Sunday, March 16, 2008

The logica of some Turkish journalists

I know that Turkish people want to read nice stories. But this is not a nice one.
After the action of the Turkish Chief prosecutor to ban the ruling AKP party, some Turkish journalists are defending this – by attacking the EU for double standards – that Europe had a history of banning parties. The truth is something else. First you cannot say the EU, still confusing this with Europe. And second, the countries in the EU don’t have a history of banning political parties. Only the KPD in 1956, in West Germany was banned.


It is extremely difficult to ban political parties in Europe, and attempts to shut down parties are regarded as incompatible with liberal democracies. When political parties appealed to Germany's Supreme Court to ban the Nazi Party, their request was turned down on grounds that the allegations were not sufficiently sound. A similar move in Belgium to ban the openly racist Vlaams Belang (The Benefit of the Flemish People) Party was rejected by the country's highest court.
Batasuna in Spain can still act, on personal note, openly, and is not illegal in France.
We can discuss which parties were considered illegal in Franco’s Spain, under the Greek Junta, or under the torn of the Soviet Union in Central and East Europe.
It’s now about parties in countries which are member or wannabee members of the EU. Countries which are members of the NATO, the OESO. Nothing else counts at the moment.
And Turkey has a record of closing down parties: 24 in the last 44 years. For some of you: even during the Cold War, the communist parties were allowed and even represented in several governments (Italy).

I confess



Online churches are nothing new. But confessions on Internet?!
For people who feel guilty to a sin among us there is now: forgivenet.com.
You can send an email or post an anonymous request for forgiveness.

Do we really need these kind of confessions done through Internet? Does it makes sense?

No real interaction anymore?

The great Turkish hypocrisy

Friday, March 14, 2008 - Turkish Daily News

We know all too well that Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s (and most Turks’) selective tolerance to terrorism against Israel has religious connotations. Did anyone complain of ‘double standards’


Burak BEKDİL

The Turks, whether in official attire or civilian, often – and not without good reason – complain about western hypocrisy when it comes to terrorism. What they see as unjust and systematically hypocritical is the cliché symptom of real-politik that makes a man shooting and bombing for a political cause someone's terrorist and the other's freedom fighter.

The Turks are right and wrong at the same time. They are right to think that some EU states have discriminated against the Turkish fight against Kurdish terror – due to a combination of reasons of real-politik and of romanticism, with the latter strongly linked to the Turkish state's decades-long denial policy and the oppression of an ethnicity which the Turks never realized was an ethnicity before the shooting began. But they are wrong to think that double (or rather, multiple) standards in recognizing and identifying the terrorist and honestly fighting him apply only to their case.
There have been several examples in world politics, even within EU borders, of the same ethos the Turks think is special to them. How really willing were the French about helping their Spanish neighbors on ETA? How willing were the Americans about helping their closest allies, the British, on IRA? No doubt, these examples can be multiplied.

Turks' own hypocrisy:

But the “uglier” side of the problem about the Turkish perceptions of “systematic international hypocrisy” is not the Turks' belief that they are the world's only victims of foreign support/tolerance for “some” terrorism. The “uglier” problem is the Turks' own hypocrisy. Too sad, if the Turks can be terror-hypocrites it would only be too surprising if other nations are not.

And do these poor Chechens not deserve an independent state after all? Of course, they do. But the Kurds do not. What's the difference? The average Turk does not like the “infidel Russians” whereas the Chechens are “our Muslim cousins.” “Our chaps” can kill children, our enemies cannot. Would the same average Turk sympathize with the Uighur man if/when he resorts to violence, or with the Chinese state? Not too difficult to guess. But there is more.
Continue reading here

EU draft report on Turkey of this week

“Turkish authorities should resolutely pursue investigations into the Ergenekon affair, to fully uncover its networks reaching into the state structures and to bring those involved to justice.“

The Ergenekon gang, a neo-nationalist group accused of involvement in plans to stage a violent uprising against the government, was discovered at the end of an investigation that came upon the heels of a police raid in June of last year that uncovered an arms depot in a house in İstanbul's Ümraniye district. The prosecutor in the Ergenekon case has said the gang worked to create disorder and chaos through divisive and violent acts so the public would be willing to accept a military intervention to restore order.


click here for the report in short.

How much are the events of this Friday and the EU draft report related to each other since the AKP is the only party which is willing to go after the deep state?

Day Opening - March 16


1957 -- Margaret Philips, by Henry Clarke (1918-1996), an haute couture photographer whose work reached its height in the 1950's and 60's.