Cansu N. Nazlı: Bar Association’s Headscarf Report Contains Omissions and Incorrect Conclusions

Nazlı expressed that, especially in light of the current child rights crisis, the Bar Association’s decision to address the issue in a report was more positive than remaining silent. However, she criticized certain parts of the report for their omissions and erroneous conclusions.

"I Disagree with the View that Headscarves Were Free Before the Disciplinary Regulation Change"

Nazlı disagreed with the report’s assertion that headscarves were permitted before any changes to the disciplinary regulations, stating that the notion of "everything being allowed unless explicitly prohibited" was incorrect. She also pointed out the illogical interpretation that, based on the report’s reasoning, male students should be allowed to attend school in skirts like female students, arguing that this was a flawed approach that could contribute to a misunderstanding of the headscarf ban.

"Incomplete and Insufficient Information on Child Rights Violations"

Nazlı also criticized the report’s handling of child rights, acknowledging the positive reference to the Children’s Rights Convention, which allows parents to raise their children according to their beliefs. However, she noted the report’s failure to mention the state's responsibility to protect children from harmful interventions that could affect their mental and physical development. She pointed out the lack of inclusion of warnings from the Cyprus Turkish Psychological Counseling and Guidance Association regarding the challenges and psychological pressures faced by children during their development.

Furthermore, Nazlı expressed concern that the report did not address the potential harms caused by political figures from the ruling party, who used children for political purposes and established political contacts within schools, nor did it consider the negative impact of the education minister’s direct contact with children despite lacking pedagogical training.

"Bar Association Is Responsible for Both What They Said and What They Didn’t Say"

Nazlı noted that while the report included references to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) decisions to maintain neutrality, most of the reports cited were in favor of headscarves and unrelated to schools. She criticized the omission of the Leyla Şahin/Turkey decision, which upheld the view of the headscarf as a political symbol, an important ruling by the ECHR.

"Secularism and Child Abuse Were Overlooked"

Nazlı pointed out that the report extensively discussed abstract principles of secularism but failed to address real-life issues, such as children being forced into Qur'an courses, subjected to abuse in religious dormitories, or coerced into compulsory religious education. She argued that these omissions weakened the credibility of the report.

Cansu N. Nazlı concluded that, like any legal opinion, the Bar Association’s report was subjective, and while some politicians praised it, the Bar Association was also responsible for what it failed to include. She called for the omission of these gaps and for a more in-depth discussion on child rights issues.