Top Menu

Turkey Lifts 90 Year-old Ban on Hijab for Public Officials


In a recent reform package that aims at greater democratization in Turkey the headscarf has been legalized for public officials and civil servants. This was a long battle of over 20 years that has seen the extreme secularists lose to the mainstream of Turkish society; hopefully France can become more democratic and follow Turkey’s example.

New changes legalize headscarves for public officials, discontinue national oath


The headscarf ban for public officials has been officially lifted, while the national oath has been removed from schools, one week after Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğanpromised the changes in a much-anticipated democratization package.

The government has officially lifted the ban on wearing a headscarf for public-sector workers and ended the reading of the national oath, which non-Turks have criticized for its nationalist language, in the country’s schools.

Kurds and others have long been angered by much of the oath, which ends with the phrase “Ne Mutlu Türküm Diyene” (How happy is he who says “I am a Turk”).

According to the publication of the resolutions in the Official Gazette late Oct. 7, public officials will be permitted to don a headscarf, with the exception of officials wearing a uniform, while the student oath, which has been read out loud every morning for the past 80 years, has been removed.


, , , , , , , ,

  • Ilisha

    Do you live in Turkey?

  • guest

    Bring back Ataurk to do another clean-up in Turkey with this rising Islamist morons..

  • Pingback: তুরস্কে ৯০ বছর পর হিজাব বৈধ করলো এরদুগানের দল একেপি এবং বাংলাদেশে হিজাব প্রসঙ্গ | মোহাম্মদ ফখরুল()

  • moraka

    Yeah that is a better comparison.

  • George Carty

    Atatürk successfully laid the basis for the modern Turkish Republic, while Hitler’s 12-year reign was a catastrophic failure — it ended with a quarter of his country ethnically cleansed, and the rest of it reduced to rubble and occupied by foreign powers. For this reason only a tiny minority of Germans today view Hitler in a positive light.

    A much better comparison is that between Atatürk and Stalin. Stalin is still admired by many Russians today despite his extreme brutality, because his forced-march industrialization policies were crucial to saving the Russian people from a genocidal Nazi invasion. Similarly, Atatürk is venerated because his military skills saved the Turkish people from a genocidal Greek invasion in the early 1920s.

  • moraka

    Except that westernization is not by its nature automatically a good thing. There is a wast difference between improving a country’s economy and political standing and trying to force convert the population to another way of life, that contradicts what they follow, even if it means killing a lot of people. Not to mention that praising Ataturd, while ignoring that he was a mass murdering tyrant. Is not much different from praising Hitler in bringing back Germany to a economic, political and military strong point, while ignoring that he was a mass murdering tyrant.
    Even Erdogan has his faults, he has supported Israel, a fascist apartheid military base disguised as a country.

  • The greenmantle

    I read the whole thing , every cut and paste , it was self contradicting rubbish . You would need to be very stupid to go along with it .
    Sir David

  • Friend of Bosnia

    Yes, that’s for sure.

  • Friend of Bosnia

    It’s counter revolution, like Kornilov attempted (but failed at) in Russia in 1917/18, Franco did in Spain in 1939 or Pinochet in Chile in 1973 (I mean, because most people seem to agree that in both cases this was a bad thing) Mubarakism without Mubarak. If they think they’re any better than the MB (assuming that the MB really wanted to establish a religious dictatorship), they’re very wrong.
    Sadly, we do have the historic precedent of the October Revolution (which ended in the worst tyranny mankind has evcer seen), and that the Spanish Republic would, if they had won over Franco, certainly not have re-established democracy in Spain but a Soviet Stalinist regime, and Allende (well, maybe not he himself, he as a good man after all, but some of his followers, oh, oh…) another Cuba…but were Franco and Pinochet any better? Is Sisi any better? I don’t think so. Some people may rejoice that he has overthrown the Islamists and is now repressing the MB with an iron fist; one could say well at least Franco kept Spain free from Stalinist rule and out of WWII, and Pinochet made (or kept) Chile relatively prosperous. So can one argue “it was for the greater good”? But then, “The path to Hell is lined with good intentions”: And wasn’t the price too high? Isn’t the cure worse than the sickness? Must one kill the patient in order to save him? As the military rulers of Egypt are doing now

  • Tanveer Khan

    I see

    I can finally do it. xD Thank you, Senor Carty.

  • George Carty

    Of course I haven’t read Breivik’s manifesto in full (thanks Google!) As for his political position — I’d say that Breivik is to the Neocons what the Nazis were to the German imperialists of World War I.

    As for it’s turgid and inchoate character — I guess that makes it a lot like Mein Kampf. 😉

    Anyway, here’s Richard Seymour’s take on Breivik.

  • George Carty

    To be fair, the Ottoman Arabic script was badly deficient (“Muhammad became a Pasha” and “Muhammad Pasha died” were famously written identically in that script), which is one reason why literacy rates were so low in the Ottoman Empire. Ottoman writers had to use lots of circumlocutions using Persian and Arabic vocabulary to get around these ambiguities.

    They needed to either replace it with a Western script, or to add markers for the different vowel sounds (as this script did for the Tatar language). The Kemalists went too far though and purged almost all of the Persian and Arabic vocabulary from the language. The equivalent would be purging English of all its Greco-Latin vocabulary — ever read Poul Anderson’s “Uncleftish Beholding”?

  • Friend of Bosnia

    I have not bothered to read breivik’s manifesto (from what I have heard it’s just turgid, convoluted, disgusting, puerile, unripe crap; too bad there are people around who actually believe it), but that he calls himself “anti-fascist” and “democratic” just shows what an incredible phony and hypocrite fraud he (and every one who has the same evil ideas) really is. So “we need to destroy democracy in order to save it,” hah?
    Such people are mad dogs. Well, at least he did behave like a mad dog, he should be treated like a mad dog. I know one shouldbe more human than the inhumans but even that has its limits.

  • George Carty

    I bet his manifesto wouldn’t have got anywhere near 1,500 pages though had he lived in an era before the World Wide Web. 😉

Powered by Loon Watchers