TLDR: A turkish journalist asked a presidential candidate whether Muslim societies are capable of questioning auhtority. Erdogan calls her a "militant disguised as journalist", that she insulted Islam and all Muslims and that she should "know her place." (Question answered?)
The OSCE has condemned his tirade.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/know-your-place-you-shameless-militant-turkish-prime-minister-tells-female-journalist-9656896.html
Quote'Know your place you shameless militant,' Turkish Prime Minister tells female journalist
Turkey's Prime Minister has called a prominent female journalist a "shameless militant woman" who should "know her place".
Recep Tayyip Erdogan lashed out at Amberin Zaman, the Turkish correspondent for The Economist, on Thursday while speaking at an election campaign rally.
Remarks she had made while interviewing the opposition leader, Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu, on television the previous day had been condemned as "insulting to Islam and Muslims" by pro-Government supporters on social media.
She had asked Mr Kılıçdaroğlu whether a "Muslim society is able to question" the authorities.
Mr Erdogan was speaking to a crowd of supporters in Malatya, southern Turkey, when he made the comments reported by Today's Zaman.
He called Ms Zaman a "shameless militant woman disguised under the name of a journalist".
"Know your place," Erdoğan added. "They gave you a pen and you are writing a column in a newspaper.
"And then they invite you to a TV channel owned by Doğan media group and you insult at a society of 99 per cent Muslims."
Doğan Holding is one of Turkey's largest conglomerates and Mr Erdogan is in a long-standing feud with its proprietor, Aydin Dogan.
The Prime Minister has denounced "made-up news" about Government corruption in the group's papers, while Mr Dogan claims a huge fine over alleged tax irregularities against his firm was politically motivated.
"Mr Erodgan came to power using democracy. He is a product of democracy, but he can accept democracy only for himself," he told the Wall Street Journal.
"He cannot accept side components of democracy such as free media."
The Economist defended Ms Zaman, who has been the magazine's Turkish correspondent for 15 years, in a statement on Thursday.
Calling her "widely respected", it said the publication stood firmly by her and her reporting.
"The intimidation of journalists has no place in a democracy," it added.
"Under Mr Erdogan, Turkey has become an increasingly difficult place for independent journalism.
"Freedom House, a New York based media watchdog, recently downgraded the country from 'partially free' to 'not free'."
As well as a crackdown on journalists and investigative reporting, campaigners in Turkey are concerned about a regression with women's rights.
The Deputy Prime Minister, Bülent Arınç said women "should not laugh in public" in a speech on "moral corruption" last month.
Turkey also came under international criticism for attempts to block Twitter and YouTube earlier this year.
There have been waves of anti-government protests in Taksim Square in Istanbul and a teenage boy died earlier this year after being hit in the head with a tear gas canister fired by riot police.
Also, Erdogan is expected to win the presidential election on Sunday, and all signs point to the AKP strengthening the office, giving it more powers and authority, transitioning it from the previous function of mostly being a figurehead.
Was he going for irony? Because that was hilarious.
Lol, derfetus just discovered a new insult for uppity sluts
SHAMELESS MILITANT PILLS
Do they have anywhere her actual question? The summarized bit seems like an odd question.
One big change for this election is that for the first time Turks living abroad can vote without having to travel to Turkey. It's estimated that this will can make up 5% of the vote. The majority of Turks abroad are Erdogan supporters.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 08, 2014, 12:05:27 PM
Lol, derfetus just discovered a new insult for uppity sluts
SHAMELESS MILITANT PILLS
Not sure if I'll add it to my portfolio, but i'll give it a trial run for a couple weeks to see how it plays.
Quote from: garbon on August 08, 2014, 12:06:44 PM
Do they have anywhere her actual question? The summarized bit seems like an odd question.
One outlet says that she "had expressed the opinion that Justice and Development Party (AK Party) voters are not critical or questioning", whereas most present it as:
"She had asked the main opposition leader Kemal Kilicdaroglu in the debate whether any Muslim society was capable of challenging its authorities."
Even so, in terms of press freedom Turkey currently ranks ca. rank 154.
Quote from: Valmy on August 08, 2014, 12:03:11 PM
Was he going for irony? Because that was hilarious.
No kidding, she got a pretty clear answer to that question.
Ah yes, Turkey continues to go in such a great direction... for an authoritarian regime in the making. <_<
the "know your place" comment seems to be referring to her journalistic integrity, that she should be acting like a journalist rather than pushing an agenda
Quote from: LaCroix on August 08, 2014, 12:46:38 PM
the "know your place" comment seems to be referring to her journalistic integrity, that she should be acting like a journalist rather than pushing an agenda
I have to say that thus far (and thanks Syt for that added bit), I can't join the outraged crowd. Neither version of the question sounds like an honest question - but yeah just political rhetoric.
Wait, journalists should only ask quesitons that are polite?
Yeah journalists shouldn't be asking questions about repression of political dissent, they should just shut up and spit out verbatim whatever pabulum drools out the mouths of the political masters.
What nonsense is that?
Follow up story:
http://www.todayszaman.com/latest-news_hurriyet-editor-in-chief-resigns-a-day-after-pm-targets-dogan-media_354978.html
QuoteHürriyet daily Editor-in-Chief Enis Berberoğlu resigned from his post on Friday, one day after Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan targeted the Doğan Media Group, which includes the Hürriyet daily, in his rally on Thursday.
. . .. Berberoğlu's resignation came one day after Erdoğan harshly criticized the Doğan media group during his Thursday rally.
According to Internet news site Rotahaber, Berberoğlu was actually removed from his post by the daily's management, adding that the Doğan media group removed Berberoğlu after a request from Prime Minister Erdoğan.
Rotahaber reported that the Doğan media group's chief executive, Mehmet Ali Yalçındağ, had . . .had criticized Berberoğlu for allocating a lot of space to reports about main opposition Republican People's Party (CHP) and opposition presidential candidate Ekmeleddin İhsanoğlu.
Yalçındağ allegedly told Berberoğlu: "We as businessmen will be damaged. Mr. Tayyip will receive 54 percent of the vote [in the presidential election]. We will be in trouble." On Friday, the Doğan media group told Berberoğlu that they no longer wanted to work with him, claimed the Rotahaber report, adding that Yalçınoğlu reportedly said: "We could not turn down the prime minister's request. I had to take this decision [to fire Berberoğlu]."
Oh yeah, nothing to see here, just move along . . .
I know this is serious and all but man this is like something out of a comedy sketch making fun of crazy dictators. She was forced to resign for asking a question about tolerance for questioning authority? In Soviet Turkey authority questions you!
Quote from: garbon on August 08, 2014, 12:53:00 PM
I have to say that thus far (and thanks Syt for that added bit), I can't join the outraged crowd. Neither version of the question sounds like an honest question - but yeah just political rhetoric.
Seems pretty honest to me. But maybe you just cannot take a woman speaking truth to power.
Hope she can cook.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 08, 2014, 01:23:07 PM
Yeah journalists shouldn't be asking questions about repression of political dissent, they should just shut up and spit out verbatim whatever pabulum drools out the mouths of the political masters.
What nonsense is that?
i didn't comment about whether erdogan was right or wrong. i just pointed out that based off the story in the OP, it seems the "know her place" concerned her journalism rather than her gender.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 08, 2014, 01:20:44 PM
Wait, journalists should only ask quesitons that are polite?
As reported the question seems nonsensical apart from visibly stating the views of the reporter.
Quote from: Valmy on August 08, 2014, 01:46:30 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 08, 2014, 12:53:00 PM
I have to say that thus far (and thanks Syt for that added bit), I can't join the outraged crowd. Neither version of the question sounds like an honest question - but yeah just political rhetoric.
Seems pretty honest to me. But maybe you just cannot take a woman speaking truth to power.
I thought she was asking a question? Now she was speaking truth to power? :unsure:
Quote from: LaCroix on August 08, 2014, 01:57:35 PM
i didn't comment about whether erdogan was right or wrong. i just pointed out that based off the story in the OP, it seems the "know her place" concerned her journalism rather than her gender.
I didn't see anything in the OP where Erdogan mused about journalistic integrity, a concept which there is no reason to think he has any interest or knowledge in.
I did see him refer to the journalist as a "militant shameless woman" in the immediate sentence. So based on what he actually said, it certainly seems like gender was a significant consideration in his mind.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 08, 2014, 02:15:33 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on August 08, 2014, 01:57:35 PM
i didn't comment about whether erdogan was right or wrong. i just pointed out that based off the story in the OP, it seems the "know her place" concerned her journalism rather than her gender.
I didn't see anything in the OP where Erdogan mused about journalistic integrity, a concept which there is no reason to think he has any interest or knowledge in.
I did see him refer to the journalist as a "militant shameless woman" in the immediate sentence. So based on what he actually said, it certainly seems like gender was a significant consideration in his mind.
Is that like "militant feminist"?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 08, 2014, 02:15:33 PMI didn't see anything in the OP where Erdogan mused about journalistic integrity, a concept which there is no reason to think he has any interest or knowledge in.
I did see him refer to the journalist as a "militant shameless woman" in the immediate sentence. So based on what he actually said, it certainly seems like gender was a significant consideration in his mind.
Quote"Know your place," Erdoğan added. "They gave you a pen and you are writing a column in a newspaper.
"And then they invite you to a TV channel owned by Doğan media group and you insult at a society of 99 per cent Muslims."
"know your place. they gave you a pen and and you are writing a column in a newspaper. [so what do you do? you insult 99% of the muslims in the country you're reporting on.]"
On a different note, I just heard a mother tell her daughter that there are more important things than just being intelligent. Microaggresion!
Quote from: garbon on August 08, 2014, 02:09:03 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 08, 2014, 01:20:44 PM
Wait, journalists should only ask quesitons that are polite?
As reported the question seems nonsensical apart from visibly stating the views of the reporter.
According to the report, it is one phrase from a phone interview. So without hearing the full interview (or transcript) for context, there is no basis to make that kind of judgment.
On the surface, it certain doesn't seem nonsensical. Erdogan claims to govern on Islamic principles. He has been very hostile to dissent and taken actions to suppress oppositional viewpoints. The opposition candidate she was interviewing also has a religious background but otherwise has differing views from Erdogan. So likely the question was aimed at a discussion of whether hostility to dissent is an "Islamic" characteristic, or just characteristic of Erdogan's particular interpretation of Islamic governance. But without the context, I can't be sure.
On the surface it doesn't seem like a genuine question but just political rhetoric. But like I said, I would like to hear more on what actually occurred.
Quote from: LaCroix on August 08, 2014, 02:19:24 PM
Quote"know your place. they gave you a pen and and you are writing a column in a newspaper. [so what do you do? you insult 99% of the muslims in the country you're reporting on.]"
Yes LaCroix, if you deliberately omit the very first line about "shameless woman" it does hide the gender connection . . .
Also, I see nothing in the lines about "journalistic integrity". Saying things that might offend national or religious sensibilities perfectly consistent with journalistic integrity; it may be even required.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 08, 2014, 02:20:42 PMAccording to the report, it is one phrase from a phone interview. So without hearing the full interview (or transcript) for context, there is no basis to make that kind of judgment.
On the surface, it certain doesn't seem nonsensical. Erdogan claims to govern on Islamic principles. He has been very hostile to dissent and taken actions to suppress oppositional viewpoints. The opposition candidate she was interviewing also has a religious background but otherwise has differing views from Erdogan. So likely the question was aimed at a discussion of whether hostility to dissent is an "Islamic" characteristic, or just characteristic of Erdogan's particular interpretation of Islamic governance. But without the context, I can't be sure.
assuming she actually did ask "whether any Muslim society was capable of challenging its authorities," then that absolutely is nonsensical. how could anyone honestly ask that question and be serious after, as merely one example, arab spring?
chris christie claims to be christian, and he's been very hostile to dissent. erdogan's hostility to journalism doesn't seem to have anything to do with his religion.
Quote from: garbon on August 08, 2014, 02:09:58 PM
I thought she was asking a question? Now she was speaking truth to power? :unsure:
It was a question loaded with truth and speaking to powerness. Or something.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 08, 2014, 02:24:30 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on August 08, 2014, 02:19:24 PM
Quote"know your place. they gave you a pen and and you are writing a column in a newspaper. [so what do you do? you insult 99% of the muslims in the country you're reporting on.]"
Yes LaCroix, if you deliberately omit the very first line about "shameless woman" it does hide the gender connection . . .
Also, I see nothing in the lines about "journalistic integrity". Saying things that might offend national or religious sensibilities perfectly consistent with journalistic integrity; it may be even required.
i wasn't trying to deliberately omit anything... you were already aware of the "shameless militant woman" part. that's the first thing i read, too, when i checked the article. but, actually:
"[you're a] shameless militant woman disguised under the name of a journalist. know your place. they gave you a pen and you are writing a column in a newspaper. [media invites you to speak before a nation and you insult 99% of the muslims of that nation]"
the "disguised under the name of a journalist" is even more indicative that "know your place" was made not to reference her gender, but her journalism.
journalist, not "militant shameless woman," directly preceded the "know your place" comment. furthermore, he stuck with the journalistic aspect of her action and not her gender. the only reference to gender was one word. everything else after that was journalism.
Quote from: garbon on August 08, 2014, 02:22:08 PM
On the surface it doesn't seem like a genuine question but just political rhetoric. But like I said, I would like to hear more on what actually occurred.
What is a genuine question? And why does it require no political rhetoric? It seems to me this question addresses very serious and pertinent issues with regard to Erdogan and his regime.
LaCroix - he said the word "journalist" once. And the way he used was to say that there is a fundamental contradiction between being a "militant woman" and a "journalist".
One does not have to be a committed feminist to see the problem there.
Nowhere does Erdogan say the word "integrity" or anything like it. It is just an ad hominem attack against a person not identified by name but as a "woman" who needs to "know her place."
But let's say for the sake of argument, I accept that he was just referring to her purely in her capacity as a "journalist". And that the shameless militant woman stuff was just an excess of rhetorical zeal.
Then what Erdogan is saying is that journalists need to "know their place."
How does that make it better?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 08, 2014, 02:41:18 PM
LaCroix - he said the word "journalist" once. And the way he used was to say that there is a fundamental contradiction between being a "militant woman" and a "journalist".
One does not have to be a committed feminist to see the problem there.
Nowhere does Erdogan say the word "integrity" or anything like it. It is just an ad hominem attack against a person not identified by name but as a "woman" who needs to "know her place."
But let's say for the sake of argument, I accept that he was just referring to her purely in her capacity as a "journalist". And that the shameless militant woman stuff was just an excess of rhetorical zeal.
Then what Erdogan is saying is that journalists need to "know their place."
How does that make it better?
aren't these all translations? "know your place, woman" is fairly standard language used by misogynists, but here it may easily have been a literal translation like the stilted language in the last part of the comment re: media's invitation and her insult. "the journalist ought to know its place by not insulting 99% of a nation the journalist is reporting on" seems more likely than a sole attack on her gender. her gender didn't have anything to do with her actions, so why would he publicly focus on that as opposed to her journalistic credentials? it doesn't make much sense.
he didn't need to actually say the turkish version of "integrity" because he essentially described her lack of integrity immediately following the "show your place" comment.
minsky, my discussion in this thread has focused solely on what "know your place" referred to, because it seems to me news outlets are twisting what occurred to make it seem worse than it already is. i never said erdogan's rant was a good thing.
Quote from: garbon on August 08, 2014, 12:53:00 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on August 08, 2014, 12:46:38 PM
the "know your place" comment seems to be referring to her journalistic integrity, that she should be acting like a journalist rather than pushing an agenda
I have to say that thus far (and thanks Syt for that added bit), I can't join the outraged crowd. Neither version of the question sounds like an honest question - but yeah just political rhetoric.
Most good journalists ask questions that have a political context. Doesnt seem to make much sense to simply ask him what he ate for breakfast.
Quote from: garbon on August 08, 2014, 02:20:26 PM
On a different note, I just heard a mother tell her daughter that there are more important things than just being intelligent.
So you met Mrs. derwomenshouldbenursesnotdoctors?
Quote from: LaCroix on August 08, 2014, 03:02:25 PM
minsky, my discussion in this thread has focused solely on what "know your place" referred to, because it seems to me news outlets are twisting what occurred to make it seem worse than it already is. i never said erdogan's rant was a good thing.
In either sense it is seems like a line out a worst disctator in the world skit as others have said. Either he meant it as women should know their place and not ask such questions. Or he meant it as journalists regardless of sex should know their place and not question the ties between religion and his politics. I am not sure how one reads on gender from his comments but even if you were inclined to do so what is the point I am not so sure it makes if less "worse".
Quote from: garbon on August 08, 2014, 02:20:26 PM
On a different note, I just heard a mother tell her daughter that there are more important things than just being intelligent. Microaggresion!
I tend to agree. Being intelligent and having billions of dollars would be much better than just being intelligent.
Quote from: Valmy on August 08, 2014, 01:44:57 PM
I know this is serious and all but man this is like something out of a comedy sketch making fun of crazy dictators. She was forced to resign for asking a question about tolerance for questioning authority? In Soviet Turkey authority questions you!
Minsky's resignation article had no direct connection with the OP article. She was a correspondent for The Economist.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 08, 2014, 03:07:11 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 08, 2014, 02:20:26 PM
On a different note, I just heard a mother tell her daughter that there are more important things than just being intelligent.
So you met Mrs. derwomenshouldbenursesnotdoctors?
Mrs. derwomenshouldbenursesnotdoctors actually disagrees with me. She recoiled in horror one time when I suggested that our daughter might be a nurse someday. She's all like doctor or nothing.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 08, 2014, 03:09:32 PMIn either sense it is seems like a line out a worst disctator in the world skit as others have said. Either he meant it as women should know their place and not ask such questions. Or he meant it as journalists regardless of sex should know their place and not question the ties between religion and his politics. I am not sure how one reads on gender from his comments but even if you were inclined to do so what is the point I am not so sure it makes if less "worse".
i think it makes it worse because it's a dishonest portrayal of the exchange
Quote from: LaCroix on August 08, 2014, 04:03:04 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 08, 2014, 03:09:32 PMIn either sense it is seems like a line out a worst disctator in the world skit as others have said. Either he meant it as women should know their place and not ask such questions. Or he meant it as journalists regardless of sex should know their place and not question the ties between religion and his politics. I am not sure how one reads on gender from his comments but even if you were inclined to do so what is the point I am not so sure it makes if less "worse".
i think it makes it worse because it's a dishonest portrayal of the exchange
You have lost me. To give you the benefit of the doubt, reasonable people can disagree on which interpretation of his words is most accurate. I dont agree with yours but I can at least see why you might think you are correct. I dont think that makes either interpretation "dishonest".
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 08, 2014, 04:22:36 PMYou have lost me. To give you the benefit of the doubt, reasonable people can disagree on which interpretation of his words is most accurate. I dont agree with yours but I can at least see why you might think you are correct. I dont think that makes either interpretation "dishonest".
good point. if the journalists have honestly misinterpreted the comment, then you are correct.
Basically Erdogan is a Totalitarian Scumbag or a Misogynistic Scumbag or Both.
Quote from: Viking on August 08, 2014, 05:01:05 PM
Basically Erdogan is a Totalitarian Scumbag or a Misogynistic Scumbag or Both.
Those traits usually go together.
Quote from: Tonitrus on August 08, 2014, 05:14:47 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 08, 2014, 05:01:05 PM
Basically Erdogan is a Totalitarian Scumbag or a Misogynistic Scumbag or Both.
Those traits usually go together.
:huh:
Quote from: grumbler on August 08, 2014, 05:28:23 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on August 08, 2014, 05:14:47 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 08, 2014, 05:01:05 PM
Basically Erdogan is a Totalitarian Scumbag or a Misogynistic Scumbag or Both.
Those traits usually go together.
:huh:
The 'equation' resolves down to Scumbag
2
Quote from: grumbler on August 08, 2014, 05:28:23 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on August 08, 2014, 05:14:47 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 08, 2014, 05:01:05 PM
Basically Erdogan is a Totalitarian Scumbag or a Misogynistic Scumbag or Both.
Those traits usually go together.
:huh:
I don't know many totalitarian scumbugs who were enthusiastically pro-women.
But I could be wrong.
My hero
Quote from: Tonitrus on August 08, 2014, 05:33:20 PM
I don't know many totalitarian scumbugs who were enthusiastically pro-women.
All the Reds you know and love.
Quote from: Tonitrus on August 08, 2014, 05:33:20 PM
Quote from: grumbler on August 08, 2014, 05:28:23 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on August 08, 2014, 05:14:47 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 08, 2014, 05:01:05 PM
Basically Erdogan is a Totalitarian Scumbag or a Misogynistic Scumbag or Both.
Those traits usually go together.
:huh:
I don't know many totalitarian scumbugs who were enthusiastically pro-women.
But I could be wrong.
Hilary Clinton?
:P
Quote from: Tonitrus on August 08, 2014, 05:33:20 PM
I don't know many totalitarian scumbugs who were enthusiastically pro-women.
But I could be wrong.
There have not been that many totalitarian scumbags, but Stalin wasn't a misogynist, nor Mao, nor Hitler, nor Mussolini. Not sure about the DPRK's leaders - little about their true personalities is known. A lot of totalitarians were not feminists, that's for sure, but they were little different than their non-totalitarian peers in that.
Mao was, in fact, enthusiastically pro-women. "Women hold up half the sky" was a famous aphorism of his, and his government pushed for education of women and executed parents guilty of foot-binding.
Wasn't Mrs. Mao a 'strong woman'? Maybe he was pro-woman because he was afraid of her. :)
El Jefe Maximo also considered women essential to the early revolution, and treated them as equals in those heady, early days of promise and boundless possibilities.
Quote from: Caliga on August 08, 2014, 06:36:20 PM
Wasn't Mrs. Mao a 'strong woman'? Maybe he was pro-woman because he was afraid of her. :)
Which Mrs Mao? He was married four times!
It was possibly tokenism, but Socialist regimes always played up the role of women as part of the whole egalitarianism thing. Lyudmila Pavlichenko or Valentina Tereshkova were used as prominent propaganda tools.
Heck, even Putin *still* uses Tereshkova, she was the Russian flag carrier in the Sochi Olympics IIRC.
Quote from: celedhring on August 08, 2014, 07:02:00 PM
It was possibly tokenism, but Socialist regimes always played up the role of women as part of the whole egalitarianism thing. Lyudmila Pavlichenko or Valentina Tereshkova were used as prominent propaganda tools.
Heck, even Putin *still* uses Tereshkova, she was the Russian flag carrier in the Sochi Olympics IIRC.
I don't know how you could call it tokenism when in both the USSR and the PRC, women were educated at rates equaling or exceeding that of men. It is true that they seldom had real leadership positions, so I suppose women's equality could have been token on the political front, if not the social-economic.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 08, 2014, 06:52:16 PM
El Jefe Maximo also considered women essential to the early revolution, and treated them as equals in those heady, early days of promise and boundless possibilities.
Some are more equal than others.
This article seems to have the original question:
http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2014/08/tremblay-erdogan-insulting-amberin-zaman-press-freedom-akp.html#
QuoteCritics of Erdogan become victims of smear campaigns
On Aug. 6, Kemal Kilicdaroglu, leader of Turkey's main opposition party, the Republican People's Party (CHP), appeared on a mainstream TV channel for an interview. This alone is newsworthy, as it is rare to see any politician other than presidential candidate and Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan on mainstream TV in Turkey. One of Al-Monitor's Turkey Pulse columnists, Amberin Zaman, was among the journalists interviewing Kilicdaroglu.
Kilicdaroglu, explaining how convincing the arguments of the Justice and Development Party (AKP) have become, said: "The AKP voter base accepts whatever Erdogan tells them as the absolute truth." At that point, Zaman asked, "Is it not to be expected from a Muslim majority country, where Islam puts the community, not the individual, at the center, and the education system does not encourage critical thinking?" The interview continued as Zaman and Kilicdaroglu went on to explain how propaganda is more effective on the masses when there is limited access to information and critical thinking is not supported.
Instantaneously, a smear campaign from "Erdoganists" — a new term coined during this political lynching process — was initiated on social media, targeting Zaman and Kilicdaroglu. The "charges" against them were "insulting Islam and Muslims," quite serious in a country with a history of political murders and serious legal consequences for insulting Islam.
Some of the comments on Twitter were threatening, asking Zaman what she was doing in a Muslim country and using profane language. Zaman's comments were taken out of context and reframed as belittling the AKP electorate. As a handful of journalists and parliamentarians came to Zaman's defense on social media, pro-AKP elites and "others" were silently watching as the troll accounts went on with their social lynching.
On Aug. 6, speaking at an election rally in Malatya province, Erdogan called Zaman out. Although Erdogan did not utter Zaman's name, he referred to the TV program on which Kilicdaroglu appeared and then called Zaman a "shameless militant woman in journalist disguise." Within minutes, Erdogan's words spread on social media, and even harsher attacks followed against Zaman.
Erdogan said, "Know your place, you are just given a pen to write a column in a newspaper, and you insult Muslims. Ninety-nine percent of this country is Muslim." For the careful observer, Zaman had said pretty much what Erdogan said — that this is a Muslim majority country. Now, you may wonder why Erdogan and the pro-AKP crowd are so angry.
It may well be their sensitivity to Islamic values. Yet, they have been tolerant in extreme cases, for example, toward Egemen Bagis, former minister of European Union Affairs, who resigned after the Dec. 17 graft probe, when his alleged recordings became public as he was "joking recklessly about the Surah Baqarah" (a chapter of the Quran). As a handful of theologians condemned Bagis, most if not all AKP elites were silent about the allegations. Bagis was on the phone with a journalist, and the journalist went on the record apologizing for the conversation, which was seen as proof that the tapes were genuine. Indeed, Bagis was on the balcony with Erdogan during his victory speech on March 30, the night of municipal elections. Mocking the Quran is seen as blasphemy, yet we have not heard a word from Erdogan or other AKP elites on Bagis. One cannot help but ask: If a minister can mock the Quran and be tolerated in AKP circles, why would a journalist who remarked on a "majority Muslim society" be scolded for "insulting Islam"?
Erdogan and his men also rally the crowds by suggesting that elites in Turkey look down upon the man in the street. In this instance, Zaman and Kilicdaroglu's comments on the education system were deemed offensive. Yet their words echoed comments from Nimet Cubukcu, former minister of education from the AKP, who said in 2011 that "42% of students are receiving a low-quality education." Similarly, in August 2013, then-Minister of Environment Erdogan Bayraktar said, "We are a Muslim country, so we cannot be expected to raise inventors, scholars from our lands."
Zaman was not the first to be targeted by Erdogan and the AKP. Indeed, it has become a pattern with the party. During the Gezi protests, Erdogan branded a young actor as one of the perpetrators of the "coup against the AKP government," along with what has been termed the interest rate lobby.
Erdogan's rhetoric during the presidential election campaign became more divisive along identity lines. On Aug. 2 in Izmir, Erdogan said, "Kilicdaroglu, you are an Alevi and I am Sunni. You should state this openly. Demirtas [Selahattin Demirtas, head of the People's Democracy Party and presidential candidate], you are Zaza. Don't be worried about speaking out about this."
These comments generated reactions from the opposition, so during an Aug. 5 TV interview, Erdogan explained what he meant with an even more controversial statement. He said, "Let all Turks in Turkey say they are Turks, and all Kurds say they are Kurds. What is wrong with that? You wouldn't believe the things they have said about me. They have said I am Georgian. ... They have said even uglier things — they have referred to me as Armenian, but I am Turkish."
These are just the most recent examples. Erdogan and AKP elites have a history of publicly denouncing journalists, actors, pundits and civilians. These hateful words have consequences: Most of the time, they generate a round of anonymous threats and in some cases, prompt the individual to seek protection from the government.
The incident after the Soma mine disaster, when an Erdogan aide brutally attacked a mourner, demonstrates how intense discriminatory rhetoric can fuel violent behavior.
Members of the Turkish parliament are also not immune to the rise of aggression. On Aug. 4, Sinan Ogan, a prominent parliamentarian from the Nationalist Action Party (MHP), was physically attacked by 60 AKP parliamentarians. Ogan had simply asked what the Turkish government was doing for the Turkmens facing attacks by the Islamic State. Following the attack, all political parties expressed their concern to Ogan on social media, except for the AKP. Ogan told Al-Monitor, "In addition to sympathy, we received death threats after the incident. They even called our office phones at the parliament. I informed the head of the parliament and interior minister and received no responses so far." Despite it all, Ogan hasn't lost his sense of humor: "Maybe they will send flowers to our funerals?" he said.
Samil Tayyar, an AKP parliamentarian, posted on Twitter: "MHP should take Ogan to the doctor and get him a rabies shot." The pejorative language could hardly be considered remorse or apology. Several others on social media commented, "Fights happen all the time in parliament, what is the fuss about?"
Erdoganists' angry rhetoric is worrisome, particularly because it escalates at a dizzying pace, with the Turkish public becoming inured to these outbursts. It has become the norm. So much so that even those who are not active in the lynching process either condone the behavior silently or find further guilt with the victim. Attempting to stand up for each victim on social media, I have received several comments like, "Why are you supporting her? Do you think if the shoe was on the other foot, she would stand up for you?" and "Are you an Alevi? Why are you always defending them?" and "He used to support Erdogan in the past, remember?"
The public reaction to the hate rhetoric is as revealing as the rhetoric itself. It is disappointing to see how mainstream and social media follow the lead of politicians and label the targeted victims with charges blown out of proportion. There are no legal consequences for these angry outbursts, so it has turned into a pastime for the idle masses, who wait to watch the "next big fight."
In a sense, the Erdoganists have built a virtual Colosseum, where unsuspecting opponents of the regime "gladiators" are served to the power-hungry lions. If you listen carefully, you can even hear the ritual chorus, "We, who are about to die, salute you!" We can no longer escape the fact that lynching has become a systematic and increasingly dangerous practice for the "new" Turkey.
Add to that Erdogan's regular antisemitic slurs, his brutal crackdown on protests, and his solving of a corruption scandal by transferring/firing the investigators, police and prosecutors ...