Community Messageboard: Re: As snoop says, your ridiculous hyperbole makes it hard to take the rest serious as well. by Joel

Back to Messageboard

Post New Thread

Help

Stats

Rules

Re: As snoop says, your ridiculous hyperbole makes it hard to take the rest serious as well. Joel Send a noteboard - 21/04/2010 02:28:26 PM

Of course it does; after all, the President's been chosen by popular vote for almost two whole years now, the ruling party only had to order three elections to elect their preferred candidate and during that time the military has only once threatened to intervene if the government elected seems too religious. However could I have gotten the idea Turkeys political scene is divided between a secular military and fundamentalist religious faction rather than fully democratic?

Turkey is one of those countries where the presidency is a largely ceremonial function, so the parliamentary elections that determine the PM are far more important. For your information, Germany has its president elected by the Bundestag rather than in a popular vote as well, because there too the presidency is largely ceremonial. And one would think an American would have some amount of understanding for political systems that don't elect the president in a direct popular vote, all things considered.

As for the ruling party needing three elections, that's true but I'm not sure how it reflects badly on them - they weren't the ones refusing to vote in order to prevent a quorum being reached.

You're quite right that the secular military remains a problem, although if you're at all honest you will admit that there has been massive progress in that regard of late, but the AKP is a broad people's party with solid popular support, and as a whole is far from fundamentalist.

From the outside it looks very much like political support is divided between a secular military faction and a fundamentalist religious one. Probably because of things like the military bringing charges against people for defaming Turkey (apparently Israel and Palestine are better targets) and being warned not to interfere with elections. I'm not sure how valid comparisons between indirect popular elections here and non-popular elections in Turkey are. Many states formally bind electors by law to vote for the winner of their respective popular votes, and the popular vote of each state still determines the next President, which is a far cry from letting Congressmen choose whomever they like, which we only do if no one wins a majority of electors (another advantage of electors: No one won a popular majority from 1992-2000. )

Perhaps it would be more difficult to maintain if "Kemalism" wasn't the governments official national policy (hence "military junta" ) or that government didn't disseminate propaganda against both Israel and Palestine (hence "terrorist sympathizing. " ) "Genocide denying" speaks for itself; as long as it's a crime to mention the Armenian Genocide in Turkey that's not hyperbole at all.

"Genocide denying" is fair enough, the rest is sheer nonsense; see the title of the post (and snoop's earlier comments).

As for your other comments, it's true that Holocaust denial is a punishable offense in a number of countries in the EU, but just because the EU published a text like that doesn't mean it's become a punishable offense in those countries in the EU that didn't have Holocaust denial laws on the books already (which includes the UK). And all the stuff you copypasted from Wikipedia, as far as I can see, proves snoop's point that most of those free speech-restricting court cases were started by civilians or at least by forces other than the government (i.e. the military), and that most of them didn't result in a conviction anyway. Of course they should abolish the law allowing those cases even so, but in practice freedom of speech in Turkey is reasonably good even if it is not yet perfect - certainly a far cry from what it's like in authoritarian regimes. Turkey isn't a perfect democracy yet, but far closer to that than to a real dictatorship or authoritarian regime.

Denying the Holocaust is a crime in the EU punishable by 1-3 years in prison. That's what "The text establishes that the following intentional conduct will be punishable in all EU Member States.... Member States will ensure that these conducts are punishable by criminal penalties of a maximum of at least between 1 and 3 years of imprisonment" means. Certainly saying, "Member States may choose to punish only conduct which is either carried out in a manner likely to disturb public order or which is threatening, abusive or insulting" gives individual states much discretion in how to enforce the law, but doesn't alter the fact it IS the law.

Meanwhile, when the military is bringing charges against citizens for discussing genocide, when speaking ill of the general who made them a political force is illegal, well, that sounds an awful lot like a junta; how much of it form rather than substance can be debated, but the hyperbole intended to highlight the militarys strong role in Turkish politics is nonetheless based on that very real role. Portraying the Israeli army as a group as rapists seems fairly sympathetic to anti-Israeli terror as well. I don't deny that there was some hyperbole in those statements, but hyperbole is legitimate where it serves to emphasize a less extreme reality provided the rhetoric itself is recognized as hyperbole.

Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.

Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!

LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.

Reply to message

Turkish Anti-Israel TV show angers Palestinians AgentOrange - 06/04/2010 02:56:43 PM 559 Views

That is odd when the occupied is outraged at a movie made to look the occupier look bad *NM* Ryan - 06/04/2010 04:50:05 PM 187 Views

I think it is a TV series, not a movie? Not a major point but still... snoopcester - 06/04/2010 05:03:08 PM 219 Views

Got to love the Saudis. snoopcester - 06/04/2010 05:05:31 PM 240 Views

In fairness to MBC, they have good stuff too. Legolas - 06/04/2010 05:25:16 PM 232 Views

Well that is a plus point snoopcester - 06/04/2010 11:58:46 PM 203 Views

no rape = racism? Aisha - 06/04/2010 06:56:03 PM 359 Views

And Turkey should be an EU member again because... why...? Joel - 06/04/2010 11:51:05 PM 200 Views

Yeah, damn them for letting the media say what it likes... snoopcester - 06/04/2010 11:57:37 PM 215 Views

"The drama, which was first broadcast on Turkey’s state television last October.... " Joel - 07/04/2010 12:46:35 AM 382 Views

TRT is like the BBC and many other public broadcasting channels... Legolas - 07/04/2010 01:05:08 AM 318 Views

As I said, can you picture this on the BBC? Joel - 07/04/2010 01:17:10 AM 413 Views

No but better to not censor than censor seems a good rule snoopcester - 07/04/2010 10:03:52 AM 209 Views

Not when it's false, inflammatory and violent propaganda masquerading as "entertainment. " Joel - 07/04/2010 11:10:41 AM 199 Views

Um, they co-funded and broadcast Rome?

*NM* Legolas - 07/04/2010 11:15:33 AM 90 Views

Never seen it. Joel - 07/04/2010 11:22:45 AM 202 Views

were you a medieval king, would you not censor blood libel ? AgentOrange - 07/04/2010 12:31:44 PM 212 Views

If I were a medieval king, I wouldn't know what television is

snoopcester - 07/04/2010 01:27:39 PM 212 Views

you are probably right. AgentOrange - 07/04/2010 08:49:17 PM 321 Views

As long as they don't criticize any nationalist politicians or the army. *NM* everynametaken - 07/04/2010 02:00:19 AM 81 Views

Well yes, that is what happens when you have a country with a constant threat of an army coup snoopcester - 07/04/2010 10:02:00 AM 208 Views

I could accept the latter on the condition of the former. Joel - 13/04/2010 10:12:01 AM 312 Views

You might need to have another look at your definitions snoopcester - 14/04/2010 11:34:01 AM 315 Views

It's hard for me to view a nation with a military government as "First World. " Joel - 14/04/2010 01:29:33 PM 314 Views

Wouldn't Hollywood get sued constantly, then?

Legolas - 14/04/2010 01:34:32 PM 274 Views

Maybe in the latter one. Joel - 14/04/2010 01:39:49 PM 328 Views

You do know Oklahoma isn't a country, right?

snoopcester - 14/04/2010 09:51:21 PM 303 Views

I'm a Texan; yes, I do.

Joel - 15/04/2010 02:42:45 PM 320 Views

Fair point, I was forgetting that

snoopcester - 15/04/2010 03:07:25 PM 341 Views

I've been known to refer to OK as "North TX" but they don't like that.

Joel - 20/04/2010 01:42:21 PM 343 Views

As snoop says, your ridiculous hyperbole makes it hard to take the rest serious as well. Legolas - 20/04/2010 06:45:40 PM 373 Views

Re: As snoop says, your ridiculous hyperbole makes it hard to take the rest serious as well. Joel - 21/04/2010 02:28:26 PM 348 Views

What am I talking to here, a wall? Legolas - 21/04/2010 10:18:41 PM 341 Views

Just seems like every story I hear out of Turkey is something like this. Joel - 28/04/2010 02:33:31 AM 370 Views

Turkey shouldn't be in the EU. Dragonsoul - 07/04/2010 01:23:31 AM 216 Views

For the most part I agree. Joel - 07/04/2010 02:18:37 AM 388 Views

I gotta agree tactually Aisha - 07/04/2010 03:51:02 AM 333 Views

Tactually? Adam will be insanely jealous....

Joel - 13/04/2010 10:04:39 AM 326 Views

At least they chose a nice/accurate vacation spot for the fake Palestinians

*NM* BlackAdder - 07/04/2010 12:56:31 AM 84 Views

Back to Messageboard

Post New Thread

Help

Stats

Rules

Reply to Message

Subject

Formatting

Smiley Codes

Body

<quote id="100480">
<quote id="100098"><quote id="99967">Of course it does; after all, the President's been chosen by popular vote for almost two whole years now, the ruling party only had to order three elections to elect their preferred candidate and during that time the military has only once threatened to intervene if the government elected seems too religious.  However could I have gotten the idea Turkeys political scene is divided between a secular military and fundamentalist religious faction rather than fully democratic? :rolleyes:</quote>Turkey is one of those countries where the presidency is a largely ceremonial function, so the parliamentary elections that determine the PM are far more important. For your information, Germany has its president elected by the Bundestag rather than in a popular vote as well, because there too the presidency is largely ceremonial. And one would think an American would have some amount of understanding for political systems that don't elect the president in a direct popular vote, all things considered.

As for the ruling party needing three elections, that's true but I'm not sure how it reflects badly on them - they weren't the ones refusing to vote in order to prevent a quorum being reached.

You're quite right that the secular military remains a problem, although if you're at all honest you will admit that there has been massive progress in that regard of late, but the AKP is a broad people's party with solid popular support, and as a whole is far from fundamentalist. </quote>
From the outside it looks very much like political support is divided between a secular military faction and a fundamentalist religious one.  Probably because of things like the military bringing charges against people for defaming Turkey (apparently Israel and Palestine are better targets) and being warned not to interfere with elections.  I'm not sure how valid comparisons between indirect popular elections here and non-popular elections in Turkey are.  Many states formally bind electors by law to vote for the winner of their respective popular votes, and the popular vote of each state still determines the next President, which is a far cry from letting Congressmen choose whomever they like, which we only do if no one wins a majority of electors (another advantage of electors: No one won a popular majority from 1992-2000. )
<quote id="100098"><quote id="99967">Perhaps it would be more difficult to maintain if "Kemalism" wasn't the governments official national policy (hence "military junta" ) or that government didn't disseminate propaganda against both Israel and Palestine (hence "terrorist sympathizing. " ) "Genocide denying" speaks for itself; as long as it's a crime to mention the Armenian Genocide in Turkey that's not hyperbole at all.</quote>
"Genocide denying" is fair enough, the rest is sheer nonsense; see the title of the post (and snoop's earlier comments).

As for your other comments, it's true that Holocaust denial is a punishable offense in a number of countries in the EU, but just because the EU published a text like that doesn't mean it's become a punishable offense in those countries in the EU that didn't have Holocaust denial laws on the books already (which includes the UK). And all the stuff you copypasted from Wikipedia, as far as I can see, proves snoop's point that most of those free speech-restricting court cases were started by civilians or at least by forces other than the government (i.e. the military), and that most of them didn't result in a conviction anyway. Of course they should abolish the law allowing those cases even so, but in practice freedom of speech in Turkey is reasonably good even if it is not yet perfect - certainly a far cry from what it's like in authoritarian regimes. Turkey isn't a perfect democracy yet, but far closer to that than to a real dictatorship or authoritarian regime. </quote>
Denying the Holocaust is a crime in the EU punishable by 1-3 years in prison.  That's what "The text establishes that the following intentional conduct <b>will be punishable in all EU Member States</b>.... <b>Member States will ensure that these conducts are punishable by criminal penalties</b> of a maximum of at least between 1 and 3 years of imprisonment" means.  Certainly saying, "Member States may choose to punish only conduct which is either carried out in a manner likely to disturb public order or which is threatening, abusive or insulting" gives individual states much discretion in how to enforce the law, but doesn't alter the fact it IS the law.

Meanwhile, when the military is bringing charges against citizens for discussing genocide, when speaking ill of the general who made them a political force is illegal, well, that sounds an awful lot like a junta; how much of it form rather than substance can be debated, but the hyperbole intended to highlight the militarys strong role in Turkish politics is nonetheless based on that very real role.  Portraying the Israeli army as a group as rapists seems fairly sympathetic to anti-Israeli terror as well.  I don't deny that there was some hyperbole in those statements, but hyperbole is legitimate where it serves to emphasize a less extreme reality provided the rhetoric itself is recognized as hyperbole.
</quote>

Link title

Link url

Send notification emails?

Username

Password