I would feel extremely comfortable banning those head coverings from all universities, if not all public venues. Religious vestment simply has no place outside of ritual occasions. But then again, I'm from the country Atatürk took after. From our point of view, allowing religion to exist is treating it with tolerance. Acknowledging religion as something that deserves any sort of deference by the State isn't acceptable. And I say that as an otherwise religious person myself (don't take it as the stance of some rabid atheist).

> I would feel extremely comfortable banning those head coverings from all universities, if not all public venues...From our point of view, allowing religion to exist is treating it with tolerance.

If saying "either stop adhering to your religion or you cannot go to university/exist in public" is tolerance, what is intolerance? Is everything short of prison, internment camps, torture, and execution tolerance in your point of view?

Also, if a government tells religious people "we are going to make your life very difficult, but you should really be thankful to us that we are not outright destroying you", they should not be surprised when they don't end up being thankful and instead vote for the other guy. That's one of the reasons Erdogan is now in power.

The assumption that asking for the removal of what is essentially discriminatory somptuary laws amounts to asking for apostasy is your own. Internal religious regulations have no bearing on the law and whether or not they're essential to religious practice is of no consequence to civil society. Keep in mind I'm referring to a system where universities are public institutions, emanations of the State, rather than private foundations as is usually the case in the US.

Why would your secularism turn you into fashion police?

Why cannot a person wear a headscarf (it does not obscure their mouth or eyes so does not inhibit communication) if they want to? For what ever private reason they feel they want to?

I know people who wear them for non-religious reasons. Will they be exempt from your rules about fashion?

People get told all the time that what they wear is unacceptable by others in power, and it is an abuse of power. This is particularly true for women and a "headscarf" ban another example of blatant misogyny.

What is particularly offensive is it is said it is one for "liberating" those women. Often (usually not always) it is non Islamic people lecturing Islamists.

The fight against misogyny in Islam is a fight for Islamic women. When there is a cry from Islamic women for non-Islamists to set fashion laws for Islamic women to obey (and not just the odd lone voice) then maybe, possible you might have a point. Is that ever going to happen?

I do not think that Islamic women need misogynist, sexist, Islamophobic, theophobic, bigoted, and patronising rules and punishment. To liberate them, no less! Perhaps they need the opposite

This kind of nationalism is way more "religious" than wanting to wear a headscarf. Between one person who wants to dress in a certain way and another person who wants to control how a large number of other people dress because they perceive it as a threat to their ideology, who is more extreme?

> Religious vestment simply has no place outside of ritual occasions.

Where would you draw the line between religious and cultural? I assume you would have no problem with people wearing traditional clothes? What about traditional amish clothing? Would a buddhist be allowed to wear a rakusu? Could a Scandinavian raise a maypole even though it was a design that was meant to christianize a previously pagan religion but is now not seen as religious? Would file-sharing not be allowed since kopimism is an official religion in some countries? Would symbols not originally rooted in religion but later adopted by them be allowed?

I'd be really interested to know where you draw the line.

Allowing people to dress how they please is hardly deference.

There are no countries that allow people to dress how they please. There is no way that the state letting people walk around, say, naked, in the univeristies they operate _wouldn't_ be considered as deferring to the views of a particular nudist subculture.

The state in question has "not showing this kind of deference toward religions" as one of its founding principles: in fact, as founding principle number one. It states that certain personal lifestyle choices, such as religion, do not belong the public sphere. In the public sphere each individual should appear as a simple citizen, and not seek to distinguish thenselves from other citizens along religious lines.

>> Acknowledging religion as something that deserves any sort of deference by the State isn't acceptable.

What next, enforce a communist uniform on everyone and strictly control their freedom to express their thoughts? Do you realise how ludicrous you sound? I note you're French and your religious expressions laws are not made in the name of secularism, rather specifically intended to discriminate against a sizeable minority.

Presumably your also include a Christian Cross necklace? What about a symmetric cross that's visibly a cross but not a traditional cross? A cross at an angle?

You're entitled to express your point of view, of course, but please be more convincing and informed than a nationalistically ideological charlatan (how ironic).

>What next, enforce a communist uniform on everyone and strictly control their freedom to express their thoughts? Do you realise how ludicrous you sound?

You're making leaps in logic that don't make sense to me. You're the one being ludicrous, as far as I can tell.

>I note you're French and your religious expressions laws are not made in the name of secularism, rather specifically intended to discriminate against a sizeable minority.

At the time those laws were made, the absolute majority of the country was made of church-going Catholics. That at the present day they're mostly invoked in relation to a religious minority doesn't make any difference.

> Presumably your also include a Christian Cross necklace?

Sure.

> What about a symmetric cross that's visibly a cross but not a traditional cross? A cross at an angle?

Is it a token of belonging to a religious organization ? If so, keep it private. I don't see what's complex about that.

> You're entitled to express your point of view, of course, but please be more convincing and informed than a nationalistically ideological charlatan (how ironic).

I'm informed about the political and religious history of my own country, and as such transversely familiar with the framework Atatürk tried to put in place in Turkey. I'm less familiar with the ways it started breaking down. And frankly, you're not in any position to demand better argumentation on my part if you're not doing as much yourself.

> I would feel extremely comfortable banning those head coverings from all universities, if not all public venues.

Good thing you're not in a position to make such a call then.

> Religious vestment simply has no place outside of ritual occasions

The Hijab is not merely a "religious vestment" as the seculars and atheists foolishly seem to think. It's a way of life, a way of showing purity and piety.

> Acknowledging religion as something that deserves any sort of deference by the State isn't acceptable. And I say that as an otherwise religious person myself (don't take it as the stance of some rabid atheist).

I'm going to assume you're a Christian, and I'm not surprised, your religion has been relegated to the sidelines when it comes to anything relevant in terms of running society. And they convinced you to keep it that way.

Let me ask you this: do you have an issue with homosexuals and transexuals showing their propaganda in public?

I don't disagree with you but I'd like to provide some context for how things have shifted, for others reading this thread. The current headscarf culture in Turkey, as I see it.

The head coverings (various kinds) are associated with modesty. They are often fashionable modesty (?!) in Turkey now, as Armani and others advertise cutting-edge, expensive headscarfs. Some women are using them as a status symbol. They can also be used to signal pro-Erdoğan, pro-Islamist (in a government sense) sentiments.

Now, a woman not wearing a head covering (very many do not) may be called a slut by women wearing them. Rare perahps, but these things happen. There is often a palpable tension between the groups of women who wear them, and the groups of women who do not. It is as I said often a political symbol.

Yep. A lot of people seem to - willingly or unwillingly - ignore the dark side of Ataturk’s revolution. The fact of the matter is that nothing in the real world is ever as rosy as you would like it to be.

It seems to me that headscarf-wearing is quite politicised in many countries and I think there is a risk of applying the standards of one’s own political group in one’s own country to another place where the connotations are different.

For example in developed English-speaking countries, allowing headscarves is seen as promoting diversity, inclusiveness and tolerance. Wanting to restrict this is generally considered to be somewhere between right-wing and bigoted. In France, views tend to be different. In Iran, where hair coverings are mandatory for women, the connotations are different and they can be symbols of an authoritarian or oppressive government (to certain people at least) instead.

In this case, as well as the culture in Turkey, one must consider:

- changing attitudes to who attends university since the old rules were introduced.

- changing attitudes among Muslims to headscarves since the old rules were introduced.

- changing attitudes towards secularisation (and politics in general) since the old rules were introduced.

It seems to me that most HN readers (myself included) are not in a good position to pass judgement and that this comment benefits from the liberal anglosphere view aligning with its arguments. But I don’t know how that fits in with the way Turks think or used to think.

lol this is so patently false. in a family very close to me, the husband would very much like his wife to wear not hijab and his wife tells him to mind his own business. both are muslim.

Tell it to this girl [1], or this [2] girl. You won't be able to tell it to this [3] girl, because she killed herself, rather than submitting to this barbarity.

If you have some anecdotal example of a person who does this willingly (likely because of systemic multigenerational indoctrination), it does not prove that many other women are not willing to submit to this requirement, yet, are powerless to resist it without having to face severe consequences.

[1]: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-56085734 [2]: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1348389/Muslim-woma... [3]: https://english.alarabiya.net/News/middle-east/2013/07/17/Eg...

Because you can come up with people being psychotic monsters, it does not mean people are psychotic monsters.

There are a lot of barbaric things that go on in families all over the world in all sorts of families. What exactly is your point?

The point is that wearing hijab is coercion. It is not a 'free choice'. Nobody chooses to be a sub-human, unless forced or brain-washed since early childhood.

And the solution to that imaginary problem is.. to ban all women from wearing hijab? Excellent logic.

Of course, male from Saudi Arabia claims that this problem is imaginary. What a surprise. /s

Just because you decided to consider this problem imaginary, it does not mean that this problem does not exist in the real world, bringing suffering to millions of disenfranchised women.

Wow, you’re completely off the mark, buddy! But nice try with the amateur OSINT haha.

Well, yes. What solution do you propose? Mass propaganda? Perhaps possible in 2021, but it wouldn't have been as effective in the 1930s.

Why did you use the word “propaganda”? Why not “education”?

Regardless of the time period, I would simply propose focusing on educating current and future generations that men and women have equal rights.

If you dig into history a bit, you’ll find that state-sponsored persecution - ethnic, religious, or otherwise - is almost always guaranteed to backfire in the long run.

Because I dislike euphemisms.

Is it any less propaganda just because you agree with it?

Educating people of what? "Gender equality is good" is a normative statement.

And nitpicking aside, my point stands entirely, whether it's "propaganda" or "education".

Fair enough.

I definitely simplified things a bit, but you can educate people on how to conduct themselves over the long term through various mechanisms. Many countries used this approach effectively to solve actual societal issues; however, the hijab is not a societal issue in and of itself.

But what is the problem?

It may have a religious origin but a headscarf is a fashion accessory. Like trousers or shirt buttons. We could ban them too, just for fun!

Up with skirts! Down with trousers!

See? What fun!

Okay, let’s work with that.

Do you also apply that logic to Sikh turbans (dastar)? In other words, do you believe that forbidding Sikhs from covering their hair is not religious persecution? How do you think Sikhs would react to that?

Edit: Or wait, I might have misunderstood: do you actually think that a hijab is equivalent to a generic headscarf? If so, it is not - please read a bit about it before commenting further.

I am with you, not against you. Turbans are fine by me. Of course banning them is religious persecution (there is an interesting intersection with motor cycle helmet laws) I do not want to wear one (but I have been known to wear a headscarf) There is no justification for fashion law.

The niqāb is problematic. I find it difficult to talk with some one when I cannot see their face. (Then there was Covid....). I am not sure if that is a personal quirk or a basis for a justifiable fashion law!

And of course a hijab is a headscarf. Not just a head scarf, like a turban is a hat, not just a hat. Why would we want to ban either?

Sorry about that - sarcasm is tough to detect sometimes haha!

I agree about the niqab as it can be a bit of a hurdle to deal with in some situations.