Erdoğan’s statements have drawn mixed reactions. While the main opposition party and supporters of the ban interpreted his suggestion to strengthen their argument for the continuation of the ban, others lend full support to the prime minister and wish for this ban to be a thing of the past in a country like Turkey, which is striving to improve its democracy and human rights record.Radikal columnist Hasan Celal Güzel accuses those who interfere in the attire of a young lady of being fascists. “Could bans be imposed on the attire of citizens in a democratic society? If your answer is yes, then you are undoubtedly a fascist because meddling in the clothes of a young lady and even barring her from entering a university because of her attire could only be the product of a totalitarian mentality,” he says. According to Güzel, the headscarf ban that has been in effect in Turkey for the past 25 years is a blow that has been dealt to human rights and liberties as well as democracy. “Our coup-impaired democracy has also become a headscarf-impaired one over the last quarter century,” he complains. As for Erdoğan’s remarks, he voices complete approval in that even if the headscarf is considered to be a political symbol, its prohibition does not comply with the fundamentals of democracy. “It is high time for Turkey to end headscarf fascism. University students should be able to get dressed however they like and should be able to continue their education freely. There is no reason to make Turkey fall into an embarrassing situation with such bans in the beginning of the 21st century,” he contends.
Bugün’s Ahmet Taşgetiren criticizes main opposition leader Deniz Baykal, who has claimed for a long time that the headscarf is a “political symbol” and should thus be banned, for manipulating Erdoğan’s remarks. Speaking to his party group meeting early this week, Baykal said that Erdoğan made a “confession” that the headscarf was indeed a political symbol. “Can Erdoğan’s statement be read like this? ‘The headscarf is a political symbol and we will abolish the headscarf ban.’ Is the prime minister saying this? Certainly not,” he clarifies. Taşgetiren also finds Baykal’s rejection of the existence of a headscarf problem in Turkey very desperate. “Baykal is playing a game. He is playing a game as a politician who has no concerns about facing the ballot box,” he notes.
Talking about efforts to expand the scope of freedoms all around the world, Zaman’s Mümtaz’er Türköne says Turkey, as a country which is among the new architects of the new world, should be able to see the headscarf as the symbol of a society where religious freedoms and liberties are perfectly settled. “Why not have the headscarf be a symbol of civilization? Could it? Why not,” he says.
Hürriyet’s Cüneyt Ülsever sets himself apart from other columnists, saying Erdoğan shot himself in the foot by speaking of the possibility of the headscarf being a political symbol, even in hypothetical terms. In his view, Erdoğan’s hypothetical example gave ammunition to supporters of the headscarf ban who claim that it should be banned because it is a political symbol rather than a religious obligation. He agrees that there is a desperate need for a new constitution to open the way of liberties, but he claims that Erdoğan’s move made it difficult for the new constitution to escape from being demoted to a “headscarf law.”
