Anti-headscarf/Secular demo

[Devrim]

There is a demonstration today in Ankara against headscarves. The wife, and her mother, and Aunt are going. I expect it will be huge. What do people think about this?:

Turkish academics warn government against headscarf plan Published: 2/1/2008
http://archive.turkishpress.com/i/0.gif
http://www.turkishpress.com/i/0.gif http://www.turkishpress.com/i/0.gif ANKARA - Leading Turkish academics Friday warned the government against ending a ban on Islamic headscarfs in universities, saying the country's secular system was under a "serious threat." The declaration was adopted at an emergency meeting of the Inter-Universities Board shortly after a parliamentary commission began debating a government-sponsored package of draft amendments to end the controversial ban.
"The planned amendments will accelerate efforts to eradicate the republic's principle of secularism," said the statement, read out by the chairman of the oversight board, Professor Mustafa Akaydin, at Ankara's Middle East Technical University.
"The erosion of the universities' (principles of) rationalism and scientific reason and Turkey's transformation into a religious state would become inevitable," it said.
Akaydin told reporters that some women academics were already considering boycotting classes if the bill is passed.
"We are concerned that universities will plunge into a chaotic environment and opposing groups will start clashing with each other," he said.
The declaration was one of the harshest warnings against the ruling Islamist-rooted Justice and Development Party (AKP) since it began drafting the bill last month.
The AKP, the offshoot of a now-banned Islamist party, has long opposed the ban on wearing the headscarf in universities, arguing that it violates both the freedom of conscience and the right to education.
Secularist forces, including the army and senior judges, see the headscarf as a symbol of defiance against Turkey's fiercely guarded secular system.
Easing the restrictions, they argue, will increase conservative social pressure on women to cover up and gradually result in lifting a ban on the headscarf in public offices as well.
In 2005, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the headscarf ban in Turkish universities was not a violation of fundamental freedoms and could be necessary to protect Turkey's secular order against extremist movements.
The draft amendments, backed also by the opposition Nationalist Action Party (MHP), include changes to the constitution and higher education law.
Together, the AKP and the MHP easily have the two-thirds parliamentary majority required to amend the constitution.
Parliament is expected to vote on the bill next week.
Devrim

[BobKKKindle$]

I think you're taking a reactionary position. The state has no right to tell women what they are allowed to wear - this should always be a choice for the individual, and I find it surprising that you, as a left-communist, should support such a blatant infringement on individual freedom.


The most common argument against the headscarf (and thus in favor of state restrictions on where the headscarf can be worn) is the idea that the headscarf is somehow a form of sexist oppression and women don't really make a free choice when they wear the headscarf, due to the pressure of men in the islamic community and the influence of socialization. Although sexism within muslim families is an important issue, and something Socialists should oppose, this argument shows a lack of appreciation for womens political consciousness, as well as the nature of sexism.

All women, in any society, are pressured to present themselves in a certain way, according to what is considered attractive or in keeping with the prevailing expectations of how women should behave - this is true not only of the headcarf, but also of any other female garment, such as the miniskirt. However, in western countries (if not in Turkey) liberal feminists see it as their mission to help islamic women, who are allegedly not able to realize their condition and so require political education. This is indicative of a very paternalistic approach.

In reality, many Islamic women now wear the headcarf as a symbol of political protest, in order to show their opposition to government moves to deny them the right to make their own choices, as well as other political concerns, such as foreign policy in the middle east. This shows that muslim women have a greater degree of independence than is often assumed.

Even if muslim women were completely subject to the control of men, however, it remains unclear as to how restricting the headscarf actually improves their condition - if anything, restrictions result in the isolation of the muslim community, which can create an environment conducive to fundamentalism.

I would proudly defend a woman's right to wear the headscarf. The recent increase in racist assaults against Muslims, in western countries, makes this defense a priority for socialists.

[Faux Real]

Goes to show how far these petty bourgeoisie "academics" want to show off in the eyes of the EU about how good and secular they are, all the while being authoritarian and repressive. But hey it's worth it, I mean, only those savage and backwards Muslim women incapable of receiving an education would wear one of those things. :rolleyes:

[Nakidana]

I think bobkindles pretty much said it all. What's next, forced wearing of the miniskirt and thong? :confused:

EDIT:


Goes to show how far these petty bourgeoisie "academics" want to show off in the eyes of the EU about how good and secular they are, all the while being authoritarian and repressive. But hey it's worth it, I mean, only those savage and backwards Muslim women incapable of receiving an education would wear one of those things. :rolleyes:

Exactly what I was thinking.

[RedAnarchist]

People should have a choice, and that includes allowing women the choice to wear whatever they wish. Forcing them NOT to wear Islamic clothing is just as bad as forcing them TO wear such clothing, because it denies them the choice.

[Leo]

I think you're taking a reactionary position. The state has no right to tell women what they are allowed to wear - this should always be a choice for the individual, and I find it surprising that you, as a left-communist, should support such a blatant infringement on individual freedom.

What the hell are you talking about? He has not taken any position, he is merely asking what people think about it. However just to clarify the left communist position on this, we are completely against the secular-nationalism, just as we are against Islam. More importantly we don't see this as an issue for the proletariat but as an issue of the bourgeoisie.

Your position, however is so laughably liberal that even the Cliffites in Turkey would laugh at it.

[BobKKKindle$]

Your position, however is so laughably liberal that even the Cliffites in Turkey would laugh at it.

How exactly is my position "liberal"? Most "liberals" (which is, in any case, a rather vague term which could refer to a broad range of different groups and viewpoints) have supported restrictions because they view the fight against the Hijab as progressive - note that all three main political parties in France (The PS, UMP, and UDF) supported the 2004 law banning the display of "conspicuous" religious symbols in schools. My position is therefore not "liberal" in any sense, as we (by which I mean the SWP, which is one of the few parties to fight for the rights of muslim women) differ radically from the mainstream.


What the hell are you talking about? He has not taken any position, he is merely asking what people think about it. However just to clarify the left communist position on this, we are completely against the secular-nationalism, just as we are against Islam. More importantly we don't see this as an issue for the proletariat but as an issue of the bourgeoisie.

With regard to his position, I apologize, I did not notice that he did not include himself in the list of people who plan to attend the protest. It remains to be seen what Devrim's position is - hopefully he will tell us soon enough.

On the subject of the "left-communist" position, I disagree with your claim that this is a bourgeois issue - it is an issue which affects every member of the muslim community, and transcends class divisions. Socialists stand for the freedom of the individual (as well as anti-capitalist class struggle) and so we don't restrict our support to struggles which bear a clear relation to the interests of the working class - note, for example, the history of socialist support for homosexual rights.

Opposing any religion (as illogical and possibly detrimental to class struggle) does not mean supporting authoritarian state measures to stop people from expressing their religion in public. It's not enough take a neutral position - Socialists should actively organize against moves to stop women from wearing the headscarf. This is an issue of equivalent importance to other women's struggles, such as the fight for abortion rights. The weak centrism of the "left communists" on this issue (and in general) is very unfortunate.

[Demogorgon]

Normally I would be against any headscarve ban, but as there is currently a genuine threat to secularism in Turkey, this has to be viewed as part of a larger effort to chip away at the safeguards against religious extremism. So while I can hardly sympathise with the ban, I think this particular effort to end it must be opposed.

[BobKKKindle$]

Normally I would be against any headscarve ban, but as there is currently a genuine threat to secularism in Turkey, this has to be viewed as part of a larger effort to chip away at the safeguards against religious extremism. So while I can hardly sympathise with the ban, I think this particular effort to end it must be opposed.

On what grounds do you describe the effort to end the ban inside universities as in conflict with secularism? How does allowing people to wear a religious garment threaten the division between church and state? You're accepting the arguments put forward by the military, which has historically threatened any government which has attempted to introduce greater religious tolerance to Turkish public life. It is unfortunate that so-called Trotskyists are willing to support the state-apparatus in the oppression of muslim women.

[Devrim]

I think you're taking a reactionary position. The state has no right to tell women what they are allowed to wear - this should always be a choice for the individual, and I find it surprising that you, as a left-communist, should support such a blatant infringement on individual freedom.


With regard to his position, I apologize, I did not notice that he did not include himself in the list of people who plan to attend the protest.

It helps to read doesn't it, Bob. Of course, I am not going to the demonstration. It is in my view clearly a pro-army demonstration. That said I do understand how it mobilises people, especially woman. My wife doesn't often go on demonstrations, and neither does her septuagenarian mother. The army plays on people fears of sharia.


It remains to be seen what Devrim's position is - hopefully he will tell us soon enough.

I am in the same organisation as Leo. We have the same position. We don't have to wait, and see.


However, in western countries (if not in Turkey) liberal feminists see it as their mission to help islamic women, who are allegedly not able to realize their condition and so require political education. This is indicative of a very paternalistic approach.

But we are talking about a demonstration in Turkey. Please address the issue.


In reality, many Islamic women now wear the headcarf as a symbol of political protest, in order to show their opposition to government moves to deny them the right to make their own choices, as well as other political concerns, such as foreign policy in the middle east.

As can be seen from even the briefest reading of the article (i.e. it is in the first sentence), it is the government that is trying to end the ban. Nobody in Turkey is wearing a headscarf to show their opposition to the government. It is quite the opposite. Please address the issue.


I would proudly defend a woman's right to wear the headscarf. The recent increase in racist assaults against Muslims, in western countries, makes this defense a priority for socialists.

But obviously this is not an issue of race. It is quite tiring to reply to what you wrote after you didn't read the post, parroted the SWP's position in the UK, and didn't address the issue at all.


Goes to show how far these petty bourgeoisie "academics" want to show off in the eyes of the EU about how good and secular they are, all the while being authoritarian and repressive. But hey it's worth it, I mean, only those savage and backwards Muslim women incapable of receiving an education would wear one of those things. :rolleyes:

It is not only 'petite bourgeois academics', who oppose this sort of thing. The last round of secular demoonstrations last spring attracted about 4,000,000 people. I doubt that they were all 'petite bourgeois academics'.


People should have a choice, and that includes allowing women the choice to wear whatever they wish. Forcing them NOT to wear Islamic clothing is just as bad as forcing them TO wear such clothing, because it denies them the choice.

Actually, I agree that we shouldn't support the states ban. The reason that so many people protest against these things is that they see it as the first step to women being forced to wear these things.


On the subject of the "left-communist" position, I disagree with your claim that this is a bourgeois issue - it is an issue which affects every member of the muslim community, and transcends class divisions.

What do you mean the 'Muslim community'? According to official statistics that includes 99.9% of the country, so you are certainly right that it transcends class divisions.

The first point for the communist left is that this is not a class issue. It is in fact an political issue, which aims to mobilise workers behind two different sections of the bourgeoisie, the Government, or the army. In my personal opinion it is no accident that this issue is often brought up when there are strikes, or talk of strikes.


Opposing any religion (as illogical and possibly detrimental to class struggle) does not mean supporting authoritarian state measures to stop people from expressing their religion in public.

Apart from the word 'possibly' we agree here. It is detrimental to the class struggle, as is the opposing position here. Both of them divert the working class from seeing their own interests, and into fighting for different factions of the state.


It's not enough take a neutral position - Socialists should actively organize against moves to stop women from wearing the headscarf. This is an issue of equivalent importance to other women's struggles, such as the fight for abortion rights.

The SWP once talk a class position on an international issue. It said in the fifties that the Korean war was an inter-imperialist conflict, and workers had no interest in supporting either side. I think the criticism that they took from the rest of the left over it must have stung them because today they have to take a side in every squalid inter-bourgeois faction fight.

'It is not enough to take a neutral position', one gets the feeling that today's SWP would have said the same thing in 1914.

Devrim


.

[Luís Henrique]

Sometimes, things that are not forbidden become mandatory. I fear that is the case of headscarfs in predominantly Muslism societies.

Luís Henrique

[Devrim]

On what grounds do you describe the effort to end the ban inside universities as in conflict with secularism?

I suppose he could try the same ones that my wife was arguing when I got home from work today. Most 'secular' people in Turkey believe that it is. The see it as the first step on the road to sharia.


How does allowing people to wear a religious garment threaten the division between church and state?

You can wear a headscarf, just not in a public building.


You're accepting the arguments put forward by the military,

I agree with this. These are the arguments put forward by the military, and in my opinion they are scaremongering.


...military, which has historically threatened any government which has attempted to introduce greater religious tolerance to Turkish public life.

Untrue, unless you think that historically means the last ten years. The military pushed Islam in the 1980s.

Devrim

[BobKKKindle$]

I realize that some of my arguments are not fully applicable to Turkey, however, the headscarf is also an important issue in many european states, where the focus is on women's rights - although some conservatives also argue that the Hijab is closely linked to fundamentalism, which has the potential to threaten Europe's secular tradition.

With regard to the specific conditions in Turkey, however, restrictions on the Hijab are still wrong. The restrictions are supported by a state-apparatus which shows an utter disregard for basic human rights, in the treatment of the Kurds and the failure to recognize Turkey's historic crimes against the people of Armenia. To claim that eliminating restrictions on the Hijab will encourage the breakdown of Secularism is an alarmist claim with no basis in reality.

That the army is able to mobilize many citizens for demonstrations against the Hijab does not make the restrictions legitimate, and does not mean that there is majority support for the government's lack of religious tolerance, as the army makes an effort to tie the issue of the hijab to the Turkish identity, and so is able to use nationalism to it's advantage. Therefore, standing up for the right to wear the Hijab is an important part of the struggle against Turkish nationalism/imperialism.

[Devrim]

That the army is able to mobilize many citizens for demonstrations against the Hijab does not make the restrictions legitimate, and does not mean that there is majority support for the government's lack of religious tolerance,

Really Bob, it helps to read things. I will put it in big letters to help you. IT IS THE GOVERNMENT THAT IS TRYING TO END THE BAN.

Devrim

[BobKKKindle$]

I know - I meant the state-apparatus, in the form of the army (which, regardless of which political party holds office, wields considerable power, and sees itself as the guardian of Turkey's secular tradition). My apologies.

[Devrim]

20,000 were there.
Devrim

[jake williams]

Goes to show how far these petty bourgeoisie "academics" want to show off in the eyes of the EU about how good and secular they are, all the while being authoritarian and repressive. But hey it's worth it, I mean, only those savage and backwards Muslim women incapable of receiving an education would wear one of those things. :rolleyes:
Were you the one with the niqab fetish?

Anyway, I disagree with the basic principles behind that particular category of Islamic dress. I think it's hardly the penultimate "subjugation of women" it's made out to be, but I think it is a larger desexualization and gendering of society with which I really don't agree.

No, I don't think it should be banned. I don't really agree with it, but (especially headscarves, rather than face-coverings) they're really pretty harmless, and if people want to, especially if they have strong convictions, why not? I do, however, think there are circumstances where it's perfectly possible there's a legitimate problem with it - say safety - and if this is the case, we have to accept that, and if it can't be accommodated, we just say "Well, women, you get to pick". Sometimes it won't be an important issue and can be disregarded, but we can't get all in a huffle about "racism" just because particular dress which is inappropriate for specific circumstances happens to be tied to a complex religio-cultural tradition.

[Devrim]

I know - I meant the state-apparatus, in the form of the army (which, regardless of which political party holds office, wields considerable power, and sees itself as the guardian of Turkey's secular tradition). My apologies.

So you are clear that this is part of a faction fight between two factions of the state, yet you still think that the working class should taken a side.

Devrim

[Demogorgon]

On what grounds do you describe the effort to end the ban inside universities as in conflict with secularism? How does allowing people to wear a religious garment threaten the division between church and state? You're accepting the arguments put forward by the military, which has historically threatened any government which has attempted to introduce greater religious tolerance to Turkish public life. It is unfortunate that so-called Trotskyists are willing to support the state-apparatus in the oppression of muslim women.

The state banning headscarves doesn't do anything, that is the point. A Government with obvious sympathies for theocracy undoing the ban strikes me as attempting to let theocracy get its foot in the door, with the smallest changes first.

If a secular government were to undo the ban I would be the first to support it, but this isn't a secular government, it is a government that would just love to be a full blown religious one trying to weaken constitutional secularism to allow it to get away with more later.

[Devrim]

The actual figures for the demo were 126,515. The ones above were very early.
Devrim

[black magick hustla]

So you are clear that this is part of a faction fight between two factions of the state, yet you still think that the working class should taken a side.

Devrim

i dont know about that Devrim.

In america "black bourgeosie" does and did benefit from anti-racist actions. however it is also true that anti-racist actions help to unify, and remove some of the barriers between different sections of the proletariat. my point is that in these types of "non-class" issues (although i think they do have a lot to do with class) communists have to work and give a class perspective on the problem. communists, since the beginning of the 20th century, have always taken these types of issues seriously, and given them a class turn. this is very different from asking workers to die for different factions of the bourgeosie.

to be honest i am not that enthusiastic about the hijab but my point still stands.

besides communism is about the emancipation of humanity, not only the working class.

[Devrim]

i dont know about that Devrim.
I need to come back to this soon. It is similar to your other question.

In the meantime some editorial comment from our press:


On 2nd February 126,515 people gathered at the Anitkabir to demonstrate against the government’s attempts to revoke the ban on headscarves in universities. Although it is not on the same scale as last spring’s secular demonstrations, it still shows the extent of popular feeling on this issue.

The army constantly exploits the threat of Shariat. It is little wonder that many workers feel the need to rally in defence of the state when that they are constantly told that “they are going to make this country the same as Iran”. In fact they have gone on about it so much that when he was recently asked for his opinion by the press, Yaşar Büyükkanit refused to comment stating that everyone knew what the army’s views were.

On the other side of the divide, and it is a huge divide, there are those who are shouting loudest about ‘freedom’, and ‘democracy’. It is quite ironic in one way that the same Islamicists who after the Murderous 12th September coup were promoted by the army are now the ones screaming about a lack of democracy, and human rights.

Of course it will come as no surprise to workers to see the hypocrisy surrounding the whole affair. There is no way in which this conflict has anything at all to do with ‘democracy’, or ‘human rights’, or any other ‘fine’ ideals. At the base of this argument is nothing more than a naked struggle for power, a struggle for power in which last November neither side showed any hesitation in risking plunging not only Turkey, but also the entire region headlong into war in Northern Iraq just in order to prove that they were more patriotic than the other.

So where do workers stand amidst all this? Which side should we support, the Army, and its defence of ‘secularism or the government and its defence of individual freedom, and human rights.

For us as communists, it is clear that this is not a struggle in the interests of the working class. It in no way addresses the urgent concerns of workers in Turkey today, the need to defend living standards from yet more encroachments. The working class has no interest in being used as a pawn by either the army, or the AKP.

For workers it is vital to look to their own interests. Issues like this are brought up to create divisions within the working class. The media constantly present us with a series of binary choices, for or against headscarves, for or against terrorism, for or against the European Union… However among these choices there is nothing that defends the interests of workers.

What we say as communists is that this is not the struggle of the working class. That is not to say that we defend the army’s right to control how women dress. Of course we don’t. Nor is it to say that we support the AKP government. What we do say is that this issue is not a class issue, and we have no interest in backing either army, or government in their squalid power struggle.


Devrim

[LSD]

The state banning headscarves doesn't do anything, that is the point.

You know, I used to agree with that position myself. I saw the French law as an injustifiable state intrustion into basic personal freedom. After all, what right does anyone have to dictate what kind of clothing people choose to wear??

But then I thought about it some more, talked about it with some people, and, finally, my girlfriend at the time managed to sit me down and completely reverse my position on the subject.

It doesn't happen a lot, but I finally came to realize that I was completely and absolutely wrong.

What I, and unfortunately many others as well, failed to realize was that the issue of choice in this situation is not nearly a simple as it appears.

People should have the right to wear what they want, but the problem is that these girls don't have that right. They aren't covering their heads because of fashion or taste, they're doing it because they're being ideologically forced to by an oppressive religion and, often, physically forced to by oppressive reactionary parents.

This isn't a conflict between freedom and oppression, it's a conflict between religious restriction and secular restriction. Neither is "good", but the latter is certainly the lesser evil.

Obviously, the best solution would be the elimination of religion altogether, but since that's not on the immediate horizon, we need to accept temporary measures that offer, at the very least, marginal gains.

All people should have the opportunity to experience true equal secular life. And while I am not suggesting that the French public school sysem at all embodies secular equality, allowing girls even a moment of freedom from the sexist oppression of Islamic "law" is a progressive step.

I am absolutely no fan of statist interventionism, but as long as the state exists, it might as well do some useful things. Freeing girls and women from the shackles of brutal sexist oppression is such a thing.

School is more than an educational environment, it is also a social and protective one. It allows students to meet different kinds of people and it acts as a social safety net to identify and report abuse.

Well, forcing girls to cover themselves in "shame" and "religious duty" is a form of child abuse and schools would be abandoning their social responsibility if they did not try, insofar as they can, to put a stop to it. Everyone has the right to believe what they want, but they do not have the right to force their beliefs on others, and yes, that includes their children.

Society has an obligation to afford everyone freedom, even if their parents don't particularly like it.

[Devrim]

So you are clear that this is part of a faction fight between two factions of the state, yet you still think that the working class should taken a side.i dont know about that Devrim.

In america "black bourgeosie" does and did benefit from anti-racist actions. however it is also true that anti-racist actions help to unify, and remove some of the barriers between different sections of the proletariat. my point is that in these types of "non-class" issues (although i think they do have a lot to do with class) communists have to work and give a class perspective on the problem. communists, since the beginning of the 20th century, have always taken these types of issues seriously, and given them a class turn. this is very different from asking workers to die for different factions of the bourgeosie.

It is a part of a faction fight between different sectors of the bourgeoisie. That much is very clear. Whether workers should get involved in it is a different issue.

Devrim

[Devrim]

I am absolutely no fan of statist interventionism, but as long as the state exists, it might as well do some useful things.Scratch an anarchist, and you find a statist.

It also shouldn't be ignored that the ban in France is part of a racist campaign.

Devrim

[An archist]

They aren't covering their heads because of fashion or taste, they're doing it because they're being ideologically forced to by an oppressive religion and, often, physically forced to by oppressive reactionary parents.


Back in highschool, there were several girls who wore a headscarf for fashion.

[Devrim]

There was another massive demo about this today. The law allowing headscarves will pass on Monday.

Devrim

[Nakidana]

People should have the right to wear what they want, but the problem is that these girls don't have that right. They aren't covering their heads because of fashion or taste, they're doing it because they're being ideologically forced to by an oppressive religion and, often, physically forced to by oppressive reactionary parents.

WRONG.

I don't know who the hell your girlfriend was, but next time I suggest you chat with the people in question. They are capable of communicating you know. ;)

Awww you don't know any female Muslims? What a surprise... :rolleyes:

Thanks for the POV though, I'll be sure to mention it to my Muslim friends so we can all have a good laugh about it. Great fun. :lol:

[PRC-UTE]

How exactly is my position "liberal"?

Your argument about individual rights being infringed upon is basically rooted in liberalism.

[Zurdito]

Your argument about individual rights being infringed upon is basically rooted in liberalism.

and the belief that bourgeois governments have the right to forcibly "modernise" the culture of a nation regardless of those people's consent is rooted in what?

[Vanguard1917]

It is a part of a faction fight between different sectors of the bourgeoisie.


That does seem to be the case. There was an interesting article about this in the Weekly Worker a few days ago: 'Riddle of the headscarf' (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/707/riddle.html).

[Devrim]

I have just read through the 'Weekly Worker' article. It seems very well informed, but that is to be expected as they are the UK section of a Turkish group. They seem to come to a conclusion somewhat similar to ours:

In such circumstances communists cannot let themselves be deceived into supporting one wing of the bourgeoisie against the other. There are no bourgeois allies for the proletariat in this struggle.
Devrim

[PRC-UTE]

and the belief that bourgeois governments have the right to forcibly "modernise" the culture of a nation regardless of those people's consent is rooted in what?

It's rooted in Liberalism as well.