It is not a recent phenomenon that issues related to women have long been used by those who would like to launch activism against governments.
Defending women's rights is something absolutely to be respected and is a must that needs to be pursued and protected by all. It is a fact that the status of woman in a society is a reference point for verifying the development level of that country.
However, if you play over baseless arguments, or even sometimes fabricate them, you will find yourself in a ridiculous situation. Just like those who play this card with Turkey.
A recent article in Forbes argues that Turkey is among the most dangerous tourist destinations for women. The article was published while dozens of women in Istanbul were demonstrating for their right to wear the clothes of their choice. It tried to present an interesting perception that neither women wearing the headscarf nor women in shorts can enjoy their rights fully in Turkey. This is completely fabricated.
"Do not interfere with my clothes" was the slogan of those demonstrating on the streets. And the Forbes article made reference to such "fabricated news."
Culture Minister Numan Kurtulmuş clearly reacted against the Forbes article, giving the details of the real situation of women visiting Turkey.
Additionally, on the same days as the Forbes article, Merve Kavakçı, a former deputy who was years ago forced to leave Parliament because of her choice of clothing and faith, was appointed to serve as the Turkish ambassador to Malaysia. And she, again, became the target of those who did not accept the presence of Muslim women wearing headscarves in politics, diplomacy or the bureaucracy. And the "do not interfere with my clothes" protesters remained silent to this attack on a woman targeted because of her physical appearance and beliefs.
Additionally, a draft law which will enable Muslim clerics to legally register marriages was taken into national debate on secularism by social provocateurs.
Despite numerous statements that Muslim clerics will register official marriages instead of only religious marriages, voices were again raised against the legislation. It was perceived by social provocateurs to be a sign of an archaic age.
Really? Religion and beliefs form and shape people and are also signs of civilization. What is more, the abovementioned draft was not an authorization for a religious marriage, but an official one.
So, let us find something else. Because neither trees nor wardrobes were an available tool for a proper social operation against the public order. Neither is the recent draft authorizing Muslim clerics to register marriages. They did not work and will not work.