TÜRKİYE’DEKİ HUKUK DÜZENİNDE SEKÜLERİZM VE İBADET ÖZGÜRLÜĞÜ ÇATIŞMASI

Öz

Türkiye’de laiklik şu ana kadar din-devlet ayrılığı/sekülerizm modeli olmasının ötesinde, cumhuriyetin önemli değerlerinden biri olması yönüyle çalışılmıştır. Anayasa Mahkemesinin özellikle ibadet özgürlüğü taleplerine ilişkin değerlendirmesi, sadece laikliği değil, laiklik ve ibadet özgürlüğü ilişkisini dikkate almayı da gerektirmektedir. Bu ilişkinin göz önünde bulundurulması, bu taleplerin her durumda kabul edileceği veya reddedileceği anlamına gelmese de, bir özgürlük değerlendirmesini zorunlu kılacaktır. Bu değerlendirme, farklı din ve inançlara saygı ile devletin tarafsızlığının aynı anda sağlanmasını da beraberinde getirebilir. Bu nedenle çalışmada öncelikle, Türkiye’de laiklik anlayışının gelişimi, Anayasa Mahkemesi’nin ibadet özgürlüğü taleplerine ilişkin yaklaşımı değerlendirilmiştir. Sonrasında da, Mahkemenin, özellikle bireysel başvuru yoluyla önüne gelecek ibadet özgürlüğü taleplerini, Anayasanın 24. maddesine güvence altına alınan bir hak ve özgürlük olarak değerlendirirken, ölçülülük standardını nasıl uygulayacağı incelenmekte ve öneriler getirilmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Laiklik, sekülerizm, din özgürlüğü, ölçülülük standardı

THE CLASH BETWEEN FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION AND SECULARISM WITHIN THE TURKISH LEGAL SYSTEM

Öz

Laicism as a model of separation between state and religion/secularism is often studied for its role in Turkey’s ideology of Republican nationalism. Turkish Constitutional Court should approach cases regarding free exercise not only as an issue of laicism but also as an issue of the relationship between laicism and free exercise. Considering the issue as one beyond just the separation of religion and state does not mean that religious sensibilities will always win or lose but it requires evaluating whether there is a violation of religious freedom as one of the fundamental rights and freedoms. This approach would be helpful to enable the coexistence of respect for religious beliefs and the state’s neutrality toward religion. Thus, fi rst, the development of Turkish practice of laicism and Constitutional Court’s approach towards free exercise issues are discussed. Finally, application of proportionality standard in cases of free exercise, which is guaranteed under the article 24 of the Constitution, is introduced and elaborated.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Laicism,secularism,religious freedom,proportionality standard

Kaynakça

1. ANSCOMBE, Frederick F.: State, Faith, and Nation in Ottoman and PostOttoman Lands, New York, Cambridge University Press, 2014.
2. BERLINERBAU, Jacques: How to be Secular: A Call to Arms for Religious Freedom, USA, First Mariner Books, 2012.
3. BERMANN, George A.: The Principle of Proportionality, Am. J. Comp. L. Sup., C.26, 1977-1978, s. 415-432.
4. BESCHLE, Donald L.: “Does a Broad Free Exercise Right Require a Narrow Defi nition of “Religion”?,” Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly, C.39:2, 2011-2012, s. 357-390.
5. CESARI, Jocelyne: The Awakening of Muslim Democracy: Religion, Modernity, and the State, New York, Cambridge University Press, 2014.
6. CRAIG, Paul, DE BURCA Grainne: EU Law: Text, Cases, and Materials, New York, Oxford, 2008.
7. DAVISON, Andrew: “Turkey, a “Secular” State? The Challenge of Description,” South Atlantic Quarterly, C.102, No:2/3, 2003, s. 333-350.
8. FELDMAN, Noah: After Jihad: America and the Structure for Islamic Democracy, New York, Farrar, Stratus, Giroux, 2003.

9. GÖLE, Nilüfer: “Manifestations of the Religious-Secular Divide: Self, State, and the Public Sphere,” Comparative Secularisms in a Global Age, Ed. by. Linell E. Cady and Elizabeth Shakman Hurd, New York, Palgrave Macmillan, 2010, s. 41-53.
10. GÖZLER, Kemal: Türk Anayasa Hukuku Dersleri, 18. bs., Bursa, Ekin, 2015.
11. GUNN, T. Jeremy: “Religion and Law in France: Secularism, Separation, and State Intervention,” Drake L. Rev. C.57, 2008-2009, s. 949-984.
12. JACKSON, Vicki: Being Proportional About Proportionality, (The Ultimate Rule of Law, By David Beatty), Const. Comment. Book Reviews, C.21, 2004, s. 803-859.
13. JACKSON, Vicki: Transnational Challenges to Constitutional Law: Convergence, Resistance, Engagement, Fed. L. Rev., C.35, 2007, s. 161185.
14. JACKSON, Vicki J., TUSHNET, Mark: Comparative Constitutional Law, 3. bs., USA, Foundation Press, 2014.
15. JACOBS, Francis G.: “Recent Developments in the Principle of Proportionality in European Community Law,” The Principle of Proportionality in the Laws of Europe, Ed. by. Evelyn Ellis, USA, Hart Publishing, 1999.
16. KABOĞLU, İbrahim: “Din Özgürlüğü: Sınırı ve Güvencesi,” Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi, C.46, No:1, 1991, s. 265-278.
17. KAFADAR, Cemal: Between Two Worlds: The Construction of the Ottoman State, USA, University of California Press, 1995.
18. KANADOĞLU, Korkut: Laiklik ve Din Özgürlüğü, TBB Dergisi, C.109, 2013, s. 353-384.
19. KİLİ, Suna: Türk Devrim Tarihi, İstanbul, İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları, 2009.
20. KİLİ, Suna: The Ataturk Revolution: A Paradigm of Modernization, İstanbul, İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları, 2011.
21. KURU, Ahmet: Secularism and State Policies Toward Religion: The United States, France, and Turkey, USA, Cambridge University Press, 2009.
22. MARDİN, Şerif:Turkish Islamic Exceptionalism Yesterday and Today: Continuity, Rupture and Reconstruction in Operational Codes, Turkish Studies, C.6, No:2, 2005, s. 145-165.
23. MODOOD, Tariq, “Muslims, Religious Equality and Secularism,” Secularism, Religion and Multicultural Citizenship, Geoffrey Brahm Levey, Tariq Modood, New York, Cambridge University Press, 2009.
24. ODER, Bertil Emrah: “Turkey in The ‘Militant Democracy’ Principle,” Modern Democracies, Ed. by. Markus Thiel, UK, USA, Ashgate, 2009, s. 262-310.
25. ÖKTEM, Niyazi: “Religion in Turkey,” Bringham Young Un. L. Rev., C.2002, 2002, s. 371-403.
26. ÖZBUDUN, Ergun: Türk Anayasa Hukuku, Ankara, Yetkin, 2014.
27. TANÖR, Bülent: Osmanlı-Türk Anayasal Gelişmeleri, 25. bs. İstanbul, Yapı Kredi Yayınları, 2015.
28. TANÖR, Bülent, YÜZBAŞIOĞLU, Necmi: 1982 Anayasasına Göre Türk Anayasa Hukuku, İstanbul, Beta, 2014.
29. TUNAYA, Tarık Zafer: Türkiye’nin Siyasi Hayatında Batılılaşma Hareketleri, İstanbul, İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları, 2010.
30. YAZICI, Serap: İnsan Hakları Açısından Laiklik, Çağdaş Yaşamı Destekleme Derneği Yayınları-7, 2. bs., 1996.
31. YÜKSEL, Saadet: “A Comparative Approach on New Constitutionalism,” Annales de la Faculte de Droit d’Istanbul, C.XLIV, No:63, 2012, s. 333368.
32. Turkish Exceptionalism: Interview with Serif Mardin, available at http:// english.aawsat.com/2007/12/article55260541/turkish-exceptionalisminterview-with-serif-mardin, September 9, 2015.
33. Law on Adoption and Implementation of Turkish Alphabet, No. 1353, 01/11/192, Offi cial Gazette No: 1030, 03/11/1928, available at http:// mevzuat.meb.gov.tr/html/112.html, September 9, 2015.
34. Turkish Civil Code/Turk Medeni Kanunu No. 4721, 22/11/2001, available at http://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/MevzuatMetin/1.5.4721.pdf, September 9, 2015.
35. Should the UK Ban the Muslim Face Veil?, available at http://news.bbc. co.uk/2/hi/uk/8481617.stm, September 9, 2015.
36. Samra MURSALEEN, The Power Behind the Veil, available at http:// www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2010/jan/25/burqa-banveil-sarkozy-ukip, September 9, 2015.
37. “Anayasal Yönden Sorun Görmedik”, http://www.milliyet.com. tr/-anayasal-yonden-sorun-gormedik-/gundem/gundemdetay/22.09.2012/1600268/default.htm, September 9, 2015.
38. Constitution of Republic of Turkey, available at https://global.tbmm.gov.tr/docs/constitution_en.pdf, September 9, 2015.
39. E. 1989/1, K. 1989/12, 7.3.1989, Offi cial Gazette No. 20216, 05.07.1989.
40. E. 1990/36, K. 1991/8, 9.4.1991, Offi cial Gazette No. 20946, 31.07.1991.
41. E. 2012/65, K. 2012/128, 20.09.2012, Offi cial Gazette No. 28622, 18.04.2013.
42. Supreme Court of Israel, Horev v. Minister of Transportation, HCJ 5016/96, July 11, 1996, published in April 15, 1997.
43. Supreme Court of Israel, Beit Sourik Village Council v. Government of Israel, June 30 (2004), HCJ 2056/04.