Log in
2012 May 18 |
 |
http://www.theatlanticright.com/2008/02/09/turkey-and-headscarves-stupidity-of-the-masses/
0
0
  |   63 comments

A new law has been passed in Turkey: from now on, Turkey is a laicist state no more. Laicism holds that all religion should be separated from the state. It is, of course, a French idea. Atatürk correctly believed that Turkey would remain backwards as long as religion and state were not completely separated. The AK Parti, many of whom are fundamentalists (Erdoğan was a fundamentalist himself but says he has become more moderate, which is something I for one do not believe) and the MHP have passed a law making it legal for female students to wear headscarves in universities and schools.

It is a step back for Turkey. Some, like Benjamin, seem to believe that the ‘elite’ do not want the headscarf to be allowed because they are overly paranoid and so on. I disagree strongly with them. The ‘elite’ (whatever that word may mean: it seems that some use it extremely lightly, labeling simply all Kemalists the ‘elite’ which is not correct: many Kemalists are upper and normal middle class) oppose the headscarf for a very good reason: it is a sign of the oppression of women and of mixing the state with religion which is, as we can see in many Muslim countries today,  not exactly a good idea.

Erdoğan greatly dislikes Atatürk and is slowly but surely turning back the clock to before the founding of the nation-state of Turkey. He will continue to give fundamentalists more power and influence, if he is not stopped, simply because he is one of them. Westerners who celebrate this law remind me of the idiots who celebrated the victory in elections of Hitler. Democratic? Yes. Smart? No.

In fact, these Westerners should be ashamed of themselves. They celebrate the fact that women are oppressed. Not only that, in Turkey the headscarf, and especially the türban, is also a political symbol. The protesters with their ludicrous türbans on basically show off their fundamentalist credentials. If it was up to them, Sharia would be the official law of the land.

And Westerners are celebrating it. It makes me sick.

What you now see happening in Turkey is that the lower classes, who are uneducated, undeveloped, uncivilized and religiously incredibly conservative, are pulling Turkey down to their level. The idea of Kemalism is that the top pulls the country as a whole up. So far it has worked. Turkey has developed tremendously because of it.

Sadly, the poor and stupid masses do not quite understand cause and effect and want to undo many Kemalist initiatives.

It is one of the major mistakes the small-minded Westerners make: thinking that it is more democracy that will make Turkey a great nation. It already is a great nation, and has the potential to become even better, not because the stupid women with the türban and their husbands holding them at their chains hold the power, but because the people who are educated and modern have more power and influence than their backwards fellow countrymen.

I know that many Westerners dislike this, but the main reason they dislike it is that they do not understand Turkey, nor mankind. The masses do not always make the right decisions. In fact, in countries like Turkey, giving the masses much power is like throwing oil on the fire. Only idiots would advocate doing so.

  1. Posted by C Stanley
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #24673 ›
    C Stanley
    But then, I also think that one of the reasons we had (and continue to have) so many problems with race relations in the 20th century was that Reconstruction didn’t continue for long enough in the 19th century.
    That's interesting, Pat, and if an occasion ever presents itself I'd like to hear more of your views on that. I'm probably not well versed enough in the history of that time, but my impression isn't so much that Reconstruction needed to continue for a longer period but that it needed to be done differently; in other words, the failure wasn't (in my impression) due to insufficient time but to failed policies. And that's pretty much how I see the Turkish situation too- hasn't Kemalism been in place for close to a century? I find it hard to imagine why that has been insufficient time to convince people of the merits of modernization, unless it just hasn't been done well; and 'doing it well' to me seems to mean being more inclusive of people instead of relegating them to the margins of society. It just seems to me that they may be wrong to not move in the direction of accepting the headscarves themselves but cracking down on the real violations of women's rights, because that would encourage the people who might be open to the ideas of modernization to begin taking a more active role in that part of society and becoming engaged in it instead of fighting against the modern, more enlightened view. A.A.B- you are right that sometimes the constitution preempts the will of the majority, but when there's a sense that the values that are being 'protected' by the constitution aren't ones that are universally accepted, then there's a push back against that. Abortion would be such an issue in the US, and my impression is that the banning of religious practices like headscarves (a practice which in and of itself isn't a violation of any human right, but its opponents feel it is symbolic of or part of a larger problem) is also pushed back against by those who (rightly, IMO) feel that the bans are inappropriate because there's nothing inherently wrong with the practice of covering one's head (as can plainly be seen by those in the US who practice it, not because they're coerced but because they choose to- and you are right to point out that these practices are not a problem in the US because they're completely consistent with our Constitution, so how can it then be said that the practices violate some universal human right that should be enshrined in the Turkish constitution?)
  2. Posted by John Rohan
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #24675 ›
    John Rohan What a passionate discussion! I decided to include some quotes on my blog here. I think the hijab is totally oppressive but that people have the right even to do the wrong thing. I don't think this single issue will keep Turkey out of the EU, but since I don't think they should be allowed in anway, I'm not too worried about it.
  3. Trackback | Link #24676 ›
    The Shield of Achilles Turkey votes to lift ban on the hijab... Since we are discussing Turkey, I decided to throw my two cents in here. If you regularly read international news, you might know that Turkey recently voted to lift its ban on women wearing the hijab (headscarf) in public universities (it looks like .....
  4. Posted by Nihat
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #24680 ›
    Nihat Huh! John, your comment (#52) made me think, maybe, the EU will come to directly border the Middle East either way (i.e., with Turkey in or out). Hmmm...
  5. Posted by PatHMV
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #24682 ›
    PatHMV how can it then be said that the practices violate some universal human right that should be enshrined in the Turkish constitution? Whether it should or shouldn't be enshrined in the Turkish constitution is of course for the Turks to decide. I don't say that either rule would violate "universal human rights." But I see very, very few rights as truly absolute and universal. Most rights are subject to limitations of some sort or another, and the question to be answered is about the merits of proposed limitations. I think the Turks, as an exercise of sovereignty, are free to decide, under the governmental processes they have themselves established, whether to ban head scarves or not. As another example, I think it would be totally wrong for the United States to ban holocaust denial, but it was entirely appropriate to enact such a ban in post-WWII Germany. As a pragmatic matter, I think that ban may have now outlived its usefulness, but it remains a very different question in Germany than here. I disagre with France's practices on supression of visible religious symbols because I think it is unnecessary in France and because it appears to have the affect of weakening support for any and all religion there, which is in general (in my view) a bad thing for societies. However, I don't particularly think it violates "natural law" or some "universal human right." By saying all this, I am not saying that wearing a head scarf is, by itself, a sign of a woman's inferiority or submission to men, or a violation of the woman's rights. As you say, clearly it's not <i>necessarily</i> so, as seen by the fact that there are indeed free women in the West who voluntarily choose to wear it. What I'm speaking of, instead, is the right of a society, a culture, to determine the direction of that culture as a whole, including through legal mechanisms.
  6. Posted by Munir Munshey
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #24710 ›
    Munir Munshey It does not matter whether Islam mandates a headscarf, or people mistakenly believe it does.  Ultimately, it is the right of the people to be wrong.  For whatever reason they wish to don a headgear of whatever kind to public places, they should not be forbidden to do so.  The State simply does not have the right to forbid or mandate any attire in educational institutions.  For too long, secularists have had their way.  It is time for a reality check!!!
  7. Posted by marc
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #24718 ›
    marc Really, Munir?  In the U.S. many schools do not allow a simple cross on a necklace to be worn, something that's a mere whisper in the dark compared the shouts of "Fire!" in a crowded theater that Islamic headscarves represent. In principle you are correct. However, the Islamists' desire to oppress moderates and secularists with their beliefs should not be given precedence any more than the right of free speech is allowed to be used to incite manslaughter. 
  8. Posted by C Stanley
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #24723 ›
    C Stanley
    What I’m speaking of, instead, is the right of a society, a culture, to determine the direction of that culture as a whole, including through legal mechanisms.
    Fair enough, but what I'm speaking of is efficacy, because generally those attempts to legislate a direction of a culture are pretty ineffective and IMO should only be used in extreme cases and for short term effect (sort of shocking the system while the more 'enlightened' use that period of time to bring about enlightenment of the masses so that the ideals no longer need to be imposed.) Even if you disagree with my assessment of this particular situation, wouldn't you agree with that general concept? (I'm guessing yes since you mentioned that perhaps the German holocaust denial ban may have outlived its usefulness?)
  9. Posted by PatHMV
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #24725 ›
    PatHMV I don't think we really disagree much on the general principle, Christine, just its applicability in the current issue. I would agree with your last post except for the "short term effect," and there I think "short term" is a matter of definition. For an entire nation, "short term" may be 100 years or more. There's a LOT of cultural inertia to overcome. In the case of Germany, antisemitism was a relatively new development, flames fed particularly high by Hitler. Though the evil performed by those flames was great, it was relatively short-term. By contrast the harshest forms of Sharia law are hundreds of years old, and those rural areas of Turkey which Michael talks about may never have experienced anything remotely approaching "enlightenment." So "short term" for them may be longer than 50 or even 100 years. I do think the time is nearing, but I don't think the time is now, given the forces of Islamic fundamentalism and the strength it has gained in recent years.
  10. Posted by A. A. B.
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #24757 ›
    A. A. B. I strongly believe freedom needs to be defended against the tyranny of majority. Munir Mushey is arguing on a right to be wrong, but is there also a right to force your own wrong ways on people who choose differently? Actually wearing the headscarf is not a human right, the European Human Rights Court has decided that the Turkish ban is compatible with human rights.
  11. Michael van der Galien 'Your view is that lifting the ban will strengthen, ultimately, the forces of modernization and help spread it, primarily among that portion of Turkish society which is just modern enough to allow women an education but not modern enough to allow that unless they cover their heads. My view (and I think Michael’s and his girlfriend’s) is that Turkey hasn’t quite reached the critical mass necessary for that to happen. As we see in other countries in the Middle East, the forces of chaos and "fundamentalism" are very, very strong, because they are willing to use almost any tactic to combat efforts to oppose them.' This is exactly it and this is why Christine's view - and that of Westerners like her who talk about democracy all the time yet forget that it is not democracy that makes countries better, it is enlightened thinking - is incredibly dangerous for Turkey.
  12. Posted by C Stanley
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #24795 ›
    C Stanley Actually Michael that's not my view- in fact I made the point of asking 'how is modernization accomplished?' because I realize that that's the key. My argument is that I don't think the bans accomplish what you want them to accomplish, not that they're not democratic enough. Is it the view of you and the Turks you know that eventually laicism will be able to be discarded? Or that it will forever need to be enforced by threat of military action?
  13. Posted by omer
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #24846 ›
    omer I don't think hindus wearing traditional clothes and actual turban everywhere makes them less modern. I don't think people wearing headscarves and suits at work or school make them hostile or oppressed either. Morocco is a good example. Even if one may be audacious enough to believe their are supreme, they can't force it on others, or "educate" them forcefully.
2
 
1