Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2016 2:04:06 GMT -5
I'd like to draw attention to something I consider quite important in this modern era. Turkey, the average sized keystone between Europe and Asia, has been slipping into what could easily be considered a totalitarian regime over the past few years. They appear to be taking the Orwellian route, with authoritarian government imposition which is natural for where they started. This is truly perplexing to me that in modern day Europe, in a very strategically important location, a fairly high populous nation which is a member of NATO and negotiating member of the EU no less, can be allowed to fall into an oppressive dictatorship right beneath the West's nose. Unfortunately I must point to a recent event which outlines the preferential treatment offered to those citizens who line up with the ideals of the burgeoning state as opposed to those citizens exercising the freedoms they are supposed to have, at least under previous leadership. In Istanbul, something as simple as a gathering of fans of Radiohead at a record store has become the subject of Islamic persecution in that the participants were suspected of drinking alcohol, which is forbidden during the holy period of Ramadan. More information can be found at this link: diffuser.fm/radiohead-party-attack-turkey/?utm_source=sailthru&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=newsletter_5003207
A number of key revocations of (good) liberal reforms in recent months does not point to a Theological regime being established such as that in Iran or ISIS, but it would be difficult to deny Turkey's routes as the hollowed out remains of a once great Muslim empire. The predominant religion is still Islam, and it would not be difficult to play to the ideologies and morals which are inherent in this religion and therefore already instilled in the populace as a justifiable and acceptable way of life. What is obvious, however, is that the intention is not to establish Islam as the governing power; if it were to be present in the government, it would be little more than a single cog in a litany of justifications for the reactionary reforms passed to placate the population. Indeed, it is clear that the most important entity emerging from this bizarre slew of events is the "president," Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.
In recent years, hundreds of political opponents of Erdogan have been jailed, from journalists to politicians to military officers. He's blatantly proposed significant changes to the constitution, which have been voted down. Beginning in 2014, the leading Turkish newspaper has been persecuted for anti-Erdogan articles, beginning with the arrest of its lead editor and culminating in the seizingof its assets and its conversion into a state-run entity used for printing what is essentially bold faced propaganda. Shortly after, another paper was similarly attacked as executives were arrested and Erdogan himself oversaw the case. Several cases of state police assaults on independent press organizations have been reported, and impairing freedom of speech surely is the most significant step on the road to the downfall of democracy.
On a more ludicrous side of things, Turkish officials have begun targeting the freedom of speech of citizens of other countries who voice their displeasure with Erdogan. As ridiculous as it sounds, nations beholden to the US such as Germany have actually given in to Turkish demands for repercussions against anti-Erdogan sentiment, whether it's forcing the closure of a family eatery which served Erdogan burgers to allowing the prosecution of a German comedian for making fun of Erdogan. If I may speak frankly from a personal sense, that is the most absolutely bizarre diplomatic event in history in my own opinion. Never in history that I am aware of has one dictatorship been able to bully a democracy into suspending the rights of its citizens to match the oppressive laws enforced in the dictatorship. This is likely due not only to the fact that the very concept is asinine, but possibly also to no dictatorship ever even bothering attempt this before. One can imagine what the result would be if, say, China in the fifties had tried to tell the US to forbid negative depictions of chairman Mao. Surely they wouldn't expect success at such an endeavor, so they would spare themselves the humiliation of making demands which would never be met, and being able to do nothing about it? Now, as I type this, I realize there is one possible instance of an organized dictatorship taking such measures in the case of that comedy movie about the North Korean dictator, Kim-whatever, but that did eventually result in the movie's release and it may well have been a publicity stunt.
In any case, why are these factors being allowed by the West? Why is such an important country being allowed to fall to the third alignment of a rogue state (because as we all know, Turkey is most certainly not on good terms with Russia)? At the risk of sounding predictable and uninformed, I personally must find at least some fault in the lap of President Obama. No, I am not saying this just because I think everything is Obama's fault or whatever you guys probably think, but because Obama has openly promoted good relations with Erdogan. Even recently, in May, he met with him, without even much fanfare or any addressing of his anti-democratic actions. I do not think Obama is trying to assist the subjugation of the Turkish people or that he is actively seeking to do all these bad things, but rather, it is likely that he simply does not understand the situation. In more recent addresses, however, Obama does seem to be beginning to understand how severe these actions are. He has criticized the intervention in Turkey's freedom of press among other things, only to be immediately attacked by Erdogan. But, is it too little, too late? For eight years, these steps backward have been paced briskly without any word from the president of the United States.
I am very glad to hear Obama has seen the situation for what it is, but I fear we may be past the point of a peaceful diplomatic solution. I am not interested, either, in a Latin America style government installation, because it is not our responsibility as a nation to go around judging what governments are just and which are not, and then deciding to act upon those judgments. It is the responsibility of the people to decide what is just for their government to do, and the best way to allow this is the freedom of speech not only inside the borders of a country, but the allowance of access to information and assessments from other free people in other democratic nations. Without the ability to communicate with the people of Turkey, we will lose the ability to show them the corruption of their government and they will fall into the grasp of one-sided propaganda from the state itself. The Turks have shown for the most part that they do not want these reforms, yet they continue with whatever extra measures are necessary to ensure they are passed with minimal resistance.
The right of the people to choose their government is a right which should and must not be infringed upon, for it is simply human nature for any non-beholden government to seek to increase its power. Would not even some presidents seek a third term if they were allowed? One did just that, during WWII. This is an example of popular opinion still having a voice, but the conscious effort to prevent any further grabs for power by limiting the presidential candidate to two terms following this extraordinary example. If a government is just, they will have no problem being supported by the people and therefore retaining power. For Erdogan to have to eliminate the freedoms of those who oppose him is an absolutely undeniable hallmark that he does not seek just government; rather he wishes to simply have power, and lots of it, at the expense of the people he holds power over.
This is something I've felt the need to speak out about for a long time. Why I chose to do it here, I'm not sure, other than perhaps, this is the only place I could, and there are a number of smart people here who are willing to have a light political discussion. Therefore if I may, I'd like to open this up to discussion of not only respecting those who were brutally attacked simply for their consumption of alcohol and taste in music, but discussing the rights which are inherent in any nation and what should be done if they are infringed upon.
A number of key revocations of (good) liberal reforms in recent months does not point to a Theological regime being established such as that in Iran or ISIS, but it would be difficult to deny Turkey's routes as the hollowed out remains of a once great Muslim empire. The predominant religion is still Islam, and it would not be difficult to play to the ideologies and morals which are inherent in this religion and therefore already instilled in the populace as a justifiable and acceptable way of life. What is obvious, however, is that the intention is not to establish Islam as the governing power; if it were to be present in the government, it would be little more than a single cog in a litany of justifications for the reactionary reforms passed to placate the population. Indeed, it is clear that the most important entity emerging from this bizarre slew of events is the "president," Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.
In recent years, hundreds of political opponents of Erdogan have been jailed, from journalists to politicians to military officers. He's blatantly proposed significant changes to the constitution, which have been voted down. Beginning in 2014, the leading Turkish newspaper has been persecuted for anti-Erdogan articles, beginning with the arrest of its lead editor and culminating in the seizingof its assets and its conversion into a state-run entity used for printing what is essentially bold faced propaganda. Shortly after, another paper was similarly attacked as executives were arrested and Erdogan himself oversaw the case. Several cases of state police assaults on independent press organizations have been reported, and impairing freedom of speech surely is the most significant step on the road to the downfall of democracy.
On a more ludicrous side of things, Turkish officials have begun targeting the freedom of speech of citizens of other countries who voice their displeasure with Erdogan. As ridiculous as it sounds, nations beholden to the US such as Germany have actually given in to Turkish demands for repercussions against anti-Erdogan sentiment, whether it's forcing the closure of a family eatery which served Erdogan burgers to allowing the prosecution of a German comedian for making fun of Erdogan. If I may speak frankly from a personal sense, that is the most absolutely bizarre diplomatic event in history in my own opinion. Never in history that I am aware of has one dictatorship been able to bully a democracy into suspending the rights of its citizens to match the oppressive laws enforced in the dictatorship. This is likely due not only to the fact that the very concept is asinine, but possibly also to no dictatorship ever even bothering attempt this before. One can imagine what the result would be if, say, China in the fifties had tried to tell the US to forbid negative depictions of chairman Mao. Surely they wouldn't expect success at such an endeavor, so they would spare themselves the humiliation of making demands which would never be met, and being able to do nothing about it? Now, as I type this, I realize there is one possible instance of an organized dictatorship taking such measures in the case of that comedy movie about the North Korean dictator, Kim-whatever, but that did eventually result in the movie's release and it may well have been a publicity stunt.
In any case, why are these factors being allowed by the West? Why is such an important country being allowed to fall to the third alignment of a rogue state (because as we all know, Turkey is most certainly not on good terms with Russia)? At the risk of sounding predictable and uninformed, I personally must find at least some fault in the lap of President Obama. No, I am not saying this just because I think everything is Obama's fault or whatever you guys probably think, but because Obama has openly promoted good relations with Erdogan. Even recently, in May, he met with him, without even much fanfare or any addressing of his anti-democratic actions. I do not think Obama is trying to assist the subjugation of the Turkish people or that he is actively seeking to do all these bad things, but rather, it is likely that he simply does not understand the situation. In more recent addresses, however, Obama does seem to be beginning to understand how severe these actions are. He has criticized the intervention in Turkey's freedom of press among other things, only to be immediately attacked by Erdogan. But, is it too little, too late? For eight years, these steps backward have been paced briskly without any word from the president of the United States.
I am very glad to hear Obama has seen the situation for what it is, but I fear we may be past the point of a peaceful diplomatic solution. I am not interested, either, in a Latin America style government installation, because it is not our responsibility as a nation to go around judging what governments are just and which are not, and then deciding to act upon those judgments. It is the responsibility of the people to decide what is just for their government to do, and the best way to allow this is the freedom of speech not only inside the borders of a country, but the allowance of access to information and assessments from other free people in other democratic nations. Without the ability to communicate with the people of Turkey, we will lose the ability to show them the corruption of their government and they will fall into the grasp of one-sided propaganda from the state itself. The Turks have shown for the most part that they do not want these reforms, yet they continue with whatever extra measures are necessary to ensure they are passed with minimal resistance.
The right of the people to choose their government is a right which should and must not be infringed upon, for it is simply human nature for any non-beholden government to seek to increase its power. Would not even some presidents seek a third term if they were allowed? One did just that, during WWII. This is an example of popular opinion still having a voice, but the conscious effort to prevent any further grabs for power by limiting the presidential candidate to two terms following this extraordinary example. If a government is just, they will have no problem being supported by the people and therefore retaining power. For Erdogan to have to eliminate the freedoms of those who oppose him is an absolutely undeniable hallmark that he does not seek just government; rather he wishes to simply have power, and lots of it, at the expense of the people he holds power over.
This is something I've felt the need to speak out about for a long time. Why I chose to do it here, I'm not sure, other than perhaps, this is the only place I could, and there are a number of smart people here who are willing to have a light political discussion. Therefore if I may, I'd like to open this up to discussion of not only respecting those who were brutally attacked simply for their consumption of alcohol and taste in music, but discussing the rights which are inherent in any nation and what should be done if they are infringed upon.
