Selen Lermioğlu Yılmaz & Aysun Sayın

During the arguments about the constitution, “public morality”, which was the basis of many articles connected to the restriction of basic rights and freedoms, is a subject on which many statements according to what it exactly it is, are quite doubtful and vague. Let us see some definitions of Morality from certain sources:

“in the most restricted sense of the word it is concerned with what is (should be) right or wrong. The term is usually used to refer to the concept and/or belief of a system of judgements and principles usually created by a cultural, religious, secular or philosophical society, in order to determine (subjectively) which of people’s behaviours are wrong and which are right. This type of concepts and beliefs on what is right or wrong are usually generalized or legalized (codified) by a certain culture or community, and the behaviours of the members of this (culture or community) are attempted to be regulated according to this. The appropriateness of such legalization may be mentioned as morality and the group may designate, define the continuity of its existence as the appropriateness of these laws and principles. In such cases, while the individuals who accept this implementation are regarded as moral, those who refuse it, or exclude it from their behaviours may be defined as degenarated in a societal sense.” – Wikipedia

“Morality is the totality of systems comprised of value judgements, customs, traditions, norms and rules which are or are expected to be valid in societal life, for a certain person, group or society in a certain time and certain setting.” – Prof. Dr. C. C. Aktan

“It is the totality spiritualvalues, habits, and resulting display of behaviours which give rise to the description of a person as good or bad.” – The Presidency of Religious Affairs of the Republic of Turkey

“The behavioural forms and rules which the individuals must conform to in a society, good conduct, ethical values,” “admirable qualities, good habits” – Dictionary of the Turkish Language Institute

It is, however, also possible to summarize the basic characteristics of moral principles as follows:

• Moral principles are value judgements valid in relation to certains personsi groups and societies.

• Moral principles are value judgements which apply to certain places, settings. There are no moral principles which have achieved general acceptance everywhere, uniformly. Though, it is also possible to say that some behaviours and actions (lying, stealing, etc.) are universal.

The most important aspect these declarations hold in common is that a majority of the principles of morality are relative and variable according to time, place, person, society, geography and the policy of the current government; they are intangible and may include arbitrary justifications. Although morality is variable and relative to this extent, throughout the world there is a universal accord on its utilisation as a basic means to pressurize and dominate women. Being MORAL becomes synonymous with being VIRTOUS, HONOURABLE and these end up as a “wonderful” tool of domination in limiting the freedom of women. HONOUR is in the possession and control of the sovereign. Therefore, for women, MORALITY is as equally unacceptable as HONOUR. They are two concepts, coined by the same norm, with the same basic concern, to limit, forbid certain behaviours in relation to the norm.

We took a glimpse of what MORALITY means for numerous people, from numerous sources, above; now let us approach the situations in which women in Turkey are defined as IMMORAL, observing the effect MORALITY has on us and what it comes to mean in every day life: When we don a mini skirt, put on red lipstick, enter places belonging to men, walk the streets late at night, claim our right to sexuality and fertility, stand up for the entirety of our bodies, declare our sexual inclination, take part in extra-marital sexual affairs, do not dedicate ourselves to our families, laugh out loud, step out on to the street on our own, have boyfriends, have lovers, ask for songs on the radio, fall in love, ask for a divorce, go out on holiday alone… This list tangibly shows how narrow our breathing space is. Only one of these is enough to become immoral. Since it is primarily defined over a woman’s body, can the concept of morality actually be acceptable for us? Can women lay claims to the concept of MORALITY, like HONOUR, and all that it has come mean?

If, during the protests in which we declare that we refuse to be the issue of anybody’s HONOUR, we also shout out that we are are IMMORAL, what does this signify? It signifies our refusal of these intangible concepts, which are determined by the sovereign, which marginalize all that aren’t part of the norm beginning from women, which vary from time to time and person to person, and their manipulation for the restriction of freedom. Saying, “If this is your morality” we choose to be immoral, reminds one of Nazım Hikmet’s outcry: “If you are patriots, then I am a traitor. What we say entails the same sense of rebellion.

Neo-Conservatism Coming to Power and the Cane of MORALITY:

We have previously mentioned the relative and intangible disposition of the definition of MORALITY and how it varies according to time, place, person and the policies of the current government. The conservatism which is becoming widespread and, most dangerously, being institutionalized in Turkey during the the last years has been constructed through MORALITY. All the highest state officials, led by the Prime Minister, the Ministers, and leaders of political parties legitimize the pressures put on women.

Not more than four years ago, following the gains of the TCK (Turkish Penal Code) Women Campaign, when the discussions on adultery were, out of thin air (!), re-stimulated by the Prime Minister as a last minute maneuver, we had once again become IMMORAL in the headlines of the Vakit Newspaper. Upon Prime Minister Erdoğan’s declaration in Germany that, “We did not take the art or science of the West. Unfortunately, we took it’s immoralities which contradict our own values.”, the Anatolian edition of the same newspaper came out with the following headline: “Behold the Morality of the West”. In the newspaper, which gives place to the following spot: “Imitators of the West who were disturbed by Erdoğan’s words have begun to demand him to ‘explain! What immorality?’ However, Western leaders have realized that ‘the Western individual’s morality is rotting’ and are trying to take certain precautions.” there was a list which enumerated “the Immoralities of the West” as such:

• The concept of family has collapsed; ‘co-habiting’ has replaced ‘marriage’… Women have begun to take ‘dogs’ out to walks instead of carrying ‘babies’ in their laps.

• The elderly have been abandoned to ‘retirement homes’… A German scientist states that “50 years later, Germany will be a land of retirement homes.”… The young population declines every year.

• Perversity is at its maximum…Perversities such as homosexuality and being lesbian are encouraged under the pretext of “sexual freedom”…The scandals of homosexual mayors are met with understanding.

• A crisis of faith threatens all Western countries. Half of the European population are non-believers.

According to the Vakit newspaper, which is known for the proximity of its opinions to those of the governing party; unmarried couples living together, lesbians and homosexuals, dog owners, those who decide not to have children and those who have no religious beliefs suddenly become IMMORAL. During the lawsuit against LAMBDA Istanbul, in attempt to close it down, the issue of Public Moral popped up once again. MORALITY, which is used in intervening in order to restrict the freedom of organization, has exposed its branding and ostracizing of differences in this case as well. Morality, which is part pf the conservative ideology and which has become a tool for politics to be conducted through, interferes into our lives with its many forms which control the woman’s body, brand and ostracize differences and limit human rights.

Whether it be the majority party or the other political parties, we can easily understand how “necessary” they find MORALITY and the criteria of PUBLIC MORALITY, by merely taking a short glimpse of the constitutional reform process. As the Constitutional Women’s Platform, founded immediately following the arguments about this reform process in the September of 2007, and which more than 200 women’s organizations joined in less than 2 days, in our first studies of this new and democratic (!) constitution, which the government had entrusted to experts for preparation, we saw that the articles which restricted basic rights and freedoms for the sake of the criteria of Public Morality were preserved as they were and requested the abolishment of these criteria. During the January 2008 bargain between the oppositionary party MHP and AKP’s all male staff on the freedom of the headscarf in universities, the criteria of Public Morality was attempted to be brought in, this time, for the sake of the freedom of clothing, almost as if we had never made the request stated above. The most interesting point in the issue was that the request for this criteria did not come from the AKP, which is criticized for its Islamic-conservative line, but from the MHP, which does not rest on a religious foundation and is the symbol of the nationalist ideology. The AKP asked the MHP to support the change they were offering on the 42. article (“As long as it is not against the Penal Code and Public Morality, nobody can be deprived from their right to higher education on grounds of the way they dress.”) in return for agreeing to the MHP’s wishes about the 10. and 13. amendments of the constitution. The MHP, holding that if the phrase “clothing” entered the constitution it would increase social tension, stated the the following: “If some, due to their own customs, habits and traditions comes to school in shorts, some in veils or satanistic clothing, then what happens? If they come in the attire of terrorist organisations, dressed like PKK militants, then what? How will the line be drawn?” This comes to mean that, for the MHP, coming to the university in shorts or satanistic clothing (!), is IMMORAL. The most pathetic point here is that no other political party and/or faction of the society tried to criticise this declaration made by the MHP, the mentality behind it, or the politics this dual alliance was building through MORALITY. This step they were taking, questioned through the issue of secularism, was never approached or defined by conservatism by any political group. Apparently, at this point, between the ambassadors of the patriarchal political system, an accord exists, which is not there on any other subject.

As women who were anxiously watching the bargains a group of male members of Parliament were conducting over women’s clothing in the chambers of National Assembly Hall, we issued a declaration with the title, “We are Worried!”, saying:

WE are WORRIED!

Vague and relative concepts like “Public Morality”, “Custom”, “Habit”, “Good Manners” have no place in the constitution and should not be the criteria forming the basis of the definitions of basic rights. As the 200 women’s organizations which are members of the Constitutional Women’s Platform, we do not accept that criteria of morality are trying to be brought with this type of concepts, through clothing and attire, in the constitution!

…As a result of the studies we have conducted on this draft as the Constitutional Women’s Platform, we had conveyed the following request to the public and the government on the nine articles which include restriction through the criteria of “public morality”, and now we repeat this request:

“Basic rights and freedoms should not be restricted with intangible and arbitrary reasons whose content varies from person to person and time to time like ‘public morality’, ‘national security’, ‘civil order’. Consequently, these expressions is these articles of the draft must be removed.”

Vague and relative concepts like “Public Morality”, “custom” and “manners” can not provide a basis for the restriction of basic rights. History is full of many important examples of how those who apply the law have interpreted these concepts, especially in order to mistreat and victimize women. Violence and injustice toward women has, in many cases, been legitimized over “morality, manners or honour.” The fact that in the murders of women, which have multiplied in the last couple of years, the judicial system gives men who kill women reductions in punishment due to “unjust provocation” over women’s clothing for reasons like “she wore close-fitting jeans, white tights, pierced her belly button, etc.” is proof to how concrete and scorching the danger which awaits women is. In the most recent example, a case brought to court by a man, leaving a woman after living together for two years, wished to take back the house he bought for her, where Supreme Court of Appeal, in saying “It is not possible to take back things given in order to serve an immoral purpose,” branded co-habiting unmarried couples as “immoral.” Concepts whose contents are extremely unclear such as “Public Morality”, are invariably used in order to keep women, their bodies and lives under control and oppression.

With the entry of such a regulation into the constitution, those who come to power will be entitled to pass laws, rules and bylaws determining everything concerning women’s clothing from the arm-length of women’s blouses to the length of skirts, colour of socks, and gaps between the buttons on nurses’ aprons in many institutions including universities and civil departments.

…

As the Constitutional Women’s Platform of which more than 200 women’s organizations in more than more than 50 of the provinces in Turkey are members, which therefore represents millions of women, and refuses politics to be carried out over women’s bodies, we expect the requests we have made since October to be taken seriously. It is not possible for us, in the mean time, to accept the criteria of morality to be brought to clothing as well.

The Constitutional Women’s Platform – 23 January 2008

Due to the intense media and press visuality we created within two days, we managed to prevent the inclusion of a “Public Morality” criteria into the 42. article; we had achieved a new victory in our struggle. The ambassadors and institutions of the patriarchal system, being unable to prevent the achievements of the feminist movement, gained through organized, timely and succesful interventions, have begun to define the VIRTOUS woman and use the canes of MORALITY against those women they cannot keep in line (!), in order to re-stabilize the wavering, shaken centers of power.

Actually this effort had long begun; for instance, regarding the sexual abuse incidents during the new year celebrations, Mehmet Şahin, the Minister of Justice was saying, “It is not possible to regulate behaviours which contradict our traditions and general understanding of morality through law…It is a social problem, we must scrutinize and revise our methods of bringing up our children and youth. There is an educational issue here. Education is necessary, ” on the 8th of January. However, he was overlooking the double standard, the contradiction between his declarations and his undertakings; forasmuch as women’s attire was in concern MORALITY could enter the law, but when it came to the punishment of abuse, he ended up saying that it wasn’t possible to regulate this with laws. A couple of days before these abuses on New Year’s Eve, Hasan Hakyemez, the Imam of the Beylikdüzü Fatih Sultan Mehmet Mosque had said, “A man who allowed his wife to work came to me a couple of days ago to tell me that his wife was cheating on his with her boss. Look, do not let your wives work, it is a sin to do so. Because women have 9 cravings of flesh, appetites. Which should they try to master. Man has only one and he can control it. I am not making these up myself. I am merely communicating the bidding and commands of Islam.” Even though the Istanbul Mufti Office started an investigation on this imam upon the news in the press, Imam Hakyemez who was assigned to another area of duty during the investigation had still not received a ban on giving sermons in February due to the continuation of the investigation.

Tayyip Erdoğan criticized the media once more over the woman’s body on the 13th of February, in saying: “They say they will force us all into covering ourselves from head to foot. Come on, have mercy. Forgive me, you are the ones who print pictures of completely naked women in your newspapers, completely contradictory to the moral values of this society. Do they print these, yes they do. Forgive me, but the suplements of your newspapers everything is out in the open. What has been done until today, what kind of interference have you received?” It is true that as the feminist women’s movement we have been criticizing the fact that women only take place in the media as sexual objects, but we rest on completely different contents and reasons. With this speech Prime Minister Erdoğan has told us all that, in this society, women with bikinis, swim suits or underwear fall outside the societal moral values, therefore pointing out how the MORAL, VIRTUOUS woman should be and using the woman’s body and MORALITY to flex his muscles at the media. Then he continued his preaching: In a meeting he has joined for the occasion of the 8th of March he gave women the message that it would be best for them to have 3 children: “…Ladies, my dear sisters, I am not speaking as a Prime Minister, but as a brother of yours in distress. Do not fall for these traps. We must preserve our young population as it is… What do these want to achieve? These want to scrape the very roots of the Turkish nation, this is what they are doing. If you do not want our population to decrease and decline, one family must have 3 children. It is your decision, of course, that is a separate issue.”

Let us not forget that throughout this process, the main reason for all the lawsuits against LAMBDA and Kaos GL, for the increase in oppression and police raids in places frequented by gays and lesbians, was always Public MORALITY.

What Dengir Mir Mehmet Fırat, the Vice President of AKP, said in the Adana Province Women’s Convention in May, “As the AKP, our outlook on women is totally different from that of other political parties, and other factions of the society. We are not for the conflict between man and woman the philosophical thought created by feminism has resulted in. The women of the Party of Justice and Progress (AKP), have never been and will never be the slaves of the feminist ideology, ” has been added to these “gaffes, blunders”.

As a result of all of these it is possible to say the following: The political party in power, the government, and the centers of political power which make the decisions and generally exclude women, are conducting an operation fueled by vengeance, using the canes of MORALITY in order to regain their fading sovereignty, which they are losing due to the victories and new areas of the feminist movement.

From Amargi- Issue 9