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.'"
Let's see how the EU responds to this. I wonder if they will do anything at all, or if they will be activ eabout it. I haven't follwed their actions much at all since I live in America, but I have hopes for it.
Actually, I take that back. China & the US would like to have free trade going into Europe, but not coming out. That would be silly.
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
Attaturk seems to have been one cool dude. What other nation of Muslims has in its Constitution that Islam must be kept out of the government? They owe that constitution to the man.
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
It would be interesting indeed. Reminds me of a debate I had in a class recently about gun control laws. (From what I recall) Guns in Japan are difficult to find, and crime rates are pretty low. But at the same time Nearly everyone in Switzerland has a gun, and crime rates are also low. I think culture, and expectations of the government hold a large part in what the public of an area need or want censorship wise.
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
Armenian genocide
The Turkish government really, really doesn't want to talk about this. Bring it up too forcefully in Turkey and it can get you killed. So the subject is censored in Turkey, effectively enough that most of today's generation of Turks just can't believe that their great grandparents could have done anything so vile. I'd imagine that today's generation of Germans would have the same reaction if Germany hadn't been forced to face up to what the National Socialist German Workers Party did.
PBS did a pretty impressive special on the subject, available on DVD.
So... it's likely that the Turkish government will keep on censoring away. It's not like anyone's going to do anything effective about it. Sure, eventually they'll figure out that censoring the 'net is a fool's errand, but they'll kick that can down the road as long as they can. And even then, will enough Turkish citizens care enough to look?
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.
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.
Well (and that's an example, no country is a saint in this matter), the USA have been preaching on freedom and human rights for decades. It didn't prevent them to install and maintain bloody dictatorships in South America. And that, way before the USA "turned evil" and bashing the US became an olympic sport.
I do not think we (well, the West) have any right at all to interfere in Turkey or any other country.
Personally I don't think Turkey belongs to EU, and that's a matter for EU and Turkey, and no one else.
The rest, the internal Turkey matters as long as they stay out of EU, are their business and we have no right to mess with.
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.
Just what do you base this claim upon? Turkey is a democracy. It has its shortcomings. Care to get into an argument about a two-party stranglehold's effect on democratic processes?
Turkey is vehemently opposed to being forced to admit to Armenian genocide a century ago. At the same time, as many Turkish journalists have pointed out, France's stand against Turkey's admission into the EU because of this is certainly lest than virtuous, given that they have never owned up to their own more recent history in Algeria.
The PKK is a group recognised by the US State Department as a terrorist organisation. After its leader Abdullah Ocalan, was captured by Turkish Special Forces in Kenya, many governments and groups protested his trial as unfair. The main reasons for this was that the trial was held in the Ankara State Security Court, which is ruled by a three judge panel in which a military officer is included as one judge, and that after his arrest, Ocalan was unable to be reached by attorneys for ten days. Compare and contrast these judicial flaws with the obscene US treatment of detainees, and the Guantanamo Show Trials in which any defendant allegations of torture are considered classified information?
In regards to the YouTube incident mentioned; it was quickly ruled as an unconstitutional act by a Turkish court, and its import was greatly inflated in the Western media. Read a Turkish editorial on the matter:
Barin Kayaoglu, "Defending YouTube or Defending Atatürk?", Journal of Turkish Weekly, 17 March 2007
Try expanding your knowledge, instead of depending upon others' prejudices for you bigotry.
Rush Limbaugh is a perfect real world example of an oxycontinmoron
Without draconian measures such as this censorship, the gap between the religious people and the guardians of secularism would rapidly increase to the point where you could expect an Islamic revolution like the one in Iran.
People forget how Ataturk made the country secular - by excessive bloodshed and repression. The majority of the Turks never wanted to be secular and are still very much opposed to it. The relevant question is: do you allow your democracy to self-implode? Do you allow the election of a party that will eliminate democracy completely - not to mention freedom of speech, secularism etc
So don't judge too harshly - they are in a tight spot.
Of course their whole arrangement makes joining the EU any time soon very unlikely. This in turn gives them a sense of rejection which pushes the country towards Islamic government. If on the other hand the EU supports their fight for secularism, which takes from as limits on civil liberties, it is betraying its own principles. Not an entirely trivial situation.
Well, you don't seem to know much about turkey either. Turkey is probably one of the few countries were you will find the "liberals" siding along with the military powers.
Yes, Turkey is indeed secular and extremely western (depends a bit on what part of the west you compare it to) "thanks" to the efforts of the man who would be come known as ataturk, father turk, for his efforts to turn unite Turkey and turn it into a modern nation.
The problem is this, Turkey is NOT a united country by itself. One turk is NOT the same as another. This is one of the biggest problems with for instance immigration to the west. Those people that are looked down upon in western europe are looked down upon in Turkey as well. It is roughly like how a Hillbilly will be frowned upon in Amsterdam by the locals AND by any visiting New Yorkers.
Turkey however so far has remain united thanks to its military leadership that comes down like a ton of bricks on anyone who dares to take Turkey in an undesired direction. The EU problem is that the Turkey that has the most change to join is also in a very real sense a military dictatorship. If as the EU insists the military reduces its influence then Turkey might very well become an islamic state.
Remember the riots in France about banning headscarfs? Similar stuff happens all over europe usually at the level of should headscarfs be allowed to be worn by public officials, like for instance in the courtsmthe legal system should be impartial, and at least in most european countries judges and other officials are therefore NOT allowed to show any signs of religion or politics. Muslims being allowed to wear headscarfs is therefore a direct attack on western traditions. So what is the case in Turkey? Well, they are banned and the military makes sue that that remains to be the way because they know what secular means.
So yes, turkey is a modern secular state, BUT what the grandparent might have been referring too is that it seems that IF the people in Turkey had a choice that might not remain the case.
Turkey is a democracy, but only so long as the people vote for the "correct" path as laid down by the military. It therefore is also very much a dictarorship, just that in some peoples eyes, that the dictatorships policies are desirable.
Turkey is like a man standing behind you with a gun, forcing you to make love to beautifull sexy women for a living. Yes, you might like making love to beautifull sexy women for a living BUT there is still a man with a gun behind you telling you what to do.
Say that this case was true for an entire nation, would you therefore conclude that this nation is entirely hetero OR might that country go homosexual the moment the man with the gun is removed.
EU efforts might very well result in them creating another muslim nation right on their doorstep.
The US has a city called philidelphia (or something) wich I believe is usually regarded as the most liberal of cities, (by US standards). Imagine this as Istanbul. Now imagine that phili is the capitol of the US and that the pentagon is making sure that phili politics are US politics. The US would seem to be far more "modern" then it really is, it might even allow gay marriages and such.
BUT the US ain't really that modern, there is the backward Bible Belt.
The father of all turks was a great man, BUT his rule is enforced through force. The question is what would happen when you remove that force.
Tell me, do americans in places like New York or LA etc feel that gay marriages should be outlawed? Nonetheless they are. Same with Turkey, just because Istanbul is the face of Turkey doesn't mean the body agrees with it.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.