I for one welcome our new European Overlords

[Berkut]

Is the denial of the Armenian genocide limited only to the Evil Nazi Hardcore Secularist Fascists?

Or is it more general? I always thought it was more general, and based on the argument that while lots of Armenians were killed, there lacked the intent necessary for it to be genocide. I was not aware that theis was a strictly "secular" position.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

Is the denial of the Armenian genocide limited only to the Evil Nazi Hardcore Secularist Fascists?

Or is it more general? I always thought it was more general, and based on the argument that while lots of Armenians were killed, there lacked the intent necessary for it to be genocide. I was not aware that theis was a strictly "secular" position.

it's a turk thing™

[Berkut]

Is the denial of the Armenian genocide limited only to the Evil Nazi Hardcore Secularist Fascists?

Or is it more general? I always thought it was more general, and based on the argument that while lots of Armenians were killed, there lacked the intent necessary for it to be genocide. I was not aware that theis was a strictly "secular" position.

it's a turk thing™

I thought so.

I am surprised that the Europeans, of all people, would give the Turks a free pass on the genocide denial thing!

[Faeelin]

I thought so.

I am surprised that the Europeans, of all people, would give the Turks a free pass on the genocide denial thing!

Who today speaks of the Herero?

[Valmy]

Who today speaks of the Herero?

Dang what is it with Germans and committing Genocide?

[Neil]

300,000, not 400,000, less than Luxembourg. Plus Iceland is willing to bargain it's vote on all EU bodies for fishing rights.

I was under the impression that the Iberians had already fished the oceans empty.

That's one thing about Iceland joining the EU:  Their fishing industry would be out of business.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

Is the denial of the Armenian genocide limited only to the Evil Nazi Hardcore Secularist Fascists?

Or is it more general? I always thought it was more general, and based on the argument that while lots of Armenians were killed, there lacked the intent necessary for it to be genocide. I was not aware that theis was a strictly "secular" position.

it's a turk thing™

I thought so.

I am surprised that the Europeans, of all people, would give the Turks a free pass on the genocide denial thing!

if it comes to accession into the EU... the armenian genocide-thing is very likely to be one of the reasons to keep them out (assumigg the turks haven't changed their ways by then).

[Berkut]

It doesn't seem likely that they will - conceding on the Armenian genocide is probably domestically impossible to do for any politician.

I find the entire thing bullshit, to be compeltely honest. Historians seem to be pretty established on the issue, but it is mostly just an emotive political bludgeon at this point - a semantic argument over what constitutes "genocide" that has no real bearing on anything in today's world.

Turks do not deny it because they still hate Armenians (although they might, I honestly have no idea), but because it is in their national self image to do so - it seems like it has become a matter of pride or nationalism or some such nonsense. It is largely empty posturing, and the insistence that they engage in some form of forced self-flagellation over it strikes me as bizarre, and as irrelevant and arbitrary as their denial.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

it seems like it has become a matter of pride or nationalism or some such nonsense. It is largely empty posturing,

it is so empty that Hrant Dink was murdered over it and that numerous people have been brought to trial for socalled insults to turkishness.
It's not as empty a feeling as you'd want it I'm afraid.

[Sheilbh]

Oh? The US used the military to guarantee democracy and equality. Had a big war over it in fact. Does that cheapen the value of it?

I wasn't aware of the American history of military coups.

What about when someone is interested in subverting the democratic system in order to remove it?

But where is the evidence of the AKP subverting the democratic system.  I can't think of a single thing that's subverted democracy.  Whereas threatening a coup is clearly a subversion of it.

I love the choices of language here. "Hardcore" secularists. "Moderate" Islamists. When youa re apparently arguing that the issues involved actually have *nothing* to do with Islamism or secularism.

I think hard-core secularists are people who want to suspend democracy and all that goes with it, including EU membership, in the name of preserving a particularly strong version of secularism.  I think moderate Islamists are those who enact laws that protect human rights and operate within a democratic system.

A quick perusal of wiki says that you are wrong, and they have proposed laws estrablishing prayer in school, banning the sale of alcohol and pornography, and of course the headscarf issue, which is rather obviously more symbolic than a simple irrational attempt by the "hardcore secularists" to persecute them.

First of all I have no issue with alcohol free zones - they didn't try to ban the sale of alcohol they tried to ban it in one part of Ankara.  But they backed off that idea. 

According to the same wiki article as I think you read an AKP MP tried to ban the sale of pornography to people aged under 16 and make people log the purchase for people older than that.  I disagree with the latter half of that bill, but in the UK we have age restrictions on porn.  I think it's entirely sensible.

I don't have an issue with prayer in schools (every school I went to had prayers) but I can see the offence in a secular state and the adultery issue was wrong, and withdrawn after members of the AKP, the opposition and the EU.

But what's more important, surely, is that the AKP government made Turkey's non-constitutional law subject to the European Court of Human Rights, so all of these could have been challenged beyond even the Constitutional Court.  They can't make Turkey's constitution subject to European human rights law because that would, of course, remove the restrictions on 'denigrating' the Turkish republic and insulting the military.

I've listed concrete human rights achievements by this party: increased equality for women, reformed anti-terrorist laws which has allowed Kurdish medium education and Kurdish newspapers, establishing the supremacy of the ECHR.  On the front of Islam itself, the Turkish government pays for and controls all religious institutions in the country.  The AKP government hasn't appointed a conservative cleric yet, their appointments are all considered liberals.  They've an impressive economic record.  They've done more to achieve EU membership than any previous government.  The position of the Kurds has (until recently) improved and relations between Turkey and Armenia are on the road to normalisation. 

Recently there's been a loss of momentum and the party's getting slightly more nationalist, which is worrying.  There have also been moments when they supported things which were worryingly unsecular (the adultery ban) but on those occassions it was the normal procedures of democracy (foreign concern, internal dissent and the opposition of other parties) that caused the party to switch tack.  That's what democracy does and how it works.  It doesn't need the military to step in and make threats.

I would claim that the issue is almsot certainly more nuanced than you insist on portraying it, and if in fact I was someone who supported the continuation of democracy, freedom of religion, and the fundamentals of the secular state in Turkey, I would find the rise of populist religious parties very concerning.

I don't think it is that nuanced.  You've got a democratically elected government with a good human rights record, a history of liberalisation and a very strong mandate on the one side and, on the other, the military. 

Now the reasons that lead to that confrontation are nuanced.  The challenge presented by the emerging, generally pious, Anatolian middle class to the traditional secular elite.  I think also the relationship of globalisation is important in that the EU presents a threat to the military's position because the EU requires a full democracy without a deep state but it also challenges a few military taboos: Armenia, Kurdistan and Cyprus, especially.  I think it is a challenging and difficult situation when a rather religious (if liberally so, Turkish schools of Islam are generally very tolerant, I mean 20% of the population are Sufi) population would like to see some reflection of those religious values in their secular constitutional framework.

But I think it's the nuance that creates the situation that makes the provocations seem so small.  When you're dealing with a number of things like what I've just mentioned then a first lady in a headscarf is suddenly a lot more meaningful and threatening, so too is a reference to 'Mr' Occalan.

Or is it more general? I always thought it was more general, and based on the argument that while lots of Armenians were killed, there lacked the intent necessary for it to be genocide. I was not aware that theis was a strictly "secular" position.

It's not strictly secular.  Under Turkish law acknowledging that the genocide took place, that it was a genocide or that Turkey had anything to do with it is banned under the constitution, which, historically, the military was charged with protecting.

The AKP government has made progress on this subject - in 2005 Turkey and Armenia allowed the use of each other's airspace for civilian flights for the first time - and normalisation of relations is expected in the next few years.  There's no suggestion they'll admit or apologise for the genocide based on their statements.  But, of course, it's illegal to say anything otherwise.

The ultra-nationalists in Turkey (the Grey Wolves sympathisers and so on) are, of course, almost always opposed to EU membership.

[Berkut]

it seems like it has become a matter of pride or nationalism or some such nonsense. It is largely empty posturing,

it is so empty that Hrant Dink was murdered over it and that numerous people have been brought to trial for socalled insults to turkishness.
It's not as empty a feeling as you'd want it I'm afraid.

And the Euroes have brought people up on charges over it as well.

It is empty posturing to the extent that I do not have any reason to believe that them being browbeat into acknowledging it will make any difference to any of their policies or how they run things, especially since it will only be as a result of pressure, rather than any honest adjustment of their perceptions of their own history.

The fact that people are stupid enough to kill over perceived insults to their ideology/world view is hardly unique to Turkey.

[garbon]

The fact that people are stupid enough to kill over perceived insults to their ideology/world view is hardly unique to Turkey.

True although in Crazy's world, such is unique to people in the middle east (which extends over turkey) and/or muslims.

[Sheilbh]

It doesn't seem likely that they will - conceding on the Armenian genocide is probably domestically impossible to do for any politician.

It is impossible.  They would be prosecuted for insulting the Turkish republic.

[Neil]

It is largely empty posturing, and the insistence that they engage in some form of forced self-flagellation over it strikes me as bizarre, and as irrelevant and arbitrary as their denial.

It's what people do.  See:  Japan and their warcrimes.

[Berkut]

Shelf, you are playing at moving targets.

You said there was not a single law or policy that was an attempt to roll back secularism. When I pointed out several examples, your response is that you *support* that roll back of secualrism, therefore it isn't an example anymore?

I like how you define away nuance by again, casting it in the harshest possible light. It is the moderate, liberal middle class literally against "the military", which of course has NO popular support except amongst the "secular elite". Right? Is that really the case - the military stands alone, and the people, the masses all universally support the AKP...right?

I think you know just enough about this to be good at showing only one side of the argument - the side that you support. I wonder why you are so biased on this issue. Why are you arguing so strenuously that it MUST be the case that only political party in a conflict in a democratic state can possibly have the monopoly on what is democratic? Is this strictly based on the EU thing? The nazi Secularists don't want to be in the EU, so of course they must be evil?