Harmful gender stereotypes and Turkey’s obligation to address these: R.K.B. versus Turkey, UN CEDAW Committee

It has been established that order to effectively address gender discrimination, it is vital that the human rights bodies pay attention to the harmful gender stereotypes at play in a given society. Yet human rights bodies do not always seem that eager to point states to their obligations in this respect. Nor are states very anxious to change these harmful perceptions and ideas. The case of R.K.B. versus Turkey provides a welcome exception to this and although the CEDAW Committee reached a decision in the case already a year ago, it is still highly relevant and deserves closer attention.

The case concerns a Ms R., who is fired from her job at a unisex hairdresser shop in Kocaeli, a city 100 kilometres away from Istanbul. Originally she is told that she is fired because a customer complained about her. During Court proceedings however, her employer defends himself by stating that Ms R. had provoked rumours by displaying beyond ordinary friendship, ‘seemingly sexually-oriented relationships with persons of the opposite sex at the workplace’ and that it was ‘vital for the employees to refrain from even the slightest offense against morality’. The man with whom the author is said to have a relationship is one of the managers of the shop. He, interestingly enough, is not fired.

The author and a witness have different ideas as to why Ms R.’s contract is terminated: most of the married men working at the hairdressers shop have extramarital relationships and the author has on several occasions expressed her repulsion about that. As the witness observes, the problems started when the author refused to give her house keys to one of the managers, a married man, who wanted to bring his girlfriend there.  After her dismissal, and before leaving the shop, Ms R. is asked to sign a document attesting that she has benefited from all her rights. According to the witness, the manager threatened her that if she did not sign, he would spread rumours about her relationships with other men. Although Ms R., a married woman, was ‘very scared’, she refused to sign. As noted, the manager realizes his threats during the Court proceedings.

Although the Labour Court agrees with Ms R. that the reasons for termination are unjustified, it does not find that these constitute gender discrimination. Neither does the Court of Cassation, where Ms. R. appeals. In fact, the Court of Cassation dismisses her appeal without any reference to the author’s claims of gender discrimination. Noteworthy is that never during the proceedings before the Labour Court or the Court of Cassation the defence of the employer is dismissed as being entirely a matter of the author’s private life. Ms R. submits to the CEDAW Committee that Turkey violated articles 1, 2 (a) and (c), 5 (a) and article 11 (1) (a) and (d) of the Convention.

The CEDAW Committee is of the view that the domestic Courts did not only fail to give due consideration to the claim of gender discrimination, but also that the Labour Court is itself guilty of wrongful gender stereotyping. In its view, the CEDAW Committee:

‘notes with concern that at no time Labour Court commented adversely on the gender-biased and discriminatory nature of the evidence adduced on behalf of the employer. Instead of rejecting outright such a defence on the part of the employer, which clearly constituted gender-based discrimination against the author in breach of the principle of equal treatment, the Court examined the evidence adduced by the employer and scrutinized only the moral integrity of the author, a “female” employee and not that of the male employees, namely Mr. M.A. and Mr. D.U. […] at no time did the Kocaeli 3rd Labour Court or the Court of Cassation reject the evidence adduced by the employer as being “entirely” a matter of the author’s “private life”. […] The Committee is of the view that, in the present case, the court proceedings were based on the stereotyped perception of the gravity of extramarital affairs by women, that extramarital relationships were acceptable for men and not for women and that only women had the duty to “refrain from even the slightest offence against morality”.’

Besides the fact that the Committee finds the defence of the employer to (clearly) constitute gender based discrimination, it also holds that the pressure exerted on the author and the nature of the threat and harassment were made because she is a woman and a married woman and constitute a violation of the principle of equal treatment. The Committee therefore is of the view that Turkey has failed to fulfil its obligations under article 2 (a) and (c), read in conjunction with article 1; article 5 (a); and article 11 (1) (a) and (d).

The case of Ms R. is exemplary for the stereotyped perception of the gravity of extramarital affairs by women present in Turkish society. The Committee recognises and addresses the wrongful gender stereotyping by both the employer and the Labour Court. It emphasizes that:

‘full implementation of the Convention requires States parties not only to take steps to eliminate direct and indirect discrimination and improve the de facto position of women, but also to modify and transform gender stereotypes and eliminate wrongful gender stereotyping, a root cause and consequence of discrimination against women. The Committee is of the view that gender stereotypes are perpetuated through a variety of means and institutions including laws and legal systems and that they can be perpetuated by State actors in all branches and levels of government and by private actors. In this case, the Committee is of the view that the Kocaeli 3d Labour Court has clearly allowed its reasoning based on law and facts to be influenced by stereotypes and the Court of Cassation by failing altogether to address the gender aspect, has perpetuated gender stereotypes about the role of women and men with it being accepted for the latter to have extramarital affairs.’

The view of the CEDAW Committee is important in that it recognises this wrongful gender stereotype; names it; and identifies its form. It requires Turkey to address the underlying causes of women’s rights violations and not merely to put legal provisions in place that prohibit gender discrimination. It is not an easy or short-term task to change gender perceptions and customs, but one that is, as said, essential for the promotion and protection of women’s human rights. I eagerly await its follow up.