Tweet
GUL'S ELECTION AS TURKEY'S PRESIDENT NOT "A VICTORY FOR DEMOCRACY"
Blogger News Network
http://www.bloggernews.net/19901
by The Stiletto
Sept 3 2007
In the latest example of MSM groupthink, The New York Times, The
Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal and other major papers
hailed the election of Abdullah Gul - a devout Muslim whose wife
wears a headscarf - as president of Turkey "a victory for democracy"
(in fact, both the WaPo and The Times used this very phrase).
So what if Gul was elected? So were Adolph Hitler and Hugo Chavez.
"Democratic" elections do not ensure "a victory for democracy."
In a presumptuous editorial, The Times even goes so far to advise
Turkey's military, which has overthrown four governments (in 1960,
1971, 1980 and 1997), to "help the elected government to succeed -
by staying out of politics." The Times adds:
Though nearly all of Turkey's 70 million people identify themselves
as Muslim, the Turkish Constitution calls for strict secularity
in public life. The insistence on secularism, in place since the
country's founding in 1923, was intended to counter what were viewed
as anti-modern strains within Islam that impeded development. ...
Ataturk's ultimate goal was for Turkey to become a Western-style
democracy. And in such a democracy, the military exists to serve the
government, not the other way around.
The generals, who treasure Turkey's ties to the West as a member of
NATO, have yet to grasp this ...
Has anyone at The Times - or any other major U.S. paper - actually
read the Turkish Constitution, which has been rewritten as many times
as the military has overthrown the government (1921, 1924, 1961 and
1982)? The very Articles that define a Western-style democracy are
contravened by several blatantly unconstitutional laws. Not only
the Turkish judiciary has never invalidated or banned application
of these laws - as obligated to under Article 9 - lower courts have
applied them unhesitatingly to stifle or punish dissent.
For instance, Articles 26, 27 and 28 of the Turkish Constitution, which
establish freedom of expression and guarantee freedom of the press, are
negated by Turkish Penal Code Article 301 (which makes it a crime to
"insult Turkishness" or to "insult Islam") and Article 305 (which makes
it a crime to "promote" the Armenian Genocide as settled history).
Dozens of journalists, novelists and playwrights have been charged and,
in some cases, prosecuted under Article 301 and/or Article 305.
One of these was Armenian journalist Hrant Dink, who was repeatedly
charged and prosecuted under Article 301 - and was convicted in
October 2005.
And what about Article 10 (which prohibits discrimination based
on "language, race, color, sex, political opinion, philosophical
convictions or religious beliefs") and Article 12 (which guarantees
"fundamental rights and freedoms", including right to life, security
of person and right to property)? None of these protections seem to
apply to Muslims who convert to Christianity. Turkish law treats
converts as having renounced Turkishness - and they are routinely
prosecuted and jailed for "insulting Islam."
And when Dink - who received numerous death threats from Nationalist
sympathizers after his Article 301 conviction - appealed to the local
magistrate for police protection, his pleas went unanswered. Turkish
writers brought up on Article 301 charges received protection as
soon as they asked for it. They are all alive today; Dink was gunned
down in the street in front of his newspaper's offices in January. So
much for Article 10's barring discrimination based on race, political
opinion and philosophical conviction - to say nothing of Article 12's
guarantees of life and security of person.
One of the few papers to get it right is The Hartford Courant:
Abdullah Gul's election as president of Turkey will put to a test the
contention that democracy and human rights are compatible with Islam.
...
Turkey's attempts to join the European Union would come to naught if
the government limits women's rights, abuses the rights of ethnic
minorities and refuses to change anti-democratic laws that punish
citizens for "crimes" under the umbrella of "insulting Turkishness."
One longstanding requisite for joining the European Union is
for Turkey's government to acknowledge that its imperial Ottoman
predecessor waged a genocidal war against Armenians.
In practice, Turkey's Constitution is not worth the paper it is
printed on when it comes to guaranteeing a secular, pluralistic and
democratic government for its non-Muslim minority population. As the
judiciary has not been inclined to rein in Nationalists - even after
Dink's murder, which involved a conspiracy that included the police
chief of the town of Trabzon - there is little hope that Islamism
will be checked by the courts.
The Times has "yet to grasp" the vital role the military plays in
stepping in when all other government institutions fail. True, Turkey
will never be a Western-style democracy - but at least it won't become
another Islamic republic.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
Blogger News Network
http://www.bloggernews.net/19901
by The Stiletto
Sept 3 2007
In the latest example of MSM groupthink, The New York Times, The
Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal and other major papers
hailed the election of Abdullah Gul - a devout Muslim whose wife
wears a headscarf - as president of Turkey "a victory for democracy"
(in fact, both the WaPo and The Times used this very phrase).
So what if Gul was elected? So were Adolph Hitler and Hugo Chavez.
"Democratic" elections do not ensure "a victory for democracy."
In a presumptuous editorial, The Times even goes so far to advise
Turkey's military, which has overthrown four governments (in 1960,
1971, 1980 and 1997), to "help the elected government to succeed -
by staying out of politics." The Times adds:
Though nearly all of Turkey's 70 million people identify themselves
as Muslim, the Turkish Constitution calls for strict secularity
in public life. The insistence on secularism, in place since the
country's founding in 1923, was intended to counter what were viewed
as anti-modern strains within Islam that impeded development. ...
Ataturk's ultimate goal was for Turkey to become a Western-style
democracy. And in such a democracy, the military exists to serve the
government, not the other way around.
The generals, who treasure Turkey's ties to the West as a member of
NATO, have yet to grasp this ...
Has anyone at The Times - or any other major U.S. paper - actually
read the Turkish Constitution, which has been rewritten as many times
as the military has overthrown the government (1921, 1924, 1961 and
1982)? The very Articles that define a Western-style democracy are
contravened by several blatantly unconstitutional laws. Not only
the Turkish judiciary has never invalidated or banned application
of these laws - as obligated to under Article 9 - lower courts have
applied them unhesitatingly to stifle or punish dissent.
For instance, Articles 26, 27 and 28 of the Turkish Constitution, which
establish freedom of expression and guarantee freedom of the press, are
negated by Turkish Penal Code Article 301 (which makes it a crime to
"insult Turkishness" or to "insult Islam") and Article 305 (which makes
it a crime to "promote" the Armenian Genocide as settled history).
Dozens of journalists, novelists and playwrights have been charged and,
in some cases, prosecuted under Article 301 and/or Article 305.
One of these was Armenian journalist Hrant Dink, who was repeatedly
charged and prosecuted under Article 301 - and was convicted in
October 2005.
And what about Article 10 (which prohibits discrimination based
on "language, race, color, sex, political opinion, philosophical
convictions or religious beliefs") and Article 12 (which guarantees
"fundamental rights and freedoms", including right to life, security
of person and right to property)? None of these protections seem to
apply to Muslims who convert to Christianity. Turkish law treats
converts as having renounced Turkishness - and they are routinely
prosecuted and jailed for "insulting Islam."
And when Dink - who received numerous death threats from Nationalist
sympathizers after his Article 301 conviction - appealed to the local
magistrate for police protection, his pleas went unanswered. Turkish
writers brought up on Article 301 charges received protection as
soon as they asked for it. They are all alive today; Dink was gunned
down in the street in front of his newspaper's offices in January. So
much for Article 10's barring discrimination based on race, political
opinion and philosophical conviction - to say nothing of Article 12's
guarantees of life and security of person.
One of the few papers to get it right is The Hartford Courant:
Abdullah Gul's election as president of Turkey will put to a test the
contention that democracy and human rights are compatible with Islam.
...
Turkey's attempts to join the European Union would come to naught if
the government limits women's rights, abuses the rights of ethnic
minorities and refuses to change anti-democratic laws that punish
citizens for "crimes" under the umbrella of "insulting Turkishness."
One longstanding requisite for joining the European Union is
for Turkey's government to acknowledge that its imperial Ottoman
predecessor waged a genocidal war against Armenians.
In practice, Turkey's Constitution is not worth the paper it is
printed on when it comes to guaranteeing a secular, pluralistic and
democratic government for its non-Muslim minority population. As the
judiciary has not been inclined to rein in Nationalists - even after
Dink's murder, which involved a conspiracy that included the police
chief of the town of Trabzon - there is little hope that Islamism
will be checked by the courts.
The Times has "yet to grasp" the vital role the military plays in
stepping in when all other government institutions fail. True, Turkey
will never be a Western-style democracy - but at least it won't become
another Islamic republic.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress