Headscarves banned in Turkish universties

demonspawn

Muslim women are banned from attending university unless they remove their headscarves. This is absolutely unacceptable, a clear violation of human rights, and should be repealed immediately. These women are not standing up in the middle of class reciting the Quran. They are simply trying to educate themselves.

Is this what we want in the European Union? Would we allow these kinds of oppressive secular laws in Ireland?

Rebelheart

demonspawn wrote: »

Muslim women are banned from attending university unless they remove their headscarves. This is absolutely unacceptable, a clear violation of human rights, and should be repealed immediately.

Given Turkey's rather tenuous position as a relatively secular state it seems misplaced to invoke a standard here which might be acceptable in UCD or the Sorbonne the EUI.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

demonspawn

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Wow, I seem to have been living under a rock for the last few years. I remember the controversy with the French schools but I didn't know the ban went ahead. Does anyone think this is fair? To force a woman to abandon her faith just to be able to attend university? Is this a violation of human rights, and if so why is it being allowed in the EU? Are Christians in France forced to remove their crucifix before entering the college?

Di0genes

demonspawn wrote: »

Wow, I seem to have been living under a rock for the last few years. I remember the controversy with the French schools but I didn't know the ban went ahead. Does anyone think this is fair? To force a woman to abandon her faith just to be able to attend university?

Thats specious reasoning, they're not being asked to abandon their faith.

Turkey is technically a secular society and doesn't want religious displays in public buildings.

Instead of getting worked up about "human rights" being oppressed why aren't you offended by Islamic countries where womens rights are seriously curtailed.

demonspawn

Di0genes wrote: »

Thats specious reasoning, they're not being asked to abandon their faith.

Women wearing headscarves is an intrinsic part of the Islamic faith. Many Muslim women wear their headscarves freely of their own will because it's part of their faith.

Turkey is technically a secular society and doesn't want religious displays in public buildings.

And yet Christians are allowed to wear their crucifix so long as it's not too big. It's a piece of cloth used to cover their hair. They're not walking around with the Quran strapped to their heads. Last time I checked, headscarves were considered a fashion accessory in Western countries.

Instead of getting worked up about "human rights" being oppressed why aren't you offended by Islamic countries where womens rights are seriously curtailed.

I live in a democratic society, where do you live? Your comment is ridiculous. Why worry about human rights in your own country when you can worry about human rights in the Middle East? Is that the brunt of your argument? See how silly that is?

Manic Moran

The Turks take being a secular country as a matter of life or death. Literally, the military is well known for being willing to launch coups if they think the government is relaxing secularism.

This is absolutely unacceptable, a clear violation of human rights

Strange. The European Court of Human Rights didn't seem to see it that way.
http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=699739&portal=hbkm&source=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 Vote was 16 to 1 in favour of Turkey, seems fairly clear that from the Court's point of view it's not a violation.

FWIW, Turkey's supreme court also agreed with them. So has Belgium's court system, in their domestic headscarf ban cases.

NTM

demonspawn

Manic Moran wrote: »

The Turks take being a secular country as a matter of life or death. Literally, the military is well known for being willing to launch coups if they think the government is relaxing secularism.



Strange. The European Court of Human Rights didn't seem to see it that way.
http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=699739&portal=hbkm&source=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 Vote was 16 to 1 in favour of Turkey, seems fairly clear that from the Court's point of view it's not a violation.

FWIW, Turkey's supreme court also agreed with them. So has Belgium's court system, in their domestic headscarf ban cases.

NTM

I'm asking people's personal opinion on the subject. The fact that the Court of Human Rights voted in favor of the ban indicates to me a clear erosion of our civil rights in Europe. This is secularism at it's most extreme, and I thought the whole point of a free democratic society was to avoid such extremes.

Don't get me wrong, I don't subscribe to any particular faith but I recognize other people's right to practice their religious and cultural traditions. We're witnessing a polarization of our society that can only end one way. When you push people to either extreme of the political divide and the middle ground is lost, the voice of reason is silenced.

charlie_says

I'm all for a ban of them on and in state property, travel hubs and banks.

Why am I not allowed to wear my motorcycle helmet? Stop oppressing me!

Sesshoumaru

charlie_says wrote: »

I'm all for a ban of them on and in state property, travel hubs and banks.

Why am I not allowed to wear my motorcycle helmet? Stop oppressing me!

Amen brother! Motorcycles aren't just a mode of transport, they're a way of life/culture. Stop oppressing our culture!

old_aussie

Good to hear

old_aussie

demonspawn wrote: »

Would we allow these kinds of oppressive secular laws in Ireland?

I would like to see this rule in Australia.

Eliot Rosewater

For me, secularism is about government and institutions taking no stance towards religion. A complete separation of church and state. This move is taking a stance on religion; it's anti-religion in outlook. Therefore, I fail to see how it is secular.

Of course, I respect the right of private institutions to have a dress code. However, from what I gather, this is blanket ban on universities as well as other government offices. Like demonspawn, I think this ban is not in the spirit of civil liberty.


I find it laughable that people think actions like this are good for women. "But, it will stop religious oppression." Banning certain clothing to stop oppression? Do people realise how ludicrous that is?

Jeboa Safari

I support the ban, I don't think you should be allowed to cover your whole face in public

Nodin

charlie says wrote:

I'm all for a ban of them on and in state property, travel hubs and banks.

Why am I not allowed to wear my motorcycle helmet? Stop oppressing me!

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

I support the ban, I don't think you should be allowed to cover your whole face in public

Its a scarf, lads.

Jeboa Safari

Nodin wrote: »

Its a scarf.

Oh right, thouht it was the full face thing. In that case, I think they should be free to wear it

Jeboa Safari

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

I support the ban, I don't think you should be allowed to cover your whole face in public

It's a headscarf, not a face covering

I think this is a step too far tbh

Memnoch

I understand the principle behind wanting to ban the headscarf and I can certainly see the argument for it.

But what I can't get past is: Are policy makers really this ignorant that they think banning the headscarf will do anything more than marginalise FURTHER the women who are forced to wear them (either directly or through psychological pressure and upbringing).

Surely the way to open people's minds and bring them forward is to ENGAGE them in dialogue not excommunicate or ghettoise them.

In Summary: Whatever the reasoning behind the ban, if its purpose is to liberate women, it fails utterly in practise.

Memnoch

You're arguing against such bans without taking into consideration the culture of the country in question. There is a tendency to argue against such restrictions as if they're occurring in some sterile environment with neither a conflict of cultures nor a sense of history (with the subsequent cultural/ethnic/religious tensions) going back centuries.

Its all very well and good to talk about these bans in Ireland or a country with a similar value system as we have, but frankly there is an amazing lack of understanding that other countries are different and must have different rules to operate.

Memnoch wrote:

But what I can't get past is: Are policy makers really this ignorant that they think banning the headscarf will do anything more than marginalise FURTHER the women who are forced to wear them (either directly or through psychological pressure and upbringing).

I don't think they really care. They're more concerned with the stability of their country. Considering the population of Turkey, and the number of divisions it has to contend with, they're probably looking for the best option to regulate the ongoing tensions.

Turkey has a number of different laws regarding numerous religions about what can be performed within the state. While it might not be the fairest method, its one that has seemed to work in that region.

Personally, I think they're entitled to do this in some attempt to reduce conflict. Turkey is not Ireland. Don't take that for granted.

Manic Moran

demonspawn wrote: »

I'm asking people's personal opinion on the subject.

I think the court ruled correctly.

The fact that the Court of Human Rights voted in favor of the ban indicates to me a clear erosion of our civil rights in Europe. This is secularism at it's most extreme, and I thought the whole point of a free democratic society was to avoid such extremes.

Why? Secular to the extreme would be the Soviet Union when religion was officially banned on either the government's or personal time.

As long as they are out of institutions of national import, Turkish people can be as non-secular as they like. The court expresses its reasoning rather well. I personally like the comment that in the Turkish Government's point of view 'Freedom' and 'Religious Duty' are two mutually exclusive concepts. However, there are other pretty good arguments laid forth, varying from a past history of violence between groups to ensuring that all persons are treated equally, for example so that non-practising muslims are not treated poorly because they visibly decline to wear a head covering or that practising muslims will be treated with disdain because they choose to submit to hokey rituals: If nobody's allowed to wear the thing, then there is no basis for friction within the student body.

NTM

caseyann

Is it the full or just the head scarf?

If its the full i am for it.
If the head scarf only,i am against that been banned.I still see Irish women who wear scarves for mass.And they wear them in Rome etc.. also dont they?


Edit i see just the head scarf,why are they banning that

southsiderosie

demonspawn wrote: »

Women wearing headscarves is an intrinsic part of the Islamic faith. Many Muslim women wear their headscarves freely of their own will because it's part of their faith.

Women in Muslim countries as different as Egypt and Malaysia are far more likely to wear a headscarf today than they were 30 years ago, yet the Koran has not changed during this time. The headscarf today is both a statement of faith and a political symbol. The Turkish government and court system are addressing the political issues that stem from wearing it, not the reasons of faith that drive women to put it on. Given their country's history I understand where they are coming from, but I do think it keeps a lot of smart ambitious women out of school and public life.

demonspawn

Deleted User wrote: »

You're arguing against such bans without taking into consideration the culture of the country in question. There is a tendency to argue against such restrictions as if they're occurring in some sterile environment with neither a conflict of cultures nor a sense of history (with the subsequent cultural/ethnic/religious tensions) going back centuries.

Its all very well and good to talk about these bans in Ireland or a country with a similar value system as we have, but frankly there is an amazing lack of understanding that other countries are different and must have different rules to operate.



I don't think they really care. They're more concerned with the stability of their country. Considering the population of Turkey, and the number of divisions it has to contend with, they're probably looking for the best option to regulate the ongoing tensions.

Turkey has a number of different laws regarding numerous religions about what can be performed within the state. While it might not be the fairest method, its one that has seemed to work in that region.

Personally, I think they're entitled to do this in some attempt to reduce conflict. Turkey is not Ireland. Don't take that for granted.

I'm well aware of the history of Turkey and it's wish for secularism after the fall of the Ottoman Empire. That wish was for a more democratic society that was not bound by the restrictions of Sharia law. It was to ensure that everyone was free to choose their own religious or cultural identity.

This ban is nothing more than the secular government in Turkey, France and other countries imposing their own secular beliefs on the population. How is that any different that the laws imposed under Sharia law? Why is this not a blanket ban on all religious apparel in public places, but specifically a ban that only affects Muslim women and particularly Muslim women who wish to attend university? Every westerner that criticizes Sharia law always use the argument that Muslim women are keep from pursuing an education. Is this anything but pure hypocrisy when considering the fact that many Muslim women will not remove their scarves and choose instead to just not attend university?

The Turkish and French government is well aware that many Muslim women wear the scarf freely and willingly and would refuse to remove no matter what the situation. They may as well be asking those women to strip down naked and walk around the streets. This is just unacceptable.

The scarf is an intrinsic part of their cultural and moral identity, a symbol of their moral belief that women should not be forced to parade around exposing their bodies in public to be leered at by men or mocked by other women. This is not so much of a religious belief as it is a moral and cultural one. As such, the state has no right to impose their moral beliefs on the population.

Would the people who agree with this ban also agree to a law for Catholic nuns being forced to remove their habit when entering a public institution? No, you wouldn't dare to demand such a thing.

FlutterinBantam

demonspawn wrote: »

Muslim women are banned from attending university unless they remove their headscarves. This is absolutely unacceptable, a clear violation of human rights, and should be repealed immediately. These women are not standing up in the middle of class reciting the Quran. They are simply trying to educate themselves.

Is this what we want in the European Union? Would we allow these kinds of oppressive secular laws in Ireland?

More rubbish from a poster who delights in trying to troll this forum.

Turkey is dead right,cut out this shíte and get on with living life,rather than pushing symbols and flags which do nothing but alienate forces bent on sabre rattling and emblem use.

Perfectly good decision in my opinion.

southsiderosie

demonspawn wrote: »

The scarf is an intrinsic part of their cultural and moral identity, a symbol of their moral belief that women should not be forced to parade around exposing their bodies in public to be leered at by men or mocked by other women. This is not so much of a religious belief as it is a moral and cultural one. As such, the state has no right to impose their moral beliefs on the population.

Again, if the headscarf was an intrinsic part of Islam, then why has the percentage of women who wear them fluctuated over time?

I believe in freedom of choice, but the state then not only needs to enforce the right of women to wear the headscarf, but also enforce the rights of women to not wear the headscarf. And this is where the real issue lies: from the perspective of the state, a blanket ban is easier from an enforcement perspective than the opposite. And it is quite clear from the experience of young girls, from the banlieues to Palestinian refugee camps, that there is a great deal of harassment aimed at those who choose not to veil - it just happens in the private, rather than the public sphere.

Despite its religious importance for some, the veil has become an explicitly political statement, particularly among young Muslim women, and as such the state is dealing with it in a political manner.

Fo Real

This is ridiculous. The OP is getting offended on behalf of the Turkish Muslims, who actually have no problem with the ban.

I hope to see the ban introduced across Europe.

Iwasfrozen

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

More rubbish from a poster who delights in trying to troll this forum.

Turkey is dead right,cut out this shíte and get on with living life,rather than pushing symbols and flags which do nothing but alienate forces bent on sabre rattling and emblem use.

Perfectly good decision in my opinion.

I agree with him though, why shouldn't Muslim women be allowed to attend University wearing headscarves? Hell, why can't they come dressed in ballerina costumes if it floats their boat. What right has the University or indeed the government for that matter to tell them what to do?

Sand

@Memnoch

In Summary: Whatever the reasoning behind the ban, if its purpose is to liberate women, it fails utterly in practise.

Has there been an empirical study done to demonstrate this or is it just an assumption?

@demonspawn

Women wearing headscarves is an intrinsic part of the Islamic faith

No, its not. Wearing a headscarf doesnt make you muslim. Adhering to the five pillars of Islam is an intrinsic part of the Islamic faith.

Youre accepting the statements of hardliners at face value unfortunately. They want to rule out the possibility of being a muslim and not adhering to their mysoginistic practises.

@Eliot Rosewater

For me, secularism is about government and institutions taking no stance towards religion. A complete separation of church and state. This move is taking a stance on religion; it's anti-religion in outlook

This move, and similar moves, are not targeting Islamic faith. They are targeting a cultural trend that has been identified as inhibiting the participation of a group in wider society.

And whilst a secular state might take no stance towards religion, that doesnt prevent religion taking a stance on a secular state and the values of the enlightenment underpinning it. People have an interest in preventing the emergence of ghettoisation and isolation of a social group, and ensuring that women from Islamic communities have the same possibility of interaction with others is important as part of that. The state has a role in ensuring the rights of the individual are protected, and whilst there is no clearly correct answer on this issue I feel erring on the side of preventing social exclusion (wilful or otherwise) is better than erring on the side of permitting it - and social exclusion in modern times has led to a host of problems for secular states that hoped that if they looked the other way theyd be given a free pass. Look at Londonistan and the UKs previous "live and let live" policy towards hardliners.

demonspawn

Fo Real wrote: »

This is ridiculous. The OP is getting offended on behalf of the Turkish Muslims, who actually have no problem with the ban.

I hope to see the ban introduced across Europe.

No, I'm protesting this now before something that I hold dear becomes banned in the name of almighty Secularism. The following is an extreme example but it explains why I'm so disgusted by this ban and by the attitudes of some of the posters here.

They came first for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up.

Ever hear that before?

demonspawn

Sand wrote: »

Look at Londonistan and the UKs previous "live and let live" policy towards hardliners.

What, is that like Chinatown and Little Italy in New York City? Last time I checked nobody had a problem with those communities. Why is it that just Muslims are singled out and criticized for wanting to live in Muslim neighborhoods? Where is the outrage against Jews or any other population that willingly segregate themselves?

This is clearly hypocrisy rearing it's ugly head.

demonspawn

southsiderosie wrote: »

And it is quite clear from the experience of young girls, from the banlieues to Palestinian refugee camps, that there is a great deal of harassment aimed at those who choose not to veil - it just happens in the private, rather than the public sphere.

Is that anything like the public harassment some women get in western countries for choosing to wear trousers and shirts every day instead of skirts? Or the harassment some men get for choosing to wear women's clothes? Don't tell me that doesn't happen, because some people are harassed, beaten, and sometimes killed simply because of what they choose to wear in western countries. We have very clear cultural expectations in the west, so why are Muslims held to a different standard?

I'm not interested in stories about social oppression in Muslim countries, we are no different in the West. We like to think we are, but we're not.

demonspawn

southsiderosie wrote: »

Despite its religious importance for some, the veil has become an explicitly political statement, particularly among young Muslim women, and as such the state is dealing with it in a political manner.

So if it's more of a political statement then why is it banned in a secular country? Will wearing a hammer and sickle pin be banned next? Will Fianna Gael be outlawed as it's the "Christian Democratic" party? That's clearly a breach of the secularist ideology being imposed on European countries.

FlutterinBantam

demonspawn wrote: »

So if it's more of a political statement then why is it banned in a secular country? Will wearing a hammer and sickle pin be banned next? Will Fianna Gael be outlawed as it's the "Christian Democratic" party? That's clearly a breach of the secularist ideology being imposed on European countries.

Get a grip man.

Fanatics will always use emblems and symbols to further their cause.

Why don't you unclench yourself learn to live like a normal human being, rather than trying to promote antagonism and hatred and learn the lesson 'live and let live'

demonspawn

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Get a grip man.

Fanatics will always use emblems and symbols to further their cause.

Why don't you unclench yourself learn to live like a normal human being, rather than trying to promote antagonism and hatred and learn the lesson 'live and let live'

The irony of that statement.....I just don't know where to begin.

southsiderosie

demonspawn wrote: »

What, is that like Chinatown and Little Italy in New York City? Last time I checked nobody had a problem with those communities. Why is it that just Muslims are singled out and criticized for wanting to live in Muslim neighborhoods? Where is the outrage against Jews or any other population that willingly segregate themselves?

Because those communities isolate themselves without making demands on the state, without expressing the ideal that everyone else behave like them, and without its community leaders advocating for the destruction of the existing society. And sadly, history is riddled with examples of Jews being targeted for willingly segregating themselves.

demonspawn wrote: »

Is that anything like the public harassment some women get in western countries for choosing to wear trousers and shirts every day instead of skirts? Or the harassment some men get for choosing to wear women's clothes? Don't tell me that doesn't happen, because some people are harassed, beaten, and sometimes killed simply because of what they choose to wear in western countries. We have very clear cultural expectations in the west, so why are Muslims held to a different standard?

I'm not interested in stories about social oppression in Muslim countries, we are no different in the West. We like to think we are, but we're not.

Are you serious? I have never been cursed or spat at for wearing pants. I didn't even wear skirts regularly until I was in my late 20s. I can't think of one instance of this happening to any woman I know. Please provide some examples of this being a widespread phenomenon in Western countries.

If you think that life is no different for women in Western countries than for women in Muslim countries run under religious authorities, then let me ask you this: is your mother allowed to drive, sign a contract, or leave the country whenever she wants to?

demonspawn wrote: »

So if it's more of a political statement then why is it banned in a secular country?

Because it is a direct threat to the politics of secularism.

FlutterinBantam

demonspawn wrote: »

The irony of that statement.....I just don't know where to begin.

Begin at the start buddy....... that's where people usually begin.

Sand

Out of curiousity Demon, do you think that parents must send their children to school? Do you think its valid for Gardai to be summoned in a situation where parents do not send their children to school and make no acceptable provision for their childrens education?

amcalester

I'm open to correction but wearing the heardscarf is a personal choice. It is not a religious requirement to wear it just a choice and as has been pointed out young women in countries like Egypt are more likely to wear the scarf now than they were 20, 30 or 40 years ago.

Basicly if it's a personal choice to wear it then banning it isnt a violation of their human rights.

demonspawn

Sand wrote: »

Out of curiousity Demon, do you think that parents must send their children to school? Do you think its valid for Gardai to be summoned in a situation where parents do not send their children to school and make no acceptable provision for their childrens education?

No, I don't think parents should be forced to send their children to school. Home schooled children are just as well educated than public schooled children, if not more so. 1 parent teaching 2-3 of their own children at home can be much more effective than 1 teacher trying to teach 30 children in a classroom. Responsible parents tend to take more interest in their childrens education that some unknown teacher in a public school. As such, they should have the right to educate their children at home.

One only need look to the U.S. where children are constantly left behind or passed on because teachers don't have the time to make sure each child understands what it being taught. There are children reaching high-school that have a very basic grasp of maths and English. Some rare cases of children in high-school being completely illiterate.

If the child is not being taught at home then yes, the state should intervene. This discussion is about the state preventing certain people from attending third level education, so I fail to see the relevance of your question.

Sand

@Demonspawn

No, I don't think parents should be forced to send their children to school. Home schooled children are just as well educated than public schooled children,

Not what I asked you - "and make no acceptable provision for their childrens education"

demonspawn

Some south Pacific cultures require men to tattoo their faces. Should these people be banned from attending third level education? Because it's fairly obvious they can't just remove their tattoos before entering the university. Where do we draw the line between fair legislation and absurdity?

demonspawn

Sand wrote: »

@Demonspawn


Not what I asked you - "and make no acceptable provision for their childrens education"

Yes, I added that at the end.

Sand

So you did, apologies - most of the rest was surplus.

So youre in favour of state intervention on subjective grounds (The state after all decides what "acceptable provision" means in terms of education) in cases where it aligns with your own views but not with others where it offends your political correctness?

What if "acceptable provision" demanded that children be taught science whereas the parents saw it as godless secularism and preferred literal biblical interpretation? Would you side with the parents individual rights to teach their children whatever they believe? With their freedom of religious expression? Or would you demand that certain base standards (decided upon by yourself of course) be applied, regardless of individual rights to disagree?

demonspawn

Sand wrote: »

So you did, apologies - most of the rest was surplus.

So youre in favour of state intervention on subjective grounds (The state after all decides what "acceptable provision" means in terms of education) in cases where it aligns with your own views but not with others where it offends your political correctness?

What if "acceptable provision" demanded that children be taught science whereas the parents saw it as godless secularism and preferred literal biblical interpretation? Would you side with the parents individual rights to teach their children whatever they believe? With their freedom of religious expression? Or would you demand that certain base standards (decided upon by yourself of course) be applied, regardless of individual rights to disagree?

You mean something like comprehensive sexual education, including the use of legal contraception, in Catholic-run Irish public schools? Is that kinda like what you're talking about? Or the right for Irish doctors to refuse patients based solely on their religious beliefs?

Edit: Seems to me a lot of people in this country like to get on the high horse, completely forgetting the country in which they live themselves.

demonspawn

So I guess nobody's gonna touch the absolute hypocrisy shown in some responses in this thread? Why am I not surprised? :rolleyes:

It's all good and well to force Catholicism on the children of this country, but God forbid those swarthy Muslims should have the freedom to express their faith (or political views, depending on who you talk to I guess).

demonspawn

amcalester wrote: »

I'm open to correction but wearing the heardscarf is a personal choice. It is not a religious requirement to wear it just a choice and as has been pointed out young women in countries like Egypt are more likely to wear the scarf now than they were 20, 30 or 40 years ago.

Basicly if it's a personal choice to wear it then banning it isnt a violation of their human rights.

Wait, either I'm confused or you are. If it's a personal choice, and not forced upon them by their religious beliefs, then how is the ban anything but a clear violation of human rights?

If I choose to wear yellow shirts for the rest of my life and my government decides they just don't like yellow shirts and bans them, how is that not a total injustice and abuse of power?

Manic Moran

Are you implying that the fact that yellow shirts are banned in tennis is an abuse of power?

NTM

Sand

@Demonspawn

Edit: Seems to me a lot of people in this country like to get on the high horse, completely forgetting the country in which they live themselves.

Fairly ironic given your OP.

Anyhow, point made. Youre unable to reconcile your agreement with the state taking a policy on the validity of religious and individual beliefs with your horror at the idea of the state making taking a policy on personal beliefs. Away on your high horse now.

demonspawn

Sand wrote: »

@Demonspawn


Fairly ironic given your OP.

Anyhow, point made. Youre unable to reconcile your agreement with the state taking a policy on the validity of religious and individual beliefs with your horror at the idea of the state making taking a policy on personal beliefs. Away on your high horse now.

Hi-ho, Silver! Away!

demonspawn

Manic Moran wrote: »

Are you implying that the fact that yellow shirts are banned in tennis is an abuse of power?

NTM

No. I don't play tennis much but I'd assume that yellow shirts are banned as they would make the ball difficult to see in certain situations. Tennis balls are also usually yellow by the way.

Is that all ya got?

Manic Moran

That's exactly why they're banned. (and why wearing white is banned in table tennis).

But you have just acknowledged that there may be a rational behind a regulation which would trump a person's personal preferences. This is the crux of the argument that ECHR debated. The question was not whether there was an interference, but whether there was a justified interference. Few rights anywhere are completely unqualified and without limitations.

ECHR wrote:

The Court notes that, in the decisions of Karaduman v. Turkey (no. 16278/90, Commission decision of 3 May 1993, DR 74, p. 93) and Dahlab v. Switzerland (no. 42393/98, ECHR 2001-V), the Convention institutions found that in a democratic society the State was entitled to place restrictions on the wearing of the Islamic headscarf if it was incompatible with the pursued aim of protecting the rights and freedoms of others, public order and public safety.

NTM