m_shortpants
Member
Lol at some hyperbolic posts in here, Christ.
-
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.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Turkey allows female police officers to wear headscarf
- Thread starter Golden_Pigeon
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
RevolverRoden
Member
ITT people have NO CLUE what a hijab is
This isn't a christian cross though. A woman who commits to wearing a headscarf MUST have it on at all times in public. The alternative is to prevent women who wear a headscarf from becoming police officers. It should be obvious which is the better choice.If it was up to me I wouldn't want policemen or policewomen wearing Christian crosses or religious clothes either. They can wear them after their shift is over if they really want to. There's a reason why police members have a uniform and don't just wear whatever clothes they feel like. The job is about representing the government, not about any specific individual or their beliefs.
Police work (or any type of government work) is not the time to think about religion.
teacupcopter
Banned
Ironically this forced secularism is what has made Turkey a shining beacon in the Middle East. And going back to what Erdogan is doing now is dimming that light.
The world isn't black and white "American Freedom" vs. "everything else". Other governments and people support and even WANT freedoms curtailed if it means their country can avoid the pitfalls of others like it.
I hate a lot of the things that the Singaporean government does for example, but you cannot argue that they have ultimately created a much better quality of life for their citizens.
Also in Turkey, forcing religion out of government and public life means that women have a much HIGHER quality of life in the country in general, or at least have a chance to. Compared to what... Saudi Arabia? Or having the religious freedom to practise honour killings in Pakistan?
The world isn't black and white "American Freedom" vs. "everything else". Other governments and people support and even WANT freedoms curtailed if it means their country can avoid the pitfalls of others like it.
I hate a lot of the things that the Singaporean government does for example, but you cannot argue that they have ultimately created a much better quality of life for their citizens.
Also in Turkey, forcing religion out of government and public life means that women have a much HIGHER quality of life in the country in general, or at least have a chance to. Compared to what... Saudi Arabia? Or having the religious freedom to practise honour killings in Pakistan?
Some Muslim countries are rolling back Secularism and going deep into religion, as it is effective for controlling the populace. Also people are just becoming more religious on their own, need a sociologist to explain why tho.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.
My country is going down the same path, it's scary as fk.
As others have said, you are not born with a religion and you are not forced to stay with that religion and you are not forced to display religious symbols. If you can't work a government job because you wear religious symbols then that's on you, not on the job. In 2016 we shouldn't be loosening secularism and be more accomodating to (any) religions, we should be moving away from that imo.
RevolverRoden
Member
Not everyone thinks secularism is better than religion. It may seem crazy to people in the west, but we have to get past our ethnocentrism.As others have said, you are not born with a religion and you are not forced to stay with that religion and you are not forced to display religious symbols. If you can't work a government job because you wear religious symbols then that's on you, not on the job. In 2016 we shouldn't be loosening secularism and be more accomodating to (any) religions, we should be moving away from that imo.
Also, some people actually believe in their religion. They're not just wearing their headscarves for no reason They're not just gonna leave it to become a police officer. Religion isn't a casual go-to-church-on-sunday type of thing, it's literally their life.
Then don't come to secular countries and expect everyone to accomodate government jobs for you. Plenty of religion > secularism countries out there to choose from.Not everyone thinks secularism is better than religion. It may seem crazy to people in the west, but we have to get past our ethnocentrism.
Also, some people actually believe in their religion. They're not just wearing their headscarves for no reason They're not just gonna leave it to become a police officer. Religion isn't a casual go-to-church-on-sunday type of thing, it's literally their life.
In this example of Turkey everyone knows that this is not a progressive move, just like all the other shit hasnt been done for progressive reasons and they didnt build imam-hatip-schools to strengthen secularism. Which is why this backfired so much on OP.
I mean Erdogan literally was imprisoned for having been deemed a threat to secularism, if I remember correctly.
Not everyone thinks secularism is better than religion. It may seem crazy to people in the west, but we have to get past our ethnocentrism.
Also, some people actually believe in their religion. They're not just wearing their headscarves for no reason They're not just gonna leave it to become a police officer. Religion isn't a casual go-to-church-on-sunday type of thing, it's literally their life.
Secularism, as in the separation of church and state, is better than religion laws in countries 100% of the time. That's not ethnocentric, that's a fact. In my opinion, wearing a hijab violates that principle. If you can't get over that, don't become a cop. Same as evangelicals not becoming science teachers because they have to teach evolution. People need to know that the government never puts one religion over the other, and I think wearing a headscarf violates that principle.
That's not me saying atheism or whatever is better than religion. I don't care either way, but I do car the way that the government treats the separation of church and state. It's a big deal.
Bravo, Turkey!
It's been a good week, what with the Canadian RCMP finally allowing hijabs, along with Scotland and their police forces.
These women can now serve their countries and communities, without having to compromise their religious expressions.
Good bit of news to combat that BS burkini ban in France, a ban that even their own courts inevitably ruled against.
It's been a good week, what with the Canadian RCMP finally allowing hijabs, along with Scotland and their police forces.
These women can now serve their countries and communities, without having to compromise their religious expressions.
Good bit of news to combat that BS burkini ban in France, a ban that even their own courts inevitably ruled against.
RevolverRoden
Member
Most of these people probably didn't "come" to the country. Not to mention Turkey has a majority muslim population. Not letting people with hijab become police officers is denying a sizable population from getting the job they wantThen don't come to secular countries and expect everyone to accomodate government jobs for you. Plenty of religion > secularism countries out there to choose from.
In this example of Turkey everyone knows that this is not a progressive move, just like all the other shit hasnt been done for progressive reasons and they didnt build imam-hatip-schools to strengthen secularism. Which is why this backfired so much on OP.
I mean Erdogan literally was imprisoned for having been deemed a threat to secularism, if I remember correctly.
And moving to another country is harder than you make it sound.
If you were religious, it wouldn't be "100% fact." Your answer is biased.Secularism, as in the separation of church and state, is better than religion laws in countries 100% of the time. That's not ethnocentric, that's a fact. In my opinion, wearing a hijab violates that principle. If you can't get over that, don't become a cop. Same as evangelicals not becoming science teachers because they have to teach evolution. People need to know that the government never puts one religion over the other, and I think wearing a headscarf violates that principle.
That's not me saying atheism or whatever is better than religion. I don't care either way, but I do car the way that the government treats the separation of church and state. It's a big deal.
And letting someone stay faithful (pun intended) to their religion and being a police officer isn't "putting one religion over the other"
Most of these people probably didn't "come" to the country. Not to mention Turkey has a majority muslim population. Not letting people with hijab become police officers is denying a sizable population from getting the job they want
And moving to another country is harder than you make it sound.
In this case I was specifically talking about people (planning on) moving to a secular country.
I don't see what "majority muslim" has to do with anything. France is majority christian and they banned the cross in school. And again, they are denying it themselves by deciding to put religion over the rest. In a secular country you can not expect everyone to accomodate for you and bend/change the rules.
We'll just have to agree to disagree I think.
RevolverRoden
Member
This is freedom of religion 101. I don't understand why it's so hard to get. When America does it it's great but when turkey does it there's a problem? wat.In this case I was specifically talking about people (planning on) moving to a secular country.
I don't see what "majority muslim" has to do with anything. France is majority christian and they banned the cross in school. And again, they are denying it themselves by deciding to put religion over the rest. In a secular country you can not expect everyone to accomodate for you and bend/change the rules.
I already explained what a majority muslim country means. It means denying a large amount of people a certain job because of their religion (Discrimination 101).
And like I said in a previous post, a Hijab isnt the same as a cross. It's not just a cool trinket to show that you're christian. It's literally part of their religion.
ITT people have NO CLUE what a hijab is
This isn't a christian cross though. A woman who commits to wearing a headscarf MUST have it on at all times in public. The alternative is to prevent women who wear a headscarf from becoming police officers. It should be obvious which is the better choice.
This is freedom of religion 101. I don't understand why it's so hard to get. When America does it it's great but when turkey does it there's a problem? wat.
I already explained what a majority muslim country means. It means denying a large amount of people a certain job because of their religion (Discrimination 101).
And like I said in a previous post, a Hijab isnt the same as a cross. It's not just a cool trinket to show that you're christian. It's literally part of their religion.
And as others have said freedom of religion doesn't mean everyone has to budge and loosen secularism so you can work in government jobs. You seem to want to put religion over secularism in countries where secularism>religion.
RevolverRoden
Member
What does "everyone has to budge" mean? I didn't know everyone was forced to wear a hijab now. Damn you're right this sucks. I thought it was just giving more options to people.And as others have said freedom of religion doesn't mean everyone has to budge and loosen secularism so you can work in government jobs. You seem to want to put religion over secularism in countries where secularism>religion.
RIP secularism
Everyone as we all together as a society.What does "everyone has to budge" mean? I didn't know everyone was forced to wear a hijab now. Damn you're right this sucks. I thought it was just giving more options to people.
RIP secularism
RevolverRoden
Member
Everyone as we all together as a society.
Alright you're not making sense anymore. Sounds like the "equal rights for gays infringes on my right to practice my religion" type of argument now tbh
A society is a contract of its people to live under certain rules and guidelines. So when someone decides that as opposed to before now religion is more important than secularism, of course it concerns everyone in some form or the other.Alright you're not making sense anymore. Sounds like the "equal rights for gays infringes on my right to practice my religion" type of argument now tbh
TheRealTalker
Banned
RCMP and Irish police are doing it too guys
FREAK OUT DDDDDDDD:
/s
FREAK OUT DDDDDDDD:
/s
It's like everybody is forgetting we're talking about Turkey, so it doesn't matter that people know that this police officer is muslim, since everybody (99%) is muslim in Turkey. ...
Just think out of the box and imagine that hijab would be the norm and not wearing it would be a symbol of your non-muslimness and thus would be perceived as some form of communautarism or perversity, so it would be "unfit" to allow you working in the public space or te be a public servant. How much you'll feel accepted as a member of this particular national community ?
Thanks, yeah, this is what I've been trying to get across since early in this thread. I'm not an expert on Turkey, so excuse me if I'm inaccurate on any of the following. But my understanding is that the reason secularization focuses on barring Islamic stuff from the public domain is exactly because the country is in vast, vast majority Muslim. That without secularization as a strongly established norm, the government could easily shift into some form of theocracy because that would actually be representative of the country as a whole. (And to your latter point, that allowing hijabs would in fact mean that hijabs would become the norm and that not wearing it could put you under a lot of social pressure.)
The reason I'm concerned about France banning burkinis but not cheering about Turkey allowing headscarfs in public service is that France's ban is clearly about a white, Christian majority oppressing an Islamic minority because of racism and fear. Where in Turkey there's no danger of that being the case because the country is almost entirely Muslim. There's no oppression here, no Islamophobia driving things. Just a longstanding norm dating from Ataturk's reforms. So while Turkey's ban did indeed impinge on individual freedom, it did so in the cause of keeping the government secular, which while some here may disagree, I see as an important one.
To be clear, I don't think headscarfs alone will immediately change anything. This is more of a bellwether. A signpost of a country slowly sliding away from secularism and towards what could eventually become theocracy. And that's sad.
RevolverRoden
Member
A society is a contract of its people to live under certain rules and guidelines. So when someone decides that as opposed to before now religion is more important than secularism, of course it concerns everyone in some form or the other.
ok this conversation is going nowhere. some serious mental gymnastics here. Sounds like you just dont like hijabs and are trying to hide behind "secularism"
Not everyone thinks secularism is better than religion. It may seem crazy to people in the west, but we have to get past our ethnocentrism.
Also, some people actually believe in their religion. They're not just wearing their headscarves for no reason They're not just gonna leave it to become a police officer. Religion isn't a casual go-to-church-on-sunday type of thing, it's literally their life.
I mean, to be fair, people who think religion is better than secularism are 100% wrong. Secular states should be a universal standard.
So you run out of arguements and pull the usual "Islamophobia!!", like clockwork. We aren't even specifically talking about Islam here. We are talking about freedom of (ANY) religion not being above secularism or somehow meaning you have the right to claim that everything accomodates to you. We are talking about government and religion being completely separate. I don't want to be stopped by police with religious symbols, whether it's a veil, cross or christian clothing, kippa, turban or whatever else.ok this conversation is going nowhere. some serious mental gymnastics here. Sounds like you just dont like hijabs and are trying to hide behind "secularism"
RevolverRoden
Member
I mean, to be fair, people who think religion is better than secularism are 100% wrong. Secular states should be a universal standard.
No not really, you're not being fair. Someone could say the exact opposite. Wouldn't make them right either. It really all comes down to your values. Obviously someone posting on an english speaking forum like this would think secularism is better, but that doesn't make it a fact.
So you run out of arguements and pull the usual "Islamophobia!!", like clockwork. We aren't even specifically talking about Islam here. We are talking about freedom of (ANY) religion not being above secularism or somehow meaning you have the right to claim that everything accomodates to you. We are talking about government and religion being completely separate. I don't want to be stopped by police with religious symbols, whether it's a veil, cross or christian clothing, kippa, turban or whatever else.
Nope, didn't run out of anything. I already answered all your points and all youre doing is repeating the same stuff so im not really gonna keep saying the same thing. If you want to know what I think about what you just wrote, read my posts above, cause im just gonna say the same thing
With that reasoning you can basically relativise everything.No not really, you're not being fair. Someone could say the exact opposite. Wouldn't make them right either. It really all comes down to your values. Obviously someone posting on an english speaking forum like this would think secularism is better, but that doesn't make it a fact.
RevolverRoden
Member
Good point, but for something subjective like secularism vs religion the reasoning still works. "secularism is better" isn't a fact. especially when "better" is subjective tooWith that reasoning you can basically relativise everything.
SkeptiMism
Member
I mean yeah, for a religious person it could be better. But the thing is, in any non-secular country there is guaranteed to be a lot of people who don't wanna be in that religion. For those people it's certainly not better, and in many cases can be highly dangerous and suffocating. The system is very much saying "your faith or non-faith isn't as precious as the other people's" to such a person. So we can deduce that it's not as fair as a secular system can we not?No not really, you're not being fair. Someone could say the exact opposite. Wouldn't make them right either. It really all comes down to your values. Obviously someone posting on an english speaking forum like this would think secularism is better, but that doesn't make it a fact.
RevolverRoden
Member
Well there can be a non-secular country that completely respects other faiths, but just happens to endorse or follow a certain one (in theory, we probably don't have anything like that though now), so I don't think a non-secular system necessarily means that "your faith or non-faith isn't as precious as the other people's."I mean yeah, for a religious person it could be better. But the thing is, in any non-secular country there is guaranteed to be a lot of people who don't wanna be in that religion. For those people it's certainly not better, and in many cases can be highly dangerous and suffocating. The system is literally saying "your faith or non-faith isn't as precious as the other people's" to such a person. So we can deduce that it's not as fair as a secular system can we not?
You Are Viewtiful
Member
Wouldn't the feminist aspect be more important here than the secularism aspect? Men don't have to wear hijab or anything, they sacrifice nothing. It's only women who are being barred from jobs.
RevolverRoden
Member
Wouldn't the feminist aspect be more important here than the secularism aspect? Men don't have to wear hijab or anything, they sacrifice nothing. It's only women who are being barred from jobs.
Exactly. Barring women because of a religious choice is stupid. It would be like barring a sikh man who wears a turban
SporeCrawler
Member
They've been moving away from secularization in recent years, right? Not really that weird given that.
I alwayys find it weird to say that wearing what you want is considered anti-liberal, anti-securalization
ITT people have NO CLUE what a hijab is
This isn't a christian cross though. A woman who commits to wearing a headscarf MUST have it on at all times in public. The alternative is to prevent women who wear a headscarf from becoming police officers. It should be obvious which is the better choice.
That distinction you just made is purely based on the religious aspects and not on the law or government practices. In your example, what prevents women from becoming police officers is their religion, not the law. I'm fine with someone being prevented from doing certain jobs due to their beliefs. For example, I wouldn't expect a vegan to work as a butcher, although the law allows them to do it.
Unless you think that religious customs can override the law and government practices, your point is moot. And if you do think that, I very much disagree. To me, both the neutrality and the appearance of neutrality of government (and its officers) are much more important than anyone's religion.
I can't be the only one who imagined a giant turkey in a suit, doing paperwork at his desk.
To be fair the bird is called that because some idiot thought it was the same as a bird common in Turkey. Kinda like how Indians are called that because some idiot thought he was in India.
ClosingADoor
Member
Nobody is banning anyone. Its a persons own choice to follow religious rules or not.Exactly. Barring women because of a religious choice is stupid. It would be like barring a sikh man who wears a turban
Freedom of religion means you will not be persecuted or discriminated against because of your religion, not that everyone should accommodate your personal beliefs.
Bringing feminism into this discussion is even more strange. Then you should blame the religion for making different rules for men and women.
Mr. Giggles
Member
ok this conversation is going nowhere. some serious mental gymnastics here. Sounds like you just dont like hijabs and are trying to hide behind "secularism"
Pretty much.
Funny how that lady on the beach was yelled at "This is a Catholic country" while having 3 police officers surrounding her forcing her to remove clothing... In a "secular" country no less.
It's become a way for racism to exist under a blanket of liberalism/progression
ClosingADoor
Member
What does the situation in France have to do with that in Turkey? These are both totally different things. One is a government trying to ban the public from wearing something. The other is representatives of the state showing religious affiliation where it does not have a place.Pretty much.
Funny how that lady on the beach was yelled at "This is a Catholic country" while having 3 police officers surrounding her forcing her to remove clothing... In a "secular" country no less.
It's become a way for racism to exist under a blanket of liberalism/progression
I like that they call Scotland and the UK different countries.
For the sake of their police forces, they are.
Police Scotland is fully devolved.
Mr. Giggles
Member
What does the situation in France have to do with that in Turkey? These are both totally different things. One is a government trying to ban the public from wearing something. The other is representatives of the state showing religious affiliation where it does not have a place.
I'm sorry, I didn't realize the government was forcing this on the female police officers... I forget how giving people choice and freedom is a bad thing.
Shame on Canada and other countries that have done similar things. Oh but wait that's "what-aboutism" therefore we should just forget all that talk about diversity and freedom because it's concerning Islam and we all know that anytime Islam is involved the only way to deal with it is to impose the same oppression on its followers that the religion is famously also known to do
Fight fire with fire. Am I right guys?
ClosingADoor
Member
Nobody is talking about forcing anything on anyone. I pointed out how the situations are different and it is then strange to bring in the French issue into the Turkey thread.I'm sorry, I didn't realize the government was forcing this on the female police officers... I forget how giving people choice and freedom is a bad thing.
Shame on Canada and other countries that have done similar things. Oh but wait that's "what-aboutism" therefore we should just forget all that talk about diversity and freedom because it's concerning Islam and we all know that anytime Islam is involved the only way to deal with it is to impose the same oppression on its followers that the religion is also known to do
Fight fire with fire. Am I right guys?
And yes, I think Canada and other countries that have done the same thing shouldn't have. I'd also say that about a lot of other things where religion and government overlap, since those should be separate.
This is not about diversity or freedom. Nobody is taking that away. By having police officers have a uniform without religious influences you are not taking away freedom from people. Freedom of religion does not have anything to do with this issue. Nobody is stopping someone from following their religion. They make the personal decision that following a religious rule is more important to them, and thus chose to not apply for this job. There is nothing wrong with that.
And you are making it about Islam. I am talking about religion in general. I have the same opinion about Christian influences within the police force or other public functions. Those do not have a place there.
Pretty much.
Funny how that lady on the beach was yelled at "This is a Catholic country" while having 3 police officers surrounding her forcing her to remove clothing... In a "secular" country no less.
It's become a way for racism to exist under a blanket of liberalism/progression
If you actually followed the news, France did reinforce secularism in this case. Secularism is two fold: the state has no religion, therefore its representatives show no sign of religious beliefs; people are free to believe and express their belief in their private life.
The local laws banning burkini where overruled and deemed anti constitutional. An individual is free to believe anything and express these beliefs in the private sphere. The state is neutral and as a state representative you have a duty of religious neutrality as well
but it's whataboutism at its finest, so that you can call people racists.
I don't care what religion you are, when you serve the state you show none.
Familienoberhauptvogel
Banned
It's not fact but I'd also argue it's 100% better for a country to be secular than otherwise. There's not even much of a discussion worth having when we have centuries to look upon on why that is.
While the Hijab might be part of people's expression of religion but it doesn't have to be and one day I hope it won't be seen as such by a vast majority of Muslims. Religions have to adapt and evolve to society not otherwise.
While the Hijab might be part of people's expression of religion but it doesn't have to be and one day I hope it won't be seen as such by a vast majority of Muslims. Religions have to adapt and evolve to society not otherwise.
Mr. Giggles
Member
Nobody is talking about forcing anything on anyone. I pointed out how the situations are different and it is then strange to bring in the French issue into the Turkey thread.
And yes, I think Canada and other countries that have done the same thing shouldn't have. I'd also say that about a lot of other things where religion and government overlap, since those should be separate.
This is not about diversity or freedom. Nobody is taking that away. By having police officers have a uniform without religious influences you are not taking away freedom from people. Freedom of religion does not have anything to do with this issue. Nobody is stopping someone from following their religion. They make the personal decision that following a religious rule is more important to them, and thus chose to not apply for this job. There is nothing wrong with that.
And you are making it about Islam. I am talking about religion in general. I have the same opinion about Christian influences within the police force or other public functions. Those do not have a place there.
Im making this about Islam because it's concerning Islam specifically, what matters more is if the person is doing the job mandated by the state properly and following secular rules set by the state - if they wear a piece of clothing that happens to reflect their beliefs what bearing does it have on them completing their tasks?
It's only to those that have a problem with the religion that are offended by seeing such items. If a Jewish police officer showed up at my door my only concern is that he's identifiable as police and he helps me with the problem I called him to do I don't give two shits if he's wearing a hat with his overall uniform
If you actually followed the news, France did reinforce secularism in this case. Secularism is two fold: the state has no religion, therefore its representatives show no sign of religious beliefs; people are free to believe and express their belief in their private life.
The local laws banning burkini where overruled and deemed anti constitutional. An individual is free to believe anything and express these beliefs in the private sphere. The state is neutral and as a state representative you have a duty of religious neutrality as well
but it's whataboutism at its finest, so that you can call people racists.
I don't care what religion you are, when you serve the state you show none.
News flash:
Some People are closely attached to their religion. You can serve your state while still meeting the performance criteria that your job mandates AND have your beliefs
We had this same bullshit tried here in Quebec, the government tried to target Muslim head scarfs specifically but thought it would be better it include Hindu, Jewish and Christian symbols as well to appear fair..... They lost a lot of support very very quickly not to mention political seating
Whether or not you care is moot, what matters is what is being excercized in real life
Skellig Gra
Member
Let's take some perspective. At least women can still be police officers there.
Some People are closely attached to their religion. You can serve your state while still meeting the performance criteria that your job mandates AND have your beliefs
I never argued about that. Of course you can have your beliefs and serve the state well. What I'm saying is that you're not supposed to express these beliefs to the public while serving. The state is neutral and so are you.
Let's take some perspective. At least women can still be police officers there.
The problem here isn't about women. It's about wanting religion and government to be separate.
Mr. Giggles
Member
I never argued about that. Of course you can have your beliefs and serve the state well. What I'm saying is that you're not supposed to show these beliefs to the public while serving. The state is neutral and so are you.
Hmmmm
But the state is neutral, until it identifies itself with a religion (Saudi Arabia, etc)
So why is a correlation being made that by seeing personal symbols that it is a representation of what the state also believes?
Hmmmm
But the state is neutral, until it identifies itself with a religion (Saudi Arabia, etc)
So why is a correlation being made that by seeing personal symbols that it is a representation of what the state also believes?
Well, imagine this scene. A team of hijab-wearing police women storming into a room full of jews that may or may not be doing something illegal.
Imagine how this would play out in the Jewish community and the media. Even if the police women were being completely neutral and fair.
The appearance of a conflict of interest can be almost as bad as the conflict of interest itself.
So why is a correlation being made that by seeing personal symbols that it is a representation of what the state also believes?
I changed a word. It's about religious expression in general, to which religious garments and trinkets are a part of.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.