Discrimination By Any Other Name

By Kathleen Peratis
Thu. Feb 28, 2008

In a speech early last month, Reverend Rowan Williams, the archbishop of Canterbury and spiritual leader of the world’s 80 million Anglicans, was just a bit too Muslim-friendly. He spoke of the “inevitability” of some “constructive accommodation” between British law and Sharia.

Williams’s use of the terms “accommodation” and “Sharia” in the same sentence freaked out his co-religionists and many others. Tabloid headlines suggested, inaccurately, that the archbishop was ready to advocate the stoning of unchaste women in Trafalgar Square, or that at the least that’s where we are headed if Sharia gains a toehold. A Christian religious official assured the British tabloid The Daily Mail, “The idea that you can have the moderate bits without the nasty bits coming along at a later time is naïve.”

If nothing else, the brouhaha over Williams’s words has once again shown that for all the lip service paid on both sides of the Atlantic to fighting discrimination, anti-Muslim discrimination — often masquerading as a defense of Western culture and values — is all too commonplace.

There are few religions that we “accuse” others of practicing. Witchcraft is one, Islam is another. Fact is, Islam scares us.

It is not surprising, therefore, that complaints of anti-Muslim discrimination have increased sharply since the September 11 attacks, doubling to more than 2,000 a year, according to the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission — and this does not include all of the complaints made to state and local anti-discrimination agencies, much less complaints that even don’t get even that far. Hundreds of these complaints are labeled “9/11 backlash” complaints — that is, discrimination that has come about as a direct result of September 11.

These numbers do not prove, of course, that discrimination against Muslims in America has actually increased. Increased reporting may be attributed to other factors, such as increased confidence that a complaint might actually be taken seriously. But with fear and loathing of Islam now palpable, discrimination is all but inevitable.

Many of the reported anti-Muslim discrimination complaints and news stories describe ugly harassment and even persecution. In those cases, the facts are often hotly disputed.

But the facts are usually not in dispute when it is Muslim practice that is thwarted, and those claims reveal a lot of unvarnished prejudice.

Take, for example, the spate of complaints by Muslim men that their employers will not let them wear to work their kufis, a head-covering similar to a yarmulke. By contrast, there have not been any reported cases involving yarmulkes at work for years.

(The last significant case was in 1988, when the Supreme Court upheld, against the claim of an observant Jew, an Air Force ban on non-regulation head covering.)

Or this: In several reported cases, female Muslim employees who wore hijabs, or head scarves, without incident before the September 11 attacks have been told they can’t do so any more. A judge in Tacoma ejected a woman spectator from his courtroom for refusing to remove her headscarf. In a variation on a theme, the New York City Transit Authority has told Muslim women who drive busses that they can wear a hijab but only if they wear a baseball cap over it so as not to alarm the riding public. (The discrimination claim of the bus drivers is pending.)

Or this: There have been a number of news stories about neighborhoods across the country that have complained about undue noise being generated by muezzins’ calls to prayer in mosques. No such complaints, from what I’ve heard, have been made about church bells.

Maybe this is because the muezzins call five times a day, while most church bells toll only once a week. (On my block, however, the church bells ring three times a day; still, as far as I know, no one has ever objected.) Anyway, we like the sound of church bells.

I do not mean to imply that there is unfettered accommodation of everyone else’s religious practice. That is far from the case.

A state court judge in Houston, for example, refused to permit an expert witness to testify in a jury trial unless he removed his yarmulke. A state court judge in New York would not let a lawyer-priest represent a criminal defendant unless the lawyer removed his clerical collar. And employers routinely resist accommodating Saturday Sabbath observers, both Jewish and Christian.

It’s not that every demand for accommodation of religious practice is entitled to be honored. In fact, I am hard pressed to sympathize with some, such as the factory worker who wants paid time off three times a day to pray, or the healthcare technician who wants to work with her face covered.

I want to see the face of the person who is sticking a needle in my vein. But maybe I am being irrational. Why do I have to see her face for her to do her job?

Religious discrimination, like all discrimination, is irrational and wrong-headed. We should face the fact that anti-Muslim discrimination is no exception — even when it comes disguised as high-minded protection of secular democracy.

Kathleen Peratis, a partner at the New York law firm Outten & Golden, is a board member emerita of Human Rights Watch.

J News

My Headscarf Headache

In the West, the headscarf is as much a symbol of jihad and women’s subordination as it is an expression of a modest, religious choice.

My headscarf is giving me a headache! What I mean, is that the issue of the Islamic headscarf is a tricky, thorny one with no hard-and-fast solution in sight precisely when one is required. Just last month, a dear friend challenged me on this very subject.

She said: “How can you favor the state forbidding women from doing something that they want to do for religious reasons?”

A fair enough question.

My immediate response: Women’s freedom may depend upon the separation of religion and state. What one does at home or in one’s mosque, church, temple, or synagogue is one thing. But, is it wise to subsidize diverse religious expressions in a taxpayer-supported public school? Especially in the West where the headscarf is as much a symbol of jihad and women’s subordination as it is an expression of a modest, religious choice?

In 2004, the headscarf was a burning issue in France when the country passed a law forbidding the wearing of “ostentatious” religious symbols. This meant that no one could wear a cross, a turban, or a yarmulke either but the law was truly aimed at hijab — the wearing of headscarves by Muslim women. Feminists argued both sides of this controvery.

In 2008, the headscarf is again a burning issue in Turkey where an increasingly religious population, including women, is demanding the right to veil in university. This is seen as a complete reversal of the enormous gains made by Attaturk in 1921.

Read More

Hijab is a personal choice not state law in Turkey

The hijab, the head cover Muslim women wear in keeping with their religious traditions, has become in modern times a politically charged issue in several Muslim countries, and more recently in Europe.

In the early eighties, Iran imposed the hijab on its female citizens, while Syria banned it from schools during the same period. Syria gradually came to terms with the hijab, as the number of Syrian women who chose to wear it increased drastically during the nineties.

The hijab is enforced today in Iran and Saudi Arabia, and banned in Tunisia and Turkey. France banned the hijab in 2004, and far right politicians and pundits are calling for similar bans in other European countries, and have already succeeded in doing so in the Belgian city of Antwerp.

The Turkish parliament passed last week a constitutional amendment that practically repealed early constitutional provisions that allowed the Turkish government to ban, in the late ’90s, the hijab from government buildings, universities, and schools. Although the lifting of the ban is not in force yet, the confrontation over this issue with secularists who control the military and the courts has already started. Secularist Turks are up in arms, protesting the new amendment, and preparing to challenge it in court.

The debate over the hijab is emotionally charged, with secular Turks presenting the move as the first step toward ending democracy in Turkey and forcing all Turkish women to wear headscarves. This alarmist language has clouded the debate and created a sense of panic, as the choices presented are based on the logic of either/or, as if the only choices society can make is that between banning or enforcing the hijab. These are of course false choices, as society can choose neither to ban nor enforce. The third choice is the one available to women in most Muslim countries. In most societies, the decision to wear a headscarf, or to take it off, is a personal choice.

Yet, the real problem is not in the decision a woman makes, but in the politicization of that decision. The problem lies in the moral inconsistency and the use of double standards in addressing an issue concerning individual choice and freedom of expression. The only morally defensible position is denying the state the right to either force or prohibit people to follow practices they genuinely believe to be required by their religious traditions, particularly when these practices do not violate the rights of others.

The argument to ban the hijab often rests on a paternalistic attitude derived from the dominant position enjoyed by the group to which the person who advocate the hijab ban belongs. For decades now, anti-hijab writers refused to consider it as a personal choice and an individual right, protected under international humanitarian law. Reza Afshari, for instance, insists that wearing a hijab must not be seen as a self-expression of Muslim women, but rather as a symptom of a male-dominated culture. He, further, argues that Muslim women have internalized the “male-dominated culture.” He even claims that, in addition to being sub-consciously misguided, Muslim women have another reason for wearing a hijab, namely to avoid “those sanctioned practices that permit harassment of women in public, forcing them to comply with repressive norms and rewarding them by according them a marked difference in the ways men treat women in public.”

The argument is both flawed and sexist. It is flawed because it can be equally used to undermine the right of women who chose not to wear a hijab by those who could argue that the latter style of dressing is not a personal choice, but is rather influenced by the dominant culture. The argument is, more importantly, sexist as it assumes that women cannot have a mind of their own, and are always vulnerable to manipulation by male members of their society.

Even if we grant, for the sake of argument, that the above assertion is correct, then the remedy cannot be a decision to ban the hijah and deny women the right to personal choices, in violation of equal protection of the law. The remedy must rely on persuasion, education, and enactment of laws that would empower women to act on their on volition, instead of being forced by the state to wear the headscarf of take it off.

A similar argument was recently made by Cheryl Benard in a report that was published by the RAND Corporation in 2004. Benard refused to see the Muslim headscarf as a religious practice, and chose instead to castigate it as a provocative political statement and a challenge to Western democracy. Benard insisted that the hijab is worn by women who belong to one of several problematic categories. “In the United States,” she claimed, “hijab is typically worn by the following groups: recent immigrants from rural, traditional parts of the Muslim world; fundamentalists; unassimilated traditionalists belonging to the strongly observant minority; the elderly;” and, the author states that when it is worn by “young women,” these women “want to get attention and make a provocative statement in their schools, colleges, or workplaces.”

What is provocative is not that Muslim women are choosing to wear a hijab, but that there are still individuals that lay claim to intellectualism who, in keeping with orientalist strategies, continue to deal with the followers of the Islamic faith as silent objects of research who must always be defined by their detractors, but never allowed to define themselves in their own voices. This sad state of affairs was highlighted in an article by Manal Omar that was published in the Guardian in April 2007 under the title “I felt more welcome in the Bible belt.”

Manal narrates in the article her ordeal during a short stay in Oxford, England, when she was challenged by an angry man who did not approve of her wearing a swimsuit that covered her body. Not only did the man speak with her in a condescending tone, but the newspaper that reported the event with sensational and negative spin refused to interview her, and relied solely on the account of her accuser.

She eloquently described her painful experience as she was rendered an object of ridicule, and her story was utilized as a springboard for attacks on multiculturalism and immigrant Muslims in an online discussion forum. “Looking back,” she wrote, “what disturbed me the most about the debate was that my very identity was reduced to a cluster of cliches about Muslim women. I was painted in broad strokes as an oppressed, unstable Muslim woman. I was made invisible, an object of ridicule and debate, with no opinion or independent thoughts. The fact that I had dedicated the past 10 years to working on women’s issues on a global level, led a delegation of American women into Afghanistan in 2003, and put my life on the line in Iraq struggling for women’s constitutional rights were clearly beyond anyone’s imagination.”

Politicians and pundits who question the right of Muslim women to practice their faith do not only ignore the leadership role they play, but also fail to recognize their capacity to be inspired by their faith. The claim that the hijab is worn today by oppressed women is seriously flawed, and is remnant of 19th century orientalism. Many women who chose the hijab today are highly educated and actively involved in public life. They include lawyers, journalists, politicians, directors of non-profit organizations, human rights advocates, professors, and leaders of religious groups and grassroots organizations.

It is about time that Muslim women’s personal choices are respected and their voices are heard.

Dr. Louay Safi serves as the executive director of ISNA Leadership Development Center, an Indiana based organization dedicated to enhancing leadership qualities and skills. He writes and lectures on issues relating to Islam and the West,, democracy, human rights, leadership, and world peace.

Online Journal 

Erdogan should be hung for lifting hijab ban

Erdogan should be hung for lifting hijab ban, Turkish opposition says

Turkey’s parliament lifted a ban last Saturday on female students wearing the Muslim headscarf (hijab) at university, a landmark decision that some Turks fear will undermine the foundations of their secular state.

An estimated 10,000 people, including various civil society organizations, joined in a march and protest in Izmir against proposed changes to the Turkish Constitution backed by the ruling AKP and the opposition MHP which would lift current bans against the headscarf in Turkish universities.

The protest was organized in Izmir’s Karsikaya district by the Patriotic Citizens Platform, and was titled “The Secular Republic March Against the Hijab.” The large masses taking part in the protest met up first in front of the gravesite of Ataturk’s mother, Zubeyde Hanim, and marched from there to the Karsikaya main boulevard, Hurriyet reports.

The headscarf ban in universities dates back to the 1980s but was significantly tightened in 1997 when army generals, with public support, ousted a government they deemed too Islamist.

Deniz Baykal, the leader of a Turkish left-wing party, said Erdogan “should be hung for violating the Constitution.”

It’s worth noting that Turkish Prime Minister Adnan Menderes was accused of violating the Constitution and hung by the military in 1961.

Read More

Alalam News

Gulf News

Islam Online

lift ban on Islamic head scarves at only universities

Turkish lawmakers lift ban on Islamic head scarves at universities
2008-02-10

ANKARA, (AP) – Parliament has voted to amend the constitution to lift a decades-old ban on Islamic head scarves at Turkey’s universities, despite fierce opposition from the secular establishment.
Tens of thousands of Turks demonstrated in the capital, Ankara, against the amendments and called for the government’s resignation. «Turkey is secular and will

remain secular,» they chanted, many waving flags.
In a final vote, lawmakers voted 411-103 on Saturday to approve two constitutional amendments that will add paragraphs saying everyone has the right to equal treatment from state institutions and «no one can be deprived of (his or her) right to higher education.
The changes must be signed by President Abdullah Gul, an observant Muslim who is widely expected to approve the amendments.
One lawmaker said lifting the ban amounted to «the death of the secular republic.
The constitutional changes «will create chaos in universities and will lead to the disintegration of the nation,» said Kamer Genc, an independent.
Head scarves have long been prohibited at universities in predominantly Muslim but fiercely secular Turkey, a country seeking to join the European Union.
But Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan called the ban a trial for young Muslim women who are forced to remove their traditional head scarves at campus entrances. Some resort to wearing wigs to class to cover their heads.
«We will end the suffering of our girls at university gates,» Erdogan, whose Justice and Development Party has ties to Islam, had said Thursday.
The main opposition Republican People’s Party said it would appeal to the Constitutional Court.
«This is a Black Revolution. The head scarf is a political symbol,» said lawmaker Canan Aritman. «We will never allow our country to be dragged back into the dark ages.
Nesrin Baytok, another Republican legislator, said approval of the law «would turn Turkey into Afghanistan» in a domino effect.
«You are not opening the door of freedom _ you are shutting it forever for the girls,» Baytok said. «The heads of many girls are shaved by their brothers to force them to wear head scarves.
A week ago, some 125,000 Turks protested against lifting the ban on head scarves.
Analysts cautioned that the move threatens to spark tensions with the secular establishment.
«We are really entering an environment of conflict no matter what the decision of the Constitutional Court would be,» Prof. Yilmaz Eser of the Istanbul-based Bahcesehir University told CNN-Turk television.
Islam and secularism have vied for dominance in the country since Mustafa Kemal Ataturk founded modern Turkey in 1923.
Ataturk sought to eliminate religion’s place in a society with a 99-percent Muslim population by banning religious garb and changing the alphabet from the Arabic of the Quran to Latin. Secularism became a deeply ingrained ideology, with the military and judiciary as its key protectors.
Erdogan, who has strong public backing, insists his party is loyal to Turkey’s secular traditions. His government says the measure is aimed at expanding democracy and freedoms as part of Turkey’s EU membership bid.

But secularists harbor deep suspicions about the real intentions of Erdogan, who tried to criminalize adultery before being forced by the EU to step back.
Many secular women fear that allowing head scarves in universities will lead eventually to their being pressured to cover their bodies as well.
«The public will come under an intense pressure,» legislator Baytok said. «This is an exploitation of religion. This law does not bring a solution; it leads the way to bigger problems.
Erdogan is head of modern Turkey’s first Islamic-led government, and Gul’s wife, who was prevented from enrolling in university because of her head scarf, now hosts foreign dignitaries at the presidential palace.
The government says once the constitutional amendments are enacted, it plans to change laws governing higher education to specify what type of head covering will be allowed to ensure that students do not attend classes in full-length chadors or burqas.
Erdogan’s party and the Nationalist Action Party agreed that scarves should be tied loosely with a knot beneath the chin, keeping the face exposed.
That attire, accepted in military barracks and guesthouses and not necessarily associated with Islam, is seen as a move to undercut the military’s opposition to lifting the ban.
In Turkey, most pious women prefer a style called the «turban» _ or «hijab» in Arabic _ with scarves tightly wrapped around the neck over a type of bonnet covering the hair.

Read More

Iran hails Turkey’s Hijab law

partial ban on Niqab

Dutch to impose partial ban on Niqab

The Hague – (IINA) February 10– In a retreat from the previous government’s plan for a general ban, the Dutch government has said it would now impose a partial ban on Niqab in the western European country. “Face coverings are undesirable in an open society, they hinder communication between people and undermine equal chances for men and women,” Reuters reported quoting Dutch Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende. He says the government will impose a face veil ban on its civil servants and in schools, and it will enter talks with public transport companies on adding a ban to their terms and conditions for passengers. The government wants clauses to the contracts of public employees forbidding them from wearing face-covering garments.

The ban covers all face-covering materials such as ski masks. Islam sees Hijab as an obligatory code of dress, not a religious symbol displaying one’s affiliations. As for the face veil, the majority of Islamic scholars believe that a woman is not obliged to cover her face or hands. Scholars, however, believe that it is up to women to decide whether to take on the face veil. The government has decided against a broad ban on Niqab in public as that would violate the principle of freedom of religion. “Wearing Islamic face-covering veils is an expression of religion and freedom of religion can only be infringed in very special and specific circumstances,” Internal Affairs Minister Guusje ter Horst said in a statement. If the talks with other bodies like private transport companies fail, the cab can always introduce enforcement regulations, the minister said.

Shortly before being voted out of office, the previous centre-right Dutch government proposed a complete ban on Niqab in public, citing security concerns. A new centrist coalition government of Christian Democrats, Labor and the Christian Union came into power in February 2007 and has taken a more conciliatory line on immigration. Right-wing lawmaker Geert Wilders – who has angered Muslims with his fierce criticism of Islam – called the government’s reported retreat “very disappointing and cowardly”, according to the Dutch news agency ANP. Wilders sent a bill to parliament last July proposing a ban on Niqab in public.

BANNING HIJAB IN CANADA

BANNING HIJAB IN CANADA:
IT CAN HAPPEN ANYWHERE
by Sheema Khan

During the late 1980’s and early 1990’s, I remember the stories emanating from France of young Muslim schoolgirls expelled for wearing the Hijab.

While many of the young sisters were permitted to return to school wearing the Hijab, wider questions had been raised.

How does a purely secular public school system accommodate religious beliefs? What about the issues of freedom and oppression of women? Were these girls influenced by the “integristes” of Algeria, who were aspiring to implement an Islamic government in the former French colony?

Was this another example of “immigrants” failing to integrate into French society (a favorite theme of le Front National, a national anti-immigrant party)? Was this the beginning of the end of the strict separation between church and state?

At the time, I thought the problem was peculiar to France. Impossible for such an event to happen in Quebec, Canada.

Then on September 10th, 1994, the Muslim community of Quebec (and Canada) received a strong wake-up call.

THE CASE OF EMILIE OUIMET

Emilie Ouimet, a 13-year-old high school student, was sent home from school for wearing the Hijab. The primary reason given by the principal was that the school had a strict code that forbade the use of caps or attire that would distinguish students from their peers – part of a dress code for disciplinary reasons.

Soon after, a debate raged for months through Quebec society.

Incredibly, the issues raised were similar to those raised in France: religious belief in a secular system; the fear of religious fundamentalism; Hijab as a symbol of oppression versus liberation; and integration of “immigrants” into Quebec society (the failure of which was exploited by La Societe St-Jean Baptiste, a Quebec organization).

NO EFFECTIVE COMMUNITY RESPONSE TO THE ISSUE

A few more incidents of young Hijabis expelled from school emerged. In some cases, parents of girls were interrogated by school administrators on whether they forced their daughters against their will to wear the Hijab.

A few school principals questioned the right of Muslim students to fast during the month of Ramadan.

The Muslim community found itself at the center of a debate for which it had no unifying voice.

Divisions within prevented any meaningful coalition of resources to address the pressing needs.

However, that did not stop individuals from taking action, including the parents of Dania Bali, a straight-A student who was asked to remove her Hijab. They filed a complaint with the Quebec Human Rights Commission.

A RULING THAT TURNED THE TIDE

As Ramadan arrived, the Commission made a landmark ruling that turned the tide: Quebec schools did not have the right to prohibit any student from wearing religious attire (be it a Sikh turban, a Jewish yarmulke, a Christian cross, or Islamic Hijab).

More importantly, Quebec society was asked to consider the issues of religious pluralism in the emerging “global village”.

The Quebec Charter of Rights guaranteed religious freedom, and no school administrator or employer could take that right away.

OTHER GROUPS ALSO SUPPORTED RIGHT TO WEAR HIJAB

In addition, the Quebec Council for the Status of Women and the Canadian Jewish Congress came out in favor of the Hijab – for different reasons.

For the Council, it was an issue of freedom of choice and access to education. If the Hijab were banned, the Council argued, many of these young Muslim girls would simply not attend school, and thus be penalized for their choice of belief.

For the Congress, it was an issue of religious rights for minorities.

COMMISSION ALSO RULED AGAINST A MUSLIM SCHOOL

It should be also noted that the Commission ruled against a Muslim school in Quebec that required non-Muslim teachers to wear the Hijab while teaching. One cannot force one’s beliefs on others – be it for or against the Hijab.

Since that time, there have been fewer incidents of Hijab discrimination in the schools.

COMMUNITY HAS TO BE MORE PROACTIVE

However, the Muslim community must become more proactive in educating Quebec society about its beliefs and practices. It must also put aside differences for the common good of the community.

It must be ready to defend its rights by using the appropriate channels readily available.

Sr. Sheema Khan is a member of the Ottawa, Canada branch of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and was one of the few Muslim activists at the forefront in defending the right of Muslim girls to wear Hijab during the 1994-95 controversy in Quebec, Canada.

Read More

Turks move to ease headscarf ban

Turkey’s parliament has approved a constitutional amendment that would ease the ban on women wearing Islamic headscarves in universities. The ban has been strictly enforced on campus since 1997 when the staunchly secularist military ousted a government seen as too Islamist.

Wednesday’s vote was carried by 401 in favour to 110 against. Final approval is expected in a vote on Saturday.

The Islamist-rooted AK Party has a safe majority in the Turkish parliament.

Court threat

As Turkey’s population is predominantly Muslim, two-thirds of all Turkish women cover their heads, meaning thousands miss out on the opportunity to attend college. Many Turks argue that is unfair.

The government wants to allow traditional scarves tied under the chin, although more enveloping versions would still be banned.

In Wednesday’s heated debate, Bekir Bozdag, deputy chairman of the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP), said the amendment bill would strengthen Turkey’s characteristic principle of secularism.

“Giving an equal right to education to every citizen is not against the state of law and democracy,” he said.

Some women refuse to go to university because of the ban

“Isn’t secularism the guarantee for everyone who wants to benefit from the equal right to education?”

But Hakki Suha Okay, a member of the strictly secular main opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP), said the package “aims to render the principle of secularism ineffective”.

“This step will encourage radical [Islamic] circles in Turkey, accelerate movement towards a state founded on religion, lead to further demands” against the spirit of the republic, he said.

The government’s plan to change the law has sparked large protest rallies by secular Turks, who want to defend the legacy of the modern state’s founder Mustafa Kemal Ataturk.

They fear it may be a first step to eroding the secular system.

With the backing of a nationalist opposition party, the government has enough votes to change the constitution and relax the ban.

But if it does, the CHP has vowed to challenge the amendment in the constitutional court.

The problem, says the BBC’s Sarah Rainsford in Istanbul, is that the leaders of the current government once espoused political Islam and Turkey’s powerful secular establishment does not trust them.

They fear that lifting the headscarf ban is just the first of many steps to bring Islam into public life, slowly changing the face of modern Turkey and putting pressure on those who do not cover up to do so, our correspondent says.

BBC News  

For more information about this topic please click the links below.

Arab News 

TIME

The Australian News

Herald Tribune  

News Source

The News  

protests against hijab

 Secular Turkey protests against hijab

Thousands of secularist Turks took to the streets on Saturday, February 2, against government plans to lift a decades-long ban on hijab on campus, warning the lift could undermine Turkey’s secularism.

“Turkey is secular and will remain secular,” shouted protesters as they waved Turkish flags and banners of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the emblematic leader who threw religion out of public life as he rebuilt Turkey from the ruins of the Ottoman Empire.

“We are concerned that universities will plunge into a chaotic environment and opposing groups will start clashing with each other,” Professor Mustafa Akaydin, the chairman of the oversight board at Ankara’s Middle East Technical University, said in a statement. Reuters reported.

The ruling Justice and Development Party and the far-right Nationalist Action Party (MHP) opposition party have agreed a constitutional amendment to allow a compromise headscarf on campus. Under the deal between the two parties, women and girls at universities are permitted to cover their heads by tying the headscarf in the traditional way beneath the chin.

A majority of women use the traditional “basortusu” – head cover in Turkish – that is more or less loosely knotted under the chin for protection against the elements or for modesty. It can come off just as easily as it can be tied on and raises no objections. But the ban would remain on the wrap-round headscarf, which secularists claim is associated with political Islam, as well as face-veil.

Together, the AKP and the MHP easily have the two-thirds parliamentary majority required to amend the constitution. The Turkish parliament is expected to approve the amendment this week.

According to Director of Institute of Oriental Studies at the RA Academy of Sciences, Dr Ruben Safrastyan, the Turkish bill permitting to wear hijabs proves consolidation of Islamic spirit and deviation from the ideas promulgated by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the founder of the Turkish secular state. “It’s quite possible that the restrained statement by Turkish military, who guarantee the Ataturk Constitution, is conditioned by a kind of agreement sealed by the AKP and the General Staff on “disclosure” of Ergenekon,” the Armenian exert said.

Read More