• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Turkey allows female police officers to wear headscarf

Status
Not open for further replies.
426


The headscarf ban for Turkey's police forces has been lifted following amendments made to the dress code under the scope of the democratization package passed by the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) in 2013.

Starting August 27, women serving in the Turkish National Police will be able to wear headscarves, the Official Gazette announced on Saturday.

The regulation notes that the headscarf must match the color of the uniform and must be plain, without any patterns.

An increasing number of Western countries are permitting Muslim women to wear the Islamic headscarf, also referred to as hijab, including Scotland, U.K., Australia and Canada.

Most recently on August 24, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police allowed officers to wear the headscarf, while the police in Scotland announced a day later that it will allow female Muslim officers to wear headscarves with the efforts to create a more diverse force.

The AK Party Government led by then-Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan became a pioneer in terms of resolving the country's headscarf issue, which left millions of Muslim women in a dilemma to make a choice between their faith and education or professions.

Through the democratization package aiming to guarantee democratic rights for all citizens, the AK Party government passed laws and made amendments to the existing ones to ensure women wearing headscarves could receive education and work as public servants.

The democratization package also addressed a number of other rights and freedoms for Turkey's ethnic and religious minorities, the disabled and others.

Source


Pretty weird news in a 99 % muslim country, huh ? Well, the legacy of self-imposed acculturation is still pretty strong in Turkey.
 
They've been moving away from secularization in recent years, right? Not really that weird given that.
Which imo is bad. Secularism is what has separated Turkey from the rest of the middle East. It should continue to be an example for the rest of the countries to follow.
 
good. if turkish women want to wear one, they can, if they don't want to, they don't. it's that simple.

i've always disliked the usage of "neutrality" in public positions. like what does "neutral" even mean? shouldn't the "neutrality" of a country consist of its citizens? maybe it's just me.

anyway, good news.
 

milanbaros

Member?
Turkey has been institutionally moving towards Islam so I don't find this surprising at all.

Edit: do people in western countries really not see the difference?
 
The relaxing of the law makes sense from a freedom perspective.

But these moves are political. They are Islamist moves.

Atatürk would be devastated to see this. What a beautiful country we could have been if his principles had taken root across all demographics and political Islam could never have been a thing.

The Secular Turkish demographic and culture and region is so beautiful. Breaks my heart that they are not the hegemonical power :(
 
The relaxing of the law makes sense from a freedom perspective.

But these moves are political. They are Islamist moves.

Atatürk would be devastated to see this. What a beautiful country we could have been if his principles had taken root across all demographics and political Islam could never have been a thing.

The Secular Turkish demographic and culture and region is so beautiful. Breaks my heart that they are not the hegemonical power :(
what a load of nonsense. secular turkey is barely 90 years old, you think rich cultures, demographics and regions evolve so quickly? everything you claim to love about the country was mostly there pre-1923, so i doubt it's suddenly coming to an end after allowing women more choice.
 

spwolf

Member
ibn Saïd;215193414 said:
what a load of nonsense. secular turkey is barely 90 years old, you think rich cultures, demographics and regions evolve so quickly? everything you claim to love about the country was mostly there pre-1923, so i doubt it's suddenly coming to an end after allowing women more choice.

i have to lol at "allowing women more choice".
Did the purges "allow people to get into different field of work"?
 
ibn Saïd;215193414 said:
what a load of nonsense. secular turkey is barely 90 years old, you think rich cultures, demographics and regions evolve so quickly? everything you claim to love about the country was mostly there pre-1923, so i doubt it's suddenly coming to an end after allowing women more choice.

Without mentioning the giant ethnic cleansing and political repression that Kemalism was.
But, hey, he must be home-team since he westernized everything by force.
Anyways he is deemed "secular", this is pretty funny when you know how he nationalized and instrumentalized Islam.
He was more like a Constantine type of figure. Islam never cease to be the religion of the State, he just crushed the independance of the clergy.
 

spwolf

Member
Erdogan is called authoritarian and a Sultan since like 2010.
The State is actually less authoritarian after the coup, and Erdogan is weaker since he need allies. He called out for CHP and MHP. The whole political class in Turkey is unified against the gulenists.

I like how purging tens of thousands of elected officials, judges, teachers, police, military and others, is leading to "less authoritatrian". Are you suggesting that he purged his own followers and not people who dont agree with him? Thats funny.

These later actions, which began to be known as a purge, affected people who were not active in nor aware of the coup as it happened, but were alleged to be linked to the coup because they had alleged connections to the Gülen movement, a group which the government blames for the coup.
Tens of thousands of public servants and soldiers were purged in the first week following the coup. For example, on 16 July 2016, just one day after the coup was foiled, 2,745 judges were dismissed and detained.[10][11] This was followed by the dismissal, detention or suspension of over 67,000 officials.[1][12][13]

According to Amnesty International, during the July 2016 purges, detainees were denied food for up to three days and water for up to two days, were denied medical treatment, were reportedly raped with police truncheons or fingers, and were subjected to other forms of torture.[68] Amnesty said that three hundred male soldiers held in the Ankara police headquarters were beaten during their detention, with injuries including bruises, cuts and broken bones. Forty soldiers were unable to walk because of their injuries, and two were unable to stand.[68] Amnesty also said that detainees' shirts were covered in blood during their interrogations by prosecutors and that detainees during the purges were mostly prevented from contacting their families and lawyers.[68]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Turkish_purges#Human_rights
 
i have to lol at "allowing women more choice".
Did the purges "allow people to get into different field of work"?

what's there to lol about. this new addition has two choices: 1) police women don't want to wear a headscarf; okay, you don't have to. 2) said women want to wear a headscarf; okay, you can choose to.

how can you "lol" and say the previous situation had more freedom?

Without mentioning the giant ethnic cleansing and political repression that Kemalism was.
But, hey, he must be home-team since he westernized everything by force.

people are being very hypocritical. they forget, or don't know, how much ataturk liked to run things alone with his one party system. one could even call it being a "dictator". i think it wasn't until around 1950 there were other parties.

but hey, he brought secularism so has to be a good guy, right?
 
I like how purging tens of thousands of elected officials, judges, teachers, police, military and others, is leading to "less authoritatrian". Are you suggesting that he purged his own followers and not people who dont agree with him? Thats funny.





https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Turkish_purges#Human_rights

There is always an Erdogen apologist hanging around.


Erdogan is going to use Islam to solidify his dictatorship and his recent realignment with Russia only shows that.
 
This is obviously awful stuff (the mistreatment against prisonniers). I don't think this kind of things make a country a dictatorship anyways, CIA admitted to have tortured and even killed at Guantanamo and we still consider USA as a democracy right ?

I do think that Erdogan crackdown on journalist is shameful and i really don't like some aspect of him, but calling him a dictator is just non-sense. He dropped hundred of cases after the coup and political opposition is really strong in Turkey. I went in dictatorial countries and anybody who went to one would know that Turkey is not one by just visiting the place.

I was speaking about domestic politics. The coup is a pretty good news for the political opposition. CHP and HDP hate Gulen far more than Erdogan.
 
Agents of the state have no place demonstrating religious adherence. This is beyond regressive, a purely political move, solidifying Erodegans islamification and in no way extending freedom.

" But it's their choice..." Please, the naivete is too much.
 

Walpurgis

Banned
Agents of the state have no place demonstrating religious adherence. This is beyond regressive, a purely political move, solidifying Erodegans islamification and in no way extending freedom.

" But it's their choice..." Please, the naivete is too much.
How does this not extend freedom...?
 
I think it will be easier for everyone if everybody will state his nationality before stating what is and what is not secularism, because the concept vary immensely from one country to another.
 
Religion has no place in public functions. Don't like this stuff. Same with other countries doing it. And same for other religions.
 
They've been moving away from secularization in recent years, right? Not really that weird given that.

Canada is a secular country and you can wear a headscarf or a turban while serving in as a MP or with uniform as a RCMP or police officer.

So it is strange, because it's kind of the opposite and counter-intuitive.
 

Oriel

Member
Whats wrong in giving Muslim women their right to wear headscarf? Or would like a France-like discrimination against Muslim womens?

Head-scarfs, Sikh turbans, crosses, skullcaps and other items indicating religiosity have no place as part of the official uniform of member of a state security force.
 

Cyan

Banned
How does this not extend freedom...?
It does extend personal freedom. Sort of like e.g. in America, allowing public school teachers to say prayers before class would be an extension of personal freedom. It would also be considered an abrogation of the separation of church and state, which is intended to increase the freedom of that teacher's students to choose their own religion, free from interference from government officials. The extent to which this analogy actually matches the situation under discussion here is maybe questionable, but you can apply the same underlying concept even if the details aren't the same.

Whats wrong in giving Muslim women their right to wear headscarf? Or would like a France-like discrimination against Muslim womens?
Do you think that's a danger here? Is it possible that something we'd be concerned might be discrimination in France might not be a problem at all in Turkey? Why or why not?
 
Whats wrong in giving Muslim women their right to wear headscarf? Or would like a France-like discrimination against Muslim womens?
Nobody is taking away rights to wear it. The France thing was aimed at people in their free time going to a public place. Then it is wrong. But certain dress codes for professions is not wrong.
 
This is obviously awful stuff (the mistreatment against prisonniers). I don't think this kind of things make a country a dictatorship anyways, CIA admitted to have tortured and even killed at Guantanamo and we still consider USA as a democracy right ?

I do think that Erdogan crackdown on journalist is shameful and i really don't like some aspect of him, but calling him a dictator is just non-sense. He dropped hundred of cases after the coup and political opposition is really strong in Turkey. I went in dictatorial countries and anybody who went to one would know that Turkey is not one by just visiting the place.

I was speaking about domestic politics. The coup is a pretty good news for the political opposition. CHP and HDP hate Gulen far more than Erdogan.

Whahahahahat the fuck. How is that even a positive point when these cases -unless I am confusing things- were cases opened by Erdoğan for slander of him against civilians? Oh, how grateful we shall be for Him to lay His blessings upon us!

The guy's crackdown on free speech should already be enough evidence that Turkey is starting to lean towards democracy, not to mention it greatly undermines your claim that political opposition is strong- when you have newspapers shut down overnight and turned into Erdoğan propaganda machines, there is little room left for talking about freedom of speech.

I find it absolutely incredible how you just criticize everything about Atatürk then go "Erdoğan did some naughty things but hey he ain't no dictator." Atatürk has driven this country towards progress more than anyone else. If your commentary on Erdoğan is so soft, you should be viewing Atatürk like a saint.

By the way, I don't have any credible sources I can share with you at hand -history was never a strong suit of mine and all websites I find currently seem biased as all hell-, but there *were* attempts at establishing opposition parties before the 1940's in Turkey that failed due to differing reasons. Never heard the allegations of ethnic cleansing and such discussions in the country -Questioning that any evil acts were done in Atatürk's time is pretty much a huge taboo- so I don't have much to say about that one.

We have people ITT calling Atatürk a dictator instead. That would be funny if it weren't so sad.

On the actual topic: Somewhat conflicted on the issue -can relate to both sides- when separated from the political undertones, but under this government in these circumstances? Yeah, nah, shit's not good to see.
 
What does that have to do with democratization and how laughable is it to call anything Erdogan does right now a democratization in general. He's making a mockery of it.

Generally I think it's good but the move seems like a precarious sign just a tad bit.
 

tomtom94

Member
Right thing for the wrong reasons.

Yeah, this about sums it up. Not much reason to be against this as an act in a vacuum (again, Scotland recently voted to allow female officers to wear a hijab as well), but it is concerning in the context of what is happening in Turkey.
 
By the way, I don't have any credible sources I can share with you at hand -history was never a strong suit of mine and all websites I find currently seem biased as all hell-, but there *were* attempts at establishing opposition parties before the 1940's in Turkey that failed due to differing reasons. Never heard the allegations of ethnic cleansing and such discussions in the country -Questioning that any evil acts were done in Atatürk's time is pretty much a huge taboo- so I don't have much to say about that one.

The armenian genocide for starter, was made by Ataturk political movement, the Committee of Progress and Justice (before he was in charge, but it's the same ideology)

They just followed the same trend against the Kurds later on. The cultural genocide of Kurds is ongoing to this day because of the Ataturk racist heritage. They were not allowed to even speak kurdish in public school when i was there in 2010. Now they can thanks to the AKP and yes, Ataturk would spin in his tumb for that.

The dismantlement of the sufi brotherhoods in Turkey and their suppression was pretty violent and massacres against them were committed.

Yes, he was "progressive" but as the Shah of Iran was. And he was called a hero by the West since day 1. No matter if he installed a one-party system and was an absolute ruler because he changed the muslim calendar to the christian one and the arabic script to the latin, and banned the veil, the turban and the fez. He also banned polygamy and adapt swiss law to his country. So he was great for the West, and nobody cares about the massacres and the huge political repression.

Hitler said that his number one model was Ataturk. Just look at his concept of race and nationhood and you'll understand why. If you go to Turkey, you will see, 60 years after his death, how a totalitarian figure he was. You even have a law that force you to have a poster of the guy in every store.

It's amazing to see the same persons shouting about how the "immigrants should adapts to the western values" and in the same time being scandalized when another country want to rule by it's own standards. How a 99 % muslim country with Islam as the state religion could not allow hijabi to be in a public office? And you if you like women liberation, it's putting a women in a position of authority, how this is not progressive ?
 

Condom

Member
Right thing for the wrong reasons.

Also my stance on it. It's good to have the public force reflect the people it serves but we know the context in which this change is implemented.

Civil servants of a secular state should not express their religion while on the job. They represent the government.
Can't disagree with this more. The government should represent the people and the public servants should serve the people. From the people, by the people, for the people. Any other kind of governments needs fundamental changes to reflect this or be taken down.
 

yarden24

Member
It does extend personal freedom. Sort of like e.g. in America, allowing public school teachers to say prayers before class would be an extension of personal freedom. It would also be considered an abrogation of the separation of church and state, which is intended to increase the freedom of that teacher's students to choose their own religion, free from interference from government officials. The extent to which this analogy actually matches the situation under discussion here is maybe questionable, but you can apply the same underlying concept even if the details aren't the same.

How is that a relevant example exactly? like, in what way does this headscarf interfere in peoples right to have freedom or religion?
this is extending the freedom of religion without encroaching on other peoples rights.

In fact if anything the law was there in the first place to try and stifle religious freedoms, because the government in turkey for a very long time tried to force secularism on its citizens.
 

kirblar

Member
It's amazing to see the same persons shouting about how the "immigrants should adapts to the western values" and in the same time being scandalized when another country want to rule by it's own standards. How a 99 % muslim country with Islam as the state religion could not allow hijabi to be in a public office? And you if you like women liberation, it's putting a women in a position of authority, how this is not progressive ?
There's nothing hypocritical about this. You can view one set of values as superior.
 
There's nothing hypocritical about this. You can view one set of values as superior.

So don't conceal it by this "When in Rome..." kind of rhetorics and just embrace western supremacism.

edit: i don't speak to you, i don't know your views, it's an impersonal "you".
 

Zips

Member
Don't care that it's allowed - the question will be whether it becomes 'expected' or even required for female officers to wear it.

If it just stays as permitted and not more than that, then it seems fine and in line with many other countries.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom