| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Goober" |
| Date: |
10 Nov 2005 07:07:03 PM |
| Object: |
Headscarf and beard Ban in Turkey - secularism gone mad? |
Time for a tirade!
The European Court of Human Rights has recently upheld a ban on the
wearing of headscarfs in universities in Turkey.
I am appaled!
I consider myself a secularist. That is, I think it is a good idea to
have a separation of religion from state; that religion is a matter of
individual choice; that there should be no preference of religion
exhibited by the instruments of state, etc. But I cannot see any
adequate justification for banning people wearing headscarves in
university. On the contrary, the entire idea strikes me as a manifest
violation of freedom of expression.
In addition to the banning of the wearing of headscarves by women in
university, male students are similarly *forbidden*, on parallel
grounds, to have a beard. Both are recognised as symbols of the Islamic
religion, and are banned in putative defence of "secular values".
Does anyone notice here the direct and (in my view) painfully ironic
parallel with the Taleban's insistance in Afghanistan that all men must
have beards?
I can, as yet, see no principled distinction between these two positions
- legislating that all males must *not have* a beard whilst in
university and legislating that all people must *have* a beard seem in
both cases to be manifest violations of freedom of expression.
With headscarves one can at least put on or take them off at will, but
beards (I mean the real kind) are not the kinds of things one can put on
or take off at will - they take weeks to grow. To insist that a male
must not have a beard whilst attending university effectively entails
(at least during periods of university attendence) that that man cannot
have a beard at home nor in the mosque. Given that the having of a beard
is viewed by a great many muslims as an important feature of the
practice of their religion, such a ban effectively forces a choice
between practicing their religion and attending university. It therefore
discriminates against them on the basis of their religion.
Let me re-iterate - I can see every justification in banning expressions
of religion from the instruments of the state. I see good grounds, for
example, for not having the ten commandments up on the wall in a
courtroom or in the lobby of a courthouse. But I see absolutely no
grounds why someone may not enter that courtroom wearing a t-shirt with
the ten commandments written on it, or walk in with a cross around their
neck, or wearing an islamic headscarf, or have a beard when speaking to
the judge, of they so wish. Even less can I see any grounds regarding
the same attire in a university.
So, apart from me venting my spleen at what strikes me as an abhorant
judgement, I'm wondering what arguments might be given defending such a
ban? What are the views of secularists here regarding it?
Some reasons alluded to in the ECHR judgement include "the fact that
there were extremist political movements in Turkey which sought to
impose on society as a whole their religious symbols and conception of a
society founded on religious precepts." No doubt. But is that a reason
to ban someone from expressing themselves? If someone wants to wear a
symbol on their head or on their chin, that's just fine with me - I feel
no sense of being threatened. Does anyone else?
The judgement goes on:
"Against that background, it was the principle of secularism which was
the paramount consideration underlying the ban on the wearing of
religious symbols in universities. In such a context, where the values
of pluralism, respect for the rights of others and, in particular,
equality before the law of men and women were being taught and applied
in practice, it was understandable that the relevant authorities should
consider it contrary to such values to allow religious attire,
including, as in the case before the Court, the Islamic headscarf, to be
worn on university premises."
Maybe I'm just being weird here, but can someone explain to me how
someone being allowed to wear a headscarf or a beard threatens
secularism, democracy, or public order? How is it contrary to values of
"pluralism, respect for the rights of others and, in particular,
equality before the law of men and women"? I mean - these individuals
would *choose* to wear headscraves or wear beards. How can it be against
plurality to allow individual choice? How can it be upholding the value
of pluralism to insist that everyone conform to a certain mode of dress?
The ruling states that the banning pursued:
"the legitimate aim of protecting order and the rights and freedoms of
others and were manifestly intended to preserve the secular nature of
educational institutions"
How can it uphold the principle of equality before the law to insist
that men cannot go to university unless they are shorn of the most
prominant and entirely natural visible feature of their maleness - a beard?
How are anyone else's freedoms threatened by someone wearing a beard or
a headscraf?! What the idea here - is it the fear that muslims will use
the scarf to tie others up until they convert? Is it the fear that
somehow seeing headscarves and beards around in universities will
hypnotise others into converting to radical Islam?
I grew up and went to school in an environment where the wearing of
religious symbols, including Islamic headscarves and (especially)
turbans was very common. Not once did I feel the slightest urge to
convert to Islam or Sihkism or Hinduism. Not once has the sight of a
crucifix or cross inclined me towards Christianity. Not once did I feel
that there was a threat to public order thereby or to the rights or
freedoms of myself or others, or to the separation of church or state,
so long as it was not the state expressing such symbolism.
I just don't get it.
The judgement in full:
http://www.echr.coe.int/Eng/Press/2005/Nov/GrandChamberJudgmentLeylaSahinvTurkey101105.htm
Goober
.
|
|
| User: "Alan S" |
|
| Title: Re: Headscarf and beard Ban in Turkey - secularism gone mad? |
11 Nov 2005 03:44:14 AM |
|
|
Goober <go.away@nowhere.com> wrote:
Time for a tirade!
The European Court of Human Rights has recently upheld a ban on the
wearing of headscarfs in universities in Turkey.
I am appaled!
I consider myself a secularist. That is, I think it is a good idea to
have a separation of religion from state; that religion is a matter of
individual choice; that there should be no preference of religion
exhibited by the instruments of state, etc. But I cannot see any
adequate justification for banning people wearing headscarves in
university. On the contrary, the entire idea strikes me as a manifest
violation of freedom of expression.
You are not alone in that. However, as to your appallment, all I can
say is that human rights concerns have never been above national or
international politics at any point or time, so I'm not surprised.
[...]
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jenny6833A" |
|
| Title: Re: Headscarf and beard Ban in Turkey - secularism gone mad? |
11 Nov 2005 04:28:22 AM |
|
|
Goober wrote:
Time for a tirade!
The European Court of Human Rights has recently upheld a ban on the
wearing of headscarfs in universities in Turkey.
<snip>
I grew up and went to school in an environment where the wearing of
religious symbols, including Islamic headscarves and (especially)
turbans was very common. Not once did I feel the slightest urge to
convert to Islam or Sihkism or Hinduism. Not once has the sight of a
crucifix or cross inclined me towards Christianity. Not once did I feel
that there was a threat to public order thereby or to the rights or
freedoms of myself or others, or to the separation of church or state,
so long as it was not the state expressing such symbolism.
I just don't get it.
The judgement in full:
http://www.echr.coe.int/Eng/Press/2005/Nov/GrandChamberJudgmentLeylaSahinvTurkey101105.htm
I happen to agree with you as regards university -- or at least I think
I do.
However, I think you failed to examine the other side of the coin.
Many young people would prefer not to wear symbols of their religion or
symbols of a religion they no longer take seriusly or no longer believe
in at all. However, they're forced to by militants who beat the
beallah out of them, or rape them or slash them, if they don't.
In that sort of situation, the only way to prevent coercion is to
define a university dress code which bans all religious symbology.
:-)
Jenny
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alan S" |
|
| Title: Re: Headscarf and beard Ban in Turkey - secularism gone mad? |
11 Nov 2005 01:58:49 PM |
|
|
"Jenny6833A" <Jenny6833A@aol.com> wrote:
I happen to agree with you as regards university -- or at least I think
I do.
However, I think you failed to examine the other side of the coin.
Many young people would prefer not to wear symbols of their religion or
symbols of a religion they no longer take seriusly or no longer believe
in at all. However, they're forced to by militants who beat the
beallah out of them, or rape them or slash them, if they don't.
In that sort of situation, the only way to prevent coercion is to
define a university dress code which bans all religious symbology.
Turkey is already secular and there's no such thing going on. Even if
it were the reason (it isn't), how would it help? If there was
violence against blacks, fi, would you suggest they paint their faces
white to blend in? Funny you mention coercion but isn't it coercion
itself to force the religious to chose between education and their
beliefs?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jenny6833A" |
|
| Title: Re: Headscarf and beard Ban in Turkey - secularism gone mad? |
11 Nov 2005 05:43:06 PM |
|
|
Alan S wrote:
"Jenny6833A" <Jenny6833A@aol.com> wrote:
I happen to agree with you as regards university -- or at least I think
I do.
However, I think you failed to examine the other side of the coin.
Many young people would prefer not to wear symbols of their religion or
symbols of a religion they no longer take seriusly or no longer believe
in at all. However, they're forced to by militants who beat the
beallah out of them, or rape them or slash them, if they don't.
In that sort of situation, the only way to prevent coercion is to
define a university dress code which bans all religious symbology.
Turkey is already secular and there's no such thing going on.
Whatever you say.
Even if it were the reason (it isn't), how would it help?
By removing strife, coercion, intimidation from campus.
If there was
violence against blacks, fi, would you suggest they paint their faces
white to blend in?
You've gone nuts.
Funny you mention coercion but isn't it coercion
itself to force the religious to chose between education and their
beliefs?
All dress codes -- all rules of any kind -- involve some degree of
threat of coercion. The motivation for them is to choose the lesser of
two evils.
:-)
Jenny
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brian Westley" |
|
| Title: Re: Headscarf and beard Ban in Turkey - secularism gone mad? |
12 Nov 2005 05:07:39 AM |
|
|
"Jenny6833A" <Jenny6833A@aol.com> writes:
Alan S wrote:
"Jenny6833A" <Jenny6833A@aol.com> wrote:
I happen to agree with you as regards university -- or at least I think
I do.
However, I think you failed to examine the other side of the coin.
Many young people would prefer not to wear symbols of their religion or
symbols of a religion they no longer take seriusly or no longer believe
in at all. However, they're forced to by militants who beat the
beallah out of them, or rape them or slash them, if they don't.
In that sort of situation, the only way to prevent coercion is to
define a university dress code which bans all religious symbology.
Turkey is already secular and there's no such thing going on.
Whatever you say.
Even if it were the reason (it isn't), how would it help?
By removing strife, coercion, intimidation from campus.
Uh, it doesn't get much more coercive than the government
prohibiting something. I agree with the original poster,
many of the european rules are very oppressive, and co-
incidentally fall hardest on not-very-well-liked minorities.
They've been down this road before, they just don't recognize
the terrain yet. At least when idiots in the US do something
like this (such as when a Biloxi school prohibited a Jewish
student from wearing a star of david as a "gang symbol") they
LOSE when the ACLU files suit.
---
Merlyn LeRoy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jenny6833A" |
|
| Title: Re: Headscarf and beard Ban in Turkey - secularism gone mad? |
12 Nov 2005 05:51:17 AM |
|
|
Brian Westley wrote:
"Jenny6833A" <Jenny6833A@aol.com> writes:
Alan S wrote:
"Jenny6833A" <Jenny6833A@aol.com> wrote:
I happen to agree with you as regards university -- or at least I think
I do.
However, I think you failed to examine the other side of the coin.
Many young people would prefer not to wear symbols of their religion or
symbols of a religion they no longer take seriusly or no longer believe
in at all. However, they're forced to by militants who beat the
beallah out of them, or rape them or slash them, if they don't.
In that sort of situation, the only way to prevent coercion is to
define a university dress code which bans all religious symbology.
Turkey is already secular and there's no such thing going on.
Whatever you say.
Even if it were the reason (it isn't), how would it help?
By removing strife, coercion, intimidation from campus.
Uh, it doesn't get much more coercive than the government
prohibiting something.
You appear to be opposed to all dress codes.
I agree with the original poster,
many of the european rules are very oppressive, and co-
incidentally fall hardest on not-very-well-liked minorities.
ROTFLMAO!!! You neglect to remember that Turkey is a majority Muslim
country.
<snip>
:-)
Jenny
(who is tired of those who think their way is the only way, those who
are always yapping at nations who choose to do anything even slightly
differently)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Alan S" |
|
| Title: Re: Headscarf and beard Ban in Turkey - secularism gone mad? |
12 Nov 2005 01:20:03 PM |
|
|
"Jenny6833A" <Jenny6833A@aol.com> wrote:
Alan S wrote:
"Jenny6833A" <Jenny6833A@aol.com> wrote:
I happen to agree with you as regards university -- or at least I think
I do.
However, I think you failed to examine the other side of the coin.
Many young people would prefer not to wear symbols of their religion or
symbols of a religion they no longer take seriusly or no longer believe
in at all. However, they're forced to by militants who beat the
beallah out of them, or rape them or slash them, if they don't.
In that sort of situation, the only way to prevent coercion is to
define a university dress code which bans all religious symbology.
Turkey is already secular and there's no such thing going on.
Whatever you say.
Feel free to provide examples of the religious raping or slashing the
non-religious at universities in Turkey if you don't believe me.
Even if it were the reason (it isn't), how would it help?
By removing strife, coercion, intimidation from campus.
If anything, it introduces conflict to where there was none before.
If there was
violence against blacks, fi, would you suggest they paint their faces
white to blend in?
You've gone nuts.
So you have *some* sense at least.
Funny you mention coercion but isn't it coercion
itself to force the religious to chose between education and their
beliefs?
All dress codes -- all rules of any kind -- involve some degree of
threat of coercion. The motivation for them is to choose the lesser of
two evils.
You misunderstand the purpose of dress codes. Dress code is not
supposed to suppress evil people, it's supposed to serve a useful
purpose. There's a useful reason behind, let's say, hair nets in a
restaurant. It's not designed to prevent Muslims, Jews or Blacks from
working in restaurants, and unless malign in intent, all dress codes
accomodate as much as possible. Not only that, but not being denied
education is a fundemental human right and there's no difference
IMNSHO between denying education based on religion and denying
education based on race or gender.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Goober" |
|
| Title: Re: Headscarf and beard Ban in Turkey - secularism gone mad? |
13 Nov 2005 12:19:40 AM |
|
|
Jenny6833A wrote:
Goober wrote:
Time for a tirade!
The European Court of Human Rights has recently upheld a ban on the
wearing of headscarfs in universities in Turkey.
<snip>
I grew up and went to school in an environment where the wearing of
religious symbols, including Islamic headscarves and (especially)
turbans was very common. Not once did I feel the slightest urge to
convert to Islam or Sihkism or Hinduism. Not once has the sight of a
crucifix or cross inclined me towards Christianity. Not once did I feel
that there was a threat to public order thereby or to the rights or
freedoms of myself or others, or to the separation of church or state,
so long as it was not the state expressing such symbolism.
I just don't get it.
The judgement in full:
http://www.echr.coe.int/Eng/Press/2005/Nov/GrandChamberJudgmentLeylaSahinvTurkey101105.htm
I happen to agree with you as regards university -- or at least I think
I do.
However, I think you failed to examine the other side of the coin.
Many young people would prefer not to wear symbols of their religion or
symbols of a religion they no longer take seriusly or no longer believe
in at all. However, they're forced to by militants who beat the
beallah out of them, or rape them or slash them, if they don't.
In that sort of situation, the only way to prevent coercion is to
define a university dress code which bans all religious symbology.
:-)
Jenny
In principle, I agree, but I also take it that the law in Turkey and in
Europe generally legally protects people who would choose not to wear
religious attire when at university.
I should, perhaps, also add that I'm European, hence my views may stem
from a somewhat different cultural bias from Norh Americans. But in my
corner of Europe (Britain) the idea of a headscarf or beard ban in
universities would be laughed at as absurd. Britain, of course, is not
*technically* secular since the head of the English church is also the
head of state (oh well, nowhere's perfect), but in *practice* it is
entirely secular - in my view more secular in practice than the
officially secular United States. (E.G. In Britain we don't have "In God
we trust" on our coinage, nor do we have our children pledge alleigence
to a flag by reciting a creed that mentions us being a nation
"indivisible under God". As I say, nowhere's perfect.)
And, yes of course, all dress codes are to some degree or other
coercive. The question is whether such codes constitute *unjustifiable*
impositions on freedom of expression. In cases where it is a matter of
custom, matters are very unclear. Having to wear clothes at all is
arguably a coercive imposition on one's freedom of expression, but may
be justifiable given how uncomfortable and even (perhaps) offended
others might feel were one to attend classes naked. Standards of
acceptible dress vary greatly from culture ot culture, but it seems to
me that banning headscarves and beards at university falls clearly on
the *un*justifiable side of coercion in a secular country.
Goober
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jenny6833A" |
|
| Title: Re: Headscarf and beard Ban in Turkey - secularism gone mad? |
13 Nov 2005 02:27:36 AM |
|
|
Goober wrote:
Jenny6833A wrote:
Goober wrote:
Time for a tirade!
The European Court of Human Rights has recently upheld a ban on the
wearing of headscarfs in universities in Turkey.
<snip>
I grew up and went to school in an environment where the wearing of
religious symbols, including Islamic headscarves and (especially)
turbans was very common. Not once did I feel the slightest urge to
convert to Islam or Sihkism or Hinduism. Not once has the sight of a
crucifix or cross inclined me towards Christianity. Not once did I feel
that there was a threat to public order thereby or to the rights or
freedoms of myself or others, or to the separation of church or state,
so long as it was not the state expressing such symbolism.
I just don't get it.
The judgement in full:
http://www.echr.coe.int/Eng/Press/2005/Nov/GrandChamberJudgmentLeylaSahinvTurkey101105.htm
I happen to agree with you as regards university -- or at least I think
I do.
However, I think you failed to examine the other side of the coin.
Many young people would prefer not to wear symbols of their religion or
symbols of a religion they no longer take seriusly or no longer believe
in at all. However, they're forced to by militants who beat the
beallah out of them, or rape them or slash them, if they don't.
In that sort of situation, the only way to prevent coercion is to
define a university dress code which bans all religious symbology.
:-)
Jenny
In principle, I agree, but I also take it that the law in Turkey and in
Europe generally legally protects people who would choose not to wear
religious attire when at university.
Yes, but seldom in practice. What's done to a person off campus due to
that person's quite legal actions on campus can't be conclusively tied
to their on-campus action. The university dress code allows a woman to
say, "I don't wear the head covering (it's NOT a scarf) at school
because the rules say I can't."
I should, perhaps, also add that I'm European, hence my views may stem
from a somewhat different cultural bias from Norh Americans. But in my
corner of Europe (Britain) the idea of a headscarf or beard ban in
universities would be laughed at as absurd.
We agree. It would be laughed at as absurd. However, to paraphrase
you above, your views may stem from a somewhat different cultural bias
from that of the Turks.
And from a lack of understanding of the problems that Turkey (and
France) face.
Britain, of course, is not
*technically* secular since the head of the English church is also the
head of state (oh well, nowhere's perfect), but in *practice* it is
entirely secular - in my view more secular in practice than the
officially secular United States. (E.G. In Britain we don't have "In God
we trust" on our coinage, nor do we have our children pledge alleigence
to a flag by reciting a creed that mentions us being a nation
"indivisible under God". As I say, nowhere's perfect.)
We agree on all that, but it's irrelevant to choices made by the Turks
or the French.
And, yes of course, all dress codes are to some degree or other
coercive. The question is whether such codes constitute *unjustifiable*
impositions on freedom of expression.
Yes.
In cases where it is a matter of
custom, matters are very unclear.
Yes. That lack of clarity suggests to me that one answer need not
apply to all nations at all times.
Having to wear clothes at all is
arguably a coercive imposition on one's freedom of expression ...
ABSOLUTELY!!!!
but may
be justifiable given how uncomfortable and even (perhaps) offended
others might feel were one to attend classes naked.
I don't think "uncomfortable" or "offended" amount to much of an
argument against mere nudity. Those are culturally taught emotions --
and only emotions -- that (IMO) don't justify impositions on freedom of
expression. But, of course, I'm a nudist.
Standards of acceptible dress vary greatly from culture ot culture ...
Duh! They also vary within a culture depending on place -- such as
school versus work versus on the street versus in the yard, ....
... but it seems to
me that banning headscarves and beards at university falls clearly on
the *un*justifiable side of coercion in a secular country.
As it _seems_ to North American me.
However, neither you, I, the OP, nor the other posters have sufficiant
knowledge of the situation in Turkey (or France) to say anything more
than "it _seems_ to ME from MY OWN cultural background."
And that's not good enough to justify the OP's rant -- or good enough
to interfere with on-the-scene judgments made by the Turks or the
French.
Goober
:-)
Jenny
(who has zero first hand knowledge of Turkey, but who spends a lot of
non-tourist time in France and who strongly supports the French
decision to keep religious symbology out of the public schools)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Goober" |
|
| Title: Re: Headscarf and beard Ban in Turkey - secularism gone mad? |
15 Nov 2005 10:41:36 PM |
|
|
Jenny6833A wrote:
Goober wrote:
Jenny6833A wrote:
Goober wrote:
Time for a tirade!
The European Court of Human Rights has recently upheld a ban on the
wearing of headscarfs in universities in Turkey.
<snip>
I grew up and went to school in an environment where the wearing of
religious symbols, including Islamic headscarves and (especially)
turbans was very common. Not once did I feel the slightest urge to
convert to Islam or Sihkism or Hinduism. Not once has the sight of a
crucifix or cross inclined me towards Christianity. Not once did I feel
that there was a threat to public order thereby or to the rights or
freedoms of myself or others, or to the separation of church or state,
so long as it was not the state expressing such symbolism.
I just don't get it.
The judgement in full:
http://www.echr.coe.int/Eng/Press/2005/Nov/GrandChamberJudgmentLeylaSahinvTurkey101105.htm
I happen to agree with you as regards university -- or at least I think
I do.
However, I think you failed to examine the other side of the coin.
Many young people would prefer not to wear symbols of their religion or
symbols of a religion they no longer take seriusly or no longer believe
in at all. However, they're forced to by militants who beat the
beallah out of them, or rape them or slash them, if they don't.
In that sort of situation, the only way to prevent coercion is to
define a university dress code which bans all religious symbology.
:-)
Jenny
In principle, I agree, but I also take it that the law in Turkey and in
Europe generally legally protects people who would choose not to wear
religious attire when at university.
Yes, but seldom in practice. What's done to a person off campus due to
that person's quite legal actions on campus can't be conclusively tied
to their on-campus action. The university dress code allows a woman to
say, "I don't wear the head covering (it's NOT a scarf) at school
because the rules say I can't."
That kind of reasoning strikes me as absurd. It seems to suggest that we
can legitmately restrict someone's right to practice a their religion on
the grounds that it allows some people to escape the fear of illegal
recriminations.
What would be next? It is against the edicts of the Catholic church to
use almost any kind of contraception. Some Catholic women would use the
pill but don't, say, for fear of (illegal and hard to prosecute)
retribution from others outside university. But by parallel to your
reasoning all women at university would be required to take the pill so
that those people can do what they have every right to do without fear.
I should, perhaps, also add that I'm European, hence my views may stem
from a somewhat different cultural bias from Norh Americans. But in my
corner of Europe (Britain) the idea of a headscarf or beard ban in
universities would be laughed at as absurd.
We agree. It would be laughed at as absurd. However, to paraphrase
you above, your views may stem from a somewhat different cultural bias
from that of the Turks.
As I'll explian below, it isn't really about cultural differences.
And from a lack of understanding of the problems that Turkey (and
France) face.
Nor is it, so far as I can tell, from a lack of understanding of the
problems that Turkey faces.
Britain, of course, is not
*technically* secular since the head of the English church is also the
head of state (oh well, nowhere's perfect), but in *practice* it is
entirely secular - in my view more secular in practice than the
officially secular United States. (E.G. In Britain we don't have "In God
we trust" on our coinage, nor do we have our children pledge alleigence
to a flag by reciting a creed that mentions us being a nation
"indivisible under God". As I say, nowhere's perfect.)
We agree on all that, but it's irrelevant to choices made by the Turks
or the French.
Of course. The above was simply an aside. One thing (but not the central
thing) I'm wondering is what *is* relevent to the French or the Turks
and why.
And, yes of course, all dress codes are to some degree or other
coercive. The question is whether such codes constitute *unjustifiable*
impositions on freedom of expression.
Yes.
In cases where it is a matter of
custom, matters are very unclear.
Yes. That lack of clarity suggests to me that one answer need not
apply to all nations at all times.
Having to wear clothes at all is
arguably a coercive imposition on one's freedom of expression ...
ABSOLUTELY!!!!
but may
be justifiable given how uncomfortable and even (perhaps) offended
others might feel were one to attend classes naked.
I don't think "uncomfortable" or "offended" amount to much of an
argument against mere nudity. Those are culturally taught emotions --
and only emotions -- that (IMO) don't justify impositions on freedom of
expression. But, of course, I'm a nudist.
Then I picked an appropriate example. :)
But here I get a bit puzzled. On the one hand you seem to be arguing for
the *relevance* of Turkish or French cultural peculiarities as a
justification for coercive restrictions against freedom of expression
and practice of religion. On the other hand, qua nudist, you seem to be
suggesting that feelings of "offence" or lack of "confort" when faced
with nudity, which you point out are clearly cultural, are *not* good
grounds for restricting nudity. Are you trying to square a circle here?
Standards of acceptible dress vary greatly from culture ot culture ...
Duh! They also vary within a culture depending on place -- such as
school versus work versus on the street versus in the yard, ....
Indeed.
... but it seems to
me that banning headscarves and beards at university falls clearly on
the *un*justifiable side of coercion in a secular country.
As it _seems_ to North American me.
However, neither you, I, the OP, nor the other posters have sufficiant
knowledge of the situation in Turkey (or France) to say anything more
than "it _seems_ to ME from MY OWN cultural background."
And that's not good enough to justify the OP's rant -- or good enough
to interfere with on-the-scene judgments made by the Turks or the
French.
I think you mistake the central target of my rant. My inital post
focussed almost exclusively on the judgement of the ECHR and the
purported justifications that *it* gave for supporting the Turkish law.
You see, this is not, so far as I can tell, or so far as your points
suggest, a matter of me being unaware of some particular Turkish custom.
Neither is it obviously a matter of me having clearly different values
from the Turks or the French. I say this because I would subscribe to
the European Convention on Human Rights, of which Turkey and France are
signitories. That convention outlines a series of *fundamental rights
and freedoms* - it is a *basic* legal-moral framework that signatory
states are obliged to respect. As such, adherence to the principles
outlined in that convention have authority over this or that custom, or
this or that national law. If some custom or law violates those
principles, so much the worse for that custom or law - the countries are
legally and morally obliged to ensure that those basic rights and
freedoms are maintained.
So my first point is that it really doesn't matter what the customs of
France or Turkey might be. Rights are rights, and guaranteed freedoms
are guaranteed freedoms, and these supercede any customs. The convention
outlines those principles and Turkey and French are legally (and, in my
view, morally) bound to enforce those principles *whatever* their
particular customs may be.
This is not to say that I wouldn't be *interested* to hear what the
customs might be from which such practices might arise. I might then be
in a better position to *understand* why the Turks might be okay with
such a law.
My second point is that, so far as I can tell, I share the same values
as the European Court of Human Rights. I would subscribe to its
principles outlined in the convention. Hence, I am appaled that the
court cites those very principles - democracy, preservation of public
order, secularism, pluralism, and so on, in defence of a law that
severely restricts freedom to practice religion/right to an education.
It is their *reasoning* or their purported justification that most
deeply puzzles and offends me. I cannot see how respect for those
principles might justify support for the Turkish law. Quite the opposite
seems ot me to be the case.
:-)
Jenny
(who has zero first hand knowledge of Turkey, but who spends a lot of
non-tourist time in France and who strongly supports the French
decision to keep religious symbology out of the public schools)
Neither of us are experts on Turkey. But both of us can read the ECHR
judgement and both of us can read the European Convention on Human Rights.
As a side topic, then, perhaps you can explain to me why you strongly
support the French ban on Islamic headscraves in schools?
Goober
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jenny6833A" |
|
| Title: Re: Headscarf and beard Ban in Turkey - secularism gone mad? |
13 Nov 2005 03:34:38 PM |
|
|
Saskia van der Roor wrote:
... nobody seriously planned to follow the french example and forbid hijabs
for the pupils.
But I am a teacher myself, at a middle school with a significant amount
of turkish pupils, and what I see makes me wonder if we shouldn't
consider that.
Most of the girls enter our school at the age of 10 without a hijab. By
the 7th grade you have one in each class of 30, by 9th grade 2-3. These
girls do not only put on a scarf, they change their whole personality -
and not for the better. They become very quiet and try even less than
before to counter the loud and aggressive behaviour of the boys (and
some of the non-muslim or muslim-but-not-severely-religious girls..).
Don't get me wrong, not all quiet and withdrawn girls wear a hijab, but
all the hijab-girls are.
It is this change in the girls that removes them from a large part of
normal school-life (no trips, no swimming.... sometimes no sports - or
sports with a hindering scarf...) that makes me think that there IS
something to protect them from, even if they convince me that they wear
the hijab according to their own desire.
I just think I have to save these girls from themselves.....
That's a good, although muted, description of what the French are
trying to counter.
I could go on and elaborate on the hidden meaning of the hijab, that a
woman - and only a woman herself - is responsible for the behaviour of
men towards her - a sentiment that was hard enough to overcome here and
which I want to keep as far away from my reality as possible... but that
would mean to use even more space in this post, which might not even be
in the correct usegroup (but where would I end up in alt.soc.islam....
people here at least LISTEN..)
Well, sometimes. :-)
Saskia
:-)
Jenny
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Goober" |
|
| Title: Re: Headscarf and beard Ban in Turkey - secularism gone mad? |
15 Nov 2005 11:44:52 PM |
|
|
Saskia van der Roor wrote:
You all have a point in your argument that I could support. I am myself
very unsure on what to think.
Here in Germany the head-covering in school discussion has been going on
for some time, and the French events only triggered it once more.
The question was usually mainly discussed concerning teachers though,
nobody seriously planned to follow the french example and forbid hijabs
for the pupils.
But I am a teacher myself, at a middle school with a significant amount
of turkish pupils, and what I see makes me wonder if we shouldn't
consider that.
Most of the girls enter our school at the age of 10 without a hijab. By
the 7th grade you have one in each class of 30, by 9th grade 2-3. These
girls do not only put on a scarf, they change their whole personality -
and not for the better. They become very quiet and try even less than
before to counter the loud and aggressive behaviour of the boys (and
some of the non-muslim or muslim-but-not-severely-religious girls..).
Don't get me wrong, not all quiet and withdrawn girls wear a hijab, but
all the hijab-girls are.
It is this change in the girls that removes them from a large part of
normal school-life (no trips, no swimming.... sometimes no sports - or
sports with a hindering scarf...) that makes me think that there IS
something to protect them from, even if they convince me that they wear
the hijab according to their own desire.
I just think I have to save these girls from themselves.....
I could go on and elaborate on the hidden meaning of the hijab, that a
woman - and only a woman herself - is responsible for the behaviour of
men towards her - a sentiment that was hard enough to overcome here and
which I want to keep as far away from my reality as possible... but that
would mean to use even more space in this post, which might not even be
in the correct usegroup (but where would I end up in alt.soc.islam....
people here at least LISTEN..)
Saskia
You raise a number of very difficult and thorny issues. I won't pretend
that my arguments settle the matter, but anyway...
One central issue concerns parental control over the activities that
their children participate in. You and I may believe that participation
in all aspects of normal school life in Germany is a good thing. Some
parents clearly disagree. Some parents (especially many traditional
Muslim parents) think that their girls should not participate in sports
that require significant bare skin. Their entitled to their view,
presumably. But are they entitled to stop their children from
participating in such sports? You want to "save these girls from
themselves" - but are you not really wanting to "save" the children from
*their* particular religion and *their* particular culture? Are you not
simply wishing to save them from a set of cultural values with which you
disagree? Other cultures or religions have values to which you or I
might object, and the question (and it's a very difficult question) is
how far the boundaries of tolerance and pluralism and multi-culturalism
extend before they go too far. You are in the position of an instrument
of the state charged with educating the nations children. How are you to
do this where the state tacitly endorses certain values or practices at
odds with those of some of its member communities?
There is a real danger of a slippery slope if you start enforcing a
uniform educational practice in the face of differing cultural practices
on the grounds that it is "better" for the children. For example, well
into the 1970s in Canada aboriginal (First Nations, as they're called in
Canada) children were regularly taken from their communities and
families to be educated in European-cultured schools, living with
European-cultured foster parents away from they native culture. This was
"justified" in terms of it being "better" for the children. Though it
was rarely stated bluntly, the background reasoning was that the values
and practices of First Nations culture were inferior to European values,
and that they hindered the education of their children. The consensus is
that this policy was a huge mistake and morally unjustifiable. (A
similar story can be told in Australia.) Unwarranted paternalism is a
real danger here.
What I think I'm saying is that I have sympathy with your difficult
position. It seems to me the state has (and, by extension, you have) a
responsibility to educate its children, but it must surely also allow
for significant parental discretion regarding how the state may exercise
that responsibility. There are limits, of course. But it strikes me that
the wearing of a hijab, per se, is probably within the boundaries of
parental discretion, it being central to the traditional practice of
their religion, and given that it violates no one else's rights or
freedoms. The wearing of the hijab is a symbol and an expression of a
religious culture that, among many other things, teaches that women
should be quiet and generally submissive, especially with respect to
men. The hijab is not the cause of such attitudes but simply a
consequence of them. The question is, is it legitimate for the state to
implicitly reject such religion-based values or beliefs by banning the
expressive consequence of those values of beliefs?
For my part, I think the only values or attitudes or practices that the
state (and you as instrument of the state) should actively endorse over
and against parental discretion to the contrary, are those which are
absolutely central to the state. Wearing (or not) a hijab, whether women
should be quiet or generally submissive are not issues that the German
state should take practical view on, so far as I can see. Principles of
equality, for example, do not (in my view) entail that men and women
should behave in identical ways, any more than it entails that men and
women should dress in the same ways. So long as all students are clearly
free to speak out, and free to participate in sports, etc., I'm not sure
that the state has any further *obligations* towards the child in the
face of distinct parental opposition.
Goober
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
