Your IP: 38.107.179.232 United States Near: United States

Lookup IP Information

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next

Below is the list of all allocated IP address in 2.23.0.0 - 2.23.255.255 network range, sorted by latency.

Leyla Şahin v. Turkey was a 2005 European Court of Human Rights case brought against Turkey by Leyla Şahin challenging a Turkish law which bans wearing the Islamic headscarf at universities and other educational and state institutions. The verdict upheld the Turkish law with 16 votes to 1. Talvikki Hoopes argues that the ECHR's decision to uphold the law shows how freedom of religion has been limited by the ECHR's interpretation of Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights.[1] In the case the ECHR "endorsed the national authorities’ view of the headscarf as antagonistic to both secularism and gender equality".[2] Contents 1 Facts of the case 2 Background and arguments 3 Autonomy and Turkey 4 Grounds of ECHR to provide broad powers to Turkey 5 Notes 6 References 7 External links // Facts of the case Şahin lived in Vienna since 1999, when she left Istanbul to pursue her medical studies at the Faculty of Medicine at Vienna University. She comes from a traditional family of practicing Muslims and considers it her religious duty to wear the Islamic headscarf. At the material time she was a fifth-year student at the faculty of medicine of the University of Istanbul. On 23 February 1998 the Vice-Chancellor of the University issued a circular directing that students with beards and students wearing the Islamic headscarf would be refused admission to lectures, courses and tutorials. In March 1998 the applicant was denied access to a written examination on one of the subjects she was studying because was wearing the Islamic headscarf. Subsequently the university authorities refused on the same grounds to enroll her on a course, or to admit her to various lectures and a written examination. The faculty also issued her with a warning for contravening the university’s rules on dress and suspended her from the university for a term for taking part in an unauthorised assembly that had gathered to protest against them. All the disciplinary penalties imposed on the applicant were revoked under an amnesty law.[3] Applicant claimed a violation of Article 14 , taken together with Article 9 , stating that the prohibition on wearing the headscarf forced students to choose between education and religion and discriminated between believers and non-believers. She also relied on Articles 8 of European Convention on Human Rights and Article 10 . As it is stated in the Minos Kokkinakis case [4]: "freedom to manifest one's religion or belief recognizes that in democratic societies, in which several religions coexist within one and the same population, it may be necessary to place restrictions on this freedom in order to reconcile the interests of the various groups and ensure that everyone's beliefs are respected.’’[5] The problem rises at this point: Whether it is necessary to restrict the right to wear a headscarf at the university to protect the others rights. [6] Background and arguments Conflicts between the secularism, state’s autonomy and freedom of religion are never-ending problems in Turkey since 1924.In the article of Between Laicist State Ideology and Modern Public Religion: The Head Cover Controversy in Contemporary Turkey , the author looks at the history of the headscarf tradition in Turkey through the revolution period: In Present day Turkey, Islamic veiling refers to the wearing of a head cover together with long, loose fitting gowns. The turban controversy has primarily been an issue for institutions of higher education. The first instance of the veiling discord emerged in 1968 at the University of Ankara. Nevertheless, the matter did not become the center of public debate until after the military coup of 1980. In 1982 a directive issued by the Council of Higher Education introduced the ban by prohibiting students from attending academic classes if they wore the veil. This event marked the collapse of a tacit agreement and women’s dress at institutions of higher education became the subject of formal regulation. A decade-long process of making and reversing decisions ensued. The matter came into the subject again this time with the case of Leyla Şahin who is a Turkish national and was born in 1973. [7] Autonomy and Turkey Institutional autonomy first came to subject with the military coup in 1980. The law which was enacted in November 1981 expressly imposed ideological controls on Turkish higher education, stating that “[t]he aims of higher education” include “educat[ing] students so that they … will be loyal to Atatürkist nationalism and to Atatürk’s reforms and principles.” It also established the HEC, conferring on it broad powers to intervene in campus life and granting the HEC effective immunity from court challenge. This law was reinforced by the junta in provisions of the 1982 constitution, still in effect in Turkey today. Turkish secular system never recognized the autonomy of the religion but instead the strict control of the religion was tried to be achieved by the state.[8] The strict separation of the state and the religion is a fundamental value of Turkish system. ECHR puts Turkey in a special place by the broad ban of Islamic headscarves in the public realm stating that the restrictions are necessary in a democratic society. Grounds of ECHR to provide broad powers to Turkey Margin of appreciation was implicitly recognized by the court regarding the political principles that determine the relationships between state and the religion. Article 9 was aimed at providing an adequate guarantee of the right to freedom of religion and belief. Martinez and Valls [9] state that the purpose of Article 9 was neither to establish certain uniform criteria for church- state relations in the Council of member states nor to impose a compulsory secularism. Court applies the convention regarding the secularism-oriented tolerance wherein the state decides to be positively secular and draws a line of separation between state and religion. This choice is normally justified either by historical reasons such as in France, or by arguing that it is necessary to preserve the autonomy of the state and the churches such as in United States or by claiming it is indispensable to keep the state free from the religious intolerance of a significant pressure of the population such as in Turkey. Notes ^ Hoopes, 719 ^ Saktanber, 520-521 ^ Human Rights Watch. 2004. Memorandum to the Turkish Government on Human Rights Watch’s Concerns with Regard to Academic Freedom in Higher Education, and Access to Higher Education for Women who Wear the Headscarf. [Online] june 29, 2004. [Cited: 07 11, 2009.] http://www.hrw.org/legacy/backgrounder/eca/turkey/2004/ ^ Kokkinakis v. Greece , (14307/88) [1993] ECHR 20 (25 May 1993) ^ (Ibid) Para 33 ^ Evans, Malcolm D. Does God Believe In Human Rights? A Reflection. [ed.] Alan Stephens, Raphael Walden Nazila Ghanea. Does God Believe in Human Rights? Leiden : Martinus, 2007, Vol. 5, Introduction. ^ Denli, Özlem. 2004. The Head-Cover Controversy In Contemporary Turkey. [ed.] W. Cole Durham, Jr., Bahia G. Tahzib-Lie, editors Tore Lindholm and Lena Larsen, associate editors Elizabeth A. Sewell. Facilitating Freedom of Religion or Belief: A Deskbook. Leiden : Brill, Martinus Nijhoff, 2004, 20, pp. 498-511. Published by the Oslo Coalition on Freedom of Religion or Belief in Celebration of the 20th Anniversary of the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief. ^ Yavuz, Hakan Islamic Political Identity in Turkey, Strategic Insights, Volume III, Issue 1 (January 2004). http://books.google.com/books?id=hqqxxm47ZVAC&dq=state+autonomy%2Bturkey&hl=tr&source=gbs_navlinks_s Accessed: 14. 07.2009 ^ Javier Martinez-Torron, Rafael Navarro Valls. The Protection of Religious Freedom In The System Of The Council Of Europe. 10. References Hoopes, Talvikki (2006). "The Leyla Şahin v. Turkey Case Before the European Court of Human Rights". Chinese Journal of International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press) 5 (3): 719–722. doi:10.1093/chinesejil/jml037.  Saktanber, Ayşe; Gül Çorbacioğlu (2008). "Veiling and Headscarf-Skepticism in Turkey". Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society (Oxford University Press) 15 (4): 514–538. doi:10.1093/sp/jxn018.  External links Judgment of the Fourth Section of ECHR, 2004 Full text of the European Convention on Human Rights Grand Chamber judgment, 2005