Parents fight the legacy of 12 September

Ozan Çepni
 
With the number of parents who wish to exempt their children from compulsory religion lessons growing day by day, court decisions rendered in various regions of Turkey lay bare the contradictions in the judiciary. The syllabus, not considered to be objective and pluralist in lawsuits in Istanbul and Antalya, has been deemed to be contemporary in Erzurum. Disregarding decisions of the courts, European Court of Human Rights, Constitutional Court and Council of State, the Ministry of National Education, which is reconfiguring the lesson in a sectarian manner, is proving incapable of unveiling the most recent form of the syllabus into which “jihad” has been added as a subject.
 
The debate that has continued for years in the corridors of national and domestic courts over the Religious Culture and Moral Knowledge lesson that was made constitutionally compulsory following the 12 September coup has assumed a new dimension thanks to the Ministry of National Education’s draft course syllabuses. Families are resorting to individual legal action in reaction to the course syllabus that, despite court decisions, is not being made objective. Families who have fought for the sake of their children and have met with different decisions have spoken to Cumhuriyet about their experiences and the ensuing duress:
 
COURT IN ANTALYA:
 
CANNOT BE APPLIED IN THIS MANNER
 
Tankut Sazlı, who made one of the first applications in Turkey following the European Court of Human Rights ruling, applied to the judiciary in 2014 after the application he made for his daughter to the Directorate of National Education was denied. Sazlı described the pre-court process as follows: “First we submitted a petition to the National Education for exemption from the lesson. We subsequently began to look into the process. The European Court of Human Rights had included a sentence in its decision relating to Alevism, ‘It is inappropriate for the syllabus in this form to be compulsory.’ This paved the way for the logic that if the syllabus is changed this problem will cease to exist. And we filed action as atheists, as non-believers in God.”
 
“Mark was zero”
 
Sazlı, indicating that they did not send their daughter to the religion lesson in the first term once they had brought legal action, said, “Since, at that time, a mosque prayer leader having no teacher training was giving the course, he asked questions like ‘What mark shall I give your friend?’ because he had no experience of class management. The kid’s mark was zero for the first term. She had an attendance issue. We were forced to send her for the second term while the court case was continuing.”
 
No mark for religion means no certificate of merit
 
Sazlı, describing how his daughter became demoralised over this process, said, “My child is a pupil who does not get marks of less than 98. With the mark for the religion lesson being zero, this prevented her from getting a certificate of merit. She was annoyed and demoralised. So, we sent her to the lesson to stop her getting upset. My kid’s classmates said some discriminatory things. But, we talked to our child at the very beginning about the possibility of such things. The other teachers also make the necessary reprimands when they see her classmates making discriminatory remarks, and just now there is no discriminatory behaviour.”
 
Unlawful
 
Contained in the decision of Antalya Administrative Court No 1, which is hearing the suit that Sazlı has brought, in which reference was made to the European Court of Human Rights ruling, is the wording, “It is clear that, although the name of the instruction given in primary and middle educational institutions is ‘religious culture and moral knowledge’, in terms of content it cannot be held to be ‘religious culture and moral knowledge’ education.” In this context, it is stated in the decision in which it is indicated that religious education is subject to the individual’s own desire or the family’s approval, “The making compulsory of the lesson with this content notwithstanding that the claimants, who assert that the religious culture and moral knowledge course taught in school does not conform to the family’s religious and philosophical beliefs, are not members of any religion or are atheists, is unlawful.”
 
Father transferred
 
Sazlı, noting that the sub-province where they live is a small place and they have experienced duress of various kinds, commented, “I am a teacher and they applied certain mobbing techniques against me in the National Education Directorate. I was transferred to my inconvenience to another sub-province about one month ago. Having won the lawsuit, we wrote a letter to the National Education calling attention to what had happened. We asked for rectification of her course marks and non-attendance, but the ministry has yet to make the necessary regulation. Despite the passage of one year since winning the case, a decision has yet to emerge from the Council of State.”
 
COURT IN ERZURUM:
 
CONTEMPORARY, PLURALIST AND OBJECTIVE
 
With the court in Antalya having ruled that religious education may only be given at a person’s request or with the family’s approval, another court in Erzurum ruled to the precise contrary one year later. The court dismissed the action that Associate Professor Dr. Candan Badem, a history department faculty member who was expelled from Munzur University, filed to exempt her daughter from religion lessons. Describing the course of the proceedings, Badem said, “My daughter was attending school. She would hear something from the religion teacher, then come home and I would say the opposite. It is fully a brainwashing activity. My child was exposed to such torment that she became psychologically disturbed.”
 
“The books are horrific”
 
Badem, going on as an academic to assess the course materials, said, “The content of the religion lesson books is horrific. Jihadism is praised. There is not a single picture of a woman or girl whose head is uncovered in the religion lesson book taught to my daughter in the sixth grade. The photographs of women and children have been taken from Malaysia. They have inserted photographs they have gathered on the internet.” As to what her daughter went through over this process, Badem has the following to say, “My kid, thinking that this lesson comes up in the Transition from Primary to Secondary Education Exam, took a pragmatic view. She thought it would be to her benefit not to argue with the religion lesson teacher.”
 
Erzurum Administrative Court No 2, which is hearing the action that Badem brought, disregarded European Court of Human Rights, Constitutional Court and Council of State decisions in the ruling it issued. The court, referring to the new syllabus that the Ministry of National Education has failed to divulge for a year, dismissed the application, saying with reference to the non-existent course syllabus, “The conclusion was reached that, through the alteration that has been made, religious culture and moral knowledge education that embraces a pluralist approach and is objective and rational is being implemented in our country.”
 
It will take three years
 
Badem, saying that she will not abandon the judicial fight, said, “There is a court in name but in Turkey courts have now ceased to be courts. Therefore, this affair will only end in the European Court of Human Rights. However, until it gets there and a decision is passed, my child will suffer this torment for at least three years.
 
Thousands up in arms
 
Badem, recounting how thousands of families in Tunceli are up in arms over compulsory religion lessons but are waiting in hopelessness, commented, “The AKP is using religion to make society stupid and engender a culture of submission. By giving orders to the courts, it wants to place as many obstacles as possible in the way of these exemption actions and leave claimants in the lurch for four or five years. Under these circumstances, nobody dares do it. Thousands of people in Dersim are uneasy about their children being given religion lessons but they do not file petitions, because there is a learnt hopelessness. With similar suits winning in Antalya and Istanbul, the reason I could not win this action was because it is Dersim. There are loads of Alevis here and they think that if I win there will be heaps of applications and so they drag things out.”