Slashdot Mirror
Turkish Assembly Votes For Censoring of Web Sites
unity100 writes "CNN has some news about a recent development in Turkey where the Turkish assembly, totally out of line with Turkey's commitment to EU membership, has voted to have sites that 'insult to the founder of modern Turkey' censored from entire Turkish population. This, just about a month after the decision to censor YouTube was reached by the Turkish courts. 'On Thursday, lawmakers in the commission also debated whether the proposal should be widened to allow the Turkish Telecommunications Board to block access to any sites that question the principles of the Turkish secular system or the unity of the Turkish state -- a reference to Web sites with information on Kurdish rebels in Turkey.'"
They already deny genocide against Armenians, and jail anyone who protests, etc. Compared to that, this is minor.
Another point to consider is that there is growing dissatisfaction with the idea of joining the EU. Basically Turkey has made major, major changes to the law and its government in an effort to get into the EU, but so far the process has been stalled by EU member states who are understandably wary (for a number of reasons) about letting Turkey in. Because of this, many Turkish citizens are now increasingly adopting a "kiss off" attitude towards EU membership and the EU itself. Perhaps this move is another sign of the frustration... a defiant gesture, if you will.
-PxB
Illegalizing the expression of these thoughts will do nothing more than feed the fire, increasing the number of individuals who think this way. To those who dislike the current state of their country, this just makes these groups seem more like freedom or resistance fighters than the foul upholders of the antithesis of freedom that they are. The way to stop this is to debate them, confront their ideals honestly and openly and show them to be the stupid bastards they are; to do anything less is not just the wrong way to go about things (you can't restrict freedoms in order to protect them) but will eventually lead to you losing the argument against such movements. I think people here understand quite well that such ideas are worrying, but this is the wrong way to combat them.
So my answer to your question "Think of it this way, do you think that someone who advocates the end of free speech as meritory of free speech benefits themselves?" is yes; the more you move to restrict their freedoms, the closer you get to becoming them yourself.
If there is so much as one Turk who chafes at the yolk of censorship, then they are wrong and we do not have to respect them (same goes for our own government, or any other form of majority-rule).
Of course, Thomas Jefferson doesn't go for much around here, any more, so take that as you will.
the laws they are taking about are to protect a man who wanted to emulate the West as much as possible
One of those laws being that we in the west are free to criticise and ridicule individuals as we see fit. No doubt the man in question would be the first to insist that no law should be enacted to protect him from such criticism.
You can stop people from speaking terrible things but you can't stop them from thinking terrible things. I, for one, would prefer to know who the bigots are.
The issue is not bigotry. The issue is respect. The Turks expect us to respect how they suppress human rights (by, for example, censoring web sites). We should respect them.
You've got to be kidding me. For some reason I think the majority screwing over the minority and abusing their human rights isn't something that should be tolerated, much less respected. Human suffering is almost never acceptable and just because the majority of Turkey may not care about the rights of others who live in the country doesn't mean we shouldn't pressure Turkey into accepting "our Western values." If by "Western values" you mean respecting people's civil and human rights, then, yes, we should try to push those values on Turkey as much as possible.
Close, but not cigar.
Thomas Jefferson, statesman that he was, signed off on the document that decreed slaves were not people, but property and would count only as 2/3rds of a person for the purposes of representation. Never mind that the slaves, not being people, weren't represented anyway.
Jefferson knew that the time was not yet right. Had the U.S. Constitution mandated the end of slavery and full rights for ex-slaves, the Republic would have fallen apart and the Revolution would have been for naught. However, the seeds were sewn for that phrase you quoted to come to fruition when the time was ripe. In the case of slavery, it was almost a century later.
The time is not right in Turkey, or many other nations, for full freedom of speech. Like it or not, there are some very heated passions in that part of the world. They are forcibly integrating peoples and ethnic groups who don't want to be integrated, and that will take time. Generations, maybe centuries, will pass but to see thru their development as a modern, peaceful, enlightened, secular and democratic nation they believe the vision of the Ataturk is the best path. That vision is still young and fragile.
Formal membership in the E.U. will, I believe, shorten their transition time. Embrace and extend, if you like. Disintegration into separate ethnic and religious States is not in the best interest of the peoples of Turkey, nor in the best interests of Europe.
Push too hard, too soon and Turkey will break. Does Europe truly want a theocracy sitting on their doorstep?
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
I'm American, so I don't really have a horse in the race, and I disagree (mostly). You are probably correct that Turkey is not ready for full freedom of speech, religion, etc. It doesn't seem to be an issue that most Turks support strongly. I may be wrong on that, but that's certainly how it seems to me. However, the European Union must not under any circumstances budge in any of these instances.
The fact is that the EU already exists. It doesn't have to make the same decisions that the US had to make in order to ensure the survival of the government. They have dealt with insane countries at their border before (i.e. USSR, Yugoslavia, North Africa) and they can do so again. There is absolutely no need to make such a large compromise here, the EU is much better off without Turkey than Turkey without the EU. If it wants admittance, it must play by the rules completely. If that doesn't happen, then it doesn't happen. But this is an issue so important that the EU absolutely can't bend. If it takes fifty or a hundred years for Turkey to accept, then so be it. What's the point of even having freedoms spelled out in a constitution (or treaties, whatever it is that makes up EU law) if you're just going to write them off for a relatively small political and economic gain?
I'm foremost a pragmatist, but do you really want to undermine the very things the EU is supposed to protect? What really is the worth of having Turkey in the EU if it means giving up some of your own rights (nominally, sure but still)? What if EU laws concerning free expression of religion in Turkey actually causes radical Islam to *increase* its influence? It's not a given that membership in the EU will affect positive change in Turkey.