Following a Turkish national assembly vote to lift the ban on Islamic headscarves in universities, Maureen Freely foresees a protest by Turkish women, fearing that it will lead to those who wear headscarves being allowed into public buildings and into the national assembly, and eventually to Islamists there trying to legislate 'to restrict the rights of women who do not wear headscarves'. Freely then writes:
Seen from London, the dividing line looks pretty clear. On one side are the secularists, the westernisers, and the feminists. On the other side is Islam. The assumption is that the first camp is "more like us".I have no close knowledge of Turkish history or politics but, seen from Manchester, or at least one particular spot in Manchester, this is not how the issue looks at all. To restrict the rights of women who do not wear a headscarf would certainly not be defensible, and secularists should oppose it as vigorously as possible. They should oppose it, however, for the same reason they should oppose the ban on women wearing headscarves in universities and other public places. Secularism is not the same thing as compulsory atheism, and secularists shouldn't be wanting to forbid others from wearing religious insignia; if secularists believe, as they widely profess to, in freedom of expression and belief and in the right to one's own identity, they should be happy to let people dress however they choose. They may object to women being coerced to wear religious insignia; but, by the same token, they shouldn't themselves then seek to force others not to wear these. As Freely goes on to report (see her points 7 and 8), there are feminists and democrats in Turkey who share this view.