Police headscarf and impartiality
In all this turmoil, our government has not forgotten to solve one of our country’s most important problems by changing a regulation. As a matter of fact, I am in New York for a while and looking from here it seems funny that this “issue” has been solved. Yet again, we should be happy that, as a result, our female police officers will from now on have the opportunity to carry out their duties by hiding their hair and neck with a cover. This is a matter of belief and beliefs are not matters to be discussed.
What is important is that freedoms should not be valid for only certain beliefs or for those who hold a certain viewpoint, but for everybody.
I read in the papers that a naïve discussion has started in our country as a result: “Would headscarf-wearing policewomen be impartial?”
Let me say it at the very beginning that police are not impartial. Police are on the side of the “established order.” They stand there and protect it. In countries like ours where democracy is half, one duty of the police is to spread fear to those the government dislikes. In such countries, governments use force over opposition through the police; they legitimize their violence.
However, if the “impartiality” issue in question is about the administration’s opinion of policewomen, then the situation changes.
Right now, Islamists are in power and their criteria for human resources in public administration is “whether they worship god or not.” We see its results.
Now, there could be one result of policewomen wearing the headscarf: If headscarf-wearing policewomen are promoted both because they are worshiping god and because they do not show their hair and neck to anybody else, then soon we will see that all policewomen will be covering their hair.
The freedom to wear a headscarf would turn into a compulsory headscarf.
If we take into consideration there are those who want to fill places in the Interior Ministry vacated by the Fethullahists, this would be a very strong trend.
While the headscarf-wearing policewomen are promoted and work in relatively more comfortable positions, other policewomen will be suffering and may be victims of mobbing.
In other words, whatever happened to policemen in the force who were not associated with any cult or who did not attend Friday prayers, who drank from time to time; the same may happen to the non-headscarf-wearing policewomen.
We cannot be happy that gender equality is finally provided, of course.
Is there anybody who has seen a sign that the Islamists in power will change their ways and from now on only take into account merit?
Any Saudi court?
In today’s world, fixating on what women wear, how they should be dressed and having the boldness to dictate what they should be wearing is, as a matter of fact, nothing but primitiveness.
In the entire Islamic world and in a portion of the Western world, there is such a situation, unfortunately.
But, look, France has ended this primitiveness and opened the way for women to swim and go to the beach in any wear they wish to.
Do you think one day in Iran or in Saudi Arabia a court would decide that it is not correct to dictate to women what they should wear on the streets?
In the poorly-written regulation on the police dress code, the new article’s first sentence refers to a “non-patterned, unprinted headwear, the same color of the uniform.”
In other words, the headscarf is considered as a given data. After that what should not be worn is listed.
Apparently because the person or people who drafted this text think with their own ideological views that women should already wear a headscarf, they define it as a given data and then list what should not be worn.
Or maybe their language skills are limited. I would not be able to know that either.
However, looking at other word choices and adding the assumption of the headscarf as a given data, I think this is not such an innocent situation stemming from poor language skills.
The administration in Turkey is following a different path than, let’s say, Iran, trying to reach the “same destination.” This is what I see.