×
Tayyip Erdoğan’s Ottoman military band
Paylaş
LinkedinFlipboardLinki KopyalaYazı Tipi
The mullahs in Tehran have nominated Recep Tayyip Erdoğan for the Nobel Peace Prize. One Lebanese newspaper has nominated the prime minister for the caliph. With a little bit more effort Ğsuppose Mr Erdoğan next time slapped an Israeli bigwig in faceÑsomeone would nominate him for the Twelfth Imam since our religion rules out the possibility of Prophet Mohammed’s reincarnation. Ah, that, too, would have been none other than Mr Erdoğan! Ironically, all that is happening during a time of increasing talk of ’neo-Ottomanism.’
And it makes sense! With one step forward and at least two back, the great Turkish march into Europe looks very much like that of the Ottoman military band. Four centuries ago "the march" was hostile and military, but honest. Today it is political and demographic but full of deception. Recently we all cheered at the news that a prosecutor had overturned an appeal that the signatories of the "we-apologize-to-the-Armenians" campaign humiliated Turkishness and should be penalized under Article 301. The prosecutor did the right thing and ruled that "it was a democratic right to express views other than those of the majority." Good.
There were more "forward steps too. For example, Mr Erdoğan’s Cabinet restored the citizenship of the great poet Nazım Hikmet, a move which only deserves praise. In the meantime, the state broadcaster launched a Kurdish channel, another move "forward." But where, from a macro perspective rather than micro, do we stand in terms of civil liberties and European democratic values?
Ironically, Mr Erdoğan’s party passed new internet laws that eventually banned YouTube, making Turkey the only European country to deny access to this popular Web site, although Mr Erdoğan himself told reporters recently that he had access to it and advised everyone to do so Ğ implying the use of proxy Web sites.
Also banned in the virtual world is the Web site of the British ethologist and popular science author Richard Dawkins, whose "The God Delusion" is probably the most widely-known atheist manifesto of our times. How can we associate a court ban on an atheist scientist’s popular Web site with civil liberties? But that’s only too normal under the rule of a prime minister who has become a nominee for the caliph. Or is atheism banned in Turkey? Legally not. Then why is the court ban allowed? Because any judge can at any time cite the article on "inciting hatred along religious lines" to ban an unwanted belief. The question is, how "European" would that be?
The Ergenekon investigation is full of procedural and substantial legal breaches, but a couple of recent examples have made it look more absurd. In one of them, the prosecutor has indicted one of the suspects with "provoking the public against the government." If that charge does not verify any violent activity for the purpose, what’s wrong if someone provoked the public opinion against the government? Is this not what the opposition is supposed to do?
In the other example, the chief prosecutor has indicted another Ergenekon suspect under Article 301 (humiliating Turkishness and Turkey’s institutions) and the presiding judge accepted to hear the case. Are the reforms not for everyone? Are the Ergenekon suspects exempt from the liberties Turkey’s European friends favor? And, what about gender equality? According to Soner Çağaptay from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, "The position of women in Turkey is also problematic." Mr Çağaptay forcefully reminds us of the U.N. Development Programme's gender empowerment index, in which Turkey, which was ranked 63 in 2002, has dropped to 90 today, falling behind even Saudi Arabia. The World Economic Forum's gender gap report shows a similarly startling slip, from 105 in 2002 to 123 in 2008 out of 130 countries ranked.
Today in Turkey there is "selective" free speech. You can at any time gather anywhere with fellow Muslims, make the ugliest hate-speech against Jews (including holding out that recent placard which read "Hitler was right") and get away with it. Since the beginning of the Israeli incursion into Gaza, Turkey has never been short of such demonstrations, and has been full of such placards and slogans and incidents. Has anyone been prosecuted for hate speech? No. No one will ever be.
Now think of it the other way round. If a group of atheists had made similar demonstrations with similar placards targeting, for example, all monotheistic religions, would they be prosecuted or not Ğ or course if they escaped lynching in the first place. Are we sure we are all equal before law? Mr Dawkins’s Web site is a breach of Turkish laws; but the slogan "Hitler was right" is not. How very European!
Mr Erdoğan argues that Turkey’s Jews are fully protected by laws and law enforcement. Here is a proposal for a little sociological experiment which can help us understand if he is right. I volunteer to go to public places and make anti-Semitic hate speeches and see what social/legal consequences, if any, I shall face.
In return, we shall ask to send our chief negotiator, Egemen Bağiş, deep into the Anatolian heartland, have him disguised as a Turkish Jew and speak to the locals at coffee shops, denounce Hamas as a terrorist organization and defend Israel’s right to retaliate. That way we can see how safely our Jewish citizens can freely express themselves in public. Free and democratic Turkey? Yes, as long as freedoms and democracy are for the Islamic cause. Ironically, that’s even more "Islamic" than how the Ottoman Military Band marched into Europe four centuries before.
There were more "forward steps too. For example, Mr Erdoğan’s Cabinet restored the citizenship of the great poet Nazım Hikmet, a move which only deserves praise. In the meantime, the state broadcaster launched a Kurdish channel, another move "forward." But where, from a macro perspective rather than micro, do we stand in terms of civil liberties and European democratic values?
Ironically, Mr Erdoğan’s party passed new internet laws that eventually banned YouTube, making Turkey the only European country to deny access to this popular Web site, although Mr Erdoğan himself told reporters recently that he had access to it and advised everyone to do so Ğ implying the use of proxy Web sites.
Also banned in the virtual world is the Web site of the British ethologist and popular science author Richard Dawkins, whose "The God Delusion" is probably the most widely-known atheist manifesto of our times. How can we associate a court ban on an atheist scientist’s popular Web site with civil liberties? But that’s only too normal under the rule of a prime minister who has become a nominee for the caliph. Or is atheism banned in Turkey? Legally not. Then why is the court ban allowed? Because any judge can at any time cite the article on "inciting hatred along religious lines" to ban an unwanted belief. The question is, how "European" would that be?
The Ergenekon investigation is full of procedural and substantial legal breaches, but a couple of recent examples have made it look more absurd. In one of them, the prosecutor has indicted one of the suspects with "provoking the public against the government." If that charge does not verify any violent activity for the purpose, what’s wrong if someone provoked the public opinion against the government? Is this not what the opposition is supposed to do?
In the other example, the chief prosecutor has indicted another Ergenekon suspect under Article 301 (humiliating Turkishness and Turkey’s institutions) and the presiding judge accepted to hear the case. Are the reforms not for everyone? Are the Ergenekon suspects exempt from the liberties Turkey’s European friends favor? And, what about gender equality? According to Soner Çağaptay from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, "The position of women in Turkey is also problematic." Mr Çağaptay forcefully reminds us of the U.N. Development Programme's gender empowerment index, in which Turkey, which was ranked 63 in 2002, has dropped to 90 today, falling behind even Saudi Arabia. The World Economic Forum's gender gap report shows a similarly startling slip, from 105 in 2002 to 123 in 2008 out of 130 countries ranked.
Today in Turkey there is "selective" free speech. You can at any time gather anywhere with fellow Muslims, make the ugliest hate-speech against Jews (including holding out that recent placard which read "Hitler was right") and get away with it. Since the beginning of the Israeli incursion into Gaza, Turkey has never been short of such demonstrations, and has been full of such placards and slogans and incidents. Has anyone been prosecuted for hate speech? No. No one will ever be.
Now think of it the other way round. If a group of atheists had made similar demonstrations with similar placards targeting, for example, all monotheistic religions, would they be prosecuted or not Ğ or course if they escaped lynching in the first place. Are we sure we are all equal before law? Mr Dawkins’s Web site is a breach of Turkish laws; but the slogan "Hitler was right" is not. How very European!
Mr Erdoğan argues that Turkey’s Jews are fully protected by laws and law enforcement. Here is a proposal for a little sociological experiment which can help us understand if he is right. I volunteer to go to public places and make anti-Semitic hate speeches and see what social/legal consequences, if any, I shall face.
In return, we shall ask to send our chief negotiator, Egemen Bağiş, deep into the Anatolian heartland, have him disguised as a Turkish Jew and speak to the locals at coffee shops, denounce Hamas as a terrorist organization and defend Israel’s right to retaliate. That way we can see how safely our Jewish citizens can freely express themselves in public. Free and democratic Turkey? Yes, as long as freedoms and democracy are for the Islamic cause. Ironically, that’s even more "Islamic" than how the Ottoman Military Band marched into Europe four centuries before.
Paylaş
LinkedinFlipboardLinki KopyalaYazı Tipi
