Around The World After headscarf ban Is it (justice) a matter of time - Around The World

After the Supreme Constitutional Court's decision in Turkey to nullify the constitutional amendments that allowed to wear headscarf in universities and educational institutes last February, some observers see that the issue of banning the ruling Justice and Development Party led by Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, became uncertain.
  The issue became a matter of time and no more, especially as the judges who issued the Supreme Court's decision on the neutralization constitutional amendments allowed to wear the hijab, are the judges who see themselves in a case filed suit against the Justice and Development Party on one hand and, on the second resolution was the result of approval 9 out of 11 members comprising the court, and this is a strong indication that the decision to ban the Justice and Development Party has become certain, especially since everyone knows that the party is the one who stands behind the constitutional amendment allowed to wear the hijab, and consideration of this court is sufficient evidence to ban the party as long as Hijab contrasts with articles I and II of the Turkish Constitution. The articles stipulate that Turkey, a secular democratic state of law, at a time when the Constitution recognizes that it may not amend the articles in question. This is sufficient evidence by the court to condemn the ruling Justice as opposing the foundations of the secular Turkish state.
The decision came without a doubt, consistent with the policy of the army and the aspirations of the opposition Republican People's Party led by Deniz Baykal, who described the decision as historic, and that the foundations of a new phase, in a reference to the option of going to early elections if the ban Justice and Development Party. With the ruling Justice said that a political resolution comes in the context of judicial coup against him, monitor his circles as a set of constitutional violations and political dimensions of the court decision, including:
1 - The decision of the court form an explicit violation of the constitution, since the constitutional amendment is the right of the parliament which was elected by the Turkish people may not be stripped of this right which is the source of all authorities, particularly mentioned that the constitutional amendment was approved by 411 votes out of 550 votes, came after alliance Between the political party of Justice and the nationalist movement.
2 - The Court's decision in the form of rear blow to the personal and religious freedoms in Turkey, as the veil is part of personal freedom, and it falls under religious freedom in the framework of equality between women in the way the ads.
  3 - a blow to democracy in Turkey, which could not play to democracy after the list without civilization, social and cultural development, given the specificity of this dimension in Turkey and other Islamic countries, democracy can not be a model one in all countries in the world. He gives this form of democracy would pay the country into a state of tension, conflict and internal problems and instability. It would transfer all of this hidden conflict - between overt political Islam and secular forces under the rules of the game of democracy and peaceful mechanisms to sites Ditching and Cturab and exclusion

Amandamemo  digg  newsvine  furl  Y!  smarking  segnalo