8 ms·
These days, most forms of criticism of Erdogan is forbidden in Turkey. During the past 14 years, he and his party turned a barely standing democracy with imperf
These days, most forms of criticism of Erdogan is forbidden in Turkey. During the past 14 years, he and his party turned a barely standing democracy with imperfect rules into a semi-dictatorian state with no rules. Police force fully belongs to him and you can derive many similarities with Hitler's early 1930's. There are no mainstream press left daring to oppose him, no prosecutor can question him for his unconstitutional statements and acts, and his feedback loop consists of garbage people who's only income source is saying whatever pleases him.
As a result, the guy really lives in a bubble where everything he says almost immediately happens, but only in Turkey. This does not stop him to order doing something about that stupid foreign press, and all his advisors think is to ask the German govt to suppress free press in Germany.
Expect more from him in the coming months since he's on a ride to the top of idiocy.
A few comments on your statement..
- Erdogan's intolerance for satire or criticism is very disturbing indeed, but the law that is used in these cases was introduced in 2005, during Ahmet Necdet Sezer's presidency (TCK 299), being an expert in constitutional law, he should have vetoed it. Erdogan knows that media eroded his predecessors power,(e.g. Turgut Ozal) and unlike them, he will do anything to not allow that for himself.
- Police force had always been controlled by internal affairs ministry. There is nothing new there.
- That "barely standing democracy" was actually also a semi dictatorian state as well, only controlled by military and minority bureaucrat elite.
- In the end, it still takes a single election to take him and his party down, I have faith in Turkish people, they did it before to others, they will do it to him as well.
I think Erdogan lost his cool after the affair with Gulen cult, has too many yes mans around and apparently does not care about streisand effect. I don't see him in power for long time.
That is misleading. Erdogan was prime minister at the time - it is his law.
Also he will be in power for a long long time - he has a big core of pious Turks that support him. The recent elections were always about him getting a supermajority.
In the end, it still takes a single election to take him and his party down,
I have faith in Turkish people,
they did it before to others, they will do it to him as well.
But didn't this just happen? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_general_election,_June_2015 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_general_election,_June... )
- In the end, it still takes a single election to take him and his party down, I have faith in Turkish people, they did it before to others, they will do it to him as well.
I wish I had your faith. There are lots of manipulations in voting process though. Be it illegal (like stealing the votes, making fake votes) and semi-legal (buying votes). I don't know if these are enough to tip scale or but it is harder to do with plain democracy.
Not to mention that his voters are the religious people and mostly not the most educated type. They get easily manipulated by the media. We are at brink of civil war and our international relationship is suffering but he still gets the votes because "he is so charismatic and religious"
Erdogan showed his face to the world (or at least to me) when police violently dispersed the Gezi Park protesters in 2013. I suspect that the situation in Turkey only got worse since then and now the terrible terrorist attacks only add fuel to the police state's fire.
And Europe is helpless as it braces for the massive waves of immigrants coming its way, with Turkey winning big political concessions in exchange for "stopping" them.
I can only imagine how Erdogan handles that.
But it's not just Turkey.
I'm afraid this can be said about more and more leaders in lots of countries around the world.
Most of the former USSR has developed such political systems/leaders, with Putin leading the pack.
Corruption is growing all over the world and these types of leaders are consequences of that.
In the end it's up to the people of all this countries to use the still remaining democratic levers to bring new people into power.
From a domestic affairs perspective, it all started with the Gezi Park/Taksim Sq protest and then the revelations about the AKP corruption scandal of the same year that really set Erdogan on the defensive mode and made him very paranoid to the point of staging a mini-coup in Turkish politics and coming up with the silly accusations of a Fethulla Gulen led conspiracy of a "parallel state" within the state to justify the purge of any opposition or independent figures in the judiciary and police to secure a more docile political system that won't challenge his authority going forward and it went from bad to worse from there for Turkish people and as time goes Erdogan's paranoia seems to get stronger with no signs of abating any time soon.
>Corruption is growing all over the world and these types of leaders are consequences of that.
Don't worry, we'll join those other countries later this year when we elect our own queen of corruption, Hillary.
Erdogan is not an idiot for trying to censor German press. He does know that that won't ever happen because he wanted. But most the voters of his party will be excited to see him shouting at the Germany, the US, etc. This is not that obvious to the opposition. I came to know some supporters only recently, and boy, they have arousals when the guy acts like this. I'm a Turkish citizen BTW.
And see, criticism of Erdogan is not really forbidden. Criticism in its every form is forbidden, if you're powerful enough. Criticise Ataturk, and what happens? Lawsuits, and you'll probably be jailed (1). Say that the Armenian Genocide happened, you'll be jailed. Criticise the party leaders, and they sack half of the party, e.g. the recent MHP situation.
Erdogan does not like criticism, but it's our culture that allows him to actually enforce a surpression thereof. There was a guy who reported his own wife because she spoke pejoratively about Erdogan. Here there still is a godly ruling class, the class of devlet buyukleri. Until they become merely the citizens with the duty to decide for us for a limited time and with full responsabilities, the status quo will go on.
(1) A very recent example is the havoc against a documentary that criticised him.
From the other hand, we as Greeks, have enjoyed a time of relative peace of mind during the Erdogan rule. In the past, every time Turkey had internal instability issues there was tension in our relationship which even brought as at the brink of war (notably the Imia/Kardak incident in 1996).
> Erdogan is not an idiot for trying to censor German press
It hurts your country's ability to leverage foreign minds when you begin to censor the outside world. Plus, with the internet, censorship becomes really impractical. China and North Korea don't do this completely successfully and they spend a lot of effort to keep their citizens on some form of lock down. So not only do you end up missing out on the collective conscience of foreigners, but you also lose some portion of your own population's trust and creativity.
Meanwhile, the rest of the world is working together to solve problems in an open, concerted manner. I'm not saying our world is perfect but I think it's fairly obvious that censorship, in the days of the internet, is not the right way to the future.
We need to get over ourselves, stop being so sensitive, and recognize that even when governments make laws to protect people's feelings, people will still say mean and negative things. I don't want to read those garbage comments here on HN because it fills up the thread, but I can tolerate them in the real world because I know I can just walk away. The only time speech should be regulated is when it incites violence, and I'm sorry to all the extremist Muslims, but drawing a picture is not viewed as inciting violence by most of the world, including most of the people who follow similar forms of that faith.
Take Erdogan as a businessman instead of a political figure. Because that's what he does. Since when he started his political career, even before the AKP days, he and his family prospered to an incredible level. That's all the care, and the support comes from the businessmen trying to get some benefit out of the business. So the case of Turkey is the case of a group that fruits the state's resources for enrichment of theirs, and nobody cares if Turkey remains respectable or not. It's business.
> The only time speech should be regulated is when it incites violence [...]
Speech should not be regulated in any ways, or we will have millions of who decides questions. A picture of Mohammad is annoying to each and every muslim, because the religion expressly forbids the likeness of the holy figures. Freedom of speech does not mean irresponsible and banale flow of whatever one thinks. This does not in any way justify the violence, but does not help either. Have you seen the latest cover of Hebdo, Papa où t'es? That's within freedom of speech too, but freedom of speech must not mean that one can be reckless, inconsiderate and demeaning. It is possible to criticise, or even attack in a civil, graceful way. In the end, though, this should be left to the authors will, to decide whether or not it is moral to say what he says. Because when state is involved the slightest, it can be involved more. Who decides what incites violence?
> Freedom of speech does not mean irresponsible and banale flow of whatever one thinks.
Actually, it is. Freedom of speech can't be whatever seems civil to each person, it's a binary issue. Either you have it or you don't.
For example, France, which seems freer than Turkey, actually just fined a comedian that have insulted the prime minister of half retarded Musolinni. That's not okay and it's not fundamentaly different of what's happening in Turkey.
So according to this binary definition of free speech, what countries actually have it?
It seems like many countries have limitations on free speech, which according to this definition would mean they do not actually have free speech.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech
Quoting my grandparent comment:
> In the end, though, this should be left to the authors will, to decide whether or not it is moral to say what he says. Because when state is involved the slightest, it can be involved more. Who decides what incites violence?
So to this I agree:
> Actually, it is. Freedom of speech can't be whatever seems civil to each person, it's a binary issue. Either you have it or you don't.
What I say is, the individuals should be considerate when using their freedom to speech. Freedoms bear responsabilities. One cannot say anything and go by. If what you say is lies, or pure insults, or if it's provocative, there will be consequences, or else it conflicts with the right to human dignity of the one(s) at the receiving end of your speech. One should be responsible and mindful of what he says.
> most the voters of his party will be excited to see him shouting at the Germany, the US, etc.
It's even "better" than that, because it is so easy for a leader to re-spin outside criticism from "attack against me" to "attack against us", strengthening his position internally. And this pattern is not even limited to dictators and the like: when Americans made fun of Bush junior, it was perfectly fine application of of free speech. If Europeans did the same, it was antiamericanism making Americans rally around the flag to protect him.
So in the interplay between international and domestic opinion, there seems to be some kind of inverse Streisand effect. Can we please have a word for that? It would make the whole world easier to understand... (german has "Burgfriedensmentalität“, but that is the resulting state, not the mechanism that causes it)
You have to be mindful of what you say, that is, you mustn't say things you can't prove. You mustn't lie. Or else, you'll be disproved, and announced publicly as a liar. I don't say that you are not free to lie, though, what I say is, in this case, by lying, you accept such consequences. By saying something, you're responsible to its truth.
You're free to insult, but you don't have to. If you do so, people will get offended, and you'll be excluded, ignored, or insulted back at. Again, you're free to insult, but there will be consequences, and by insulting you take the responsibility, and accept being excluded, or insulted at.
And everybody has a right to not be offended, which has to protect them from bullying, demeaning, racism, etc., called the "right to human dignity":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dignity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dignity
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:12012P/TXT http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:120...
> Human dignity is inviolable. It must be respected and protected. (Article 1)
> Everyone has the right to respect for his or her physical and mental integrity. (Article 3/1)
> The right to conscientious objection is recognised, in accordance with the national laws governing the exercise of this right. (Article 10/2)
> Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. (Article 11)
> Any discrimination based on any ground such as sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation shall be prohibited. (Article 21/1)
> Within the scope of application of the Treaties and without prejudice to any of their specific provisions, any discrimination on grounds of nationality shall be prohibited. (Article 21/2)
> Take Erdogan as a businessman instead of a political figure
The US is strong in the business world because they endure differing opinions!
Astute businessmen can see how limiting free speech limits their own success. Good businessmen do not surround themselves with yes-men.
When you limit free speech of a country, you cut off most of your people from certain intelligence. You could argue the intelligence agency has access to everything, however, at some point, the original guys will retire. They will be replaced with people who grew up without consistent access to the entire world picture. They will thus be disadvantaged when engaging in international politics and trade deals.
I guess it comes down to, do you think current and former leaders of the likes of China and North Korea are more or less happy or successful than current and former leaders of the likes of the US and France.
> Speech should not be regulated in any ways
You're not allowed to yell fire in a crowded theater. Governments set limits to every right in order to balance public safety. If you think that's wrong, that's your choice. I'd just point out that you grew up in a society that benefited from this increased safety while sacrificing some portion of its people's rights. Unless you were raised in the jungle :-D.
"You're not allowed to yell fire in a crowded theater..."
Yes, you are. Look at "Trope Two" in the link below. The post linked is written by Ken White who specializes in the 1st amendment.
https://popehat.com/2015/05/19/how-to-spot-and-critique-censorship-tropes-in-the-medias-coverage-of-free-speech-controversies/ https://popehat.com/2015/05/19/how-to-spot-and-critique-cens...
Interesting, thanks for the correction. Maybe instead we can say, you're not allowed to threaten someone's life. The point is there are limits to free speech, even in America, though there are less limits there than in Europe where hate speech laws have been introduced.
> You're not allowed to yell fire in a crowded theater.
Come on mate, I thought we're talking about political speech :)
With regards to Erdogan as a businessman, the thing is, he is using his position to prosper as a rich man. I repeat, he has no care about what happens to the country. There are no ideologies, no nothing here. He uses the state as a means to cash in what he can. And he has his circle of assistants etc., what he wants is to be able to steer the politics and ultimately the state the way he wants w/o any friction.
So he's basically a Ba'athist? That's parsimonious. I think this is the ground state for modern governments. To get anything more than Ba'athism takes a lot of work by a lot of people.
> he is using his position to prosper as a rich man
I just said he would prosper more by accepting the diversity that exists in his region and the world. You're not even reading my comment, you're just repeating the same thing you said before.
It's probably worth noting that I don't think @gkya is supporting Erdogan. He is merely pointing out that his actions in attempting to censor foreign media have motives which aren't obvious.
When one looks at his actions in the light of those motives his actions make a lot of sense. Without those motives his actions appear stupid.
> It's probably worth noting that I don't think @gkya is supporting Erdogan
Thanks, I see that now. Some of @gkya's words sounded like they take the opposite viewpoint, such as,
>> Speech should not be regulated in any ways
>> Freedom of speech does not mean irresponsible and banale flow of whatever one thinks.
>> freedom of speech must not mean that one can be reckless, inconsiderate and demeaning.
It reads like it was unedited and is very hard to follow
> When one looks at his actions in the light of those motives his actions make a lot of sense. Without those motives his actions appear stupid.
I disagree, see my comments about astute businessmen not using yes-men above. No worries if we don't agree here. Countries are most certainly businesses. They're in the business of acquiring people who generate money.
I'm sorry if I've been unclear. I do not in any ways support Erdogan. Though I insist that freedom of speech does not mean that one can be irresponsible of what he says.
Everything you say and do has consequences whether you accept them or not. Free speech says the state cannot punish you for what you say, with certain small exceptions that vary by country that has free speech, such as libel and direct threats on someone's life.
>> When one looks at his actions in the light of those motives his actions make a lot of sense. Without those motives his actions appear stupid.
> I disagree, see my comments about astute businessmen not using yes-men above. No worries if we don't agree here. Countries are most certainly businesses. They're in the business of acquiring people who generate money.
Right, but that is assuming that Erdogan is trying to do what is best for the country in the long term. Many would argue his primary concern is Erdogan's interests in the short term.