Kıvırmayalım Sayın Öymen/CHECKPOINT JERUSALEM BLOG: Turkish lawmaker raises questions about Muslim head scarves

Orijinali için tıklayınız
Çeviri en altta

By DION NISSENBAUM, McClatchy NewspapersANKARA, Turkey - Are Muslim head scarves fascist symbols?
The question came up during a recent interview I did with Onur Oymen, a veteran Turkish lawmaker who served as the nation's ambassador to NATO.
Oymen, a leader in Turkey's Republican People's Party, suggested just that during our talk about the rising influence of the nation's ruling Justice and Development Party.
In the course of our talk, Oymen suggested that Muslim head scarves in Turkey were akin to Nazi Brownshirts in Germany or fascist Blackshirts in World War II Italy.
The comparison struck me as stark, so I asked Oymen to explain what he meant.
"Anything, not only head scarf, but anything, any uniform that will be used as a symbol of a political belief or religious belief is a sort of identification of a religious or national symbols to dominate the society," Oymen said. "For instance, in the Hitler time, Hitler youth were put in black shirts, so they called themselves Blackshirts. So it was a symbol of Nazi ideology. In Mussolini time, in Italy, they were wearing brown shirts, so those who carry brown shirts are by definition supporters of Mussolini. So only in authoritarian regimes do you have such things. Not in democracies."
In writing about Turkey's current political troubles, I made reference to Oymen's remarks, something that has caught the attention of reporters in Turkey.
Now Oymen is denying that he made the comparison and is apparently preparing to demand a correction of some sort.
Well, let's go to the tape, which I still have. Here is the full transcript of the relevant section of the interview, conducted in English. I interviewed Oymen in his Ankara office at the headquarters of his party.
Judge for yourself.
Question: "Under the American Constitution if the nation or a state were to prevent women from wearing head scarves in universities it would actually be seen as an infringement on their religious freedom."
OYMEN: "Of course, because you don't have the danger of Islamization of American society or Sharia governments in America. You don't have such a threat. If some Indian students put their special traditional clothing in universities we don't mind because we don't see them as a threat to our society. But if in Turkey you use it as a symbol of religious state, then it's different. For instance, why Nazi clothings, uniforms, are prohibited in Germany? Isn't it a democracy, Germany? Why you prohibit such uniforms? Because they feel that there's a threat of a revival of Nazi tradition. You see the difference."
Question: "So you would equate head scarves with Nazi ..."
OYMEN: "Of course, yes. Anything, not only head scarf, but anything, any uniform that will be used as a symbol of a political belief or religious belief is a sort of identification of a religious or national symbols to dominate the society. For instance, in the Hitler time, Hitler youth were put in black shirts, so they called themselves Blackshirts. So it was a symbol of Nazi ideology. In Mussolini time, in Italy, they were wearing brown shirts, so those who carry brown shirts are by definition supporters of Mussolini. So only in authoritarian regimes do you have such things. Not in democracies. In a Western society you cannot identify the political philosophy or belief of persons while looking to their clothing only. It's what they are trying to do in Turkey. Not only putting the head scarf, but they put it in such a special way that only the believers of this party ideology do it. It's not a traditional head cover of Anatolian woman. It has nothing to do, it completely, never seen such a thing until 20-30 years ago in Turkey. There was not one single person covering their head in this format. So it is the symbol of the ruling party or, to say the truth, symbol of a certain political-religious ideology. And it is imported from Lebanon. It was originally used in Lebanon and they imported it to Turkey as a symbol. And the prime minister said, if it's a symbol what's wrong with that? So he accepts that it is used as a political symbol."
Question: "But to sort of equate Blackshirts or Brownshirts with a head scarf of billions of people with a religious party seems to be rather ..."
OYMEN: "Well you may believe that it's exaggerated. It may. It may be. But in the beginning, Hitler was elected as a political party. He got 44 percent of the vote, he got the support of any number of Germans who are not by definition Nazis. But by time he turned the country into an authoritarian system, totalitarian system and he created a mess who was responsible for, let's say, sufferings of millions of people. I cannot compare today our ruling party with Hitler. Of course not. But the matter, the fact that the party is elected does not mean that they would always observe the rules of democracy. So this is the difference. So Hitler did it for political ideology or nationalist ideology. Now, in our country, they use their political backing in elections for an Islamic society. So, you cannot find one single week, look at the newspapers, you cannot find one single week in the last five years of more where one of the members of the government has not raised a religious issue."
ON THE WEB:
You can listen to the interview with Oymen at:http://media.mcclatchydc.com/smedia/2008/04/22/15/Oymen-interview-headscarfs.source.prod(underscore)affiliate.91.mp3
Dion Nissenbaum covers the Middle East for McClatchy Newspapers. E-mail him at dnissenbaum@mcclatchydc.com.
© 2008, McClatchy-Tribune News Service



Orijinali için tıklayınız
April 22, 2008
Are Muslim head scarves fascist?
Are Muslim head scarves fascist symbols?
The question came up during a recent interview I did with Onur Oymen, a veteran Turkish lawmaker who served as the nation's ambassador to NATO.
Oymen, a leader in Turkey's Republican People's Party (AKA the CHP), suggested just that during our talk about the rising influence of the nation's ruling Justice and Development Party.
In the course of our talk, Oymen suggested that Muslim head scarves in Turkey were akin to Nazi Brownshirts in Germany or fascist Blackshirts in World War II Italy.
The comparison struck me as stark, so I asked Oymen to explain what he meant.
"Anything, not only head scarf, but anything, any uniform that will be used as a symbol of a political belief or religious belief is a sort of identification of a religious or national symbols to dominate the society," Oymen said. "For instance, in the Hitler time, Hitler youth were put in black shirts, so they called themselves Blackshirts. So it was a symbol of Nazi ideology. In Mussolini time, in Italy, they were wearing brown shirts, so those who carry brown shirts are by definition supporters of Mussolini. So only in authoritarian systems you have such things. Not in democracies."
In writing about Turkey's current political troubles, I made reference to Oymen's remarks, something that has caught the attention of reporters in Turkey.
Now Oymen is denying that he made the comparison and is apparently preparing to demand a correction of some sort.
Well, let's go to the tape, which I still have -- and which we hope to post later. (Here it is.)
Here is the full transcript of the relevant section of the interview, conducted in English. I interviewed Oymen in his Ankara office at the CHP headquarters.
Judge for yourself.
Question: "Under the American Constitution if the nation or a state were to prevent women from wearing head scarves in universities it would actually be seen as an infringement on their religious freedom."
OYMEN: "Of course, because you don't have the danger of Islamization of American society or Sharia governments in America. You don't have such a threat. If some Indian students put their special traditional clothing in universities we don't mind because we don't see them as a threat to our society. But if in Turkey you use it as a symbol of religious state, then it's different. For instance, why Nazi clothings, uniforms, are prohibited in Germany? Isn't it a democracy, Germany? Why you prohibit such uniforms? Because they feel that there's a threat of a revival of Nazi tradition. You see the difference."
Question: "So you would equate head scarves with Nazi..."
OYMEN: "Of course, yes. Anything, not only head scarf, but anything, any uniform that will be used as a symbol of a political belief or religious belief is a sort of identification of a religious or national symbols to dominate the society. For instance, in the Hitler time, Hitler youth were put in black shirts, so they called themselves Blackshirts. So it was a symbol of Nazi ideology. In Mussolini time, in Italy, they were wearing brown shirts, so those who carry brown shirts are by definition supporters of Mussolini. So only in authoritarian systems you have such things. Not in democracies. In a Western society you cannot identify the political philosophy or belief of persons while looking to their clothing only. It's what they are trying to do in Turkey. Not only putting the head scarf, but they put it in such a special way that only the believers of this party ideology do it. It's not a traditional head cover of Anatolian woman. It has nothing to do, it completely, never seen such a thing until 20-30 years ago in Turkey. There was not one single person covering their head in this format. So it is the symbol of the ruling party or, to say the truth, symbol of a certain political-religious ideology. And it is imported from Lebanon. It was originally used in Lebanon and they imported it to Turkey as a symbol. And the prime minister himself said, if it's a symbol what's wrong with that? So he accepts that it is used as a political symbol."
Question: "But to sort of equate Blackshirts or Brownshirts with a head scarf of billions of people from a religious party seems to be rather..."
OYMEN: "Well you may believe that it's exaggerated. It may. It may be. But in the beginning, Hitler was elected as a political party. He got 44 percent of the vote, he got the support of any number of Germans who are not by definition Nazis. But by time he turned the country into an authoritarian system, totalitarian system and he created a mess who was responsible for, let's say, sufferings of millions of people. I cannot compare today our ruling party with Hitler. Of course not. But the matter, the fact that the party is elected does not mean that they would always observe the rules of democracy. So this is the difference. So Hitler did it for political ideology or nationalist ideology. Now, in our country, they use their political backing in elections for an Islamic society. So, you cannot find one single week, look at the newspapers, you cannot find one single week in the last five years or more where one of the leading members of the government has not raised a religious issue."

Çeviri Birsen Şahin

Müslüman başörtülüler faşist mi?

Müslüman başörütü faşizm sembolü mü?

Soru, NAToda görevli Türk siyasetçi Onur Öymen ile yapılan görüşmede gündeme geldi. Türkiye'de lider partilerden biri konumdaki CHP üyesi Öymen, AKP'nin önlenemeyen yükselişi üzerine yapılan görüşmede konuya değinerek, Türkiye'deki başörtüsünün 2. Dünya Savaşı'ndaki Alman ve İtalyan faşizmine işaret etti. Bu mukayese beni vurunca(allak bullak edince), Öymen'e tam olarak ne demek istediğini sordum. "Sadece eşarp değil, politik alanda kullanılacak herhangi bir uniform(tektiplilik) veya dini inanışa dayalı herhangi bir şey siyasi algılamada buna yolaçar", dedi Öymen. "Örneğin, Hitler zamanını ele aldığınızda, taraftarları siyah gömlek giyerdi, Nazi ideolojisine yolaçan. İtalya'da Mussolini taraftarları kahverengi gömlek giyerdi. Dolayısıyla, sadece otoriter sistemlerde böyle şeyler yaşarsınız, demokrasilerde değil. "

Türkiye'nin politik sorunları üzerine yazdığımda, Öymen'in dikkat çektiği hususları işaret ettiğimde Türkiye'deki basın olayı manşetlere taşıdı. Şimdi Öymen söylediklerini inkar ediyor ve bir düzeltme yapmaya çalışıyor. Teyp bandı iyi ki elimde .... Aşağıda kendisiyle Ankara'da CHP Merkezsinde İngilizce olarak yaptığım görüşmenin tam metnini bulabilirsiniz.

Kendiniz karar verin.

Soru :Amerika'da herhangi bir yerde başörtülü kadınların dini görüşlerinden ötürü Üniversiteye girişi engellenmiş olsaydı buna karşı çıkılırdı.

Cevap:Tabii ki, çünkü sizde islami bir tehlike sözkonusu değil. Böyle bir uygulamanız yok. Eğer hintli öğrenciler kendi geleneksel giysilerini Üniversitelere girilte kullanmış olsa, bunu bir tehlike olarak addetmezdik. Ama, Türkiye'de bir dini sembol olarak kullanırsanız, bu farklıdır. Örneğin, neden Nazi giysileri, üniformaları Almanya'da yasaklanmıştır? Almanya demokrasi değil mi? Bu tür üniformaları neden yasaklıyorsunuz? Çünkü bu nazizmi canlandırma yoludur. Farkı görüyorsunuz.

Soru: Yani, başörtüsünü Nazi ile eşleştiriryorsunuz...

Cevap: Tabii ki, evet. Sadece başörtüsü değil, dini inanca veya siyasete dayalı herhangi birşey, dinsel veya ulusal bir sembol manasındadır. Örneğin Hitler, Hitler taraftarları siyah gömlek giyer ve kendilerine "siyahgömlekliler" derdi. Yani, bir Nazi sembolüydü. Mussolini zamanında, taraftarları kahverengi gömlek giyerdi, bu giyenler Mussolini taraftarıydı. Böylece, sadece otoriter sistemlerde böyle şeyler vardır. Demokrasilerde yoktur. Batı toplumlarında bir politik felsefeyi veya dini inancı insanların giyim kuşamlarına bakarak belirlemezsiniz. Türkiy'de bunu yapmay açalışıyorlar. Bunu öyle bir yapıyorlar ki, mesele sadece baş örtmek değil, belirli bir partiye ait bir örtünme biçimi şeklinde tezahür ediyor. Anadolu kadınının örtünme biçimi değildir bu. Hiç ilgisi yok bununla, tamamen ilgisiz, bu 20-30 yıllık bir örtünme biçimi. Başını bu biçimde bağlayan bir kişi bile yoktu. Yani, iktidar partisinin bir sembolüdür, veya doğruyu söylersek, bir dini inanç sembolüdür. Ve, Lübnan'dan ithal edilmiş bir biçimdir. Asıl Lübnan'da kullanılmış ve sonra Türkiye tarafından ithal edilmiş bir tarzdır. Başbakan kendisi de söyledi, bir sembol dahi olsa, ne olur. Yani, bir sembol olduğunu kabul ediyor.

Soru: Fakat, milyarlarca insanın dinine dayandığına göre, nasıl olur da siyah veya kara gömleklilerle irtibatlandırmaya....

Cevap: Tabii egzajere edildiğini düşünebilirsiniz. Olabilir. Muhtemeldir. Fakat başlangıçta, Hitler bir siyasi parti olarak seçilmişti. %44 İle seçimlerin galibi oldu, Nazi olmayanların oyunu da aldı. Fakat, ülkeyi otoriter bir sisteme, totaliter bir sisteme dönüştürdü ve sonuç milyoınlarca insanın mahvına kadar gitti. Bizim iktidar partimizi bugün Hitler'le muhayese edemem. Tabii ki olmaz. Fakat, sorun, iktidar partisisin her daim demokratik olup, olamayacağı. Fark da burada zaten. Hitler bunu politik veya ulusal bir ideolojiyle yaptı. Şimdi, bizim ülkemizde, bunu islami bir arkaplan için denemekteler. Gazetelerimize iyi bakın, bakanların bir tek hafta bile dinden bahsetmedikleri bir olay bulamazsınız.

at:http://media.mcclatchydc.com/smedia/2008/04/22/15/Oymen-interview-headscarfs.source.prod(underscore)affiliate.91.mp3Dion Nissenbaum covers the Middle East for McClatchy Newspapers. E-mail him at dnissenbaum@mcclatchydc.com.© 2008, McClatchy-Tribune News Service

Çeviri bendenize aittir

Birsen şahin