Nikodemos
Member
That's a general problem with religiously-prescribed female 'modesty' clothing.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Turkey allows female police officers to wear headscarf
- Thread starter Golden_Pigeon
- Start date
- Status
Very different situations, though. In Turkey, the hijab isn't the symbol of a repressed minority but a remnant of more conservative and religious past.
I'm generally not a fan of banning clothing, but this ban isn't being lifted for progressive reasons.
George Washington
Member
Secular turkey is long gone; Ataturk had implemented these restrictions to control religion and keep it out of public service / academia.
ClosingADoor
Member
Like a poster above said, police officers represent the state and the law, which should be neutral. That is not stepping on anyone's liberties or freedom.
Outside of the job do whatever you want. But a police uniform should not include any religious symbols or other religious influences.
You can dismiss a lot of criticism with statements like that. Its not about being scary, but the principle of separation between church and state.
people can do their jobs without letting their religion getting in the way. It's called being a professional and following their code of conduct. Muslims have been doing that for centuries.
What is your stance on Sikh US military personnel wearing turbans?
Gordon Shumway
Banned
Plenty of young kids on GAF..you are not alone.
ClosingADoor
Member
Same thing. I'm not against this because it is Muslim, but because it is religion where I think it shouldn't be.
Not saying these officers won't be professional, nothing against them personally. I just don't think religion has a place in this job and some others.
Silent Chief
Member
Not really. These things are not really religious. They are cultural. Western countries tries to accommodate muslims from all parts of the world within their own legal framework--female circumcision for example is usually a crime. Many muslim countries are not concerned with the practices of muslims from other countries as much as maintaining their own cultural traditions.
It's essentially a tug-of-war between religious groups and non-religious individuals whose rights are supposed to be protected by the constitution.
What's weird is the forced shift to more religious values, in a country in which the population is not aging, in response to a coup blamed on a 75 year old religious figure. That smells foul.
Golden_Pigeon
Banned
FGM are clearly cultural since it's mainly absent from the mainland of Islam like Saudi Arabia or Iraq but is common practice among christian and muslim in Africa.
The hijab is not cultural though, it's a religious obligation in the 4 sunni school of fiqh. You have different type of hijab, or more correctly said khimar, but the zone covered by the hijab is always the same.
Golden_Pigeon
Banned
Wow. Baybars getting banned while open islamophobe who associate hijab to a totalitarian ideology and to bomb carrying have a free pass.
Spaced Harrier
Member
Your country was founded by an islamphobe then.
But it's always nice to throw out that word to stiffle criticism of political Islam and the damage it does.
Golden_Pigeon
Banned
I'm not Turkish and Turkey true funder is Osman Gazi.
Hijab have nothing to do with political islam, it's part of the orthopraxy of the last 1400 years.
PS: Ok, sorry Cyan, i will.
WorriedCitizen
Member
Religious symbols have no place in secular institutions imo. Don't care if Scotland or Canada considers it progressive. People had to fight long enough to remove crosses from public school classrooms and now this nonsense is having a comeback in a different shape.
Spaced Harrier
Member
Well in that case Brian Burú is the founder of Ireland.
Golden_Pigeon
Banned
France funder is often considered to be Charlemagne.
Ataturk is only the founder of one particular era of Turkey, the republican one, not the country as a nation.
There's a very real difference between the presence of religious symbols in an educational institution and choices of clothing which people wear in order to perform their jobs without breaching their faith. Unless the existence of a female police officer in a hijab (or a Sikh in a turban) is somehow oppressive of people in its own right?
In a country that is turning fast into an Islamist, dictatorship shithole, yeah, someone could easily feel oppressed if followed by police wearing religious clothes.
Then again someone should just not go there, given the current situation.
If it was up to me I wouldn't want policemen or policewomen wearing Christian crosses or religious clothes either. They can wear them after their shift is over if they really want to. There's a reason why police members have a uniform and don't just wear whatever clothes they feel like. The job is about representing the government, not about any specific individual or their beliefs.
Police work (or any type of government work) is not the time to think about religion.
His Majesty
Banned
Impartiality and neutrality are key concepts in public service. Removing these restrictions on clothing for government officials opens up the door for all kinds of trouble.
How would you feel being served by an officer who visibly identifies as a member of the Westboro Baptist Church? Or who wears 'Trump 2016' clothing? Because that's the situation you are adovcating for.
Civil servants represent the state, not themselves and their own beliefs.
Uniforms tend to be worn for psychological reasons, to make the wearer less likely to stand out and thus not question orders. It doesn't have to be a case of "police officers can wear whatever they like" versus "they must have a completely strict uniform".
...I think this is where "agree to disagree" comes in. I really, really don't see how wearing a hijab or a cross or a turban is a fundamental conflict with being a police officer. Sorry. If it's indicative of an ideological conflict with their work, then fine, treat them the same you would any other police officer who was abusing their power or refusing to follow orders. If it's indicative of the state enforcing laws based on religion (i.e. a systematic breach of church and state), again, sure. But the actual act of a person wearing one of them? I really do struggle to make myself believe that needs to be stamped out.
I don't think I can answer this any better than by quoting this:
Which, to me at least, clearly illustrates the problem of allowing this sort of visible individual expression by police officers.
So would Islamic religious symbols. Both in theory (all the bad stuff in the Koran) and in practice (e.g. widespread discrimination of women within most Muslim-majority countries and a lot of other Muslim communities around the world).
But perhaps a religious police will be appropriate in Turkey soon enough...
ClosingADoor
Member
Who decides that and where is the line drawn? In some countries anyone can make up a church. Should they be allowed their own dress codes as well then?
Its much better to have a standard uniform for jobs like this and don't have religious influence on them.
i think it's a bit much to say that allowing relgious persons to wear religious headgear on the job is some how dramatically undermining the role of the police honestly
in a lot of countries it's been recognised that a police force that represents the communities that they police is more effective.
in a lot of countries it's been recognised that a police force that represents the communities that they police is more effective.
WorriedCitizen
Member
The police represents the state's monopoly on legitimate use of force, upholding the constitution and laws, which secularism is a central part of. This comes with a huge responsibility (literally life and dead, justice, equal rights for all etc.). A police officer wearing religious garb or having a big cross tattooed on his forehead undermines the credibility of this because in his job he/she doesn't represent him/herself but the state. Even if benign it still begs the question how serious this person is about the job and what it stands for. And where do you draw the line once religious symbols make their way into secular institutions? It's a slippery slope and the best option is to not let it seep in in the first place.
Progressive would be to actualy remove old religious remnants from secular institutions that still have remained. For instance in my country the state is collecting taxes for the church which is utter bull.
Team Alucard
Banned
Give or take a couple years before it becomes mandatory.
ClosingADoor
Member
You don't need to wear religious clothes or symbols to represent a community. That has more to do with recruitment and diversification programs.
No. Nobody is stopping you from doing the job because of your religion. If you can't wear a uniform because you choose to live according to certain religious rules, that is your choice and had little to do with freedom of religion.
If your religion says "do not kill" and you live by that, then that is your choice but you can't become a police officer or soldier for example.
Freedom of religion gives you freedom from persecution and discrimination. It does not mean all occupations have to take in mind your personal believes.
I'm going to stop here, because I think we have a fundamental ideological difference. You think expressing Islam, or Sikhism, or Christianity, is equivalent to the Westboro Baptist Church or a Trump badge. I don't. We're not going to be able to get past that.
...The police?
And that's on them. (see: Kim Davis) If you don't want to do the job, that's cool, we'll just find someone who will.
There's a big difference between refusing to perform the basic function of your job and wanting to wear a headscarf while doing it. I think that's pretty clear.
IMO that's religious freedom taken too far. You're saying that religious freedom should trump any kind of law that oversees how government employees can behave?
ClosingADoor
Member
A basic function of a police officer would be to wear the uniform. If you can't do that because of your religion, that is on you, not the job.
I don't its a good idea having the police decide what is or is not a valid religion or believe to base their rules on.
I think this is a clearly overbroad and unreasonable definition of basic functions of the job, which is probably why the aforementioned progressive countries don't agree with it.
I see nothing that is unreasonable accommodation here. It should be pretty simple to alter a uniform so that you still look like a police officer. Its a shame so many of you seem to dislike that.
In order to encompass so many different people from around the world things like this should be applauded. Save your dislike for it for if it ever becomes mandatory.
In order to encompass so many different people from around the world things like this should be applauded. Save your dislike for it for if it ever becomes mandatory.
His Majesty
Banned
A state that decides which religions can be expressed and which ones can't by their civil servants, isn't a secular state.
But to continue on your example, you will be facing the same problem. A police officer that visibly identifies as a jew will have serious problems operating in a muslim neighbourhood. This could provoke anger amongst the citizens and/or they could feel that they are not being treated fairly because the police officer is biased.
Non-restrictive clothing for civil servants creates all kinds of problems that can easily be avoided by strict adherence to a uniform without any display of religion.
So as a question regarding this example would you extend this to race or sex in job positions.
Trying to please people who dislike you for existing should not be done. We need to learn to coexist with each other and reasonable accommodation is a part of that.
ClosingADoor
Member
Race and gender is not a choice. Religion and wanting to follow certain religious rules is very much a choice. You can't compare the two.
Its the most basic thing. I think police officers should wear a neutral uniform and if you can't do that because of personal believes, that is on you and not the job. There is no need to make exceptions for people who themselves decide they don't want to wear something. Apparently some countries see that differently, but I don't.
It is perfectly reasonable here because the one claiming you have a bias is because you are different the cause of that difference is not important.
ClosingADoor
Member
Race can play a role to some extend, for example trying to recruit more black police officers to work in mostly black neighborhoods.
But I find it difficult to compare race and religion here, since they are very different things. You can set aside your religion when doing the job, you can't set aside your gender or race.
Familienoberhauptvogel
Banned
Why are people just glossing over this part?
How can anyone say this with a straight face.
I understand that view. However in order to live peacefully with those who are different then you some give and take should be expected. That is where reasonable accommodation is so great by giving a little bit on the uniform here you open up the job to more happy officers.
Golden_Pigeon
Banned
It's like everybody is forgetting we're talking about Turkey, so it doesn't matter that people know that this police officer is muslim, since everybody (99%) is muslim in Turkey. People seems to forget that it's a country where religion is written on the ID card.
For western countries, the practical issue is to allow a maximum of different people from different communities to participate in the public life, so you have to take this into account. If a practicing muslim women or a practicing sikh can be a public servant, how that speak about their social integration in western nations? And, at reverse, how would you feel if you have to choose between your religion and your nationality, and how much of these ill feeling can break the social fabrics ? Just think out of the box and imagine that hijab would be the norm and not wearing it would be a symbol of your non-muslimness and thus would be perceived as some form of communautarism or perversity, so it would be "unfit" to allow you working in the public space or te be a public servant. How much you'll feel accepted as a member of this particular national community ? And please avoid the "i would just left the shithole", it's very complicated to left what you consider YOUR country, especially if you are forced too but such circumstances.
The idea that religion is just a choice and it's not fondamental like race and gender (and gender is a choice nowadays, so we could agree aswell against transexual integration because they "choose" the other sex...?) is really naive. Religion is for a lot of people the core of their identity. So if you are banning a particular sign associated to a particular religion, you are banning those people for what they FEEL they are. It's have nothing to do with a political party or even a specific church. Religions are broads and the people practicing define the religion as much (or more) as they define their religions. You have 7 billions way to be a muslim, a christian or a jew.
Worst if you say that it's because the Quran is "violent and misogynic", you are saying that being a visible muslim is to condone violence and sexism. It's basically essentialization. If you think that way, just go meet a muslim and speak to him and become his friend, it's way much difficult to make generalization and essentialize a group of people (20 percent of the human population...) when you actually know them.
For western countries, the practical issue is to allow a maximum of different people from different communities to participate in the public life, so you have to take this into account. If a practicing muslim women or a practicing sikh can be a public servant, how that speak about their social integration in western nations? And, at reverse, how would you feel if you have to choose between your religion and your nationality, and how much of these ill feeling can break the social fabrics ? Just think out of the box and imagine that hijab would be the norm and not wearing it would be a symbol of your non-muslimness and thus would be perceived as some form of communautarism or perversity, so it would be "unfit" to allow you working in the public space or te be a public servant. How much you'll feel accepted as a member of this particular national community ? And please avoid the "i would just left the shithole", it's very complicated to left what you consider YOUR country, especially if you are forced too but such circumstances.
The idea that religion is just a choice and it's not fondamental like race and gender (and gender is a choice nowadays, so we could agree aswell against transexual integration because they "choose" the other sex...?) is really naive. Religion is for a lot of people the core of their identity. So if you are banning a particular sign associated to a particular religion, you are banning those people for what they FEEL they are. It's have nothing to do with a political party or even a specific church. Religions are broads and the people practicing define the religion as much (or more) as they define their religions. You have 7 billions way to be a muslim, a christian or a jew.
Worst if you say that it's because the Quran is "violent and misogynic", you are saying that being a visible muslim is to condone violence and sexism. It's basically essentialization. If you think that way, just go meet a muslim and speak to him and become his friend, it's way much difficult to make generalization and essentialize a group of people (20 percent of the human population...) when you actually know them.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked