Court annuls Turkish scarf reform

[Eugene]

Source: BBC News

Page last updated at 16:16 GMT, Thursday, 5 June 2008 17:16 UK

Court annuls Turkish scarf reform

Turkey's highest court has blocked government moves to allow
college students to wear Muslim headscarves.

The Constitutional Court said that a vote by parliament to
ease a ban on scarves being worn on campuses violated the
constitution's secular principles.

The government argues that a headscarf ban stops many girls
being educated.

But much of the secular establishment resisted the move,
seeing it as a step towards allowing Islam to figure more
largely in Turkish public life.

-snip-

Read more: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7438348.stm

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. I realize it is a fine line

but it seems to me by banning the scarf, it is actually strengthening the position of religious extremists. Better to allow it, making it "no big deal", and encourage the teaching of tolerance and of reason.

[defendandprotect]

6. Would it be such a fine line in your mind if . . .

it was also mandatory that males wore scarves . . . ??

This is an obvious impediment to the female population which should be sufficient to understand
it as oppression --

[katerinasmommy]

8. The law in Turkey is BANNING women from wearing scarves

I think the point is the old saw about giving an inch and taking a mile. To me, it does seem that it's an infringement on religious freedom to stop women from wearing one if they choose.

[defendandprotect]

9. Eh . . .

did you read the post I was responding to--????

I understand what the law is "banning" --

I think human rights come before "religious" rights which have frequently done harm, especially
to females.

There is still an organized patriarchal religious war on females ---

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

10. I WANT to be able to wear a scarf

just as Orthodox Jewish men wear hats and yalmukas. I don't understand how it is oppressing women when the wearing of the scarf is VOLUNTARY. To my mind, NOT allowing free fashion expression is what is oppressive.

[defendandprotect]

11. The scarf isn't unlike other symbols of oppression . . . long standing --

And, in fact, I think the wearing of religous symbols has hurt individuals while obviously inspired by the religions themselves as advertisement . . .

Finally, these "symbols" become cult wear --

And cult wear is generally banned in our schools --

Again -- the scarf is not the "hat" nor the "yamulka" --- Jewish males have position and high authority in the Hebrew religion; women have traditionally not -- especially in orthodox conclaves.

To the contrary, women are victims of fundamentalist Muslim teachings --

EDITED to add . . .

and if they have religious freedom it should be used to fight for authority and position in the Muslim religion - the same as males have.

Less attention to headwear and more attention to what is filling the brain --

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

12. And WOMEN have position and high authority in Sufi Orders

but I bet you didn't know that.

http://www.churchofall.us

is an example.

[defendandprotect]

14. Let me know when you have the equivalent of a female heading the Vatican . . .

I see three pictures of males in the website you offered --

At what level of the Muslim hierarchy are you???

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

15. There is no hierarchy like the Catholic Church, for one thing

One's connection is with one's teacher. The work is interior in nature. Women were the first to be ordained ministers in my Order, and I am an ordained minister. In the 1920s and 30s, the head of our Order was a woman. We feel that the sexes are equal, and so yes, men have positions of authority as do women. If you check out our prayers, you find that they are gender neutral. But it is obvious that you have already decided upon Islam and the role of women, so I feel it is pointless to continue talking to you.

[defendandprotect]

17. Certainly there are people speaking for Muslims . . .

and as far as I can see they are males --

You are also now dealing with Muslim MALE writings since so much of the joint writings were removed.

Where have the Muslim goddesses gone?

I have "decided" nothing about Islam, but have some knowledge of it -- and it is certainly a
patriarchal religion as it is presented now -- and has gone fundamentalist.
Of course, the Muslim religion has been manipulated as most religious teachings generally are
for other than human values.

Whatever your particular "order" it certainly isn't what the Muslims are practicing in Afghanistan, is it?

And, if the sexes are "equal" . . . why aren't both wearing scarves?

What is good for females should also be good for males?



AND, I don't think you can either ignore Message #7 below . . .
Honor killings and violence over educating females --
long history of this in Muslim religions --

[Alameda]

26. There is no equivalent to the Vatican in Islam....

[cap]

18. it was in Turkey, however...

Kemal Attaturk removed all Islamic dress from both men and women.

People who wear Islamic dress are not generally in favor of women's rights in the Middle East. People who fought for women's right to vote in those countries fought for the women to remove the head scarf.

[amandabeech]

23. My roommate is Turkish.

She is horrified at the changes in Turkish culture now that the religious party is in charge.

She says that wearing the scarf, and they're not talking just a colorful kerchief but a big black thing that covers the neck, is a symbol of submitting to oppression of women.

Really, for women, it is a huge break from the secularism of Ataturk which has helped Turkish women immeasurably, although I'd never live in Turkey from what she says about it.

[cap]

36. People on this board are unaware of the history of women's rights in Turkey

and what the relationship of the head scarf to empowerment of women has been. Then they would not be viewing it as a matter of choice.

It's like saying Southerners should have the freedom to wear a sheet.... There's more than freedom of expression at stake... There's a history.

[amandabeech]

45. Well said. n/t

[katerinasmommy]

46. I am very aware of the history of Turkey

And I know very well that women historically have been quite oppressed, even to the extent of forced physical exams to ensure virginity in high school. This was only stopped in 1999, officially in 2002 when the law was repealed. It was stopped after a series of suicides. So they had this law in place to see if a girl was a virgin, but by God they better not wear hijab! It's ludicrous, and it's repressive. Yes repressive, because it's assuming women cannot make choices for themselves. It's their business, no one else's.

[cap]

49. Attaturk pulled the headscarf off in order to break the mindset that

kept women oppressed and uneducated. Turkey is undergoing a battle between those who are trying to demolish women's rights and those trying to modernize the country.

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

50. I'm sorry, but this is a bit ignorant.

I have relatives and friends in Turkey who wear various scarves. Three of my friends gave up the scarf to attend the University. It pained them very much. Do you know that they snuck scarves around for their "hours" (times of prayer).

There's no doubt there are oppressive asses in Islam (as there are in Christianity, Judaism, and Hinduism). But for those who are faithful, who actually BELIEVE in tradition (even if you find it ignorant, backwards, repressive, and somewhat repulsive--or even just silly), then this is a big deal.

[Fredda Weinberg]

28. And I support your decision 100%. I remember the sense of modesty

and wish it were respected here. Good luck and aleihem salaam.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

30. Yes. The point is to have the freedom to do what you wish

In the town where I live there are many Mennonites. They wear a distinctive dress and the women all wear a "prayer cap", a distinctive piece of headgear. I would no more diss them and say they can't wear what they do than I would like them to tell everyone that they must conform to their manner of dress. The important thing is to give people freedom of choice. What might seem "oppressive" to one person is not to another. For the state to limit freedom in something like dress is, to my mind, oppression and only exacerbates hard feelings. When freedom of dress is allowed, many hard feelings are dissipated.

Waleikum asalaam.

[Fredda Weinberg]

39. We have legal rights, yes, but are still subject to coercion.

That was the hardest thing for me to adjust to in the secular world. You have the illusion of choice, but you're really just picking identities, will all the baggage that implies.

True freedom is a state of mind, but you already knew that!

[tomg]

40. Thanks so much for your

informative posts. You really got me to rethink my initial, knee jerk response when I first read the op. It is a tough issue, though, and I can see how what is one's right to choose in a secular society often becomes a group's right to enforce in a fundamentalist one, and how in a society that is cuaght trying to negoitate between secular and theological, it could be dicey. Well, at least I went from being sure to not really knowing and having to think more about it. Like yourself, my belief is toward the individual's choice.

Again, thanks.

[katerinasmommy]

21. If you chose to tell women that they cannot wear a scarf

You are just as guilty as the fundie freaks that tell women that they HAVE to wear one. It's not your business, it's the woman's. Sorry. And I'm not a poster child for religion in any way shape or form. What I DO believe in is freedom as long as you aren't forcing anyone else to do as you do.

[Otto DeFay]

24. Wrong

Only the first step. Soon to follow: ostracism and then violence against the women who don't wear it. This ruling should be celebrated. *ALL* fundies, of any stripe, want nothing other than control of others.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

32. Not so

The Turkish government bans head scarves. All that is asked is the freedom of the women to decide if they are going to wear them or not. By allowing this right, I don't see violence and ostracism happening, because the government would not allow that. As for your comment about fundamentalists--know any Amish or Mennonites? They are fundamentalists, but only want to be productive members of the community. Around where I live, they operate several businesses, including retail stores. They do not try to convert you, nor do they look down upon women who come in wearing shorts or tee shirts.

[AlbertCat]

38. Who wears short shorts....

know any Amish or Mennonites? They are fundamentalists, but only want to be productive members of the community. Around where I live, they operate several businesses, including retail stores. They do not try to convert you, nor do they look down upon women who come in wearing shorts or tee shirts.

******************


Those nuts! You don't know what they're thinking about women in shorts. They do get points for not trying to covert you. Of course who wants strangers in their closed society?

[katerinasmommy]

42. This is the kind of thinking

That starts classifying thought as crime. A free society MUST, MUST allow freedom of religion, both to be free of it, and it observe it as t hey will, as long as they do not force it on others.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

31. THANK YOU

you put into words my feelings, and did a better job of it than I did.

[katerinasmommy]

41. You're very welcome

I myself would never wear a scarf, as I am not a Muslim or connected with any religion whatsoever, but I will defend to the death YOUR right to observe as you please. Peace be with you.

[pnwmom]

37. The difference is that this is an overwhelmingly Muslim country.

At the right to be free OF religion is precious, too.

Look at what has happened in other Muslim countries. In a very short time, the women can go from feeling free to wear whatever they want, to feeling that they're at risk unless they conform to the dictates of the fundies.

[katerinasmommy]

44. That's the call of the people of Turkey

It shouldn't be the call of the military or the courts that support them. Istanbul is quite westernized but most of Turkey is much more conservative and that includes the women. I don't see how anyone can defend taking away their religious freedom.

[Igel]

13. It's a tough call.

Take Pakistan, where it's officially an Islamic state, but the right to not wear the veil is assumed--it's permitted, not banned, but not wearing it is permitted, and not banned (if you'll allow the double negative for the sake of the parallel).

However, the "right" to now wear it is unenforceable. There's extensive pressure from men for women to wear it, and since it's not government pressure, and there's no explicit right to be free from social pressure to not wear it, women who aren't dead set against it and strong enough to ignore the harrassment succumb.

Result: The progressive Islamization of Pakistani universities. The same's been seen in some British schools.

Look at it this way: You cannot easily teach both some form of creationism and evolution in public schools. Majority creationist classrooms and creationist teachers would have some bias and mock evolutionists--or the other way 'round. There's a self-perceived moral high ground. Even attempts to have a "strengths and weaknesses" section in US public school science curricula, at best a more subtle form of creationism, provoke an outcry. As long as both sides have a tinge of self-righteousness about them, there can be only one way; the more absolute the terms in which each side sees it's (self-)righteousness, the less possible a resolution based in compromise. It's to the point that not teaching evolution is as bad as teaching creationism, so even avoiding the issue is a problem.

Same for Turkey's secularists and Islamists. There is no compromise, because the adherents won't let there be one. The apparent compromise--allowing freedom of religion not just in public spaces, but in government-controlled spaces--lets people pushing for hijab-wearing to exert pressure; this receives a startlingly negative reaction from those who had banned the hijab. Notice the exact same kind of system in France; the result over the last 100 years and more has been to radically reduce the church's influence, starting in the cities and extending out into the countryside (granted, this started with the church in lesser repute than the mosque was in Turkey). With Islamist thought resurgent, it's able to make an attempt to stop the minimization of the mosque's influence before it reaches the countryside--it is precisely at the point that the countryside was receiving higher levels of education that this culture war became an issue, with parents wanting their values at the very least validated by the government while the schools were teaching secularism.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

33. thanks for a thoughtful post full of information

There is another aspect to this that has been overlooked, I think; that is the war between the fundamentalist Muslims and the more liberal ones, mainly the Sufis. Though never very large in numbers, Sufis have long had influence over the cultures of different Islamic countries--Rumi's poetry being an example. I belong to a Turkish Sufi Order, and I can assure you that what is said by them as well as other Turkish orders is to leave politics alone and concentrate upon the soul. The point I was trying to get at, and obviously didn't make clear, is that repression of religious expression drives away people from the liberal branches of Islam and right into the arms of the extremists. To this day, one cannot go to Konia and do the Turn. Even the Urs of Rumi cannot be celebrated with a true Semma--the dervishes are only allowed to "whirl" for the tourist trade. One must come to Seattle or other American cities to attend a Semma, because the Mevlevis wisely started an American branch of the Order.

Repression of all religious expression results in religious extremism.

[YankmeCrankme]

53. Yes, but is the ban universal or only on campuses?

From the article, it seems to apply to campuses. Are people free to wear a scarf elsewhere in public or private?

[Alameda]

25. You are confused, they are banning

allowing women to wear head scarves....every woman does not WANT to show her hair.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

34. by forcing women to show their hair, they are only helping the fundamentalists

Remember the Shah of Iran? When he came to power after a CIA sponsored coup, he had his soldiers forcibly remove the modest clothing of the women. This was one of the things that eventually led to the overthrow--by not allowing religious expression, fundamentalists were able to gain strength.

[katerinasmommy]

43. Similar things happened in Algeria

You simply cannot force a different culture on people! Remember Iraq? Hello? That's not working out to well from what I can gather!

[Hestia]

29. The same thing happened to men when the Fez was banned

Following the foundation of the Turkish Republic after World War I, Mustafa Kemal regarded the fez - which Sultan Mahmud II had originally introduced to the Ottoman Empire's dress code in 1826 - as a symbol of feudalism. The fez was banned in 1925, and Turkish men were encouraged to wear European attire - thus, hats such as the fedora became popular.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fez_%28hat%29

[Hope And Change]

2. Yep and now the ruling AKP party is about to be closed because of Islamic tendencies and

that they are some kind of threat against secularism.Plain BS.The Turkish generals will do everything to stay in power.

[provis99]

3. The generals have always given up power

They have a role unlike any other military in the world. They have seized power, yes, but they routinely give it up once democracy gets back on track. The Islamists in Turkey promise to abolish democracy once they take power, so the military coups ironically save democracy from itself.

[Hope And Change]

5. Depends what you mean with Islamists.Pretty ironic that the current ruling party in Turkey...

who the Turkish military establishment see as a threat against secularism also wants to join the EU(European Union).That means that Turkey has to make some reforms in order to join the EU.That also means that the Turkish military must be controlled by the government and not the opposite.I know that the Turkish military has played an important role in Turkey`s history and society.But the year is 2008.The question is if the Turkish military is ready to let the Turkish govenrment(s) make the necessary reforms in order to join the EU.In my opinion I don`t think so.The question is also if the EU is sincere when it comes to letting Turkey join the EU even if Turkey fullfills all the EU requirements.Some countries have raised about doubts about letting Turkey join the EU which is more or less understandable.

By the way I will recommend a very interesting documentary about the Turkish military coups in Turkey and how it has affected Turkey.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsVIs98Mh1c">COUP / Darbe - a documentary about Turkish military coups

[katerinasmommy]

7. The military isn't the only reason the E.U. has qualms

It's also about things like the law that censors speech that's considered anti Turkish, though in this case interestingly enough the Islamic side sides with the E.U. Also, however, they have a problem with human rights, most disturbingly honor killings. Not long ago they had a campaign featuring a popular actor in PSAs to stop them, but I don't know what kind of effect it has had.

I think it's very understandable that many countries do not want Turkey in. In Germany for instance, the woman in charge of making sure young women from Turkey get education has to travel with a body guard because of extremists. Many young women are kept virtual prisoners in apartments after being brought from Turkey to be brides. If Turkey joins the E.U. and there is total free movement, their problem will become even more pronounced.

[Irreverend IX]

20. The AKP are Islamist thugs.

Their party is engaged in a very thinly veiled (forgive the pun) effort to institute Quranic law in Turkey. In fact, the people who form the core of the AKP led two political parties before, both of which were banned for promoting Sharia law, and they reportedly have plans to launch a new party as soon as the AKP gets closed. Turkey and France are right to do everything in their power to stop theocrats from gaining influence.

[Peace Patriot]

19. I'm not real up on things in Turkey right now, but, in the past, the generals have been

the protectors of secularism (a religiously-neutral state) and democracy in Turkey. This is true in some Latin American countries as well (for instance, the main part of the military leadership in Venezuela which balked at the violent rightwing coup, in 2002, and helped the Venezuelan people overthrow it and restore their Constitution and their elected government).

Any political party which advocates measures aimed at establishing a state religion IS a threat to secularism and democracy. WE don't live in Turkey (or France), so it's hard to evaluate the scarf and veiling issue, as it impacts people locally who fear state religion. (Is it fear of state religion? Fear of Islamics? Bigotry? What? Or, as usual with humans, a mixed bag--some of it legitimate fear, some not?) But we DO have an example of the perils of establishing a state religion right here in the good 'ol U.S. of A.--the infusion into the executive branch of the fundamentalist Jeebus crowd. And I don't know about you, but I find that REAL scary!

We are such a big country, and such a multicultural society, and have such a strong First Amendment tradition, that Islamic scarves and veils, nuns habits, priestly frocks, Hari Krishnas, and people wearing crucifixes and carrying Bibles around, don't threaten us that much. The Bush Junta is the closest we have ever come to the threat of a state religion. It gives us the goddamned willies. And people identified it early, as unconstitutional, and loathed it, and have fought against it. And even a lot of Christians who were duped by Bush are backing away from that unholy alliance between their religion and the warmongering, torturing Bushites.

But Turkey (and apparently France) have even more reason to fear fundamentalist Islam than we do fundamentalist Christians--because of the composition of their populations, and their particular histories. IF Bush had succeeded in creating a state religion here--and say, officially excluded all persons from government who refused to wear crucifixes, or spout Bible verses--perhaps we would understand this scarf controversy better. How would you feel about youngsters wearing crucifixes to public school, if Bush had made it official that only such people would be hired by the government or permitted to take other positions of authority? You might well consider banning crucifixes in public schools, if you had the power to do so.

Since it never came to that with the Bushites here (although it came close), it's easier for us to be tolerant and to trust in our multi-cultural vastness for protection against imposed religion. The Turks and the French clearly feel more fear about this--not only about the branding of women, but about what it may mean, politically, and to the future freedom of non-Islamics and of Islamics who are NOT fundamentalists. My inclination is to let everyone wear what they wish, and say what they wish. I am a First Amendment fanatic. But I have never in my life (until Bush) felt in any way threatened by imposed religion--nor has it ever been advocated by government, by political leaders, by political parties, or even by U.S. churches, to my knowledge. No government or political party, in my lifetime--or in modern U.S. history--has directly associated itself with a religion. I therefore cannot evaluate the threat that people feel, when a political party does associate itself directly with a religion. It likely spooks Europeans particularly because of their thousand year-plus history of domination of their states by the Roman Catholic Church. They've just gotten over that, and hey, here comes another kind of religious tyranny. Our country was founded on secularism and a strict, constitutional separation of church and state. That, if anything, is our "religion"--the separation of the two. Fear of church and crown (for the two went together) were the foundations of American democracy. So it may be particularly hard for us to understand societies where those fears are still fresh, where a fundamentalist religion has serious ambition for state power, and where there are nearby examples, such as Iran and Saudi Arabia--although we should consult our experience with Bush to help us understand them. (Understanding does not necessarily mean condone--and certainly does not mean condoning bigotry.)

[katerinasmommy]

4. I don't find this surprising

It's just another moment in the ongoing battle between the army and the ruling party. The judges are in the military's corner. Seems to me they should have a nationwide vote on it, majority rules. They are supposed to be a democracy afterall. If it is that importnat to both sides, have a referendum.

[Peace Patriot]

22. Would you want to see a vote in the U.S. about an issue, such as the veiling of

women, or--here perhaps, wearing crosses--if you felt that the majority favored imposing Christianity as a state religion?

What if Bush had officially declared imposition of a state religion (which he did, unofficially, in several ways), and a majority of kids started showing up in public schools, and on university campuses, wearing crosses, because their parents and they know that they will be preferred? What if you had to wear a cross to get a government or corporate job? Then, in a revolt against this, secularists re-gained power and banned the wearing of crosses in public schools and government venues, but the fundies then called for a nationwide vote to permit crosses again? Would you want your right to freedom of religion put to a vote--especially in circumstances in which you might LOSE that right? Should such fundamental rights be PUT to a vote? Is it not the purpose of our Constitution, especially its Bill of Rights, to PROTECT minorities from being robbed of their rights--say, by majority vote? The separation of church and state is the fundamental law of the land. It cannot be--and should not be--subjected to the tyranny of the majority, by voting, by election fraud, by executive fiat, by executive EROSION of that right, or by any other means.

It's a tough issue--as is the scarf-wearing issue. It has to be seen IN CONTEXT. Is forbidding students and government employees from wearing crosses, in the circumstances that I outlined above, a restriction of religious freedom, or a PROTECTION of religious freedom? I would say the latter--in those circumstances. If the threat is that, gaining ascendence, fundamentalist Christians would use the wearing of crosses to separate those privileged by the state, from those not, or such other state imposition on religious freedom, then, yes, secularists must ban that symbol from the secular realm (public schools, government)--at least until the threat of such tyranny is over.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

35. Turkey restricts religious freedom in more ways than that

Sufis in Turkey are not allowed to meet publicly and practice their ceremonies. The only ceremony that I know of that is still allowed is the Semma, which is more commonly known as the "whirling dervishes". Even then, the full ceremony with the religious context is forbidden--it is done strictly for the tourist trade. A former teacher of mine, who is a member of the Mevlevi Order (the formal name for the order of the whirling dervishes) went to Konia to visit the tomb of the founder of the order, Jelaludin Rumi, the famous poet. He was not allowed to do the Turn or any religious practice while he was there. A friend of mine, a Murshida (very high level teacher), was given instructions on how to find a secret meeting place of the dervishes where another ceremony, zkr, was being done. Interestingly enough, any Sufi master from Turkey who I have met has said that it was very important NOT to mix politics with religion. So I find it ironic that the Turkish government bans religious groups that would, in the long run, actually HELP their cause of separation of church and state.

Can you imagine what it would be like if a president, instead of establishing a religion, had banned all public expression of religion? Don't you think that Mass would suddenly go underground instead of simply going away? That Protestants would meet secretly in their homes to have their worship services? And don't you see how this repression would make it easier for extremists to recruit followers, who were frustrated with being unable to practice their faith openly?

[katerinasmommy]

47. Not comparable

This is not a vote about FORCING women to wear head scarfs but simply giving them the CHOICE to do so. As an agnostic who truly IS a wishy washy atheist, all religions are the same to me. And I really don't care what they do with them as long as they aren't infringing on anyone else's rights. Someone wearing a scarf or a cross is not infringing on my rights until they tell me I have to do the same. More power to them.

[Dogtown]

16. I have to agree

w/ the secular establishment on this one (no surprise), but if the bush regime has taught us anything; "if you give fundies an inch,they'll try to force your schools to teach nonsense".

[harun]

51. If the secular establishment is going to protect the right of non-religious

people to be left alone from being forced to be religious shouldn't the secular establishment also leave religious people alone if they should choose to wear a head-scarf?

[NuttyFluffers]

27. must be afraid of beautiful numbers like this...

designer: tekbir gayim





far too distracting for college, i'm sure. i can feel the waves of oppression and monotony from here. it's for the nation's safety then.
:evilgrin:

[Dutch]

54. Yep, life's nothing but glamour for women under islamism...

[Book Lover]

48. It's their country and if the courts decide this is the way to implement secularism

then who am I to say otherwise?

[Hope And Change]

52. How dare you not love Atatürk?!

Here`s a pretty good article by Mustafa AKYOL.

How dare you not love Atatürk?!

Saturday, June 14, 2008

Love cannot be imposed. If you want all citizens to appreciate Atatürk as The Father of All Turks, then you should make him the symbol of freedom and justice for all

Mustafa AKYOL

The ultra-secular camp in Turkey has just found a new reason to bolster its campaign of fear. Two young ladies wearing the much-hated Islamic headscarf showed up on a TV program, and one of them declared, “I don’t like Atatürk.” The other even said she rather has sympathy for Ayatollah Khomeini, the leader of the Iranian revolution. And hell broke loose.

No, it is not just the secularist media that unleashed its wrath on these ladies, namely Nuray Bezirgan and Kevser Çakır. The prosecutors have also caught on. The other day, an Istanbul prosecutor announced that an investigation has been launched in order to file a case against these university students for violating the “Law on Crimes Against Atatürk.” If they get penalized for this “felony,” then it will mean that the level of our official thought control has been raised from orange to red. Every Turkish citizen will have to love the Eternal Leader in order to avoid jail.



Not suppressed enough?:

I think the more reasonable secularists will tell you that it will be wrong to prosecute Ms. Bezirgan and Ms. Çakır because of their remarks. Yet, they are arguing that such outrageous ideas show the severity of the “Islamic threat” to the Turkish Republic. They also say that the establishment is right in its authoritarian ways to contain religious practice. “You see,” they reason, “what will happen if we don’t sufficiently suppress these religious bigots.”

Well, could the problem rather be that those “religious bigots” have been suppressed too much?


http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=107231">Read the entire article here