• <a fr-original-style="" href="https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20221205-iran-activists-brush-off-claim-morality-police-abolished" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="color: rgb(9, 9, 9); text-decoration: none; background-color: transparent; outline: none; cursor: pointer; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; touch-action: manipulation; user-select: auto; box-sizing: border-box;" target="_blank">Iranian activists</a> dismissed a claim made by the country's Attorney General that the Islamic republic is disbanding its notorious morality police, insisting that there was no change to its restrictive dress codes for women. They added the morality police's abolition would mark no change to Iran's headscarf policy, but rather a change in ways of enforcing it.

Aposto World

Justice Minister Bekir Bozdağ announced last week that ‘We will probably submit the constitutional amendment proposal to the Presidency of the Grand National Assembly of Turkey next week’ and stated that the proposal will be submitted to parliament this week. Another title of the constitutional amendment, which also includes the ‘legalisation of the headscarf’, is ‘protection of the family'.At the beginning of this month, President Erdoğan said, ‘Strong families give birth to strong nations. Let us create strong families so that we can be a strong nation. A weak family weakens a strong nation. We do not want to give this opportunity.’&nbsp;One step behind: President Erdoğan responded to CHP leader Kılıçdaroğlu's call for ‘legalising the headscarf’ with a call for a ‘constitutional amendment’. Erdoğan said, ‘Let's not stop there, let's make additional amendments that will strengthen our family institution, which consists of the union of men and women, and enable us to look to our future with confidence.’Why? There have been anti-LGBTQIA+ discourses in Turkey for a long time. In recent months, a rally called ‘Big Family Meeting’ was organised, banners with anti-LGBTQIA+ statements were carried and slogans were chanted. Minister of Interior Süleyman Soylu has made opposing discourses many times, and in a statement he made in August, he said, ‘This is why they want to unleash LGBTI or what is it, sexlessness on this country. First they will acclimatise, and then they will take our children away from us. We see all of these.’ In October, Minister of Industry and Technology Mustafa Varank said, ‘You can do whatever you want, but if you impose sexlessness, if you continue to undermine the concept of family, we will not say goodbye to anyone.’What will happen?&nbsp;Minister of Justice Bozdağ stated that paragraphs will be added to Article 24 of the Constitution, and the first paragraph of Article 41 will be amended. While Article 24 is expected to be amended regarding the headscarf, Article 41 is expected to be amended to read ‘The family is the foundation of Turkish society and is based on equality between spouses.’ It is believed that the word ‘spouses’ will be replaced with ‘men and women.’&nbsp;It is stated that with this word change, it is planned to constitutionally prevent marriage equality. Currently, no same-sex unions are recognised in Turkey, nor are marriages or similar unions outside the country. Marriage is restricted between a man and a woman by the article in the Civil Code which reads: ‘The man and woman who are to marry each other apply together to the marriage registrar's office in the place where one of them resides…’.&nbsp;How is it in other countries?&nbsp;In the image below, you can see the latest status of legal regulations on marriage equality and homosexuality.Today, marriage equality is recognised in the USA and most European countries. Although there are discourses against LGBTQIA+s in almost every country, countries acknowledge their existence in legal status and approve of their marriage rights. Of course, this process has not been going on for a long time but has been developing rapidly, especially in the last 10 years. If we look at a few countries:&nbsp;Netherlands:&nbsp;The Netherlands was the first country to legalise marriage equality. With the decision taken on 1 April 2001, homosexual couples were granted the same rights as heterosexual couples, including adoption.&nbsp;Belgium:&nbsp;In Belgium, where marriage equality was legalised in 2003, same-sex couples were granted the right to adopt children in 2006.&nbsp;Spain: In Spain, where marriage equality was legalised in 2005, couples can adopt whether they are married or not.&nbsp;Canada: Marriage equality in the country entered national law in July 2005 and was legalised nationwide. Before this period, it was legal in some provinces.South Africa:&nbsp;The first African country to allow marriage equality, South Africa legalised adoption in November 2006.Norway: the country's 2009 law paved the way for same-sex couples to marry and adopt, but for the past 20 years same-sex couples have enjoyed many of the same legal rights as unmarried heterosexual couples, under the term 'civil partnership'.Sweden: Since 1995, civil partnerships have been recognised, and in 2003 couples were granted the right to adopt a child. In May 2009, it was legalised for couples to marry in a civil or religious ceremony.&nbsp;France:&nbsp;In April 2013, a bill allowing marriage equality and adoption was approved by the parliamentary plenary and signed into law by the president.Argentina:&nbsp;On 14 July 2010, Argentina became the first South American country to have marriage equality and adoption rights after the law was passed by parliament.USA:&nbsp;In 1996, a federal law called the Defence of Marriage Act (DOMA) defined marriage as ‘the union of one man and one woman’. The law was canceled by the Constitutional Court in 2013. However, marriage equality had previously been legalised in several states, including Massachusetts, California, Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire, and New York. In 2015, the Supreme Court ruled that marriage equality is a legal right and legalised it across the country. Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote the judgment, said, ‘No union is deeper than marriage.’United Kingdom:&nbsp;Marriage equality is now legal in all parts of the United Kingdom, although it was recognized at different times in different regions.&nbsp;Switzerland:&nbsp;Same-sex marriage became legal as of 1 July 2022 after it was approved in a referendum held in September 2021.Taiwan:&nbsp;Taiwan's Parliament passed the legalisation of marriage equality in 2019. Taiwan became the first Asian country to take this decision, and approved the right to adoption, albeit in a limited way, with the same law.Mexico: In Mexico, same-sex marriages became legal throughout the country, with the northeastern border state of Tamaulipas also approving marriage equality.&nbsp;On the other hand, especially in Middle Eastern countries, it is seen that LGBTQIA+ persons are not recognised for their fundamental human rights and are subjected to criminal sanctions due to their sexual orientation.&nbsp;Is family unity achieved by men and women?&nbsp;Stating that a strong family constitutes a strong society, President Erdoğan had stated that with the regulation to be made, ‘They will set a barrier against threats to the family institution and human nature.’&nbsp;Just the other day, AKP Deputy Chairman Hayati Yazıcı said about the regulation on the institution of the family, ‘Family unity consists of the marriage of a man and a woman, it is as clear as that. Can there be a citizen against this?’However, when compared to the rest of the world, it is possible to see that marriage is guaranteed as a constitutional right in many countries, and that the union between two people and sexual orientation is also recognised as a fundamental right and freedom. It would not be wrong to say that all countries attach importance to family and family unity and regard it as the basic building block of society. In this context, when we evaluate the changes and decisions taken by countries over the years, we can say that family unity and strength can be achieved through free and equal rights rather than marriage between men and women. &nbsp;<blockquote fr-original-style="color: rgb(9, 9, 9); border-color: rgb(37, 44, 60); border-width: 4px; font-style: italic; padding-left: 10px;" style="color: rgb(9, 9, 9); border-color: rgb(37, 44, 60); border-width: 4px; font-style: italic; padding-left: 10px; margin: 0px 0px 1em; border-left-style: solid; box-sizing: border-box;">‘Homosexuals must also be legally secured within the framework of their rights and freedoms. We do not find the treatment they are subjected to from time to time on some television screens humane.’ -Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, 2002</blockquote>

Spektrum

We can say that family unity and strength can be achieved through free and equal rights rather than marriage between men and women.  

Marriage equality: Does the family unit consist of a man and a woman?

Opinion PollsTurkey Report's survey&nbsp;showed that 60% of the respondents think that CHP leader Kılıçdaroğlu's proposal to legalize the headscarf is "not sincere". The rate of those who think the initiative is "appropriate and necessary" is 31%, while 64% see it as "an effort to win votes". The rate of those who think that "CHP is trying to make peace with its past with this initiative" was 41%."CHP would not ban the headscarf":&nbsp;In the Metropoll Research survey, 35% of respondents answered "yes" to the question "Do you think the CHP would ban headscarves in universities and state offices if it comes to power?", while 60% said "no".Distribution by the parties' voters:&nbsp;It was observed that the majority of AK Party and MHP voters believe that the CHP will ban headscarves."AK Party would not impose dress restrictions":&nbsp;In the same survey, 24% answered "yes" and 73% answered "no" to the question "If the AK Party wins the next elections, will it impose restrictions on women's clothing?".Distribution by the parties' voters: It was observed that the majority of CHP supporters believed that the AK Party would impose dress restrictions.Editor's comment: The widespread belief among citizens that dress codes will be introduced depending on the election results shows the extent of political polarization. Moreover, initiatives such as the CHP's effort are not seen as sincere, perhaps fueling these concerns in vain. Rather than politicians or parties trying to provide guarantees on their own, the only way to alleviate these concerns seems to be for the political institution to come together and for political polarization to decrease.In the survey conducted by Metropoll Research, 23% of the respondents answered "yes" and 60% answered "no" to the question "Do you think the HDP leadership left Selahattin Demirtaş alone?". The rate of those who did not express an opinion was 17%.Distribution according by the parties' voters: The highest percentage of CHP, HDP, and DEVA Party voters thought that HDP left Demirtaş alone.Editor's comment: As Demirtaş, the imprisoned former HDP Co-Chairman, diverges from the HDP, the imprisoned terrorist leader Abdullah Öcalan and the terrorist organization PKK with his statements, it is quite likely that the number of people who answered "yes" to this question will increase.In the Metropoll Research survey, 54% of the respondents answered "yes" and 38% answered "no" to the question "Do you think it would be in Turkey's interest to establish good relations with Russia?"."Good for Erdogan":&nbsp;In the same survey, 48.6% said "yes" and 45% said "no" to the question "Do you think that good relation with Russia will help President Erdoğan win the elections?".

<ul fr-original-style="padding-inline-start: 20px;" style="padding-inline-start: 20px; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 1em; list-style-position: inside; box-sizing: border-box;"><li fr-original-style="" style="box-sizing: border-box;">The Metropoll Research survey revealed that 58% of women wear headscarves, while 39% do not.&nbsp;</li><li fr-original-style="" style="box-sizing: border-box;">There is no headscarf problem:&nbsp;Only 8% of respondents said "yes" to the question "Do you think there is a headscarf problem for those working in universities or public institutions?".</li><li fr-original-style="" style="box-sizing: border-box;">&nbsp;The ban will not return: In response to the question "If CHP comes to power, would the headscarf ban be reinstated for those working in universities and public institutions?" 35% said "yes," while 60.4% said "no."</li><li fr-original-style="" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Social distribution: While a majority of the ruling party voters stated that the ban would return under CHP rule, an even larger proportion of opposition voters stated that the ban would not return.</li><li fr-original-style="" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Distribution according to headscarf use: 41% of headscarf wearers and 27% of non-headscarf wearers stated that the ban would return.</li><li fr-original-style="" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Women's concerns: Only women were asked the question "Are you worried about being able to walk on the street in the clothes you want?" 26% said "yes" and 72.4% said "no."</li><li fr-original-style="" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Opposition women are more worried:&nbsp;Women who vote for opposition parties are more concerned about their clothes than women who vote for AK Party and MHP.</li><li fr-original-style="" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Women who do not wear headscarves are more worried: By a small margin, women who do not wear headscarves are more worried than women who do.</li><li fr-original-style="" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Kılıçdaroğlu's exit was "wrong":&nbsp;56% of the respondents stated that CHP leader Kılıçdaroğlu's decision to introduce legal guarantees for headscarves was wrong. The rate of those who found Kılıçdaroğlu's statement right remained at 38%.</li><li fr-original-style="" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Distribution by parties: The majority of CHP, İYİ Party, Felicity Party, and DEVA Party voters agreed with Kılıçdaroğlu's decision, while voters of other parties disagreed with Kılıçdaroğlu's decision.</li><li fr-original-style="" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Distribution by headscarf use: The majority of both women who wear headscarves and women who do not wear headscarves think that Kılıçdaroğlu's initiative was wrong.</li><li fr-original-style="" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Editor's comment:&nbsp;It seems that the CHP leader's call to persuade citizens who are far from his base did not meet with the desired response. On the other hand, it can be said that the headscarf issue has been resolved in society. The fact that the issue is still being used as a political tool may be interpreted as raising concerns. </li></ul>Report The European Union's report revealed that between 2011 and 2020, an average of 9 thousand hectares of forestland burned annually in Turkey, totaling 9095 hectares. According to the report, the forest area burned in 2021 increased dramatically to 139,505 hectares. The report stated that the most burned area in Europe in 2021 was in Turkey and 91% of the fires were caused by human activities.

<h4 fr-original-style="" style="margin: 0px; color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.85); font-weight: 500; padding: 0px; box-sizing: border-box;">Spektrum&nbsp;is a weekly politics publication focusing on Turkey, city agendas and international policy.</h4><hr fr-original-style="" style="height: 0px; overflow: visible; border-bottom: none; clear: both; user-select: none; break-after: page; box-sizing: border-box;">Kılıçdaroğlu's strategy and social consensusCHP leader Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu was criticised by some opposition voters for his proposal to guarantee headscarf in law. He is alleged to have imposed himself as the candidate of the six-party alliance by restraining the presidential candidacies of Ekrem İmamoğlu, the mayor of Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality, and Mansur Yavaş, the mayor of Ankara Metropolitan Municipality. The content of his US visit is said to be weak.Especially after the proposal to legalise the headscarf, President Erdoğan turned this into political leverage and imposed a new law amendment on the opposition, including restrictions on the rights and freedoms of LGBTQIA+ persons, which is seen as both a major strategic mistake for the CHP and proof that Kılıçdaroğlu is not the right person for the presidential candidacy.So why is Kılıçdaroğlu, who won most of the metropolitan cities, especially Istanbul, Ankara, and İzmir, in the 2019 local elections and inflicted the biggest electoral defeat on the AKP in its history, making strategic mistakes months before the general elections? In a situation where inflation has reached 82%, and a large part of the population cannot even meet their basic needs, why is Kılıçdaroğlu diverting the focus of the opposition with his ‘halalisation’ (it implies a religious practice of reconciliation) rhetoric and the headscarf law proposal?<p contenteditable="false" fr-original-class="custom-button-wrapper fr-deletable" fr-original-style="text-align:center" style="text-align: center; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 1em; box-sizing: border-box;"><a bgcolor="#effe75" color="#090909" contenteditable="false" fr-original-class="custom-button-link" fr-original-style="background-color:#effe75 !important;color:#090909 !important" href="https://aposto.com/i/weekly-insights-political-manoeuvres" rel="noreferrer" style="background-color: rgb(239, 254, 117) !important; color: rgb(9, 9, 9) !important; text-decoration: none; outline: none; cursor: pointer; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; touch-action: manipulation; user-select: auto; box-sizing: border-box;" target="_blank">Read more</a><p contenteditable="false" fr-original-class="custom-button-wrapper fr-deletable" fr-original-style="text-align:center" style="text-align: center; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 1em; box-sizing: border-box;"><a bgcolor="#effe75" color="#090909" contenteditable="false" fr-original-class="custom-button-link" fr-original-style="background-color:#effe75 !important;color:#090909 !important" href="https://aposto.com/n/spectrum" rel="noreferrer" style="background-color: rgb(239, 254, 117) !important; color: rgb(9, 9, 9) !important; text-decoration: none; outline: none; cursor: pointer; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; touch-action: manipulation; user-select: auto; box-sizing: border-box;" target="_blank">Subscribe</a>

Aposto Digest

CHP leader Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu was criticised by some opposition voters for his proposal to guarantee headscarf in law. He is alleged to have imposed himself as the candidate of the six-party alliance by restraining the presidential candidacies of Ekrem İmamoğlu, the mayor of Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality, and Mansur Yavaş, the mayor of Ankara Metropolitan Municipality. The content of his US visit is said to be weak.Especially after the proposal to legalise the headscarf, President Erdoğan turned this into political leverage and imposed a new law amendment on the opposition, including restrictions on the rights and freedoms of LGBTQIA+ persons, which is seen as both a major strategic mistake for the CHP and proof that Kılıçdaroğlu is not the right person for the presidential candidacy.So why is Kılıçdaroğlu, who won most of the metropolitan cities, especially Istanbul, Ankara, and İzmir, in the 2019 local elections and inflicted the biggest electoral defeat on the AKP in its history, making strategic mistakes months before the general elections? In a situation where inflation has reached 82%, and a large part of the population cannot even meet their basic needs, why is Kılıçdaroğlu diverting the focus of the opposition with his ‘halalisation’ (it implies a religious practice of reconciliation) rhetoric and the headscarf law proposal?<img src="https://images.aposto.com/2022/9/0/1665908699698.png" width="550" alt="Kılıçdaroğlu" style="display: block; vertical-align: top; margin: 5px auto; text-align: center; width: 100%; max-width: 550px; border-style: none; position: relative; cursor: pointer; padding: 0px 1px; box-sizing: border-box;" ratio="1.51" fr-original-style="display: block; vertical-align: top; margin: 5px auto; text-align: center; width: 100%; max-width: 550px;" fr-original-class="fr-draggable">DHAIn this article, I will try to find a satisfactory answer to these questions using democratisation theories rather than trying to characterise Kılıçdaroğlu's opposition strategy as right or wrong.Polarising to maintain the powerHow can you force a government that has been in uninterrupted power since 2002 and has been increasing its authoritarianism to democratise and respect the rights and freedoms of its citizens? We have closely witnessed that it is possible to establish an authoritarian government through the politics of polarisation, especially in countries like Turkey where ethnic, religious, and identity divisions are strong and where there is no social consensus on fundamental issues of concern to the society. The economic growth and increase in social welfare between 2002 and 2007, the so-called ‘golden period’ of the AKP's rule, was able to expand the party's voter base, and the violations of the rights and freedoms of some groups could be ignored.With the impact of the 2008 financial crisis, the slowdown in economic growth and the concentration of wealth from the bottom to the top in the following period reduced the economic gains offered by the government to its electorate and led the AKP to a political approach that polarised the society through identity politics to maintain its power and continue its authoritarian steps. The AKP government, which has consistently violated the fundamental rights and freedoms of its citizens, has restrained the social opposition against it with the economic prosperity achieved in a certain period, while in the following periods it has prevented it by fragmenting society through identity politics.Today, we see a dichotomous society in Turkey on ideological and identity grounds. Given the crucial importance of the 2023 elections for Turkey, what kind of strategy should the opposition pursue to rebuild a democratic regime, or how can it succeed in forcing the government to adopt democratic politics? Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu, the main opposition leader, is answering this question with his proposal for halalisation (reconciliation) and legalisation of the headscarf. And why?A government that constantly seeks to expand its power at the expense of citizens' rights and freedoms cannot be prevented from doing so only by opposition voters, because the vote share of its own voters is enough to keep it in power. In this case, for the AKP, which does not embrace values such as human rights and democracy, and whose sole aim is to maintain its power, violating the fundamental rights and freedoms of millions of people it sees as opposition voters does not create any political cost for itself. The majority of the social base that supports the government does not criticise the oppression and violation of rights of the opposing group, and these people can gain an advantage over the other group with certain economic and political gains, in return for their support for the government.In Turkish society, where there is no social consensus on fundamental rights and freedoms, the only thing that can defeat the AKP in the elections or prevent violations of rights is either the deterioration of the system due to external factors, such as the economic crisis or the reaction of its electorate to the violations committed against the other group. For a long time, the opposition had hoped that the economic crisis, with inflation reaching 84% and the minimum wage remaining below the hunger threshold, would naturally cause the AKP to lose the elections. However, President Erdoğan's launch of the electoral economy, opening the credit and social aid spigots to the fullest, and the recent perceptions of victory in foreign policy have reversed this negative mood and increased both Erdoğan's approval rating and the AKP’s vote share.Taking the final trump card from the governmentIn democratic countries where checks and balances are functional and social opposition is strong, wrong policies implemented by the ruling party or the corruption committed by the party in power cause a reaction in the society, and the government loses votes. Opposition parties also have the opportunity to come to power. This process, defined as ‘the cost of being in power’, is no longer valid in Turkey, where checks and balances have been abolished, and public resources and the media are under the domination of the ruling party. Any corruption or wrong policy can somehow be blamed on the opposition, and this can have a great deal of credibility with the ruling electorate. Turkey is experiencing one of the biggest economic crises in its history due to the government's deliberate choices. However, there has still not been a major rupture in the AKP government's voter base. It shows both how effective identity politics is and that there is no ‘cost of being in power’ for the government that controls the mainstream media.Keeping that in mind, Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu believes that the only thing that will compel the AKP to lose the elections or to end its violations of rights will be the pressure from its base, and he bases his opposition strategy upon this. The dependency relationship between the AKP and the sympathisers in its voter base who see the violations of rights against dissident voters and the interference in private lives which are alien to them as an achievement, is based on social benefits, partial increases in welfare, and polarising identity politics pursued by the ruling party. With the transfer of İBB (Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality) and ABB (Ankara Metropolitan Municipality) to CHP, the government's control over social aid has declined, and with the economic crisis unable to promise welfare increases even to its voters, the last trump card left in its hand is the polarising identity politics. What Kılıçdaroğlu wants to do is to take this final trump card away from the government at the cost of alienating his voters.&nbsp;The halalisation (reconciliation) discourse launched to reconcile with those whose rights and freedoms have been violated in the past because of their lifestyles or political views, and the proposal to legalise the headscarf, the biggest trump card of the government's polarising identity politics, aims at expanding social opposition to authoritarian rule in Turkey, where the fragmented opposition pressure is not enough to reshuffle the government. Whether this opposition strategy will be successful or not remains to be seen, but if it is possible to expand social opposition against authoritarianism, not only it may be possible to win the 2023 elections, but also to create a democratic system in the new Turkey in which such violations of rights and freedoms will never be allowed again. Otherwise, it will not be possible in the near or distant future to build a democratic regime with an understanding that tolerates every injustice and oppression against those who do not belong to it.&nbsp;Kılıçdaroğlu's weak pointThe weak point in Kılıçdaroğlu's strategy is that while emphasising identity politics so much, he oversees the increasing pressure on the opposition electorate and fails to offer a solution to the concrete problems we are currently experiencing, especially in the economy. The CHP's failure to come up with a convincing and satisfactory economic policy months before the general elections and its inability to strongly oppose the increasing pressure on secular lifestyles are creating a great disappointment for opposition voters. People are also less keen to vote. Kılıçdaroğlu, who wants to increase the pressure against the government from its voter base, has failed to strike this balance well, thus breaking the faith of opposition voters and diminishing their expectancy for change.&nbsp;In conclusion, the biggest challenge for the opposition, which has a historic opportunity ahead of the 2023 elections, will be to weaken the electoral base of the government and increase the cost of authoritarianism by taking into account their concerns and demands, without breaking away from their voter base. It is not possible to build a democratic political regime that is loyal to human rights in countries that cannot build a strong opposition and social consensus against governments that seek to expand their power at the expense of citizens' rights and freedoms.

headscarf ile ilgili hikayeler