I for one welcome our new European Overlords

[Sheilbh]

I don't think that democracy and specifically religious parties that run the government are compatible though, by definition. Religion is not about voting.

They're in Europe, we have a healthy tradition of Christian Democracy here.  As you said earlier, they sound like Republicans.  I may not support them but if that's the shape Islamism takes then I'm fine with it.

Why you would support Turkey becoming LESS democratic by rolling back the guarantees of secularism in favor of religious political parties is rather beyond me. If you support more liberal rights in Turkey, then support them - it's not like only religious parties can possibly be liberal.

I do.  Above all I support the right of the people to choose their government - and a good government it's been - not the generals or the courts.

In the long run, I would place my bets on the secular party protecting the rights of the minority over the Islamic party.

Well, so far the secularists have killed 30 000 Kurds.

Also what do you mean by minority?  Turkish Islam is very diverse.  Indeed I believe the President and his wife belong to different interpretations.

[Berkut]

I think you are just being intentionally difficult.

The "fanatacism" is everywhere there is a islamic religious "party" group running a government. You started out claiming they have never done *anything* to roll back secualrism, then I point out multiple exampels and your response is

1) Lots of those things you support. Good for you, but that doesn't matter - they are still examples.

2) Some of the things you don't support failed. Well, yeah they failed, that is because not everyone in Turkey is as keen on the rule of clerics as some in the AKP would like. Why would you assume that if they get more power, less and less will fail, and more and more will succeed?

your claim rests on the presumption that there is no desire to impose religious law in any way - which is clearly false given the very nature of the party (it is a religious party) and their track record so far. Clearly they DO wish to oll back secularism and impose more Muslim law. perhaps if that never goes very far, it would be ok - even preferable to the current system.

But those who are worried are worried because they don't think it will stop there, and they have ample reason TO worry, given that every single successful western democracy is not run by a religious or Islamic party, and every single country run by clerics and people who think the Koran is a great source for legal principles is a relative disaster.

[Berkut]

Well, so far the secularists have killed 30 000 Kurds.

Right. So the AKP is running on a platform that they will allow the Kurds to separate then?

[Sheilbh]

The "fanatacism" is everywhere there is a islamic religious "party" group running a government. You started out claiming they have never done *anything* to roll back secualrism, then I point out multiple exampels and your response is

Your multiple examples included not allowing the sale of alcohol in a certain neighbourhood and banning the sale of pornography to under 16s.  I don't think that is fanatical or a roll back of secularism.

1) Lots of those things you support. Good for you, but that doesn't matter - they are still examples.

You've said this before and my response was that I don't accept that most of them attack secularism.  Though I think you're right, that two things do (adultery and school prayer) and noted that they never even got to the stage of having a bill prepared.

2) Some of the things you don't support failed. Well, yeah they failed, that is because not everyone in Turkey is as keen on the rule of clerics as some in the AKP would like. Why would you assume that if they get more power, less and less will fail, and more and more will succeed?

Well they've got a lot of power.  I don't want them to have more power, I want the military to not overthrow them. 

Also the leap to AKP wants the rule of clerics is utterly preposterous and completely unfounded.  I can think of one example when they've said anything that could ever be interpreted in that way.  But then I don't think Christian Democrats (the AKP's declared model) wants a rule of clerics, I don't think the Republicans do either.

your claim rests on the presumption that there is no desire to impose religious law in any way - which is clearly false given the very nature of the party (it is a religious party) and their track record so far. Clearly they DO wish to oll back secularism and impose more Muslim law. perhaps if that never goes very far, it would be ok - even preferable to the current system.

I think their track record is one that emphasises western principles, human rights, a respect for democracy and a desire to integrate into the EU.  And it seems like you've completely ignored that.

Right. So the AKP is running on a platform that they will allow the Kurds to separate then?

No, but the AKP has allowed education in the Kurdish language as well as legalised media in Kurdish, there is also now Kurdish representation in Parliament.  These are small steps but hopefully it'll lead somewhere.

[Berkut]

Small steps - outstanding. But they are willing to kill Kurds just teh same, if the Kurds attack, right?

So your little spat over the Evil Secularists apaprently just randomly killing tens of thousands of Kurds for no apparent reason? What was the purpose of that?

I think their track record is one that emphasises western principles, human rights, a respect for democracy and a desire to integrate into the EU.  And it seems like you've completely ignored that.

Not in the least - since I have no real problem with the AKP. The difference between me and you is not that you support the AKP and I support the 'hardcore" secularists, it is that you have this irrational hatred of the secularists, and I am capable of seeing where they are coming from, and why they think the way they do - to the extent that is possible. This is not two sides of a coin - this is you jumping with two feet into the roll of the party hack whose job it is to demonize the opposition as radical crazy fascists, and me not buying that it is so simply a case of Good versus Evil.

I can see why both sides are acting the way they do, and are both operating in manner that the perceive as being on good faith. Why you cannot is rather puzzling to me.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

Crazy AKP loons.

  Until they reformed that part of the constitution it was illegal to insult 'Turkishness'.

how handy that you cn claim that the law is all that is stopping them from acknowledging the Armenian genocide. I am sure they would all love to if only it would not get them arrested.

insulting turkishness is still illegal, only they call it insulting the turkish nation now. It's harder to be prosecuted, but still possible

from wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_301_(Turkish_penal_code)

Following the murder of Hrant Dink, Turkish deputy prime minister and foreign minister Abdullah Gül declared, "With its current state, there are certain problems with article 301. We see now that there are changes which must be made to this law."[27]

On April 30, 2008, article 301 was amended by the Parliament of Turkey, with the following changes:[28]

replacement of the word "Turkishness" with the phrase "Turkish nation" (in the phrase "insulting Turkishness").
reduction of the maximum penalty from three years to two.
requiring permission of the justice minister to file a case. The permission procedure of Article 301 will be carried out by the Directorate General of the Criminal Affairs of the Ministry of Justice where competent judges are seconded to the Ministry. Even if a criminal investigation is launched upon the permission of the Minister of Justice, the prosecutor still has discretionary power to decide not to prosecute. Such a decision was made in the July 2008 case against İbrahim Tığ, the editor of the daily Bölge Haber.[29][30] The governor of Zonguldak filed a complaint citing "open denigration of the government" ("T.C. Hükümetini Alenen Aşağılamak") after Tığ wrote a column accusing the ruling Justice and Development Party of selling the country's assets though privatization.[31] As of July 2008, six of the seven 301 cases that have been considered by the ministry were rejected for prosecution.[29]
According to the Turkish legal system, international conventions on human rights automatically become part of the national legal order without additional transposition once they are adopted by the Parliament. Hence, international human rights instruments to which Turkey is party have to be taken into consideration by judges and prosecutors in dealing with cases in accordance with Article 90 of the Constitution.[citation needed] Therefore, prosecutors are strongly encouraged to directly apply the landmark decisions of the European Court of Human Rights and particularly the Handyside v. UK case.[citation needed] Furthermore, the statement of the suspect cannot be taken before the permission of the Minister of Justice in order not to discredit the suspect in the eyes of the public.

[Berkut]

The "fanatacism" is everywhere there is a islamic religious "party" group running a government. You started out claiming they have never done *anything* to roll back secualrism, then I point out multiple exampels and your response is

Your multiple examples included not allowing the sale of alcohol in a certain neighbourhood

A fine example of rolling back secularism, since that is strictly pushed for as a religious issue.

and banning the sale of pornography to under 16s.  I don't think that is fanatical or a roll back of secularism.

it is certainly a roll back of secularism if it is driven by religious mores. Just because you share those mores is irrelevant.

And you forgot about the national registry for anyone else buying porn. Gosh, that isn't fanatical at all, is it?

i wonder why you left that part out, in your claim that the AKP has not made one single attempt to roll back secularism in any way?

[Sheilbh]

This is not two sides of a coin - this is you jumping with two feet into the roll of the party hack whose job it is to demonize the opposition as radical crazy fascists, and me not buying that it is so simply a case of Good versus Evil.

I'm not demonising the opposition or the secularists.  I have a lot of time for the CHP's tradition and I prefer their opinions on a number of subjects.  I object to the military having a constitutional right to coup.  And I disagree with their supporters (the hardcore secularists).

I do actually think overthrowing democratically elected governments is, generally, an issue of right and wrong - which is far more prosaic than Good and Evil.  The last two are useful for theologians but no-one else.

I can see why both sides are acting the way they do, and are both operating in manner that the perceive as being on good faith. Why you cannot is rather puzzling to me.

I can see why both sides are acting as they are that doesn't mean I'm going to treat them equally.  One side has shown no attempt at lessening democratic principles or 'rule by clerics'.  The other side's explicitly threatened rule by military junta for a few years.  I prefer the democrats.

So your little spat over the Evil Secularists apaprently just randomly killing tens of thousands of Kurds for no apparent reason? What was the purpose of that?

The conversation was about protected minority rights.  The hardcore secularists have killed tens of thousands of Kurds, and a number of those deaths have been random.  The military's had associations with nationalist terrorist groups and death squads operating in Kurdistan.

You then went hyperbolic and instead of caring about protecting minority rights said 'So the AKP is running on a platform that they will allow the Kurds to separate then?'

They don't, of course.  But they have increased protection of minorities during their 7 years in office, yeah.

i wonder why you left that part out, in your claim that the AKP has not made one single attempt to roll back secularism in any way?

I wasn't aware of it.

And you forgot about the national registry for anyone else buying porn. Gosh, that isn't fanatical at all, is it?

Actually I mentioned it when I addressed these points earlier.  I said it was wrong.  You still haven't addressed any of the postive points I've mentioned.

A fine example of rolling back secularism, since that is strictly pushed for as a religious issue.

But then no religion has any place anywhere in politics?

[Razgovory]

Is Berkut arguing from stereotypes again?

[Berkut]

you said there was not a single example of them pushing back secularism. I provided multiple examples of them doing just that, and your response is that they don't count for a variety of reasons, but none of those reasons are that they aren't examples of them trying to roll back secularism.

So your claim that they aren't really a religious party, and hence the idea that they are a threat to the secular status of Turkey is bogus is false. Arguing that they don't count because they are good ideas doesn't address the issue at all.

And no, I do not think there is any place for religious people enshrining their religious beliefs into laws that everyone else must follow. It is that whole "freedom" thing I am a fan of.

Lastly, why would I need to address your positive points? I have made no claim that there were not positive points, so I am perfectly content to let your examples stand. Bully for them that they have made some positive strides on issues.

Why should I believe that those strides cannot be done with the religious bullshit though? Seems like there are lots of examples of perfectly secualr countries that have rights for women and such. The idea that we MUST have religious clerics deciding laws in order to get voting rights for women - and the idea that Islamic religious politicos is the best source for such reform - is rather puzzling.

I am encouraged that it happens - but I don't think I would abandon secular principles to throw my support behind the religious when it comes to securing basic human rights. I would rather find some secular party that can do the same thing without the need to tell me when I can buy booze or look at porn, or wants to keep track of me if I choose to buy a copy of some book they don't like.

[Sheilbh]

I'm leaving for a while but I don't think I've ever denied the AKP party is religious.  I've been calling them Islamist for the past two pages.

My argument is simple.  The AKP don't represent a threat to democracy.  The military and their supporters who do in the name of secularism are wrong.  I belive that the Turkish system should be flexible enough to reach American style disinterested secularism (as the US has, and this is the AKP's stated model) rather than an anti-clerical French style laicite.  Because of that I don't think the AKP threaten secularism anymore than Republicans do in the US or the CDU do in Germany, therefore there is no justification in threatening a military coup to 'protect' secularism.  Entry into the EU threatens the military's legal position to overthrow governments and that's why neither they nor their supporters (the hard-core secularists) are terribly keen, because they're a larger group than anti-EU Islamists I think they represent more of the anti-EU sentiment in Turkey.  Though I think larger than both are people who've just been disillusioned at the dicking about by the EU.

I'd add, just before I go, that even if those are examples of pushing back secularism - which I don't think most of them are - then they were all rejected, in many cases before they even got to the floor of the parliament, by normal democratic and parliamentary methods.  Why, again, does the army need to have the right to intervene?