Turkey's AKP seeks a 'religious model', prosecutor says
Turkey's chief prosecutor Abdurrahman Yalcinkaya accused the governing AKP of trying to eliminate the principles of secularism and of seeking a model based on religion, according to the indictment. CNN Turk television reported Yalcinkaya presented audio and video tape evidence, in addition to the 162-page long indictment, to support his accusations.
CNN Turk television reported Yalcinkaya presented audio and video tape evidence, in addition to the 162-page long indictment, to support his accusations.
More seriously, Migeru has the comparison below. Religious parties in Turkey are our nazi parties. Rien n'est gratuit en ce bas monde. Tout s'expie, le bien comme le mal, se paie tot ou tard. Le bien c'est beaucoup plus cher, forcement. Celine
To be honest, I'm not sure I'd take such a statement from a non-Turk, and even from a Turk I'd demand some backup arguments. When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
It seems to me that this is the argument in this case, that the Turkish constitution posits secularism to be the necessary foundation of democracy. Rien n'est gratuit en ce bas monde. Tout s'expie, le bien comme le mal, se paie tot ou tard. Le bien c'est beaucoup plus cher, forcement. Celine
You are right that the Turkish constitution posits secularism, and that the AKP could be declared illegal. But of course it is as well indeed impossible to integrate such a military dictatorship into the EU. Gemach, gemach
Most things I have ever heard of that the AKP has asked for in terms of religious freedom are legal in Germany. As far as I know, we are not an islamic theocracy. Gemach, gemach
I don't doubt that you'd get a lot of support for a change to the Turkish constitution from voters.
Just you wait, by 2020 Muslims will form a majority and make everyone where a burqa. I read it in the Wall Street Journal so it must be true.
But the 'extreme interpretations of secularism' (the same way many people in France interpret it) are the ones, the constitutional court in Turkey is enforcing.
Everybody voting for the AKP is clearly an enemy of the constitution.
That's just patently untrue, and an absurd conclusion.
I think it matters, if the constitution represents a general consensus or not. Being against some aspects of a constitution is not being against that constitution as a whole, but when the disagreement covers issues of everyday live such as the suppression of Islam, when the military threatens publicly a coup in case somebody (Gül) is elected president, who has major support in the population, and well, when it happens what is described in this diary, that the majority party is on court to be forbidden, this are not minor issues, even if it turns out it is finally not forbidden and the military doesn't do a coup. I don't think most Turks want a revolution, but they want to change the character of the country. That is more than just an arbitrary change of responsibilities from a president to a prime minister. The AKP people will never say it that way, because that could stop the peaceful change of Turkey, but the secularists say it, e.g. in interviews on TV. And how many Europeans fight for the death penalty? Ten? Gemach, gemach
I take you interpret the AKP voting base as opposed to the Constitution, for supporting a government in clinch with the secular establishment? I think you go too far. The military establishment and even the Constitutional Court aren't the Constitution. They are interpreting it. The conflict is a serious issue, but you are assuming its conclusion at a time AKP people are still fighting for the interpretation that they are NOT in contradiction with the unchangeable parts of the Constitution. *Traitor*, n. A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.
And I imagine, that some people are pretty convinced, given what is at stake, if the AKP would really be forbidden. Which countries would want to be friends of the next Turkish gov, if the biggest democratic party is forbidden? Belarus? Gemach, gemach
That's just one country. After some searching, I find that there are now majorities against the death penalty in most EU-15 countries, but majorities for all across the former East Bloc (for example the Czech Republic), as well as Southeast Europe, and the UK. That's most European countries. In Poland, an advocate is President. *Traitor*, n. A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.
I think we talked about this when it happened:
The July 18, 2007 edition of the magazine was sequestered by law on July 20 considering that it violated laws 490.3 and 491 (both related to insults to the Crown) and was an offence to Prince of Asturias and his wife, which were portrayed with a caricature in the front cover performing a sexual act. This caricature made reference to a new proposal of the government, where 2500€ will be given to parents for each newborn child. Since the prince has never performed a remunerated job, the caricature said that if the princess got pregnant and they got the 2500€, that's the nearest the prince will be to working. [1] Its website was also briefly closed but has since re-opened. In November 13, 2007, Guillermo Torres and Manel Fontdevila were found guilty of having offended the crown, "had vilified the crown in the most gratuitous and unnecessary way", and were fined 3,000€ each. [1]
If we're going to prosecute everybody who advocates unconstitutional policies, we're going to need a helluva lot more prosecutors, cops and jails. WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!
According to media reports, the indictment accusses Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan of statements that are the "focal point of the anti-secular actions." During a recent visit to Spain, Erdogan, in a response to a question about the headscarf, asked: "Even if it's a political symbol. Is it a crime to wear headscarf as a political symbol? Can you ban icons, symbols."
So I'm not bugged by the reasoning used. Now as to whether such a stringent understanding of secularism is required in Turkey today, I don't know. Rien n'est gratuit en ce bas monde. Tout s'expie, le bien comme le mal, se paie tot ou tard. Le bien c'est beaucoup plus cher, forcement. Celine
I'm not bugged by the fact that what I agree to be a reasonable law -- forbidding nazi parties -- can have different objects somewhere else.
So, for you, when they were forbidding the communist party, they were right?
More generally, if a bunch of military and nationalists decide that it is dangerous for the country to promote the Kurdish culture, or the environment, or whatever, they are entitled to forbid any movement doing so? "Ne te courbe que pour aimer..." René Char
The guest post by Andrew Arato on Juan Cole's blog explains the issue very well (my emphasis).
Informed Comment: Arato: The Turkish Constitutional Crisis and the Road Beyond
The makers of the Constitution of 1982 established a dual, semi authoritarian or semi democratic state, with important reserves of power outside the constitution. Starting with the elections of 1983, and then constitutional changes already in 1987 Turgut Özal managed to expand the democratic dimension, leading to a great reform process from 1995 to 2004, that in several rounds that involved the consensual participation of all parliamentary political parties, managed to significantly but by no means completely constitutionalize political powers in the system. Today people stress several military and indeed judicial interventions in this period, that we can see only managed to slow down the rate of change, exclude parties that would reappear in new forms and under new names, but nevertheless confirming the existence of important political centers that could continue to act outside all democratic accountability and constitutional restraints. From 2000-2001 especially, the Turkish parties and governments were under increasing European pressure to eliminate these authoritarian residues, and it was then that the idea of a gradual amendment of 1982 Constitution was replaced by that of a new "civil" or "civilian" Consitutiton. But though the point was not entirely clear either to the European critics or the Turkish participants, unless Turkey had a revolution against the Constitution of 1982, even an entirely new civilian constitution would have to be introduced as a large scale amendment of the still valid basic law.
The Constitution of 1982 has unchangeable provisions that the parliament cannot alter even with 100% of the vote having to do with the republican, secular and unitary character of the state. (Articles 1, 2,3 made unchangeable by Art. 4).
Furthermore even if the Constitutional Court cannot gain much legitimacy in defending the unchangeable provisions of an originally authoritarian Constitution, the legality of its jurisdiction provides it with a vantage point to bring attention to the equally weak legitimacy of a power seeking to alter this constitution on the bases of mere majority will. Both legitimacies are questionable, but the legal position of the Court will remain stronger unless the amendment rule itself were amended by parliament, an act that the Court could again find unconstitutional...because implicitly challenging the unchangeable articles.
Let me point out here, that in most areas imaginable, the AKP has been more democratic, more secular (under pressure) and more europeanist than the Kemalist parties - by far. To even debate this as if it should be an issue in a democratic society, is pointless. Erdogan's party is vastly less religious fundamentalist than extremist christian parties in the Netherlands, say.
It's an irony of history perhaps, but the road to Turkey's democratization passes through the islamic party... The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom - William Blake
The AKP was formed after a previous pro-Islamic party was banned. Its founders have since steered a moderate path, pursuing democratic reforms and directing Turkey towards the EU, says the BBC's Sarah Rainsford. But they spent their political youth in the ranks of an overtly Islamist movement - and ardent secularists do not believe their views have changed.
But they spent their political youth in the ranks of an overtly Islamist movement - and ardent secularists do not believe their views have changed.
Article premier La France est une République indivisible, laïque, démocratique et sociale. Elle assure l'égalité devant la loi de tous les citoyens sans distinction d'origine, de race ou de religion. Elle respecte toutes les croyances.
La France est une République indivisible, laïque, démocratique et sociale. Elle assure l'égalité devant la loi de tous les citoyens sans distinction d'origine, de race ou de religion. Elle respecte toutes les croyances.
It also says in the declaration of Human rights:
Article X - Nul ne doit être inquiété pour ses opinions, même religieuses, pourvu que leur manifestation ne trouble pas l'ordre public établi par la loi.
The separation between Church and State is created by law. I imagine that this kind of policy would require a vote in parliament. If it is voted, it would go to the Constitutional Court (not sure), where it would have to be weighted against public order, indivisibilty and Laicity. Rien n'est gratuit en ce bas monde. Tout s'expie, le bien comme le mal, se paie tot ou tard. Le bien c'est beaucoup plus cher, forcement. Celine
The party's attempt to ease a ban on the wearing of the Islamic headscarf is expected to be central to the evidence.
Girls being allowed to wear headscarves -- not forced to, but simply allowed to -- undermines the political system? You don't find that argument even the least bit silly? WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!
