Court Report Says Headscarf Amendment Doesn’t Violate Secularism
The Constitutional Court rapporteur has recommended the rejection of an appeal by two Turkish opposition parties to annul a constitutional amendment pushed through by the ruling AK Party that would give headscarf-wearing women the right to attend university. The rapporteur’s report is not binding on the court’s decision, but his conclusion that the amendment was procedurally correct and does not violate the principles of secularism is important for another case before the court, that is, the closing of the ruling AK Party, since this amendment on the headscarf is one of the major “crimes against secularism” of which the AKP stands accused.
From the article:
Constitutional Court rapporteur Osman Can submitted to the court’s judges his report on a filing by opposition parties the Republican People’s Party (CHP) and Democratic Left Party (DSP) appealing a package amending two constitutional articles that was adopted by the vote of 411 deputies in February. The petitioners claimed the change ran against the principle of secularism.
The report expresses that the court can review the constitutional amendment in question only on procedural terms, but also adds that the amendment was adopted in Parliament in complete compliance with Article 148 of the Constitution, which lays out “very clearly,” Can’s report says, the procedural conditions for adopting, challenging and reviewing constitutional changes.
The Constitutional Court cannot review the appeal on grounds of content, Can also notes, adding: “The Constitution, which is the highest norm for all laws, cannot be dismissed entirely. The constitutional change had only worked to consolidate Articles 10 and 42, on the principles of equality before the law and the right to education, respectively. Saying that the changes being challenged only put the principles stated in these articles in more concrete terms, the report adds that the amendment package could not in any way be considered a violation of the principle of secularism.
The report noted that the complainants had sought “annulment,” and said that this could only be possible in cases of extreme legal violations. Article 148 clearly defines the review of an amendment as only restricted to procedural grounds as long as a given constitutional change does not directly or indirectly seek to change the unchangeable principles and provisions of the Constitution.
The report is not binding, but must be presented to judges before the case can proceed.
Discussion Area - Leave a Comment