Covered women still awaiting solution to discrimination

The headscarf issue returned to Turkey’s agenda earlier this week after Turkish-French carmaker Oyak-Renault banned women wearing headscarves from entering a company facility in Bursa where its employees can shop. The decision, which was made when an employee at a Bursa plant wanted to go shopping at the Renault facility with his wife, covered mother and father on Feb. 27, led to anger among Renault employees and Turkey’s covered women.

“I believe the problem with the headscarf results from Turkey’s problem with militarism. Militarism does not exist solely in the military. It also exists in politics and bureaucracy. This is Turkey’s main problem,” Şekerci said, and called on the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) government to take steps to get rid of the ban on the use of the headscarf.

The controversial headscarf ban applies to university students as well as those working in the public sector. Women with headscarves are not allowed to enter military facilities including hospitals and recreation areas belonging to the armed forces as well as facilities owned by some private companies.

“Legal reform should immediately be undertaken, and the Constitution should be replaced with a civilian one. Small and limited improvements in the law will not ease our problems,” she remarked.

Turkey’s ban on headscarves at universities dates back to the 1980s but was significantly tightened after Feb. 28, 1997, when army generals with public support ousted a government they deemed too Islamist. The ruling AK Party attempted to lift the ban earlier last year, a move that was cited as evidence when a closure case was filed against the party on the grounds that it had become a focal point of “anti-secular activities.”

Neslihan Akbulut, secretary-general of the Women’s Rights Association Against Discrimination (AKDER), underlined that the headscarf ban has no legal base.

“The ban was put into effect as a by-product of the postmodern coup. Coup generals started to implement it of their own will. There is no law or constitutional article to justify the ban,” she stated.

AKDER pioneered a signature campaign against the notorious ban last month. The campaign garnered the support of thousands of individuals as well as well-known politicians, academics, artists, journalists and businessmen. According to Akbulut, the fact that the campaign became so popular in society is a strong indication that the public is strongly opposed to the practice, which deprives thousands of women of their right to an education.

“Unlike other issues of Turkey, such as the Kurdish, Alevi and Roma issues, the headscarf ban is the product of a coup d’état. … We are currently going through a historic period to try coup instigators. The abolishment of the ban should be regarded as part of attempts to try those individuals. This ban is not solely a rights violation. It is also an opportunity to confront the coup remnants. Heavy responsibility falls on the shoulders of the government in this sense,” Akbulut added.

The AK Party government has been striving for many months to settle a number of chronic problems in the country through efforts it calls “initiative.” As part of these efforts, the government has thus far focused on the problems of Turkey’s Kurds, Alevis, Roma and other minority groups. The government is hoping to thaw the long-standing ice between the state and those groups through greater cultural and political rights for them.

Turkey needs rooted steps to get rid of the illegal headscarf ban. Though the ruling AK Party has the will to take the necessary steps to that end, it fails to do so because of a lack of support from opposition parties. Any parliamentary move to abolish the ban faces resistance by the secularist Republican People’s Party (CHP), which claims that the use of headscarves is political rather than religious. It was none but the CHP who rushed for the annulment of the constitutional amendment on the lifting of the headscarf in 2008 to the Constitutional Court. The top court nullified Parliament’s move.