have an inkling that the law was meant to target Muslims mainly. In any case, I think it's discriminatory against religious people in general and the law was passed for stupid reasons to boot. I do not have a problem with Christians wearing crosses prominently nor orthodox Jews wearing kippahs and yarmulkes or tzniut (headscarfs for girls) or Muslim hijabs. Anyone who tried to pass such a similar bill here in Australia would be laughed at for being a dickwad.

And New Zealand for that matter.

[hongi]

God bless New Zealand.

[Glocksman]

God bless New Zealand.

Somebody has to.

Seriously though, in the US, such a ban at government supported universities would be a non-starter because of the first amendment.
But that's an American-centric viewpoint and the US Constitution's bill of rights has no legal force in another nation.

As for my personal opinion, I don't know enough about Turkey's history to make an informed opinion on the issue so I'll state my uninformed one, which is to oppose it.

[wjs7744]

Seriously though, in the US, such a ban at government supported universities would be a non-starter because of the first amendment.

Why? I admit that my knowledge of American law is sometimes laughably flimsy, but I always understood that the first amendment simply prohibited the government from endorsing a specific religion. This wouldn't apply to a blanket ban against something common to all religions.

[Big Phil]

Seriously though, in the US, such a ban at government supported universities would be a non-starter because of the first amendment.

Why? I admit that my knowledge of American law is sometimes laughably flimsy, but I always understood that the first amendment simply prohibited the government from endorsing a specific religion. This wouldn't apply to a blanket ban against something common to all religions.

It also prevents the government from oppressing one or more religions - at least that's how it's been interpreted for the last 200+ years.

[Glocksman]

Seriously though, in the US, such a ban at government supported universities would be a non-starter because of the first amendment.

Why? I admit that my knowledge of American law is sometimes laughably flimsy, but I always understood that the first amendment simply prohibited the government from endorsing a specific religion. This wouldn't apply to a blanket ban against something common to all religions.

The relevant text of the first is: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
Then there's the free speech precedent.
In the Tinker case, the Supreme Court ruled that high school students had the right to wear black armbands to protest the Vietnam war.
Under the rules set out by the court, any ban would have to pass the 'strict scrutiny' standard and very few restrictions on religious expression, let alone free speech, pass it.

Like I said, my US-centric reflex is to oppose a ban.
If I lived in Turkey, I might feel different.

[wjs7744]

The relevant text of the first is: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
Then there's the free speech precedent.
In the Tinker case, the Supreme Court ruled that high school students had the right to wear black armbands to protest the Vietnam war.
Under the rules set out by the court, any ban would have to pass the 'strict scrutiny' standard and very few restrictions on religious expression, let alone free speech, pass it.

Like I said, my US-centric reflex is to oppose a ban.
If I lived in Turkey, I might feel different.

Ah, I see. Like I said, American law is not my strong point. Personally, I think that while any discrimination against a specific religion is of course reprehensible, there are both pros and cons to a blanket ban against fundies (and let's face it, it's always a minority who make a fuss about such things. Moderates or Liberals won't sacrifice their career for their sky pixie).

[Stuart Mackey]

The relevant text of the first is: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
Then there's the free speech precedent.
In the Tinker case, the Supreme Court ruled that high school students had the right to wear black armbands to protest the Vietnam war.
Under the rules set out by the court, any ban would have to pass the 'strict scrutiny' standard and very few restrictions on religious expression, let alone free speech, pass it.

Like I said, my US-centric reflex is to oppose a ban.
If I lived in Turkey, I might feel different.

Ah, I see. Like I said, American law is not my strong point. Personally, I think that while any discrimination against a specific religion is of course reprehensible, there are both pros and cons to a blanket ban against fundies (and let's face it, it's always a minority who make a fuss about such things. Moderates or Liberals won't sacrifice their career for their sky pixie).

Such things are country centric, but if things are so bad that the banning of scarves is felt necessary then you are treating a symptom and not a cause, and while one must treat both, ignoring the cause just inflicts long lasting misery.