I recently read an anecdote (so far unconfirmed) that Ataturk tried to ban the veil in Turkey, but got zero compliance from religious people, who simply ignored the law. Instead of cracking down, Ataturk decreed a second law: all prostitutes were required to wear a veil. The general custom of veil-wearing stopped immediately.
This might be the most impressive display of rationality I’ve ever heard of in a world leader.
And the veil, currently banned in public universities, is still very much a hot button issue. Also, a large segment of the Turkish population still wears the veil. The country is deeply divided over this issue.
Your wikipedia link claims that the fez & turban were banned in 1925 and the veil and (again!) turban in 1934. Do you know these laws? Could you confirm that the text matches wikipedia’s description? or not—perhaps these are the famous laws that cover universities? (I can’t follow google’s translation) How does this fit in your understanding of history?
While Yvain’s story doesn’t sound terribly plausible to me, deducing law from the present state is tricky.
The laws I know ban wearing the veil/turban (i mean the same thing by these two words) in government-related places—you can’t wear it in the work place if you are working for a government, can’t wear it in public universities, can’t wear it in the TBMM (the Turkish congress) etc. etc… You are free to wear it on the street or in the workplace if you are working for a private company. I may be mistaken—the ban covering the universities is the most famous and contentious.
Could you confirm that the text matches wikipedia’s description?
Which text? I’ve not read the wikipedia entry—just linked to it, thinking it would repeat what I already know.
How does this fit in your understanding of history?
You mean Yvain’s story? It makes no sense. In 1920s, Turkey was largely being rebuilt after WW1 and the Turkish War of Independence. The legal system/constitution was being overhauled. The Arabic script was replaced with the Latin script. It is said that in one day, the entire country became illiterate—i.e. nobody understood the new alphabet at first.
With so much going on, I find it funny that Atatürk would pause and decree laws about prostitution. Consider me biased, but I think Atatürk had more urgent things to attend.
Here is the 1925 law which wikipedia describes as banning men’s hats. And here the 1934 law banning the veil and the (men’s?) turban.
Yes, I don’t think Yvain’s story about prostitution is correct, but you seem to also claim that since many people wear veils, they must not be banned. I would not be at all surprised if there has been a law for 70 years banning them and even that no one talks about this law.
I don’t get it, why would prostitutes be more eager to obey the law? Especially seeing as their professional success depends on their perceived beauty?
I recently read an anecdote (so far unconfirmed) that Ataturk tried to ban the veil in Turkey, but got zero compliance from religious people, who simply ignored the law. Instead of cracking down, Ataturk decreed a second law: all prostitutes were required to wear a veil. The general custom of veil-wearing stopped immediately.
This might be the most impressive display of rationality I’ve ever heard of in a world leader.
As a Turk, I strongly believe that story is fictional.
Where and how was this ban issued? Can you give more details?
You may be hearing some fictional story based on his social reforms.
See here
And the veil, currently banned in public universities, is still very much a hot button issue. Also, a large segment of the Turkish population still wears the veil. The country is deeply divided over this issue.
Now that I think about it, believing the story requires ignoring how strongly many people who follow modesty rules are apt to be attached to them.
If a western ruler announced that prostitutes were required to cover their breasts, do you think respectable women would start going topless?
Your wikipedia link claims that the fez & turban were banned in 1925 and the veil and (again!) turban in 1934. Do you know these laws? Could you confirm that the text matches wikipedia’s description? or not—perhaps these are the famous laws that cover universities? (I can’t follow google’s translation) How does this fit in your understanding of history?
While Yvain’s story doesn’t sound terribly plausible to me, deducing law from the present state is tricky.
The laws I know ban wearing the veil/turban (i mean the same thing by these two words) in government-related places—you can’t wear it in the work place if you are working for a government, can’t wear it in public universities, can’t wear it in the TBMM (the Turkish congress) etc. etc… You are free to wear it on the street or in the workplace if you are working for a private company. I may be mistaken—the ban covering the universities is the most famous and contentious.
Which text? I’ve not read the wikipedia entry—just linked to it, thinking it would repeat what I already know.
You mean Yvain’s story? It makes no sense. In 1920s, Turkey was largely being rebuilt after WW1 and the Turkish War of Independence. The legal system/constitution was being overhauled. The Arabic script was replaced with the Latin script. It is said that in one day, the entire country became illiterate—i.e. nobody understood the new alphabet at first.
With so much going on, I find it funny that Atatürk would pause and decree laws about prostitution. Consider me biased, but I think Atatürk had more urgent things to attend.
Here is the 1925 law which wikipedia describes as banning men’s hats. And here the 1934 law banning the veil and the (men’s?) turban.
Yes, I don’t think Yvain’s story about prostitution is correct, but you seem to also claim that since many people wear veils, they must not be banned. I would not be at all surprised if there has been a law for 70 years banning them and even that no one talks about this law.
I don’t get it, why would prostitutes be more eager to obey the law? Especially seeing as their professional success depends on their perceived beauty?
I believe the point is that if prostitutes are required to wear veils, then whether they do or not, the veil is immediately stigmatized.
Thanks, I’d missed that.