NationStates Jolt Archive

Turkey's constitutional court has decided unanimously that it can hear a case aimed at closing down the country's governing AK Party.

The chief prosecutor earlier filed a petition calling for the party to be banned for "anti-secular activities".

He also wants 71 AKP officials, including the prime minister and president, to be banned from politics.

The case revives a battle between Turkey's secularist establishment and the AK Party of devout Muslims.

[...] The case against the AKP runs to 162 pages: a long list of what the chief prosecutor says is proof the government has an Islamic agenda.

The main focus of his petition is the government's bid to relax the rules on the Islamic headscarf.

The AKP recently changed the constitution, so girls could cover their heads in universities.

Staunch secularists fear that is a first step to an Islamic state.

[...] The AKP argues the case against it is an attack on democracy.

It won 47% of the vote at the last elections, and most opinion polls show strong support for lifting the ban on the headscarf.


(link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7321964.stm))

Very interesting indeed. Although here in France the Constitutional Court would simply block anti-secular laws; there would be no attempt to ban "anti-secular parties".

I knew Turkey was secular, of course, but I was not aware that girls there were prohibited from covering their head at university. Again, the contrast with France is interesting. Here, wearing any kind of highly noticeable religious symbol is illegal in places such as schools, but it's legal in universities. I'm glad Turkey is defending secularism, and of course it's good that the judiciary can drag the government to court, but banning a party outright would seem rather extreme...

Thoughts, comments? Intelligent and articulate only, please.

I agree with this move.

I agree with this move.

Would you care to develop your views on the matter?

This thread presents a great deal of potential for my own personal amussement...


Anyway, Im frankly not a fan. Yes, secularism Im all for. Yes, I like that the government can be pwned. However...to me secularism meant the government never took a stance on religion at all, and let the people pretty much do whatever they want in that regard.

On those above grounds, I oppose their ban of headscarves and I oppose the similar laws in France. Secularism is not enforced athiesm, it is the government making no statements or stances on religion, period.


At least to me.

Would you care to develop your views on the matter?
Religion is reactionary and needs to be repressed by force if necessary.

Religion is reactionary and needs to be repressed by force if necessary.

Oh yeah? Well your mother, is reactionary and needs to be repressed by force if necessary. So there. :p

Religion is reactionary and needs to be repressed by force if necessary.

Ya know AP, your unwavering support of civil rights makes me warm and fuzzy inside sometimes.

Oh yeah? Well your mother, is reactionary and needs to be repressed by force if necessary. So there. :p

orly

This thread presents a great deal of potential for my own personal amussement...


Anyway, Im frankly not a fan. Yes, secularism Im all for. Yes, I like that the government can be pwned. However...to me secularism meant the government never took a stance on religion at all, and let the people pretty much do whatever they want in that regard.

On those above grounds, I oppose their ban of headscarves and I oppose the similar laws in France. Secularism is not enforced athiesm, it is the government making no statements or stances on religion, period.


At least to me.

In a country like Turkey, you either continue to enforce bans or the reason for the ban reasserts itself and the whole act becomes irrelevant. In a country that with Turkey's history and is ruled by Muslims and on the edge of the Middle East, they are trying to defend secularism and stop an outbreak of radical Islamic movements. Sure, it sounds like a load of crap but radical Islam is give an inch take a mile kind of thing.

Ya know AP, your unwavering support of civil rights makes me warm and fuzzy inside sometimes.

Ill answer for him.


You refer to the bougasie notion of "civil rights" which must be exterminated.

This thread presents a great deal of potential for my own personal amussement...


Anyway, Im frankly not a fan. Yes, secularism Im all for. Yes, I like that the government can be pwned. However...to me secularism meant the government never took a stance on religion at all, and let the people pretty much do whatever they want in that regard.

On those above grounds, I oppose their ban of headscarves and I oppose the similar laws in France. Secularism is not enforced athiesm, it is the government making no statements or stances on religion, period.


At least to me.

Quite. Attempting to enforce Atheism is no better than attempting to enforce any religion.
Besides, its been proven time and again that banning things only makes them more popular.

I think it's a good sign that Turkey is somewhat of a stable democracy concerned with keeping its values. However, I think it is an extreme reaction to a subjective ideal. It might be politically motivated: hell, it probably is.

I personally think religion is dangerous in any context but from what I know of the AKP and Erdogan especially is that they are not dangerous Islamic extremists trying to turn Turkey into a religious country. Although I think the prohibition against headscarves is a inspired way of keeping religion out of government in Turkey, I have a hard time seeing how the allowing of it is really anything more than a right being given to people. The AKP has done a decent job of governing Turkey in my opinion, since coming to power they have turned the economy around and have begun important steps towards Turkeys admission to the EU which I think is of paramount importance to Turkeys future. They have also taken a, at least in my eyes, an important step in distancing the elected government from the military by not backing down to the sort of pressure that this judicial hearing is seeming to bring back up.

Quite. Attempting to enforce Atheism is no better than attempting to enforce any religion.
Besides, its been proven time and again that banning things only makes them more popular.

Full agreement. When you attempt to ban stuff, you get morons prattling on about how they're being oppressed and all that noise. It's entirely useless.

It's like when a courthouse removes a copy of the ten commandments, and you get fundies prattling on about Christianity being oppressed.

I think this is stupid. I don't think that allowing religion to take its place in society will inevitably result in an Islamic dictatorship.

I opposed the headscarf ban, and I oppose this move.

Turkey sure loves their secularism.

Sexually, I mean.

Turkey sure loves their secularism.

Sexually, I mean.

No, they love British army officers like that.

Oh yeah? Well your mother, is reactionary and needs to be repressed by force if necessary. So there. :p

Well, Andaras is into that sort of thing. Maybe he did get it from his mother. :p

This thread presents a great deal of potential for my own personal amussement...


Anyway, Im frankly not a fan. Yes, secularism Im all for. Yes, I like that the government can be pwned. However...to me secularism meant the government never took a stance on religion at all, and let the people pretty much do whatever they want in that regard.

On those above grounds, I oppose their ban of headscarves and I oppose the similar laws in France. Secularism is not enforced athiesm, it is the government making no statements or stances on religion, period.


At least to me.

I more or less agree. Turkey has tried to avoid becoming or being labeled an Islamic nation to the point of craziness like this. It's not so much secularism as it is anti-Islam.

I think it's a good sign that Turkey is somewhat of a stable democracy concerned with keeping its values. However, I think it is an extreme reaction to a subjective ideal. It might be politically motivated: hell, it probably is.

I don't see anything democratic about banning a political party. If the government is passing anti-secular laws, strike the laws down. Outlawing a political organization, particularly one with a popular mandate, violates the right to assembly.

As for your point about this being politically motivated, I'm inclined to agree. I'm basing this on unreliable thirdhand accounts (so feel free to correct), but from what I've been told the "secular/anti-secular" conflict in Turkish politics is at best a Western misrepresentation, at worst a euphemistic cover, for a much more complex struggle over Turkey's leadership. Calling a Turkish politician "anti-secular" is akin to calling a Soviet commissar "a bourgeois reactionary" back in the 50s; it's a largely meaningless code word to stigmatize political rivals or personal enemies.

Would you care to develop your views on the matter?

Andaras would basically wanna ban any party that isn't the Communist party.

Andaras would basically wanna ban any party that isn't the Communist party.

WRONG! He would approve of a socialist party!111!!(I think) :)


Yes, I know my sentence structure is terrible, I don't care.

I agree with this move.
I do as well...

Now if only the supreme court would do it to the GOP.

On those above grounds, I oppose their ban of headscarves and I oppose the similar laws in France. Secularism is not enforced athiesm, it is the government making no statements or stances on religion, period.

Turkeys laws are secularist in public areas, to the extent that expression is not shown. It's not enforcing atheism, it is forcing no religious expression on public/government areas.

I don't see anything democratic about banning a political party. If the government is passing anti-secular laws, strike the laws down. Outlawing a political organization, particularly one with a popular mandate, violates the right to assembly.

As for your point about this being politically motivated, I'm inclined to agree. I'm basing this on unreliable thirdhand accounts (so feel free to correct), but from what I've been told the "secular/anti-secular" conflict in Turkish politics is at best a Western misrepresentation, at worst a euphemistic cover, for a much more complex struggle over Turkey's leadership. Calling a Turkish politician "anti-secular" is akin to calling a Soviet commissar "a bourgeois reactionary" back in the 50s; it's a largely meaningless code word to stigmatize political rivals or personal enemies.Well, yes and no. They have a loophole in the system stemming from some very hard to explain master-servant relationship and they seem to have dreams of an Islamic government. I have been against this party all along but I don't think banning them will be a solution - however it is a way to loop the loophole :)

Some matters, at least in my opinion, cannot be interpreted in terms of whether they are democratic or not. If the loophole persists, the remaining 53% will be forced to face some pretty nasty social-freedom issues. So some people choose to go the "no quarter" road probably putting their own reputation in danger. But there are many people in history who did the wrong thing to get the right results.

I'm still not sure about the whole business as I suspect it shows. All I know is my country is on the verge of some big change.

Cheerio!

Turkey's the only Muslim country I respect. With a religion like that, it's enforced secularism is a blessing.

Again, the religion is not to blame. It is Sharia people keep confusing with Islam.

Cheerio!

PS. @Ferrous Oxide, I just realized you may or may not be confusing these two things; so sorry if you know what Islam constitutes and don't like it anyway.

Again, the religion is not to blame. It is Sharia people keep confusing with Islam.

Cheerio!

Nah, the religion's definitely a bad apple.

I can't agree with the court's decision to investigate the case at all. For that matter I can't agree with the law that they're acting on.

A democracy means people have the right to chose. If they want the government to stay secular then that's up to them, not up to the courts. Even if their constitution has specific rules making separation of church and state explicit they shouldn't attack a party legally just because they want to change it.

On those above grounds, I oppose their ban of headscarves and I oppose the similar laws in France. Secularism is not enforced athiesm, it is the government making no statements or stances on religion, period.


Contrary to popular belief, banning headscarves and other religious symbols is by no means "enforced atheism". It's utterly unrelated to atheism in any way, shape or form.

Turkeys laws are secularist in public areas, to the extent that expression is not shown. It's not enforcing atheism, it is forcing no religious expression on public/government areas.

Indeed.

Religion is reactionary and needs to be repressed by force if necessary.

Leaving aside issues of civil rights, do you realise how counter-productive that would be?

I don't see anything democratic about banning a political party. If the government is passing anti-secular laws, strike the laws down. Outlawing a political organization, particularly one with a popular mandate, violates the right to assembly.


I would tend to agree.


A democracy means people have the right to chose. If they want the government to stay secular then that's up to them, not up to the courts.

I disagree. That's what Constitutions are for: to put limits on the tyranny of the majority.

If it prevents a dictatorship of the majority; then I support them in doing what must be done.
In the ideal case, everyone should be free to choose whether or not they wear a headscarf. However, it is very doubtful there would be free choice; chances are there would instead be social repression of women that don't 'dress modestly'. Now whether it's preferable to ban it or de facto proscribe it might seem arbitrary, but it gives just that little bit of friction on a slippery slope that took 90 years to climb.

If it prevents a dictatorship of the majority; then I support them in doing what must be done.
In the ideal case, everyone should be free to choose whether or not they wear a headscarf. However, it is very doubtful there would be free choice; chances are there would instead be social repression of women that don't 'dress modestly'. Now whether it's preferable to ban it or de facto proscribe it might seem arbitrary, but it gives just that little bit of friction on a slippery slope that took 90 years to climb.
Good analysis, kudos.

Cheerio!

On the face, I support separation of church and state.

But it appears that the more extremely some of the Middle Eastern nations assert secularity, the more extremely other nations (and non-national entities such as terrorist groups) will advocate fanaticism. These extremes are both harmful.

I'd rather have a dictatorship of the majority than a dictatorship of the minority, with a majority that means more people are in power and less people are being oppressed.

I'd rather have a dictatorship of the majority than a dictatorship of the minority, with a majority that means more people are in power and less people are being oppressed.Wouldn't you agree it depends to some extent on the severity of oppression? If less people are oppressed more, than it's not necessarily an improvement. And although the group that does the oppressing changes, the group that's oppressed actually stays the same (women). Also, the situations where they are oppressed increases, from the case where they can't wear head scarfs in public institutions, to de facto being forced to wear them everywhere in the public sphere.

And surely you see this is just a bourgeois plot by head-scarf producing capitalists! ;)

I do as well...

Now if only the supreme court would do it to the GOP.

:rolleyes:

I'd rather have a dictatorship of the majority than a dictatorship of the minority, with a majority that means more people are in power and less people are being oppressed.

*dies of laughter*

:rolleyes:

*dies of laughter*

Traditionally, this would be where you contribute something of tangible value. This being you, of course, I wait for three or four posts of "I agree".

On the topic at hand, I'm in two minds about this. It's too much like forced secularism, which is either a very bad thing, or a moderately not-too-bad thing.

Traditionally, this would be where you contribute something of tangible value. This being you, of course, I wait for three or four posts of "I agree".

I could say something but ya know what? I'm not going to. Its comments like those that need to be slammed for their stupidity. Hell, one of them reminds me of what a person who stopped by Obama's HQ said. I hate stupid people.

On the topic at hand, I'm in two minds about this. It's too much like forced secularism, which is either a very bad thing, or a moderately not-too-bad thing.

In Turkey? Its a good thing.

I can see the reasoning behind the law, so long as it's enforced equally and isn't expanded into a total ban on head scarves in public or something. But to react by attempting to ban the party opposing the law from politics is wrong. It would be wrong for us to attempt to ban Republicans from politics for their opposition to abortion, just as it would be wrong for the Democrats to be banned from office for their opposition to the ban of gays in the military. It flies in the face of democracy, and in Turkey, we may see many fundamentalists, denied the possibility of a compromise, become even more extreme in their beliefs.

Tunisia's arguably just as secular. Women can get arrested for wearing the veil there.