Turkish gov’t allows headscarf for fifth graders, causing uproar

The Turkish government has announced the lift of a ban on the headscarf in schools, allowing girls from the fifth grade and up to cover their hair in the public schools, drawing criticism from opposition parties.

“The change applies to middle and high schools, not to primary schools,” Education Minister Nabi Avcı told reporters Sept. 23 in comments broadcast by private news channel CNNTürk. “Beginning with the fifth grade, everyone can practice this,” he added, making it clear girls older than 10-years-old will be allowed to cover their heads in the schools.  

The government had already lifted a ban on the headscarf for university students and female civil servants in 2013, after years of pressure from its supporters.

“I know that particularly some of our female students have been yearning for it [the lift on the ban],” said Deputy Prime Minister Bülent Arınç on Sept. 22 when he announced the lift on the ban following a Cabinet meeting amid heated debates on compulsory religious education. 

The step comes after the de facto removal of the headscarf ban in universities, in the aftermath of a long legal battle in 2008.

The Cabinet amended the regulation on students’ apparel, removing the legal provisions that stated students should “be bareheaded” during classes.

“When I gathered with students during the start of the academic year, they were waiting for this good news with excitement,” said Arınç, recalling his visit to Bursa last week.

However, the new measure has once more created controversy and debates, as opposition party deputies have shown fierce reactions to the move.

The main opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP) parliamentary spokesperson, Engin Altay, accused the government of bringing the headscarf issue onto the agenda whenever it faces problems. 

“The headscarf is not an aspirin the government can take anytime it faces problems. I call on the government to cover their face in shame instead of covering girls’ heads,” said Altay at a press conference in Parliament, referring to the problems at Turkey’s border with Syria. 

In a press conference, Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) Ankara deputy Özcan Yeniçeri also accused the government of using the headscarf as a means to increase votes. 

“The headscarf should not be the fuel for the Justice and Development Party’s [AKP] votes. They should stop using religious symbols as a political means,” he said. 

Meanwhile, unions warned the decision means a political intervention on education.

“Our society is being dragged into the Middle Ages by exploiting faith. Now, it’s the kids’ turn to [become the instrument] of politics using religion. This decision will cause trauma in this country because it uses secular education” said Kamuran Karacan, head of the teachers’ union Eğitim-Sen.

For his part, Veli Demir, head of the union Eğitim-İş, said they will legally challenge the amendments. He also claimed the government intended to “even insert religious symbols into kindergartens.” “The change in the regulation is contrary to the Constitution. Freedom only means headscarves for them. They are not seeking secular and scientific principles in educational institutions,” Demir said.

However, not all of the unions were against the reform. 

Turkish Public Workers’ Labor Union (Kamu-Sen) President İsmail Koncuk argued the ban on headscarves should be lifted in order to avoid religion from becoming a political tool. “With the change of the regulation, secondary education institutions are no longer a space for the exploitation of religion,” Koncuk said. 

Until now, only female students enrolled in vocational Islamic schools (imam-hatip) could wear headscarves during classes.

September/23/2014

Why Scotland said no to independence

Why did Scotland reject what First Minister Alex Salmond dubbed a “once in a lifetime opportunity” for independence from the UK on Thursday? FRANCE 24 takes a closer look.

The win for the ‘no’ camp was a decisive blow to Scotland's independence movement and Salmond in particular who, on Friday, announced he would be stepping down as both First Minister and leader of the SNP.

The debate on the country's continued membership of the UK is now seemingly settled for at least a generation.

Opinion polls in the run up to the vote had but the “no” camp just marginally ahead, with one, a YouGov poll for the Sunday Times, even claiming a slight lead for the "yes" campaign. In the end, “no” won by 55 percent to 45 percent, a ten point gap that, while still close, was certainly more decisive than many of the polls had predicted.

So, what happened in the final days and hours of campaigning to swing the vote in favour of staying in the union?

According to polling expert John Curtice, professor of politics at the University of Strathclyde, the first thing to note is that, despite the attention grabbed by that Sunday Times, which put the yes vote ahead on 51 percent 10 days before the referendum, the no campaign was always the firm favourite.

“There was never at any point in the campaign a period in which an average of the polls put the “yes” vote ahead,” he told FRANCE 24.

Furthermore, a swing towards “no” when people headed to the polling stations was always to be expected, he argues.

“It’s true more often than not that in votes over constitutional change like this that polls overestimate the support for that change. Change is usually seen as the riskier option and when it comes to actually voting people row back from risk.”

Economics of "yes" failed to convince

If that explains the discrepancy between the polls and the final vote, it still leaves the question as to why Scottish people were unconvinced by the independence argument in the first place.

Though the “yes” campaign sought to stir up people’s passion for an independent homeland, ultimately many people voted over very pragmatic issues, particularly the economy, says Professor Curtice.

The figures seem to back this up. A YouGov poll on the day of the referendum found that only 35 percent thought Scotland would be economically better off under independence while 47 percent thought it would be worse off. Other polls gave similar results throughout the campaign.

Both sides made claim and counter claim as to what would happen to Scotland’s economy under independence. But Thursday’s vote suggests the “no” camp won this battle.

“People simply weren’t convinced by the economic case for independence,” says Professor Curtice.

This is not to say sentimental reasons did not also play a significant role in the decision to spurn independence. In particular, the way people in Scotland see their own identify seems to have been a key factor.

Despite the drive for independence, surveys show that a significant proportion of Scots identify, in part or in full, as being British, and such people were always more likely to vote “no” to independence.

“The dual sense of identity many Scots have as both Scottish and British was a big factor,” says Professor Curtice. “People didn’t ask themselves ‘do I want independence?’, they asked themselves ‘do I want to leave the UK?’ and there is still a very significant section of the population that very much indentifies itself as British.”

Ultimately, however, too many people were simply unwilling to take a chance on the unknown, believes Professor Curtice, preferring the safe option that staying in the union represented.

“Polls showed that people were more likely to see independence as a risk,” he says, “and at the end of the day there just wasn’t enough appetite for that risk.”

Did "yes" camp get it wrong?

Indeed, the “no” campaign often sought to play up the dangers that leaving the UK would bring, warning of the threats to jobs, pensions and the economy.

This led to accusations of seeking to play on people’s fears. The “yes” camp, in contrast, sought to portray itself as the voice of hope.

Does the defeat for the independence movement suggest the “yes” campaign got it wrong, therefore?

Not according to Dr Alan Convery, an expert on Scottish politics from the University of Edinburgh.

He believes Scots voted “no” despite the “yes” campaign, not because of it.

“It was perceived as being a very good, well run campaign that gained lots of grass roots support and captured people’s passion in a way the ‘no’ campaign failed to do,” he says.

“Historically, support for independence in Scotland has always been around the 33 percent mark,” he continued. “The ‘yes’ campaign managed to take that up to almost half the country, that’s still a considerable achievement.”

Date created : 2014-09-19

Russia still expects France to deliver Mistral warships: France24

Russia’s Industry Minister Denis Manturov said on Thursday that Moscow still expects France to provide it with the two Mistral warships, despite a decision by Paris to hold off on the delivery because of the crisis in Ukraine.

“Russia assumes that the contract will be fulfilled according to the agreements,” Manturov was quoted as saying by the Interfax news agency.

Manturov’s comments appear to dismiss French President François Hollande’s decision to suspend the delivery of “Vladivostok," the first of the two warships, amid mounting tensions with Russia over the situation in Ukraine.

Russian officials also accused France of bowing to the United States on the subject of the sale.

Hollande had for months resisted pressure from Washington and other allies to scrap the 1.2 billion euro ($1.58 billion) contract to deliver two Mistral helicopter carriers.

But on the eve of a NATO summit, the French president changed tack, releasing a strong statement on Wednesday saying that Russia’s recent actions in the country harmed “the foundations of security in Europe”.