Reporting from Ankara, capital. Ongoing sonic booms followed by bombings. Scary as hell. My niece is 8mo, in each jet and helicopter pass we take cover on her and we baricated home with tables. No one knows what is going on, and media claims control is in place.
Fill your bathtub with water in case you lose municipal water supply for a few days. Fill containers if you have them. Good luck. The rest of the world is watching and we hope you all stay safe through this difficult time.
Somehow I'm not able to edit, but I wanted to add: the situation seems be under control, coupists mostly arrested, soon it'll all be cool I guess (based in Istanbul).
Current status as reported by government of Turkey:
- Coup attempt claimed to be unsuccessful.
- About 1500 members of military arrested so far. Two senior generals will be tried for treason.
- About 90 dead reported so far.
- Heavy damage at parliament building and presidential palace.
- Airports supposedly reopening soon. (Airport departure list shows "Delayed" for everything except one flight to Odessa.) [1]
- If Erdoğan hadn't been able to make a speech via FaceTime, which was relayed by a TV station, the coup might have succeeded. He also sent a text to his entire contacts list. The amusing thing is that Erdoğan is against social media.
> If Erdoğan hadn't been able to make a speech via FaceTime, which was relayed by a TV station, the coup might have succeeded. He also sent a text to his entire contacts list. The amusing thing is that Erdoğan is against social media.
Using FaceTime and sending private text messages to people in your contact list hardly counts as using social "media"?
> The amusing thing is that Erdoğan is against social media.
It's not like the internet is a regulated place to have a thoughtful conversation. There are not that many countries where the government can risk itself using the internet for its benefit. Freedom of speech is important, but seen how Turkey is bordering Syria, I would not like to sit at Erdogan's place either.
Like any elected leader who want to serve their country.
Not defending Erdogan here. Just being wary when people advocate for the removal of an authoritarian leader (Saddam, Assad...). It's easy to talk about free speech technologies when we enjoy the comfort we have. It's harder to look at history and try to have a conversation.
The original comment was that it's ironic that Ergodan who is against social media (and thus block as much as he can) was using the very social media to stop the attempt.
How does that turn into "it's easy to talk about free speech technologies..." ?
I'm kinda tired of constantly reading about free speech and its virtues, and how people who don't have that culture are somehow backward. I know free speech is a good thing, but when you venture in the middle east, free speech doesn't matter because there is much less public order. Politicians know that people don't have this culture of free speech and must act accordingly.
Outside of the US, people don't consider using something as a political statement or general endorsement.
For example there are many politicians who are against europe in general. They still hold a seat at the parliament, because they can.
When poor people in africa use cellphones, should they change their opinion about the country it came from ?
What bothers me is the whole "you used a technology you were against and it helped you". Sure, it is contradictory, but when the stakes are high like in a coup, politicians have to forget their stance a little. It's another domain of scenario. History in politics is full of contradictions, so what bothered me is that easy sniping remark about social media while there's a freaking coup attempt. I don't think people care so much about a neat social media application while a parliament is being bombed. Those techs devices and infrastructure were paid for, everyone use them. The tech is not from there, so of course a politician won't really approve of it.
The general tone that bothers me is that when tech people read the news and they only read the tech part, not the rest.
That good sweet freedom. Are you telling me to just unread it ?
Sure I could ignore it, but I'm free to not ignore it and to answer.
> contrary to those living in Turkey who don't even get to read about it.
There are worse examples than turkey. Pointing out that every problem there are in the world are caused by a lack of freedom is easy. Freedom is more a progress of culture than anything else. I don't think it would solve Turkey's problems in a day to just have access to hacker news and the whole internet. Don't forget about propaganda machines and misinformation.
Granted that in ideal, I'm not right, but foreign politics are not your average rubik's cube. It's not the first time the US will be criticized for pretending that freedom is the solution for all of the ills in the world.
For context: wince the foundation of the Turkish Republic in 1923, there have been periodic military coups, notably in 1960, 1980, and 1997. The army's stated purpose has always been to 'preserve the constitution and democracy', as it is this time. While I'm not in favor of the use of violent force to unseat a democratically elected government, the current government in Turkey is anything but. Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the Prime Minister from 2003 to 2014 and President since, has taken many pages out of the Putin playbook, turning the liberal, cosmopolitan Turkey (my former home) into an oppressive, corrupt dictatorship. He has jailed opponents, waged war on minorities, funneled money and arms to extremist groups in Iraq and Syria, built himself a palace worthy of a Sultan, changed the constitution, and vowed to keep himself in power until at least 2023 if not longer.
His party, the AKP, lost its majority in the democratic elections of June 2015, which were largely seen as a referendum on Erdogan's constitutional changes, designed to create an 'executive presidency' that would consolidate Erdogan's power (the Presidency had largely been a ceremonial role, as it is in most parliamentary democracies). The natural outcome of such an election should have been a coalition government and no executive presidency - but Erdogan refused to let his party compromise with any other, and instead called snap elections for November. He spent the ensuing months destabilizing the country by attacking the Kurdish minority in the southeast and stirring up trouble in Syria, provoking retaliatory attacks in Ankara and Istanbul. The elections in November delivered the AKP their majority again, in results that were widely considered suspicious if not outright rigged. In May of this year, Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu refused to rubber stamp Erdogan's increasingly dictatorial demands and was forced to resign. His replacement is an Erdogan lackey.
It's too soon to tell who is behind the coup, and how likely it is to succeed. If it doesn't, I fear for the country as it will be mean further curtailment of freedoms, more violence, and economic destabilization. Like with the Reichstag fire, I doubt there will be enough proof to show it's a false flag operation for Erdogan to consolidate power, but I certainly wouldn't put it past him.
Dunno but something seems a bit off to me. How did they have a list of 2,745 judges to purge and 140 appeals court members to arrest the next morning? You'd think it'd take some time to figure that stuff if they hadn't been planning it.
Yes, I'm afraid your country has just become a full-fledged dictatorship -- of the modern pseudo-democratic "Russia-style" sort, of course. Very sad. :(
Anyone have a take on how successful this is likely to be?
Both sides are claiming victory and that they've beaten the other side, naturally. Propaganda is everywhere.
The only thing I figure is that since Erdogan is calling for a mass uprising in the streets, the status quo has him losing. He needs to radically change the dynamics of the situation to stay in power, and mass protests and displays of martyrdom in the streets of Istanbul is the way to do it. Otherwise, if everything were under his control, he'd be encouraging people to stay inside while his forces stabilized the situation.
No. Erdogan called for people to take to the streets, and within an hour, the airport and bridge were filled with thousands of people waving flags. (From pictures, all male.) That's popular support. The military is not attacking the crowds. The military presence was apparently not that big, concentrating on a few key spots.
A coup has to succeed within the first few hours. Control must be established before opposition mobilizes. If the coup drags on, it fails. Failure is either a loss or a civil war.
Suggested reading: "Coup d'État: A Practical Handbook"[1]
Turns out that it wasn't entirely, or even mostly. Erdogan's call that did it. The mosques turned on their call-to-prayer PA systems and ordered their followers into the streets.
Also, not all people protesting on the streets are protesting for Erdogan, lots of them are simply protesting against a military coup that is trying to overthrow an elected government (whether they like this particular government or not).
While it sounds like a joke coming from Erdogan, with his "ambivalent" relationship to democracy, asking the people to go to the squares and streets is asking them to defend a democracy.
Sadly, either outcome still leaves Turkey less democratic and less stable than before. As it currently seems, Erdogan is going to have more power than ever before with all his adversaries purged from the military.
Such is the way of leaders throughout history. For instance, Rev. Dr. King deliberately had teenagers get assaulted with dogs, water cannon, and truncheons as a tactic for getting media attention.
Hmmm, it occurs to me that I don't actually have a good introductory source for someone new to learning about the US civil rights movement of the 50s/60s.
E.g. take out/over all civil communication infrastructure, such as ISPs, cellular networks, phone landlines?
Then enforce the curfew with actual deadly force (since they are not a police force with riot gear...)?
Two trucks and a few soldiers lined in a row like ducks. A tank sitting alone.
If the coup you're executing results in civilians being able to seize a tank and police having soldiers in custody, the coup lacked the overwhelming ingredient and swift execution that would paralyze and kill any hope of resisting.
It needed to be clear that the deal was sealed to morally crush anyone willing to resist and make them understand that it's done and they'd better line up with the winning party.
Civilians seizing a tank means they sized the military presence and said "Meh.. we're going for it anyway".
An example of a well executed coup: The Algerian coup in 1965. Algerians woke up in the morning and found tanks in the streets of the capital, but it wasn't the beginning of the coup. It had already taken place. Tanks didn't really surprise because Gillo Pontecorvo was shooting "The Battle of Algiers" during that period and also used tanks (one of the greatest movies. Music by Ennio Morricone).
The President was seized in his bed during the night, they woke him up and he was made prisoner for 15 years (liberated by the subsequent President after Boumédiène's death). The coup's instigator had the control of the Army and Intelligence before.
There are many people who don't know there was a coup in 1965.
You're very right! This is precisely why they
must avoid a situation where civilians think they have a chance.
Imagine you're one of 20 soldiers guarding a bridge.
4 people come to cross. They look at you, see that you're 20 and don't like those odds, they won't even attempt to cross. But even if they get funny ideas, you can scare them more easily. But even if they're determined, the number of civilians each one of you has to shoot is small: 1 civilian for every 5 soldiers. You can manage. You can direct your shots to be non lethal. You have time to aim and all.
Now imagine it's a thousand people. The civilians look at you, size you up, and they like those odds. They know some of them are going to die overrunning you, but almost no one thinks they will be the one. This makes them go for it.
What's your perspective? You're in a dilemma: you don't want to betray the mission to interdict that bridge, that's for sure. But let's say you're willing to shoot, the deal is the following: if you start shooting, you better not be overrun because once you go that path there's no turning back. This puts you in a corner into thinking "What if they still don't stop" and the number of people each one of you has to shoot on average is huge: 50. 50 civilians for each one of you. In a very limited time frame. You're not in a war zone, most of them are unarmed, and you could know or be related to some of them.
So, do you go on with the mission? Do you shoot everyone? Do you start shooting but then stop shooting? But when you do, you'll be captured, and you'll be captured after killing many civilians..so you failed to interdict the bridge and failed not to kill citizens. It's not like you dropped your weapons before there were any civilian casualties.. Which you can't do either because you have a mission.
This is one of the situations where anything half-assed becomes a blood bath and a "victory" à la Pyrrhus..
Contrast that with a military presence strong enough that sends a signal loud and clear to the civilians they'd better not mess with you because there's no chance they could succeed. Dissuasion to avoid a bloodshed.
According to that illustration, the coup plotters missed the crucial step of breaching the president's residence and capturing him. They completely mistimed the coup when the president was on vacation outside the country. Now he has been able to rally support against the coup and his supporters are on the streets protesting against the army
Deliberately timing coups for when the standing leader is on vacation is actually not all that uncommon, because it makes it possible to contain them under pretense of normalcy. E.g. Gorbachev in 1991, where they basically locked him up in his Crimean residence.
It was widely noted in the media that France closed its Turkish embassy (on "security fears") two days prior to this. It certainly makes you wonder if the word didn't get out.
> If this thing goes south -- and I fear it will -- the backlash will be severe. Not a good thing for the future of Turkey.
Especially considering he has been a tempered authoritarian before the coup. Now they will respond by expanding authority. Leaders like that always do.
Hopefully that will further lead to support of the coup end goals which had some legitimacy. The only problem is that Erogdan has many hardline islamic fanatics who will take to the streets and help maintain his power.
But those military gained access to aircrafts, bombs and their activation systems, which they used to bomb the parliament and seemingly many other targets in Ankara and Istambul. Makes you wonder how safe is Europe.
> The only problem is Erdogan has many hardline islamic fanatics to help m...
Ahem, really, how safe is Europe if, for example, France decided that we have an Islamisation/integration problem, and started massively revoking visas from Mediterranean regions? How would Turkey / Turkey military dissidents with access to such weapons react?
So maybe yes, maybe it should be made clear that military people in Turkey should follow orders and only orders, or be subject to martial law.
The problem is that Turkey is not changing up civilian control. They've had Erdogen for what? 13 years? That's not a healthy system. That's a system where one bunch is running the tables. Such systems always lead to much worse than military coups. Anybody checked out Venezuela lately?
There's probably been some support for IS coming from Turkey, although not from the military. Turkey is a NATO member and nuclear. They're in the middle of a really tense and unstable region.
All of this is bad. Really bad. And now we'll get 10x more of it.
I do not support military coups if a civilian government is functioning and changing up the dominent parties and leaders every so often. Everybody gets a turn. I don't see that in Turkey. I see a country headed either towards internal or external crisis. Perhaps both.
There's also another point: the vast majority of citizens in a country may want to have leaders and policies that destroy it. That's their right. If that's where Turkey is headed, NATO alliance members need to think about how to adapt accordingly.
As a side note, French presidents were elected for 7 years x2, which makes 14 years for Mitterand (1981-1995) and 12 for Chirac (1995-2007). But at least PMs change and they can't renew again.
Venezuela's coup that ousted Chavez, and had the people reinstate him, might be a fair comparison. The returning leader will have a carte blanche for future politics.
Not all the military units have given up, and this could still turn into a bloody mess. But the attempt at a quick middle of the night takeover failed.
If you haven't internalized whatever working principles you are using enough that you can stop keeping the handbook at your side, you're probably not ready to carry out a coup. However well chosen those principles are for the task...
Erdogan has an extreme amount of support within the country not just from the people but from the Turkish intelligence services & military aswell. A lot of people have elevated him to the same level as Ataturk.
I'm about 80% sure Erdogan will manage to retain power from just what I know about Turkish politics - which isn't a lot to be honest.
Early days right now but seems like the coup forces have advantage but that's largely because a lot of the soldiers don't realize that it's not the Generals who approved this but rather some lower level colonels.
Once, the soldiers find out they're defying the generals then they'll likely back down and Erdogan will retain power.
I think in the west we only see Turkey as Istanbul which happens to be the extremely liberal part of Turkey.
The rest of the country is far more conservative so they don't see the clamping down on various freedoms as being a problem and on top of the Erdogan has actually really done a good job of developing the poorer regions of Turkey which were rife with high unemployments and low prospects. On top of that people believe he's raised Turkey's importance on the world stage.
Another reason why I'm about 90% he'll win now that the opposition political parties have just come out against the coup - which if you know anything about Turkey is HUGE. These parties have literally called for Erdogan to be jailed but right now they're supporting him.
I don't even know what to make of that. I'm shocked.
What I readwas that those parties have said to Not go on the streets, but that erdogan-fans misread that (maybe intentionally) and tweeted about it, and retweeted, etc. Erdogan said to go on the streets.
It is all a mess with propaganda, stress and confusion everywhere
This is not about being a liberal democracy at all.
If voters don't have the opportunity to get a truthful look at the society they live in and the people who would like to be elected, their votes are meaningless.
You need freedom of speech and a free press to get that perspective. A democracy without freedom of speech and a free press is no democracy at all but a facade hiding an authoritarian state.
Economic improvement. Under Erdogan, Turkey has gotten considerably richer, no particular thanks to him but the same tide that lifts a farmer out of poverty keeps his islamic government afloat while making a mockery of Ataturk.
Lots of people will support dictator whose dictates they favor over democracy where they might lose, especially if they fear democracy means compromise with our subjugation to people who wish them harm.
Democracy is an abstract ideal that people are less likely to support when it seems to threaten more basic and immediate physical need for themselves or those emotionally close to them.
Sky News is interviewing a Turkish journalist right now, live (http://news.sky.com/story/live-turkish-army-says-taken-power... ). She says she supports democracy, not Erdogan, and that she's appalled that a small number of soldiers can take that away from Turkey. She's also appalled that a NATO member has to deal with military coups...
edit: the interview has just ended. I hope the clip can be found, because what this woman was saying was very interesting.
Thanks for the clarification, I didn't understand she belonged to the same party. It certainly puts her opinions in perspective.
I'm not appalled Sky News let her speak, however. As someone outside Turkey myself, I'm not sure how censoring the opinions of any of the sides involved would help or be in any way unbiased reporting. I'd understand if you said it would be even better if Sky News also interviewed someone who supported the coup.
The majority of people who support Erdogan are simply opportunists. They don't actually care about him. He has managed to maintain power and influence mostly by bullying and bribing people and illegally detaining or otherwise silencing those who speak against him. We're about to see just how resilient his house of cards is.
Too early to call, but I'd put my money against the coup succeeding:
Al Jazeera - "Turkey 1st army commander Umit Dundar on TV says army does not support coup". Assuming he's fully in charge there, that represents 120,000 army personnel.
Also the opposition party is anti-coup and plenty of people are on the streets (presumably) in support of the government.
Right: either the coup loses quickly or Turkey enters an extended civil war, with the military divided against itself. There's still enough military support for the coup to bomb the parliament building into dust as I write this comment.
Its not even clear yet who the sides are. Erdoğan released a statement that Gülen supporters (a religious group) were behind the coup, while the military seems to be claiming it is a secular coup, and has not named a leader behind it.
Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan used the Gulen movement as allies to gain power. However, once in power, Erdogan turned on Gulen, attempted to purge his followers from the police and judiciary, then used the movement as a "fifth-column" type scapegoat.
secularism in Turkey was born at the point of a bayonet. [..] Turkey's government is both secular and democratic, due to the founding father of Turkey, Kemal Ataturk. While Ataturk was a brutal dictator, he also used that power to rebuild a Turkish national identity, secularize the government, and eventually transition to democracy.
As many news sources have pointed out, the military sees itself as safeguarding the vision and (secular) state structure of Ataturk, and regularly purges the government when its leaders violate Ataturk's premise.
So it is most likely that the coup is secular in nature, and it is Erdogan's spin that is blaming Gulen.
This.
Turkey apologized to Russia, and normalized relationships with Russia and Israel. Also their Foreign minister talked about mending ties with Syria - Assad's Syria.
All this happened in the space of a few weeks. It was such an about-face from their past postutring. I guess this puts things in context.
This assumes Erdogan is rational or that he would be quite concerned with the lives of those going outside (something which could be true, but his dealings with earlier uprisings give me doubt). Mass protests against the coup (even if Erdogan is on the winning hand) could solidify his support and give a signal to the military that future coups might not be succesful.
His moves certainly show that he doesn't care about anyone but himself and his power. When he arrested parts of the military during their coup practices he created this situation of violence. If he stepped down as more rational PMs did when given hints, he would be living in luxury but in house arrest or exile. The other path is a smaller less official coup, and that ends in his death and longer term instability from the poor and unpredictable transfers of power without the legitimacy of the generals..
He's apparently cut off the state TV channel that was taken over by the military and was announcing a curfew too. Sending people out to perhaps die indeed.
> Anyone have a take on how successful this is likely to be?
I'm pretty sure at this point it will likely fail, Erdogan will retain power and will have carte blanche. Similar to Chavez when the people put him back in power.
Its likely a very dark future for Turkey in the form of a civil war or total collapse of secular power.
> He was seen surrounded by cheering supporters, saying in a live TV speech that the coup attempt was an "act of treason" and the army must be cleansed.
Weird. This coup of July 16 failed in exactly the same way as the coup against Hitler of July 20 failed - a small group of military sub-leadership, a failed bomb attack against the leader, a half-hearted attempt to secure the capital, all breaking down with the leader re-connecting with the non-cooperating rest of government and military. And now most likely horrible revenge against all involved.
I always thought people from the military would at least consider the historic scenarios.
This is a really well put analysis from a friend of a friend, Alp Eren Topal, a researcher at one of Turkey's most prestigious universities:
'For the last couple of weeks there were rumors to the effect that a large group of ranked officers in Turkish Armed Forces would be forced to retire by the end of summer. My guess is that last night's move was an organized attempt by this group of officers. The quite obvious lack of organization and inefficiency observed in the attempted coup can also be explained without resorting to conspiracy theories or theatricality of a staged ploy: The junta prepares for, or at least entertains the idea of a coup but somehow the news of the attempt is leaked and rumor gets around. Government learns about this. The disappearance of Erdoğan for the last week and the excitement of several foreign embassies in the last few days can also be attributed to these rumors. It is also quite possible that the government, with the comfort of being forewarned and realizing the limits of the junta, may have planned to turn this into an advantage and instrumentalize a potential coup for its own benefit. They may have also planned to catch all the junta in the act thus making it a more open and shut case.
Obviously the junta would know that its cover had been blown and in return they may have acted prematurely as a last resort, to save their asses and made the last night's gamble. I think, this is the most logical explanation of why the coup seemed like a farce.
As to the the aftermath, I think Erdoğan is most right when he frames this as a providence from God. This coup attempt could not have come at a better time. The u-turn in foreign policy, the admittance of failure in Syria, the great purge within the party, the issue of Syrian refugees all had brought the party esprit-de-corps to an all time low and alienated Erdoğan to his base. And as such, it provided Erdoğan a decisive victory in domestic politics. Now he is a victorious leader once again, a veteran. The people flooding the streets were also united in their leader's defense and this turned into an opportunity to overcome the alienation. Erdoğan will once again acquire the status of rightly-guided leader who is led and provided by by God. And of course there is no doubt that he will use this credit to utmost limits.
Kind of like the Auspicious Affair (Vaka-yı Hayriye) of 1826 whereby the Janissary corps were abolished once and for-all, this failed coup has a facet of auspiciousness. Yet, imagining the aftermath we can also predict that it will have several facets which will prove quite oppressive and burdensome for Turkish citizens.'
>Kind of like the Auspicious Affair (Vaka-yı Hayriye) of 1826 whereby the Janissary corps were abolished once
I abhor taking a contrarian position just for its own sake, but in this case, I simply must. I disagree that the Auspicious Affair was the death kneel of the Janissaries. The downfall of this corp class was self-inflicted: what started out as an effective military (and in some cases para-military) institution degenerated into a mafia of sorts where the Janissaries would "shake down" every new administration for an extra buck. Furthermore, the fact that the corp ventured into commerce and other non-military activities disengaged this warrior class from combat duties: these guys just sat around, scheming on how to get their way, and "wet their beaks" in every possible way imaginable (brothels, unsanctioned annexation of Serbia, et al). It is unimaginable that the Janissary corps could have been so 'easily' disbanded in 1826 if they had not lost their legitimacy, battle readiness, and integrity (integrity in this case is only in relation to my earlier point about their corruption). Their downfall was their own undoing.
>there were rumors
It is unimaginable that Turkish intelligence services knew nothing about this. While organizing a university students' strike is difficult, picture the logistical effort expended on a military coup, to say nothing of the heated arguments and active wooing that undoubtedly went on in various places in and outside Turkey itself. Military coups do not develop organic leadership; there needs to be a solid command and control structure deliberately and forcefully communicated to coup participants. Rules of engagement must be determined to avoid unnecessary confrontation and thresholds must also be established so that the leadership knows when goals have been accomplished and when the game is up. A case must be made to the rank and file and these soldiers allowed to make a conscious decision, the risk of dissenting soldiers informing the authorities notwithstanding. A battalion of men and the equipment and support necessary for them to function must be made available for independent and effective operations: weapons, armor, transportation, fuel, air support, flight control, encrypted communication gear, carriers/tanks, etc. This stuff takes more than a day or two to make ready and neither does it stroll out of barracks all on its own. Furthermore, elaborate plans must be made to severe connection: analogue, digital, and Internet broadcasts. Your guys need to have the complete attention of the entire country. Interventions must, therefore, be made at the ISP/broadcaster level. It is feasible that the political administration of this Erdoğan fellow allowed the situation to escalate as it so violently did.
>This coup attempt could not have come at a better time.
Perhaps this is why the political administration needed this to go through (somewhat). However, we must all be cognizant of the fact that there is a parallel society that operates within Turkey (forgetting for a moment that there is a strong secular movement, particularly in the west) led largely by Gülen. This section of society will not melt away.
I think that the coup came at the worst of times for the incumbent. The fact that it was unsuccessful means that Erdoğan, in appeasing his supporters and demonstrating resolve, must 'act tough.' However, as in almost all other coup cases in the country and thanks to Turkey's long and storied history with its military, compromises will have to be made. There will be a purge (I speculate), but not one that catastrophically degrades the ability of this new Janissary corps to stage an outright or 'palace' coup in the future. Secondly, the secular movement will be emboldened by the revelation that a section of the Armed Forces (perhaps the movement's strongest and most consistent ally) is fed up with the Islamization of the society at the expense of the society. The Gülen camp, on the other hand, will be emboldened by the fact that Erdoğan is not the tsar that he makes himself out to be (not that they did not know that, but now they have real, demonstrable, and irrefutable proof: Look, coup! Weak!) and will propose that the camp's exiled leader is the panacea to the unification struggle that is sure to follow. Domestic politics is not cast in stone and whatever the incumbent does over the course of the next months will not discount the divisive tragedy of modern-day Turkey. Turkey has just begun (again) the search for its soul. This time, however, there is little chance that the king will have his way at the expense of all other interests- there will be no decisive victory or vindication. This country is just too big to contain anymore.
From yours truly,
Arm-chair general
And the Reichstag fire was not a false flag operation, it was just exploited afterwards as an excuse to finish up German democracy. The perpetrator had a criminal record for arson. Maybe you should read articles that you link to?
And the Reichstag fire was not a false flag operation, it was just exploited afterwards as an excuse to finish up German democracy. The perpetrator had a criminal record for arson. Maybe you should read articles that you link to?
From the Reichsbrand Wikipedia link:
The responsibility for the Reichstag fire remains an ongoing topic of debate and research.[3][4] Historians disagree as to whether van der Lubbe acted alone, as he said, to protest the condition of the German working class. The Nazis accused the Comintern of the act. Some historians endorse the theory, proposed by the Communist Party, that the arson was planned and ordered by the Nazis as a false flag operation.[5]
If you actually read the two sources for that statement, it's clear that the disagreement is about the party affiliation. Except for communists claiming it to be a false flag operation, there is nothing in support of that theory and nobody supporting it.
This is arguably not the best place and time for what I am about to say, but I am going to do it anyway.
Please know that if things continue the way they are, you are all welcome to Bulgaria. There is some scare mongering by local right-wing parties on the verge of the political spectrum, but we have about half a million ethnic Turks and over 98% of the population are positive towards them since they have been the most unproblematic and hard-working minority that is loyal to the Republic for our last century of independence. We are not paradise on Earth either, but at the very least you should be able to integrate well into our society and have a relatively hassle-free life in no time.
Of course, I don't wish you to be forced to leave your homeland and no normal person is interested in having an unstable and/or unreliable Turkey, but unfortunately things haven't been exactly improving with your current leadership… :(
It is bad that a (mostly) democratic elected government is (tried to be) removed this way. This will make it really difficult to work with whoever is in power, internationally.
But Erdogan forced this on the military. They were told to stand down against ISIS and to fight a new impossible-to-win fight against the kurdish minority.
I really hope the situation will somehow calm down. Otherwise we could have a new civil war at our hands, forcing more people to cross (those stupid) national borders to find safety.
The elections however were a great mess. On the first election on 7th june 15 AKP was 40%, but opposition failed to form coalition and Erdogan abused power as head of state to fill up 45 days w/o a new govt so that elections would be repeated. So happened, elections were to be repeated on 10th november the same year, and in the meantime the war on PKK started, major attacks by ISIS happened, and people feared unstability and voted for AKP. The two of the parties that could have formed a coalition are MHP, the turkish extremist-nationalists, and HDP, kurdish socialist-nationalists, so not all that compatible. Also, the legality of those last elections are doubted. Since the beginnings of this decade, we're an extremely polarised society, with more than two poles, and any issue is extremely complex. This last madness will augment all these problems, and if it fails, it won't be like in the past the same. "A stick with two shitty ends," we say.
I agree. The election was a shit show. In addition, Erdogan's apparatus attacked liberal institutions and people with investigations and law suits. But Erdogan would not be able to do so, if he had not have the support of a majority. So in a way, its a somewhat weird, imperfect democratic process.
My hope is with the young turkish people, to influence the situation in a good way. Maybe this will trigger a much stronger democratic process. Anyhow, Erdogan should step down.
At least the coup leaders and the US State Dept are sending sensible signals. John Kerry's waiting to see who wins before committing (Erdogan frustrates the US, and many assumed the US would try to overthrow him), and the coup leaders are reassuring Turkey's powerful allies.
“Turkish Armed Forces have completely taken over the administration of the country to reinstate constitutional order, human rights and freedoms, the rule of law and the general security that was damaged,” the military said in a statement. “All international agreements are still valid. We hope that all of our good relationships with all countries will continue.” (https://www.rt.com/news/351343-turkey-coup-military-attempt/)
(Regardless of particulars — did the US initiate it? support it? simply signal they'd stand back and let a friendly coup happen? — he has a good predictive mental model.)
Turkey has a history of these kinds of coups. The reason why it hasn't happened earlier in Erdogan's reign is because Turkey is trying to join the EU, and military coups work against that as it means the state is not stable.
However, Turkey is interesting in that the military coups are usually conducted in the name of freeing the people, rather than oppressing them. Usually it's just naked power grabs.
Military coups are almost always in the name of freeing the people. If Turkey is special, its because its military coups actually end up doing something like that in previous, not that they are in the name of it.
The crowds appear to have ejected the military from the TRT TV station, which is now back on the air. The studio is full of people.[1] So full that they can't get a clear shot of the presenter.
This is history happening. Some general is being interviewed live in the middle of the crowd that's invaded the TV studio. It's all in Turkish, but a translation should be available later.
Gil Scott-Heron's message wasn't that you wouldn't see pictures on pages, or screens, from a revolution. The events he witnessed and lived through in the 1960s certainly were broadcast.
It's that you cannot see into the minds of those who are doing what it is they're doing, think what they're thinking, or feel what they're feeling. Pictures capture only the barest essence of the full reality.
From the start it was clear that something was weird: they weren't enough soldiers to make a real coup, only a few hundred soldiers a few helicopters, tanks, etc... And it seems that they knew it and did it despite that. By the way they even bombed the house where the President was supposed to be...
The coup attempt was made by members of a religious group named "Nurcu" leaded by Fetullah Güllen, who is in exile in the U.S.A. ...
It was known that members of this group had infiltrated every possible area of the government (possible, legal branch, army,etc...)
Yes this group was the biggest ally of Erdogan during more than 10 years and it is mainly because of Erdogan that these people infiltrated so well every aspect of the government. They together imprisoned falsely reporters, policemen and soldiers claiming they were attempting to make a coup. They even imprisoned the former Chief of Staff. And those idiots in the AKP government and people who supported Erdogan were cheering them because they were getting rid of "secular" forces in the army. Now irony is these same people are doing exactly what they were supposedly trying to prevent: Make a Coup.
The Turkish army was always saying that the biggest danger for the country was religious backwardness(irtica) and unfortunately it has proven right again.
Although they were shots fired to civilians and to cops, the civilian crowds didn't hurt the few soldiers on the streets they grab them and handed them to the police. The situation is getting better, the Chief of Staff was saved (he was hostage by these people) the commanding officers are calling these soldiers back to their base to be arrested. Most of them are coming back. They even shot a helicopter("rebel") with an F-16.
I think the situation will settle in maximum 24H.
Unfortunately I think this will give Erdogan more power and leverage on the long run and drive the country deeper in insanity. Turkey is on its way to become the "Pakistan" to Syria/Irak, the Afghanistan of the middle-east.
For the better or the worse the only thing keeping Turkey from being another middle-eastern country was(unfortunately) the army.
So this has already been a coup of the post-kemalist turkish army formed by Erdogan and his (former) allies? I was hoping that claims of the coupists being Gülen followers were just attempts to put a kemalist attempt into a bad light ("islamic terrorsist"), but then maybe I and, I guess, many other casual outside observers have been underestimating the amount of change that has already happened since the last time the army has acted as a weird but reliable consitutional safeguard.
Yes, and the unfortunate thing is that it is Erdogan and his government that made this possible but the people will likely not remember how these people where best buddies and how their undermined every possible institution in Turkey in order to suppress the seculars in the army. But they never thought while they were throwing hundreds of officers into prison, Gulen's movement were pushing their people into the right places. In Summary these "genius" in the government never saw what was really happening, it took them 12 years(!) to understand what's going on, and now they have to figure out how to weed out all these sleeping cells.
It is true that the situation is much more complicated then what it seems, and the irony is that Erdogan will likely seek the help of his old enemies, the seculars in the army to clean this mess up.
For about a year, some openly suspected Erdogan frustrated the US enough for them to foment a coup. The US gov't loudly signaled its displeasure: "Early on, Obama saw Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, the president of Turkey, as the sort of moderate Muslim leader who would bridge the divide between East and West—but Obama now considers him a failure and an authoritarian, one who refuses to use his enormous army to bring stability to Syria." (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/04/the-obam...)
(I haven't yet seen any evidence regarding the US's role is in this coup, if any. I just mention this as a prominent example of how much he frustrates even his allies, so it's natural for many to go to the trouble of replacing him, despite all the risks.)
While I'm sure the US isn't losing sleep over Edrogan going away there's no reason for the US to have any role in this besides the standard assurances to the coup plotters that the US won't move against them.
Recently, even that hasn't been necessary, which has really damaged the "puppet strings" theory that was so popular a decade or more ago.
Amateur hour. They didn't capture or eliminate Erdogan in the first place. Then they failed to cut off internet and television within the country, so Erdogan was able to rally his supporters to the streets, and the soldiers were obviously (and rightfully) not willing to mow down mobs of civilians.
If you ever hoped to see Erdogan removed from power, this is the worst possible outcome. He will now use this as a pretext to solidify his strangehold on civil society, carry out a purge of disloyal elements of the army, and do whatever else he must to solidify his place as dictator for life.
250 people dead (according to The Guardian), 1440+ injured.
According to Turkey's Chief of Staff, the coup was against President Erdogan's government, launched by troops from the Turkish Air Force and Gendarmerie.
Erdogan asserts the coup is over, but some reports suggest the calm in Ankara indicates the coup succeeded there, and that there is presently a stalemate between government and anti-government forces.
The Turkish government just ordered the dismissal of 2745 judges from their seats. According to Reuters, there were 7604 judges in Turkey total, so ~36% were removed from duty.
Does anyone have an explanation, or a link to an explanation for all the happenings in Turkey? I'm an occasional follower of this kind of stuff, but it would be great to understand the full situation in Turkey in an easily digestible way.
1. The current coup
2. The president's history
3. The different terrorist groups operating within the country and their beliefs and goals
4. Turkey's legal system and freedoms allowed
5. Information on past coups
6. The general beliefs and sentiments among Turkish people
Edit: And a simple question that I'm sure is a complex answer: is this attempted coup bad or good for a peaceful free turkish people?
The army is secular. Every 20 years they remove some dictator or zealot that the system seems to throw up regularly. I'm not sure if there's been a split in the armed forces before, but the police always cop a hammering.
The army was. Erdogan has gone to great lengths to dismantle the army's tradition of constitution over nominal leadership. Already years ago people started to suspect that this time, there won't be a coup like so many times before. If what the government claims is true ("Gülen parallel structure"), then the coup was staged by people who got into army leadership positions as replacements for ousted kemalists, back when AKP and Gülen were still allies.
Wikipedia is actually a really good source for this kind of info, but since it's technically editable by anyone, I'll try to give you three other sources from three different countries:
Additionally I wonder how bloody (vs. clean) past coups have been; seeing videos of civilians under fire, so this doesn't seem to be the most benevolent of coups.
News flash: Those in power and relying on laws, rules and democracy think it's a good idea it remains.
Well it's completely obvious they would have this stance. I don't think they've really anything to add. Hopefully things stabilise one way or another over there, innocent people getting shot helps nobody.
What's interesting though is whether this instability will affect Turkey's chances for a seat in the EU. I would really like to see a Muslim Country in the EU but at this rate their chances seem to be lessening.
I think the topic was Turkey - honestly I don't know enough about those Countries to make a comment on them. If they're modernised and meet the criteria, then we should certainly look to bring them in slowly. It may be a mistake to rush the process.
Islam is a religion just like the other abrahamitic ones, with an old book that's sort of surprising when read (I'm reading bible and am at Numbers atm, many gross things up until now, many awaiting), and some traditions around that. Embracing a muslim country would help weaken the extremist ones and inforce the more secular, peaceful, civil ones, (which are the majority in Turkey), as the former is mostly fed by what's projected as the hostility of west and incompatibility of 'their' civilisation with islam. Turkey has one of the strongest secular muslim communities (despite the later fundamentalists, who are always louder than the sane), and is a good candidate for initiating a process of secularisation of relations between the west and the near-east. Fundamentailsm is a global problem, but the fact that muslim world is in conflict makes out of it a fatal threat, whereas, in west where there's peace and a longer after-empire experience the worst you see is Jeovahs Witnesses, the anti-homosexuality people and anti-abortionists.
Good question. Currently it's an echo chamber of similar minded Countries. I think in order for the EU to grow, it needs to entertain other trains of thought.
The EU is comprised of over 500 million people from a variety of backgrounds, many of which are indeed Muslim. Hardly an echo chamber. I fail to see what additional growth could be fostered through adding a Muslim majority country. Would you care to elaborate?
@gkya has done a good job of elaborating part of the reason being the Westernisation of Islam.
The EU is a highly Christian dominated place with a "them vs us" mentality. The EU tries to fix the world's problems without ever engaging the world's cultures. It's not about growth, it's about the future of civilisation. It's at a time where we need to be taking down barriers, not putting more up. We may not financially benefit from having Turkey, but it's certainly a step towards empowering the secular Muslims and moving forwards together.
Highly christian? I don't know a single christian and I've lived here for 30 years. We have the least religious countries _in the world_!
Otherwise it sounds good but I hope you are not all talk and are yourself giving money to other religious entities.
Christianity is 72% in the EU according to Wikipedia [1], it's really high. Even if the figures are wrong or have changes, I'm willing to bet it's above 60% regardless. Makes me wonder about where you live?
What do you mean by "I hope you are not all talk and are yourself giving money to other religious entities."? I don't agree with religion in general, but I think the way forwards is to embrace it and it's cultures in order to move forwards.
This update from The Guardian at 2016-07-16 03:15 UTC (i.e. 2 hours after your comment here):
However, Reuters reports that bomb attacks on the parliament are continuing, with a senior Turkish official saying rebel soldiers have been warned they will be shot down if they attempt to use more military aircraft.[0]
I am following this now since 3 hours live from local people through Youtube, Twitter and Periscope. Amazing what technology can enable. I respect those Platforms now a lot.
Crowds in central square, bridges, and airport waving Turkish flags. News services unclear what this means. Some shooting, but military not acting to crush crowds.
Maybe this is the moment in history turkey is becoming coup-proof (a.k.a. next-level maturity).
(if even opposition groups speak out against the coup and the people are taking over the streets peacefully - in favor of the government / against the coup, according to the news I get)
"Modern Turkey was founded by Mustafa Kemal, a general in the Turkish Army who was later formally granted the surname “Ataturk,” or father of the Turks. Ataturk set about an aggressive program of modernizing and “Westernizing” the country, pushing religion to the margins, banning certain apparel like headscarves and fezes, and converting Turkish from Arabic to Latin script. But that secularism has always remained tenuous. Many Turks, especially rural ones, are religious, and not all of the reforms have remained popular.
The military has long seen its role as safeguarding Ataturk’s secularist agenda, and when it worries the government is shifting too far away, it has tended to take action.
Turkey has thus occupied a strange position in world politics: Although it is prone to coups d’etat, Western governments have often cheered the coups on, with varying degrees of enthusiasm, because they are in the service of a secular agenda. Periodic deposition of democratically leaders has, somewhat paradoxically, been treated as a small price to pay for ensuring liberalism."
That's actually a very interesting system of government. A democratic arm that rules the country day-to-day, and a "benevolent dictatorship" that will overthrow the democratic arm if it violates the country's "fundamental principles". Such a model would arguably have served Iraq better than the pure democracy that was attempted and failed.
In Bangladesh, popular support led the government to throw away the secularism enshrined in the country's original constitution and declare Islam the state religion.
Even in "modern times" democracy and liberalism are not necessarily (or even often) co-extensive.
A democratic arm that rules the country day-to-day, and a "benevolent dictatorship" that will overthrow the democratic arm if it violates the country's "fundamental principles"
Exactly (part of) why I'm in support of the monarchy in the UK. If push came to shove, the armed forces swear their allegiance to the British monarch, not the government (I'm from an army family and know this is taken seriously).
We have attained an interesting stalemate where a corrupt/crazy monarch would struggle to assert power, yet a grossly malfunctioning government can still, in theory, be replaced by one if the people were to allow it.
>If push came to shove, the armed forces swear their allegiance to the British monarch,
I really find it difficult to believe its a desirable state of affairs that the army in a 'democracy' swears allegiance to a hereditary monarch, and that its good, if as you say, people in the army take that seriously.
What if the interests of the monarch conflicted with the interests of the people? In some sense that meant 'push was coming to shove'?
The monarch is just another citizen - another random human - who just happened to be born into a particular family, who some time in the past probably did some game-of-thrones nasty things to come out on top. No one seriously believes they have a divine right to rule any more, so why should their interests be privileged over the interests of the population at large?
Whatever about an elected head of state with symbolic power, the people can at least remove, really, the hereditary monarch argument just seems like an argument from the 18th century.
I'm from the Republic of Ireland, which is culturally very similar to the UK, but wow, what a difference in perspective on this issue!
> The monarch is just another citizen - another random human - who just happened to be born into a particular family
Nope. The monarch is someone who has been heavily trained in diplomacy and politics, and has a great network of political connections and the ability to speak with effect to powerbrokers. Whether or not the monarch is morally good is a different argument, but they are mostly definitely not interchangeable with any other citizen picked at random. The same is true of politicians in general - you need political skill, a support network, and basic knowledge of how the system works. Sadly, you don't need administrative skill...
It's weird also that you're from Ireland, and haven't picked up on the general UK arrangement between the government and the royals: "You don't tell us what to do, and we don't tell you to sod off". Liz has been famously apolitical in particular. You're right that no-one believes that she has a divine right to rule... and she doesn't actually rule. She doesn't declare law, or negotiate trade treaties.
Disclaimer: I'm an Australian who wouldn't mind getting rid of the Queen, but who also knows that zero would change politically from that - the 'governor general' here would simply be renamed the 'president', and power would still remain with the prime minister + cohort. Liz doesn't even pick the governor general - it's 'suggested' to her, and she allows it. Like the UK government, if she started to kick up a fuss, it'd be "well, bye!".
Sure, yeah, I see that the monarch doesn't exercise much power; from the outside, the monarchy doesn't look like a practical problem.
Until I read [commenter from military family on HN] talking about sworn allegiances when "push comes to shove". That's when I go 'woah'.
>The monarch is someone who has been heavily trained in diplomacy and politics
And born into a life of privilege, where even if they do very little, they'll still reign.
I'd rather take the cohort of random citizens who work their way up through a [very imperfect] selection process which selects a leader/representative.
> And born into a life of privilege, where even if they do very little, they'll still reign.
Well, the monarch has a lot of duties-of-state. An endless procession of people to meet and ceremony to conduct. It's not like the UK monarch gets to laze it up in the sun on yacht in the azure coast week in, week out. And the nearby royal family do have to engage in some 'good works', or they will lose their social position to people asking 'wtf!?'. All the name-brand royals are heavily involved in charities and causes in this modern era, because if they start ignoring 'social duty', they'll lose their privilege. The days of the monarch just doing as he or she pleases are long gone, in the UK at least.
While "it's good to be the king", it's also not a lazy life. You also have to play the part and behave somewhat beyond reproach - the military aren't going to take their vows to the monarch so seriously if she started dressing and behaving like Johnnie Rotten.
The idea is that the monarch cannot really exercise that power arbitrarily. If they try, their legitimacy will be questioned.
But if the parliament does something deeply unpopular with the general public, monarchy offers an escape hatch - essentially, a conduit for that sentiment to reign the parliament in, in a way that is not _technically_ illegitimate.
> What if the interests of the monarch conflicted with the interests of the people?
In that case, the military's natural tendency to side with the people and the nominal legitimacy of the democratic leader would likely trump some words spoken due to medieval traditions.
Ambiguity like that could get very messy, but that's exactly what makes it so unattractive for would-be despots to count on the military for internal power struggles.
What does that have to do with monarchy? The same happens in some republics. E.g. in Portugal there is a prime minister (government) and a president who acts as supreme commander of the armed forces.
Probably because the monarchy isn't elected and so might maintain some ability to persevere through times when the population might make poor decisions. Also immune to bad elections.
Heads of state (eg presidents) are frequently not elected, but instead appointed by heads of government (eg prime ministers). Heads of state are symbolic and do lots of ceremony (some have a bit of power), and heads of government are where the power sits. Heads of state can usually have the power to dissolve government in a crisis, but they can't appoint government (in western democracies).
The US is a little unusual amongst Western democracies in that the head of state is the same person as the head of government.
It's the same here in Norway, the king is actually a six star general and commander in chief of the army.
In addition (s)he can veto laws that then have to be passed by 2/3 majority to succeed.
Not that the royals have used this power ever but it is a good check on the parlament.
>We have attained an interesting stalemate where a corrupt/crazy monarch would struggle to assert power, yet a grossly malfunctioning government can still, in theory, be replaced by one if the people were to allow it.
The monarch can suspend parliament. The monarch can dismiss a prime minister (not happened for > 100 years). The monarch can appoint a new one. Every law has to be signed by the monarch (it's not been refused in 300 years). The monarch is commander in chief.
Power resides where people believe it resides. The monarch can only do any of that if people believe in the monarch.
The monarch can do all those things, but in reality if she tried to dismiss a PM or refuse to sign a bill, it would be a matter of days or weeks before the monarchy ceased to be an institution.
The monarch can dismiss a prime minister (not happened for > 100 years).
Actually, in Australia the Queen's representative (the Governor General) did dismiss the Prime Minister[1]. Interestingly, the Governor General position is closer to a ceremonial president in many other places in that they are appointed by the PM. If the PM at the time had acted to sack the Governor General that would have been just as legal as the other way around.
(Actually there are some good arguments that sacking the GG would have been "more" legal, in that the GG is supposed to act on the PM's advice. Fortunately the PM didn't push the issue, because that is the road to real trouble)
This is similar to the US system, except that our Speaker of the House has less power than the Prime Minister, and our President has (a lot) more power than the monarch.
Those changes take away the benefit he outlines for his system. In the US system the President is the most dangerous actor (notwithstanding the Federalist Papers prediction that it would be Congress).
That said, I'm not sure I like the idea of the military as a last resort. At most I think it would be best if they stood aside for a revolution rather than actually instigating a coup.
In the US, the last resort is theoretically the Unorganized Militia. However, as the name implies, they are unorganized and to rely on them is leaning on a broken staff.
but it is not even necessary for the unorganized militia to topple whatever entity takes power. The unorganized militia just needs to be omnipresent and unorganized. Not really a staff, but rather millions of pegs supporting the table of society.
I probably should have said "analogous" instead of "similar". In practice, the different balance of power leads to a very different system. But I don't see how the president isn't a "separate head of state".
The U.S. separation of power is based on similar ideas. Congress makes laws on a day-by-day basis, but when the will of the people contradicts certain fundamental principles enshrined in the Constitution, the courts have a right to strike down and nullify laws.
> the courts have a right to strike down and nullify laws
Notably, this power does not appear in the Constitution. See Marbury v. Madison [1]. (Not that it makes a practical difference, but it is interesting to see how our conception of government powers and the basic government structure changes over time, even without new constitutional amendments.)
Marbury v. Madison is much more nuanced than that.
Imagine that the decision in Marbury v. Madison came out the opposite way; or, more abstractly, that the Supreme Court upheld legislation that was prima facie contradictory to the text of Constitution. That would necessarily imply one of two things; either 1) the courts are choosing to enforce an illegal law, or 2) the courts are deferring to Congress's interpretation of the Constitution and thus concluding that, despite appearances, it's legal. The former would mean that there was no rule of law. The latter would mean that the Supreme Court isn't actually the _supreme_ court, but rather an inferior court in terms of interpreting the law.
The logic of Marbury v. Madison says that because the American form of government is built upon on the principle of separation of powers, and that in the English tradition it's the court's role to interpret statutes (not the legislature's), that it would be a violation of separation of powers for the Supreme Court to defer to Congress's interpretation of the constitution. Also, in the English tradition of Due Process laws can generally only be enforced through court order, not independently by executive fiat. And the U.S. Constitution explicitly says that the "judicial power" rests with the courts.
The academic debate about judicial review is misleading. Judicial review is often described in contradistinction to the rule in England--Parliamentary Supremacy. But we must remember two critical things: 1) the UK does not have a written constitution, and 2) until just a few years ago the highest court in the UK was composed of Law Lords from the House of Lords. The House of Lords being a constituent part of Parliament, the highest court was thus the same institution as the body writing legislation.
The debate about what we now call judicial review didn't just occur at the national level; it played out in every single state. And while many contemporary jurists paid lip service to the idea of courts being inferior to the legislative body, I don't think the debate played out any differently in any of original colonies or subsequent states in actuality. It's really difficult in the Anglo-American legal tradition for courts to _not_ have the power of judicial review, while maintaining the logic the political system is built upon.
We can _imagine_ a constitutional system where courts defer to the explicit or implicit decision of the legislature regarding constitutionality. But I don't think that actually exists anywhere in the world where the principle of separation of powers is enshrined in the organic law (written or unwritten). The closest I can think of is Japan where their supreme court regularly seems to uphold statutes which conflict with the written constitution, but they _have_ nullified statutes a few times, and certainly I don't think they've formally abdicated their role wrt judicial review.
We do have a form of the above in the United States. There are some situations which are considered "non-judiciable" by the Supreme Court. For example, nobody can challenge through the courts some of the formal requirements the Constitution imposes on Congress regarding their proceedings. The Supreme Court has said that in some situations it must refrain from exercising it's normal power of judicial review because it would cause the court, as an institution, to become too entangled with another branch of government. This is also partly why courts are reticent to censure or make demands on high-level executive officials, e.g. regarding national security. Even if behavior is patently illegal, by getting involved the court risks injuring the very principle of separation of powers by imposing its interpretation of the law above that of the other body.
the courts have a right to strike down and nullify laws.
And, at least theoretically, the military oath to defend the constitution could require them to overthrow a government which does not conform to the constitution.
In practice, of course, issues are likely to be resolved before they reach that point.
It's also notable that there are many different militaries in the US: the 5 main national branches, the national guard units of the various states, as well as the state defense forces, that some states also maintain.
Note that during the Little Rock crisis in 1957[1] it wasn't inconceivable that this could have happened.
The state governor initially used the Arkansas National Guard to block black students from attending Little Rock Central High. Eisenhower federalized the Guard and ordered them to protect the students and let them integrate, and also sent in the 101st Airborne.
It provides a framework that can be filled if and when needed. NG and SDF may very well answer the call - it all depends on what exactly it is in response to.
Almost all modern systems of separation of power are modelled to various extent on the principles set out by Montesquieu.
Montesquieu formalised the tripartite system in The Spirit of the Laws published in 1748, describing a model of separation of powers into a judiciary, executive and legislative based on the Roman Republic and the British constitution [1]. He also formulated the principle of checks and balances.
In the context of the US, Montesquieu was a strong direct influence particularly on Madison.
In the context of Turkey Ataturk was very inspired by aspects of established European Democracies, and the Turkish constitution included a very strong formulation of a tripartite system from the 1924 constitution onwards.
What is peculiar with Turkey is that the military sees itself as having a particular strong duty to protect the constitution that if necessary requires direct intervention, and have interceded unusually often, and have been unusual in each time handing power back to elected governments in a relatively orderly manner. Couple this with a constitution that was very radical in pushing secularism onto a very religious population where there are substantial portions of the population that wants religion to play a greater role, and you get the complicated nature of Turkish politics.
(Incidentally the secularism of Turkey was explicitly modelled after France)
[1] Yes, the UK has a constitution; it is just not codified in a single document, but consists of a set of laws and conventions and court decisions that are well documented. Yes, it's a messy system.
The courts are also the weakest branch of government. They have no power to enforce any of their decisions and the other branches of government possess numerous "nuclear" options to sideline the courts (court-packing, impeachment).
The military is generally hardly weak in Turkey (although they have been weakened in the past 10 years by Erdogan).
With Turkish politics, nuance is the name of the game. The nuance that's missing from that paragraph is in the next one:
> But what is not clear yet in the latest coup is whether it fits the same pattern of secular Kemalists clamping down on Islamism. There is speculation that the coup’s leaders may in fact be loyal to Fethullah Gulen, an enigmatic Muslim leader who’s currently in exile in Pennsylvania—that’s certainly what Erdogan claimed in his FaceTime address to the nation. Gulen is a former Erdogan ally who was essential to his rise, but the men have since broken.
> That's actually a very interesting system of government. A democratic arm that rules the country day-to-day, and a "benevolent dictatorship" that will overthrow the democratic arm if it violates the country's "fundamental principles". Such a model would arguably have served Iraq better than the pure democracy that was attempted and failed.
Technically, the Queen can do the same thing in England. Not an uncommon check valve.
And in many commonwealth countries too via the governor general. For example the Australian governor general has dissolved government and called an election when it all got too rowdy.
Thailand has something similarly interesting. They basically have three branches of the state which balance power: the Monarchy, the Government, and the Military. When the government steps out of line, the Monarchy will approve of a coop by the Military. Laypeople, not knowing whether the coop will be good or bad, will look to the Monarchy to see whether it approves.
> A democratic arm that rules the country day-to-day, and a "benevolent dictatorship" that will overthrow the democratic arm if it violates the country's "fundamental principles"
Huh. It would be nice if we had that here in the US.
> Huh. It would be nice if we had that here in the US.
That would never function well in the US. It would result in a massive civil war. The general population has hundreds of millions of guns and is very far apart on ideology - that's a lethal combination if unleashed in terms of a violent internal conflict. US culture is also far more aggressive than Turkey's, and the behavior of the government in the US is far more militaristic and violent (and the same is true of the police forces in the US). Such an event would be more likely to permanently rupture the US.
I think you're probably right. I wasn't seriously suggesting it. I simply meant to state my feeling that our "democratic arm" has been violating our country's "fundamental principles."
Is "ut semper" really Latin? It seems a little too cute as a word-for-word fake equivalent of "as always".
I searched perseus for "ut semper" and found two results that might have relevance. The first was this:
> But the expression does not imply that he conceived them as 50 miles in perpendicular height, but that there is a continuous ascent of 50 miles to get to the summit. This explanation of the passage is adopted by Alexandre; Lemaire, ut supra.
Unfortunately, that is evidently English, not Latin.
The second was this:
> Quid quaeris? Est consul φιλόπατρις et, ut semper iudicavi, natura bonus.
(emphasis added)
Which I tentatively translate as "What are you asking? He is a filial consul and, as I have always judged, a good man by nature."
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=ut&la=la lists ut as having, among many, many other senses, the sense of "adverb of manner", which is the one at play in the above example and would also be the sense relevant to "ut semper". The dictionary entries give a large number of examples, but as far as I can see there are no examples in which the clause following ut does not contain a verb.
>A democratic arm that rules the country day-to-day, and a "benevolent dictatorship" that will overthrow the democratic arm if it violates the country's "fundamental principles"
Sounds a lot like Iran, although their "democratic arm" is very much a farce.
Sounds more like the US. Turkey's unelected group which intervenes when the elected government violates established norms consists of officers ultimately appointed by (and who can be removed by) the elected organs of government .
Same as in the US, though for us it's the judicial branch rather than the military.
Now, there's a pretty enormous difference, both in abstract structure and practice, between the US and Turkey here, but it's still a close analogy than the Turkey-Iran one, IMO.
Well, the "enormous difference" is so enormous this really isn't a good comparison.
The judiciary is the weakest branch of government. The judges can be impeached by Congress. Congress can arbitrarily expand the size of the Supreme Court and then, with the President, start appointing whoever they want (e.g. there are 9 justices right now. Congress could constitutionally pass a law making there be 21 justices). Finally, and most damning, the judiciary has no power to enforce its decisions. It relies on the respect of the executive branch to enforce its decisions. There are plenty of (fortunately long-past) historical examples of the executive branch blatantly ignoring the judiciary. Contrast this to the military, which has very obvious ultimate power to enforce itself.
Not seeing any similarity there other than being a separate group. At least the judicial branch has to follow procedure and constitutional law, whereas a military can just rule via force.
The judicial branch decides what Constitutional Law means. Its constraints on doing that are largely that it had traditions of applying certain principals developed by the judiciary itself, and, of course, that it is constrained by what people will follow when it issues its dictates.
But, yes, the similarity is quite distant, as I said; just less distant than that in the offered comparison between Turkey and Iraq.
I guess we have to wait and see if this goes pear shaped.
There have not exactly been rejoicing in European media. Not sure if that is a good sign, but I take it as there is little propaganda going on, so this might have been planned primarily by internal forces.
The difference in Turkey has generally been that the military has been very clear about not holding on to power for very long. There's still every reason to be vary, but so far, for a military that has carried out multiple coups Turkey's military has demonstrated an unusual degree of commitment to voluntarily return the country to civilian rule.
Why did people support Hitler? Why do people support Trump? Why do people support Putin?
Some people aren't very concerned with democratic principles; some people like the policy agenda and are willing to sacrifice democratic principles in order to get the policies they want; some people are gullible and believe scapegoat arguments; some people, particularly in times of insecurity, seek out a "strong man".
These calls are matters of degree. Although the original question was somewhat generic, Erdogan is pretty on-topic in a thread about Turkish politics. Throwing in Hitler, Trump, and Putin, on the other hand, makes it hopelessly generic and provocative to boot.
The comparison between Hitler and Trump is not naive in any way. There are very logical, direct comparisons: blanket generalizations of a specific minority group, quick rise-to-power from populist hate-centric rhetoric, and lack of political or governmental experience.
> I find your equivalence of those two men to Hitler to be naive or intentionally inflammatory.
>> Why did people support Hitler? Why do people support Trump? Why do people support Putin?
This structure doesn't imply that the men are equivalent. It implies that the three questions share one answer. If I tell you that the reason we fine people for speeding is the same reason that mothers in Jonestown fed poison to their babies, I hope you won't think I'm equating the acts.
I'd really like to understand why this is receiving so many downvotes. What I've said amounts to pointing out that the same phenomenon can drive different outcomes, some of which may be very bad, some of which may be of limited scope, and some of which may be good. Is somebody going to disagree?
All three are terrible populists. Two have fought offensive wars. Only one is responsible for a genocide.
I am indecisive whether or not one should compare people other than Stalin and the like to Hitler. It intoxicates the whole conversation but if you focus on his roots it is a pretty good argument why populism in itself is always bad.
Even though I do not share your political views, I am very disappointed that you got down voted for your opinion. This is a very subjective topic and no one should be downvoted for holding non-violent opinions on topics like this where there is no objective right or wrong. If you had been unnecessarily profane or such that would be a different story, but this is just sad.
Note that the Nazis never had the support of the majority. It's a common myth that Hitler was elected, but he seized power at gunpoint after winning a minority of the legislature (albeit a sizeable minority).
Putin is similar, with electoral fraud substituting for naked force. Trump remains to be seen.
Erdogan, on the other hand, seems to legitimately enjoy the support of the majority. It may just be a quantitative difference, but it seems like an important one just the same.
That's how it works in multi-party parliaments. It's very rare for one party to get more than 50% so instead the largest minority party (or constellation of parties) gets selected to form a government. NSDAP was that party in Germany in 1932.
It's only in the American and English systems where there are only two options to choose from that a leader can claim "majority" support.
Yes, but in those other systems, the government rules with enough support from parliament to form a majority, even if their party doesn't have a majority on its own. The Nazis just pointed guns at everyone and said, "give us unlimited power."
In 1932, no other coalition was present in the German parliament that together would have gotten a larger share of the votes than the NSDAP. It's one of the great historical tragedies that the Social Democrats and the Communists were unable to cooperate.
There's a great distance between "first pickings to try to form a coalition" and "throw the main opposition in jail and fill the chamber with armed troops to ensure the rest vote absolute power for your party's leader."
> Are you seriously comparing hitler with trump and putin?
You're missing the point entirely. The parent post wasn't saying Hitler is like Trump and Putin, but rather uses them all as examples of charismatic political leaders.
> Holy crap some people are truly indoctrinated by their ideologies to the point of no return.
This seems like a rather extreme conclusion to jump to.
Hitler was a bog standard 19th-20th century genocidist who had the efficiency of German engineering as a force multiplier. He wasn't so different from Andrew Jackson who conquered North America or Stalin who slaughtered his own Russia
> would you support a coup in your country if that meant potentially years of unrest and economic crisis
Of course I would. Once you have children, you have a foot in the future. You look at what your counry will be like in 30 or 40 or 50 years. You don't focus so much on short term gains, but on long term gains.
If you feel that your country is heading down the wrong path, and altering that path will result in a better life for your children in 20 or 30 years at the expense of short term pain, of course you support altering the path of your country.
The people of the UK chose national sovereignty, at the risk of near term economic pain that the remainers shouted from the roof-tops, was sure to come. They did it anyway, because long term, they will be better off.
> Once you have children, you have a foot in the future.
I appreciate the sentiment, but you risk alienating a lot of childless people with this rhetoric. I don't have children, but I like to think I care about the future of my continent, as well.
My brother-in-law, my sister, and pretty much all of our friends, are childless by choice or by circumstance, and past the point of having any. While they share our views, politically, it's not as personal to them. It's really hard to detect any level of fear or significant concern from them as to where the nation is heading over the next 30 or 40 years. They believe bad things will happen, but in a detached, non-emotional manner.
That's not really surprising to me. I am certain that I would not feel as passionate as I do, if I didn't have kids.
Many people have expressed the view the Angela Merkel would not be risking the culture of Germany or Europe, if she had children and grandchildren. My wife and I feel that way, to be sure.
Right, that's a different question. I was trying to answer why people might support Erdogan; it's entirely reasonable for people to oppose a coup d'état despite not supporting the current government, for exactly the reasons you mention.
If the word Hitler is frequently used to scare people, soon it will lose its scaring power, just like handing out Nobel peace prize randomly loses its credibility.
Mods: Why do you delete news posts like this one? I understand you're trying to keep Hacker News tech/business/science focused, maybe, but don't you think major world events that are getting tons of interest should be allowed to float up to the front page on their own merit? If the users are interested in it, why is it being deleted?
I feel like major events like yesterday's massacre in Nice or today coup d'état merit the attention.
It's almost always users who flag these posts, and they're doing so in accordance with the HN guidelines. Most political stories are off topic.
Occasionally we turn off the flags (like we've done here) because a political story has unusual intellectual interest or historical significance, or because it's so major that there's no keeping it off HN anyhow.
I appreciate being able to get responses like this from you so easily. So different from reddit's long history of the community feeling disconnected from the admins and unable to reach them.
> don't you think major world events that are getting tons of interest should be allowed to float up to the front page on their own merit?
I don't really see why. It's unlikely any HN readers use HN as their sole news source (and if they do, it's probably because they're uninterested in other news), and there's no shortage of alternative discussion forums for regular news.
> If the users are interested in it, why is it being deleted?
I'm extremely interested in this story, but I come to HN to read about tech news. I've seen multiple forums/subreddits/etc. lose their core focus because moderators were unwilling to keep the discussion on topic, so I really appreciate that HN's mods actively work to avoid that.
Edit: For the record, I don't mind a non-tech news story popping up now and then. But I don't want to see any off-topic post be kept around simply because it gets upvoted.
Speaking purely for myself: I don't come here for the news itself (i.e. facts), I come here for the editorials (i.e. opinions/viewpoints) that regular news sources can't/won't cover.
Now; I disapprove of forcing women to wear that sort of dress on religious grounds. In fact, I find it obnoxious (although, aside, Western society seems to expect women to wear makeup and look "good" at all times... so are we any better?).
However, I'm not sure banning the dress is a good solution - akin to punishing the victim...
Absolutely, I was talking about this with my wife yesterday.
It's illegal for a women to go topless in France (but not a man), so how is a women covering her breasts any different than a woman covering her head? I can't imagine anything less welcoming than being a recent refugee or immgrant, and then in order to receive an education you are forced to break with a core tenet of your religious and cultural beliefs, and as a poster below pointed out, feel naked in your new school.
> It's illegal for a women to go topless in France (but not a man)
Is it? there are tons of topless women on French beaches. I don't know about specific laws but nobody goes topless or naked while walking in a city (in France or elsewhere). I don't see this as a great restriction on my freedom. Actually, more worrying IMHO is that if a woman were to go topless in the street, she'd get more trouble from some (religious and macho) guys than the police.
> I can't imagine anything less welcoming than being a recent refugee or immgrant
Sorry, but I don't find it scandalous to ask refugee or immigrants to make minor adjustments to their lifestyle. Every society has some common value that it wants to preserve, and as a French, I want as little intrusion of religion in public life. In particular, religion has no place in public school in my opinion, and i really hope it stays this way.
I'm actually having trouble finding any exact law, so in the interest of accuracy, I'll admit I could be wrong about French law here. This Wikipedia article says
"Chest and private parts must be covered except near bathing zones. Burqa banned."
Another article I read mentioned that a particular city recently explicitly banned male toplessness, which seems to imply that the above statement about covering the chest only applies to women.
Another Wikipedia article here states that the activist group Topfreedom has protested in France, also implying that the covering the chest only applies to women.
Can anyone point to the specific law? The Wikipedia article on clothing laws doesn't have a source. I was going off what I've been told by French friends, but I'd like to know conclusively.
Perhaps the idea could be seen differently not as a ban but an enforcement of anonymity. Like its hard for me to judge you based on your username (depends on the username), but if we had profile pictures that wouldn't be the case.
I don't really agree with France on this, but could the ban have positive effects by reducing prejudice by anonymity (look at this person vs. look at this muslim person) vs teaching tolerance.
For most Muslim immigrants, their facial features and skin color are probably as much an indicator of their background as a head dress, not to mention things like accent that will ultimately give someone away. I really don't buy any argument for these policies. Being realistic, it was definitely a move to antagonize the Muslim population in France.
Every modern nation's conception of liberty differs. In no country does liberty mean that anything goes. And while many westerners (particularly Anglos) like to define liberty as "anything goes which doesn't negatively effect me", that only begs the question of where that line is to be drawn.
In France the pithy definition of political freedom is "liberty, equality, fraternity". Equality and fraternity are qualifiers on what liberty is supposed to mean, recognizing a collective responsibility component and thus helping to articulate where the line is to be drawn for when individual liberty conflicts with the long-term requirements safeguarding political liberty.
French laws don't ban Muslim dress, per se. They ban face coverings, which is only typical of some very conservative Arabic cultures. And they do so because a religious or cultural mandate that requires such dress is in direct opposition to the ideals of equality and fraternity, which are considered necessary for maintaining the liberty of the society as a whole.
We can disagree with that interpretation on many levels. But it's not illogical, per se. I don't doubt that the way it's been articulated and enforced has been corrupted by anti-Muslim and anti-Arabic animus. But it is what it is and fundamentally seems consonant with French political theory.
In the U.S. religious freedom is considered much more sacrosanct. In particular, Americans see safeguarding religious liberty as fundamental to political liberty; whereas I think the French notion is that safeguarding secularism is far more important. The reasons are historical and totally obvious--just reflect on what you learned about American and French political history in high school. In France the Catholic Church was one of the impediments to democracy. Whereas a large number of American colonists came here because of religious persecution abroad, and our political system evolved to protect religious denominations from the government and from each other.
You understand the distinction between Islamic veils/headscarves (which clearly imply religious affiliation) and clearly non-religious, headscarves worn by many style-conscious, but secular, women?
Your misunderstanding may come from terminology - a headscarf need not be religious at all, and headscarves which are not religious (it is easy to tell the difference) are NOT banned.
The headscarf to muslims is not really a religious symbol like say a priests clothes or a nuns habit. It is a piece of clothing that is required (considered mandatory by most schools) to be worn by a woman to preserve her modesty. In that viewpoint, it is like pretty much every other piece of clothing . Are pants or tops religious symbols?
Does it clearly imply religious affiliation, or cultural affiliation? Either way, it's such a petty and arbitrary distinction and I'd guess that a Muslim girl in a French school wearing a regular head scarf would still get hassled and forced to remove it.
The ban in France is for face-covering only, and it applies to anybody (male/female).
There are serious reasons for this, both cultural- and security-based.
Head scarves are allowed in France, to the best of my knowledge.
EDIT:
The law bans "the wearing of symbols or garb which show religious affiliation in public primary and secondary schools" [1]
So you can wear a head scarf as long as it does not imply religious affiliation. As a matter of fact, head scarves have been present in high fashion (Azzedine Alaia,etc) for a while.
[1] Wikipedia: The bill passed France's national legislature and was signed into law by President Jacques Chirac on 15 March 2004 (thus the technical name is law 2004-228 of 15 March 2004) and came into effect on 2 September 2004, at the beginning of the new school year. The full title of the law is "loi no 2004-228 du 15 mars 2004 encadrant, en application du principe de laïcité, le port de signes ou de tenues manifestant une appartenance religieuse dans les écoles, collèges et lycées publics" (literally "Law #2004-228 of March 15, 2004, concerning, as an application of the principle of the separation of church and state, the wearing of symbols or garb which show religious affiliation in public primary and secondary schools").
It was widely debated. I'm still not sure what was the best thing to do.
At some point, you also have to ask how far we can tolerate things in the name of religion. Just because something is of religious nature doesn't mean that it has to be accepted.
If you are passing laws saying that girls are required to show their hair in school, and compromise their family moral values, as a mandatory display if secularism, you have gone to far in creating a bizarre new state religion.
Just because something is preferred by a subpopulation's religion and culture, doesn't meant it is a proselytic threat to the freedom and safety of others.
The French heafscarf law is populist demagoguery that threatens the integrity of the French Constitutional principles, and is near-universally condemned as bad law by legal scholars
It's not really the thread for this kind of debate, but I feel compelled to reply :)
> If you are passing laws saying that girls are required to show their hair in school
That's not what the law is about. It bans religious signs in public schools. It's not specifically about muslims covering their hair.
I can't speak for all the French, but I think it's fair to say that overall we like religion to stay in the private field.
Little anecdote here. When I was in high-school (25 years ago), some American mormons offered to visit our English class to teach English. Our teacher agreed on the condition that they don't wear their uniforms, and don't mention any religious topic. They declined.
Just to say that the laws we are discussing here go far beyond "populist demagoguery" or xenophobia and maybe it's misunderstanding French culture to think it is.
> and is near-universally condemned as bad law by legal scholars
That sounds like an argument of authority. I don't know what law scholars say but I think a country should be able to legislate on the place of religion in public schools, and the way it has been done seem pretty fair to me.
When I was school, there were about 10% of north african immigrants in my classes (most of them muslims) and never the headscarf had been an issue. Back then, you actually didn't see any headscarfs in street, except maybe for older muslim ladies. I'm not sure what has changed since then but it has became commonplace (and as an atheist, I'm pretty sad about this).
I would consider the US approach fairly liberal, where everyone is free to do as they want as long as they're not affecting other people with their actions.
France goes to the extreme level of saying "You can't even wear your religious clothing inside the school, even if you feel naked without it."
Having been brought up in a French system and then going to a US college, I must say I strongly prefer the French system.
I guess Americans would take offense to this view, but I find wearing religious clothing in a public institution such as a school incredibly obnoxious and pushy -- it's akin to your professor suddenly starting to push his/her political views onto you in an unrelated lecture, or something.
It's not that it's bad to wear religious clothing or have political opinions -- it's just that a school should be a place of learning, not propaganda.
It's not that it's bad to wear religious clothing or have political opinions -- it's just that a school should be a place of learning, not propaganda.
As an American, I think of nothing when people wear hijab or whatever, and trust me, I am an atheist who think religion is irrational and that humanity would be better off without it.
Maybe the French would be better off thinking nothing of it when someone wears religious clothing, just as we are starting to think nothing of it when people are gay or transgender or whatever.
I think the difference is that the French perceive obvious religious clothing similarly to someone wearing a T-shirt saying "I vote republican/democrat" in huge letters -- though I don't know, maybe that'd be considered fine too in the US (US schools, that is)?
I see it as clearly unnecessary/voluntary (so it's quite different from being gay like in your example), so it's an attempt to advertise, which leaves a bad taste in a place like a school.
I am extremely sympathetic to this view as an American, but I think it is worthwhile to think of this from a native Frenchman's perspective. There has been a mass influx of "foreign" Muslim/Islamic peoples there over the past twenty-odd years that do not share western secular values for the most part, and are happy to impose their own views on the native population. If you were a native Frenchman, or a person in a similar situation in Europe, how would you feel about women wearing the hajib? I don't think it is that black and white.
There has been a massive influx of people into the States who don't necessary share American values as well. The Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese, Irish, Mexicans, etc. Virtually any group you can think of.
I know the feeling, in my eyes excessive display of religious affiliation in clothing tends to come over as a certain kind of smugness: "according to my values, i am infinitely superior to you godless crowd". Hardly the most respectful message to send, a bit like the difference between a vegan and a preaching vegan.
Still, if you'd want to put up legal barriers to displays of religion, you'd certainly need to find better reasons than "it makes people seem very arrogant" ;)
Schools, being places of science, might mandate non-religious clothing in the same way monasteries and temples should be free to set clothing regulation inside their premises.
> "I find wearing religious clothing in a public institution such as a school incredibly obnoxious and pushy -- it's akin to your professor suddenly starting to push his/her political views onto you in an unrelated lecture"
But prohibiting the wearing of religious clothing IS pushing political views.
French culture has some inconsistent, fascist, illiberalisms, especially in the differences of making fun of Christianity vs. making fun of Judaism, or similarly with Christianity vs. Islam. (govt demanding firing of Sine). Actual progressive liberalism should at least include listening to other viewpoints, being open to new ideas and generally being sensible and constructive. But narrow, identity-politics labels aren't all that useful in reality and end up inventing wedge-issues and false dichotomies. (There are some people looking for common ground while others are looking for Sayre's law fights.)
Sine was basically implying the religion was nothing but a tool of social climbing in that particular case. That's just an incredibly nasty, low and personal thing.
While I don't agree with the French approach of regulating dress, one of their arguments is that you do affect other people with your choice of how to dress, and that people should not have to be subjected to certain overt expressions of religion in certain contexts, with schools being a particularly sensitive topic because of their position in passing on the ideals of the republic.
I think they go way too far, and a that some of it is bigotry hiding behind the excuse of secularism, but it illustrates that determining what sufficiently negatively "affects others" to be worth sanction can be used to reach widely different conclusions..
That means if I am a pastafarian (Google it if you don't know it - and yes, at least in Germany it is a approved religion) I can't put a noodle riddle on my head (because it is religious clothing for pastafarians) - or can NOBODY, just because it is religious clothing? And yes, you might not believe it, but in Germany there is a ruling that you are allowed to take your passport photo with a noodle riddle on your head because it is your religious headwear...
I think we should throw all this religion in the toilet and flush.
The starting point of this in France is the idea that we should throw all this religion in the toilet and flush.
The principle governing French secularism - laïcité [1] - has its origin in freeing people from being subjected to the influence of the Catholic church. It's a such a direct reaction to religion being pushed onto people in the public sphere by putting in place restrictions aimed at severely curtailing religious influence in government and education.
In this context, it's worth noting that Turkish secularism was explicitly modelled by Ataturk on French laïcité. E.g. Turkey, like France, is constitutionally a secular republic.
Culture can be affected by draconian laws also. I believe religious clothing designed to oppress women is regressive and detrimental to Democracy. Please read this:
That's funny that you mention democracy and oppression of women. Ancient Greeks of Athens and the other city states kept their women cloistered out of public. Women had no rights and were basically chattel in these societies.
Democracy is like technology, morally neutral yet capable of great good or terrible inhumanity.
But my point was not that one system is 'better' or 'worse' but that religious head-wear should not be seen as some inalienable right that we have to accommodate to remain a free society. Even if many young Iranian women may feel 'naked' without it, it only took the religious dictators there one generation to make them forget how it used to be.
How is your anti-type of liberalism any different from how non-liberals are treated in western countries? Non-liberals are increasingly not tolerated by liberals (see recent SJW issues) the world over and increasingly face heavy fines/punishment if they don't follow the liberal culture.
I think you're using the common US political definition of "liberal" (which is close to a synonym for "progressive" or often even just "Democrat"), whereas at least to the point of your grandparent comment, my interpretation is that the definition being used is more like "classical liberalism"[0]. I'm not trying to be pedantic, but this is a common and unfortunate confusion that makes these conversations extremely muddy.
I've gone through too much tonight to bother say anything about your ignorance. But sitting and waiting won't earn anything to anybody. Turkey as a member would be useful to EU. However if we had a popular vote now on whether to bother continue the negotiations, it'd certainly come out no, because the demeaning, hubristic, and unstable approach of the EU in our regards.
Thanks. I couldn't not respond because that was really arrogant of him and I do know many think similarly. Ultimately I am an atheist, so not directly affected by his words, but that stance causes many problems unfortunately.
Turkey's EU negotiations started in AFAIK 1958. My country does not consist of Erdoğan. Let aside membership, if sincerity and welcomeness was shown, fundamentalists wouldn't be able to do more than dwell some mosques here.
Oh so now the EU is at fault for problems in Turkey? This is, what, the 6th coup d'etat in Turkey since the second world war? How do you expect the EU to accept such an unstable country? Turkey has had a problem keeping the secular regime since Ataturk. You are obviously not ready. Islam is obviously not ready to take a backseat and let democracy do its thing. And if Turkey isn't ready, no Islamic country is ready.
It hasn't been possible because the military changes the regime every 10 years. If the EU goes and backs up one guy, this will polarize the next guy. Get your shit together and then ask for help.
Nobody's asking for help, all I said was that it could've been a mutually useful relationship, but it didn't. Also, there are only two actual coups in turkish past, 61 and 80.
I'm sorry, I shouldn't have responded to you, as your arrogant and ignorant attitude was obvious from your initial comment on the thread, and your past comments clearly show that you're tendent to blindly post offensive, low-quality stuff. I won't respond to you any further.
I'm late responding to this, but the two of you broke the HN guidelines badly with this uncivil spat. We've asked you not to do this before, and if you post uncivilly again, we will ban your account.
I'm actually quite sorry about this thread, but HN doesn't give me a defence mechanism against this type of trolling. I couldn't flag, I couldn't downvote. All I could do was to hope that someone would do that or maybe you'd come and detach this, which you did, but as you admit, a bit late (3 days). Or to respond, which I unfortunately did, and I did a bit more than just countering misinformation.
That said, I guess your interventions may be a little useful to the community if you don't use this parent-like, intimidating and threatening manners.
The only arrogant one here is you. You blame the EU for Islam's obvious problems. "If the EU helped us it wouldn't have been like that". No, the EU is not here to help you. The EU is here to help itself. It acts only in self-interest as everybody should. If you can't get your shit together, you have only yourself to blame.
The two of you broke the HN guidelines badly with this uncivil spat. We've asked you not to do this before, and if you post uncivilly again, we will ban your account
