Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

ANKARA: Losing Freedom of Speech

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • ANKARA: Losing Freedom of Speech

    Losing Freedom of Speech

    Journal of Turkish Weekly, Turkey
    May 5 2006

    Turkish foreign minister, Abdullah Gul, asked a quite meaningful
    question to French politicians whether he or one of his colleagues
    would be punished for rejecting the Armenian genocide. It was a very
    well advised question indeed. Really how should the Turkish
    politicians answer questions regarding the so called Armenian
    genocide? Getting a prison sentence is not a very weak possibility
    even for political figures. The leader of the Turkish Proletarian
    Party, Dogu Perincek, was arrested in Switzerland due to his speeches
    regarding the issue just a few months before.

    Such a thing has of course roots in (political) attitudes toward
    other nations, but it would be missing the entire picture to say that
    such instances are directed to a certain case, nation, or belief. The
    situation seems much worse than just blindly opposing a particular
    group of people. Europe recedes from its tolerant culture in general.

    Tolerance is not the only value, which we back out of. The
    humanitarian values, on which the modern Europe is built, are now on
    a quite splitting base.

    The cartoons of Jyllands-Posten led to an intense tension in the
    world public opinion. Many supported them quite passionately, however
    people preferred to keep their silence in many similar issues
    afterwards. The famous historian, David Irving, experienced quite
    uneasy days when he contradicted the established belief on the
    Holocaust. Thanks to God, it did not realize but the Austrian court
    jailed him for three years for the speeches, he gave ten years
    before. What he said is open to debate but rejecting what someone
    says is something and abolishing the right to express what he wants
    to do are two very distinct things. Sentencing an academician for
    what he said is totally another thing. It is thought provoking that
    all the process about Mr. Irving took place in February this year, in
    the middle of all the discussion about the cartoon issue.

    Nowadays the Dutch Labor Party discusses introducing a preliminary
    evaluation and checking of interviews, its members give. The recent
    abolishment of a commercial Tv advertisement in the Netherlands is
    even more confusing. The publicity medium was Rita Verdonk (the
    Minister of integration and minorities) and her strict attitude was
    criticized in a quite funny approach. Just like in many other cases,
    she was quite determined in expelling a refugee because his residence
    permit had expired. The fact that this refugee was a famous
    footballer, made the case much more popular than the others. In the
    advertisement, Mrs. Verdonk's husband was driving crazy when that guy
    scored against the Netherlands. The Dutch courts will now punish the
    advertiser 50 000 Euros each time if it continues showing the
    advertisement. People criticized this repressiveness but it can not
    be said that there was a remarkable opposition to all these
    happenings. People did not underline the significance of freedom of
    speech in many of these instances. Restrictiveness seems to grow
    silently. The list of examples can be further lengthened...

    The point is to be wise enough to be able to form a common platform
    to discuss this. Opposing or supporting the Holocaust is one thing,
    but sentencing an academician to prison just because of his speeches
    is another thing. Maybe the most frightening aspect of all these
    cases is that, they take place without any noteworthy opposition. Of
    course not everything can be said, there should be some basic
    concerns and some exceptions like respect, national integrity, etc
    but one sightedness should not be the guide.

    We, all are on the edge of a gloomy phase indeed and losing something
    very valuable. It took quite a long time for people to become wise
    enough to learn the importance discussing rather than blindly
    promoting their own ideologies. The democratic values thought people
    the significance of providing a neutral ground, on which different
    people could express what they believed. We are now edging away from
    liberal democratic ideology and becoming hostiles again. On the other
    hand, liberals, themselves also act highly contradictory to their
    ideologies nowadays. How much liberal are liberals themselves in this
    context? Or does liberalism just follow a path towards a different
    form of fundamentalism? Liberals are quite open when what they
    believe is at stake but critical and even aggressive when people
    contradict them. Ayaan Ali Hirsi, the member of parliament of Dutch
    Liberal Party, recently published an article with the title of
    confrontation in place of collaboration. She was charging Islam due
    to being the source of terrorism and radicalization within the
    society in her article, just like she does in all her speeches. In
    the meantime, she is chosen as the candidate for the Nobel price for
    this year.

    To conclude, Europe losses its basic principles and exaggerated
    nationalism, Islamaphobia, exclusionism take their place. Maybe we
    should now ask ourselves the question whether systems can survive
    despite eradicating their core values.

    05 May 2006

    Nermin Aydemir is Netherland representative for Journal of Turkish
    Weekly
Working...
X