Erdogan’s Attempt to Suppress German Satire Has the Opposite Effect

Take Erdogan as a businessman instead of a political figure. Because that's what he does. Since when he started his political career, even before the AKP days, he and his family prospered to an incredible level. That's all the care, and the support comes from the businessmen trying to get some benefit out of the business. So the case of Turkey is the case of a group that fruits the state's resources for enrichment of theirs, and nobody cares if Turkey remains respectable or not. It's business.

> The only time speech should be regulated is when it incites violence [...]

Speech should not be regulated in any ways, or we will have millions of who decides questions. A picture of Mohammad is annoying to each and every muslim, because the religion expressly forbids the likeness of the holy figures. Freedom of speech does not mean irresponsible and banale flow of whatever one thinks. This does not in any way justify the violence, but does not help either. Have you seen the latest cover of Hebdo, Papa où t'es? That's within freedom of speech too, but freedom of speech must not mean that one can be reckless, inconsiderate and demeaning. It is possible to criticise, or even attack in a civil, graceful way. In the end, though, this should be left to the authors will, to decide whether or not it is moral to say what he says. Because when state is involved the slightest, it can be involved more. Who decides what incites violence?

Sound and modern. No need to pull a divorce italian style.

The figure of Ataturk and the Turkish national identitiy are immune to any pejorative terms de jure. The rest is forbidden de facto, that is, if you are strong enough, you can try to silence the opposition with lawsuits for hate speech, public insulting, and treason, and laws for detention can be abused to keep them at lenght in prison. See the recent Can Dundar-Ekrem Gul case for treason and publication of statal secrets.

So it's mostly an abuse of the law via installed judges and misuse of the constitution. The parliamenters are immune to lawsuits during their duty, so it's easier for them to act so.

Ottoman? Janissaries, for a time, were so active in deciding who would be the sultan that, they were abolished by, IIRC, sultan Mahmud II. Erdogan has subjugated the police and the army, which were in the past very active in the political scene (frequent coups d'état, many parliamenters from veterans).

And I guess if we preserved the ruling house like the Brits and the spaniards did, and also some form of the Caliphate that acted like Vatican, maybe the things would be easier (I'm a secular agnostic, and I'm completely anti-nationalist). Nowadays there is no entity that is respected as a unifier of the Muslim world.

And further, maybe the Empire was better for middle-east. Here, the nation failed, for the bindings among people are mostly based on kinship, belonging to the same mahalle and memleket, and ultimately religion. But in Turkey you'll find many adjacent mosques and churches, for, AFAIK, it wasn't until nationalism took on that the major conflicts started. Under the Ottomans, yes, the muslim were a bit more advantageous, but not less subject to the sultanate than the christian subjects.

Rather, a thumbnail. The US actually does have the power to f*ck the world up, unlike our guy, who can only aspire to do so.

Trump is primarily playing off a base of xenophobia and isolationism, for which Americans have always had a certain luxury due to our geographic isolation from the rest of the world. For our one neighbor to the South, he wants to build a wall. I see nothing that would indicate a stifling of the press, individual rights to free expression and assembly, rigged elections, and all the other problems facing Turkey today.

Its not Trump that you should be so concerned with but rather the current safe-space culture of colleges. That will be a greater threat to free speech in the coming years than anything you will see from Trump

>> "We should count ourselves lucky Turkey didn't join the EU in 1995-2008. I'd rather have an authoritarian Turkey outside of the EU than inside."

On the other hand wouldn't they be subject to certain laws to prevent or reduce the authoritarianism if they were part of the EU?

Trump makes it sound so simple.

"incompatible cultures and values" are almost exactly the words these racists have always used to keep Turkey out. Britain, Spain, Greece, Cyprus and Slovakia are all compatible, but Turkey is a step too far?

Nah, it was the German govm'ts fear of public backlash due to the fucked-up integration of Turkish immigrants. Public opinion in Germany was not Turkey-welcoming at the time.

The current situation is just Erdogan having his revenge on Europe for dropping Turkey.

If EU were decent, they'd delist Erdogan's enemy the PKK from the terrorist list. The PKK could teach the EU how to improve European society: (http://edition.cnn.com/2016/03/30/opinions/rojava-kurds-syri...)

Not to mention the PKK would obviously help end ISIS.

Turkey, unlike most of the middle east in the news, descends from a multicultural, religiously tolerant empire (Ottoman). The culture is not far different from Greek. There is a regression to islamism with erdogan, but i don't think that's a permanent thing now. There is definitely some racism here.

The "race" of Europe, if you could categorize it into such broad terms, would be better suited as "Western", "Eastern", and "Mediterranean", but even that isn't apt.

For most Turks, you couldn't tell the difference between them and Iranians, IMO. Nonetheless, you can definitely tell them apart from a Western white European, a Eastern Slavic-Rus European, and a Mediterranean European.

Racism in Germany is not the same as racism in the US or necessarily other parts of the EU.

"Südländer" ("people from Southern countries") are effectively treated as an ethnic group, although this includes Italians and Spaniards alongside Turks (but in some cases also Arabs and other non-"whites"). There's also the racist slur "Ölauge" ("oil-eye"), which while ostensibly about eye colour is typically used to refer to "Südländer"s.

There are also "Osteuropäer" ("Eastern Europeans"), which effectively refers to Slavs but also "Deutschrussen" (i.e. descendants of German settlers in Eastern Europe who migrated back to Germany recently but are culturally distinct from "native" Germans).

I do agree however that "racism" in Germany tends to be less about specific "foreign" ethnicities (as in the US) but more about nationality (or nationality of the parents/ancestors) -- there's no denying that well-adjusted black Germans face discrimination in Germany but so do less well-adjusted Italians. It's more of a blanket ethno-nationalism than the typical racism you hear about on the anglophone interwebs.

It's not really surprising if you think about the historical roots: while Germany has a colonial history and thus isn't a stranger to mistreating brown people, our history is overshadowed by the Third Reich and its ideals about nationalism and racial purity (blonde, blue-eyed "Aryans" being distinct from mere "whites"). The US OTOH had an entire civil war about slave ownership and even then carried on a long tradition of racial apartheid.

It was always as religious. Just the army and the secular order it imposed prevented the religious people from rising trough the society ranks.

Which of course fueled Erdogan support ...

I never felt unwelcome, but I think there are some incompatibilities between German and Turkish cultures (and I would rather not generalize them as Western vs Eastern) which one needs to overcome before feeling totally comfortable. Another reason could be overzealous repetition of the word "integration" making the same effect on immigrants that the word "rule" makes on teenagers.

Also, I wouldn't discount monetary, climatic and religious reasons so easily. I'm a theological noncognitivist and have thankfully no serious financial issues but sometimes I think about moving to somewhere with a nicer weather - especially in those depressing-weather days =) The best candidate would be then Spain but well, I really like it here.

That's because Turks are treated in Germany the same way Moroccans are in Netherlands. Both parties are to blame, but no matter what a Turk does, it will at least be another 50 years before they're accepted as Germans. Just look at the German media. When somebody with a migration background would get some award, they're quick to point out (s)he is from Germany, hiding the background. But when (s)he does something people disagree with, they're easy to isolate the person as someone with a migration background. I've always seen this as a way of the German Germans (aka Christians and Jews) to feel better, being able to separate those people's behavior from their German German behavior. This basically goes back to the defeat in Vienna, basically. The mistake most of non-Turkish German population does is to conflate descendants of Turkish immigrants with Turks from current day Turkey. It's almost like comparing an African-American from Georgia with someone from Nigeria.

So, I can totally understand why the parents would want to move to Turkey for their retirement. And to be fair, there are many English and German retired couples who move to Turkey just as they do to Spain or France.

I actually thought about putting democratic in quotes but then decided that could steer the discussion further off topic. Rest assured that the irony is not lost on me.

> Do you feel welcome in Germany? Just curious.

Yes. After living even in a "conservative" town, I feel more welcome than I feel in the city I was born - Istanbul. In my first 5 years, I usually had to ask people to speak to me in German, they usually switched to English to make me more comfortable. Sure, I can give many examples of racism but the great thing about Germany is that racists aren't significant threats to my rights as a resident. Also, I think back in Turkey, there were many more cases of racism - it's just that they don't get any attention among "bigger problems" (what being a bigger problem is another topic I'd rather not dig into). After all, I'm happy that here people are ready to discuss such things.

> Why are some of us expats while others are merely "immigrants"?

I would guess if you came here to advance your career, then you are eligible to be an expat. Of course I'm kidding. I think many people, for not-so-evil-but-still-a-bit-disturbing reasons, would not like to be called an immigrant. I actually do not care and am happy with the word.

The difference between an 'expat' and an 'immigrant' is that an expat made their choice from a position of strength and an immigrant made their choice from a position of weakness.

That's really all there is to it, everything else is exactly the same. Though usually people from wealthy countries would not like to be known as 'immigrants', they are expats, of course.

Of course they were at war and did things that were deemed acceptable for the time. Today we do other things that you and me might see as acceptable but our grandchildren will view as atrocities. That's humanity.

What I meant is that after the defeat in Vienna the fate was sealed and it put the final nail into the box for votes of acceptance into the Euro club. It wasn't as clear before. The UK doesn't fear Turks because they didn't have the experience Hungary and Austria had for example.

WW1 and WW2 are both the result of mainly one mis-educated and ill-suited German ruler as the main initiator of the conflict(s), funny enough. WW1 it was the relative of the English king who was just plain stupid and thought war is better than economic dominance and didn't wait a couple days longer for some Austrian correspondence I forgot the details about or it would have been avoided in that year at least.

WW2 was funny enough initiated by Austria, who have always wanted to rejoin Germany.

The way I see it it's a family of monarchies across Europe and Russia who had their quarrels and caused the world devastating losses.

I'm sorry you somehow think I was defending atrocities. I didn't mention any of it, and if we wanted to discuss that we'd surely come up with past and present genocides in all parts of the world that haven't been accepted as such and apologized for. Yes, Turkey is one, and there are many others. If your grandpa did something terrible, and there's proof, just own it and distance yourself from it. Nobody walks around in Germany and accuses the population to be Nazis, but it's hard because I know many Germans who feel like they're still having to apologize and defend themselves for WW2.

While it's important to process past atrocities, we need to prevent current ones, and I'd include many state sponsored activities of major forces in the world in the list atrocities. Modern genocide may look vastly different than a mass shooting. This is something where we can (without a time machine) make a difference.

And the thing with genocide is that some countries get away with denying some occurrences and only a select few are getting accused of it vocally. If all atrocities in all places were treated the same way, we might have better chances of processing them officially. I mean these aren't crimes where you can make a deal with the DA and remove some items off the list.

> UK has almost no Christianity?

I meant "a UK without Christianity".

The army upheld the secular character of Turkey for nearly a century. That is long term-ish enough. And they would have deposed Erdogan again in 2004 (I think), when it was clear he had no respect for the secular values of Ataturk. But the coup failed due to a preemptive strike.

It was Kemal Ataturk himself that set up the things that way.

Google translate:

The case Havemann

A concrete clue look at the Merkel-critics for their presumption that it does not take quite as accurate the Chancellor in describing their past with the truth. It concerns Robert Havemann, a famous regime-critic who had to live under house arrest in the GDR since 1976 and was under permanent Stasi observation. The authors of a television documentary for WDR met in 2005 at the Search for a film about the Stasi secret to the Act of Robert Havemann - and in there was a controversial detail: a photo of Angela Merkel. The picture was in a series of Stasi shots that people showed who were staying around the plot of Robert Havemann over the years or those visited. What did Angela Merkel there? Was she the officers conducting the observation? Visited them the critics of a harmless reason? Not likely, because the access to the house only selected people were allowed. Visited they him so in an official capacity to pump him? From Merkel herself there to little enlightening. She was taken by a fellow student from the Havemann Family with the plot. That was all, no further comments. Spicy is in this context, however, a fact that is occupied. During her time in the Academy of Sciences she shared an office with Havemann's son, also worked as a physicist. Just a coincidence? Angela Merkel claimed that it had practically to do with Havemann Junior hardly anything. Merkel prevented publication

Assuming the already discussed WDR documentary "In the Eye of the power the images of the Stasi" in any case wanted to disclose the relevant Merkel photo, but got from the Chancellor office a rejection. For "reasons of protection of their privacy" permission was refused. In the film, then the photo of Merkel has shown herself but defaced. In some Swiss magazines, however, the controversial photo was published. There you suspect the Chancellor in numerous articles then, more practically, to have been active as a Stasi informant. A claim that would establish the authors of the WDR-Reportage otherwise not in their documentation. For this process to derive a spying activities Merkel, is quite wrong and untrustworthy, the author wrote Holger Kulick to the makers of the "Chronicle Berlin", had constructed such a relationship. Indeed, Merkel did Posted therefore not agreed to, because they do not want to fall in the back her political mentor Helmut Kohl, who at the time publicly against it struggled to publish his Stasi file. But is this statement? Is that really the only reason? Here alone is Angela Merkel's words.

And Saddam Husseins correct title was 'President' and Hitlers correct title was 'Führer' or 'Reich Chancellor', but they were still dictators.

There are a lot of similarities though. Both trying to be president for life, having huge palaces, throwing reporters in jail, corrupt, somewhat popular at home and so on.

What, do they have to be identical to make the comparison? I could refer to Putin as the Russian Erdogan, but Putin was there first.

Putin subtle? Like the switcheroo? And a second one would be subtle? The guy's an outright buffoon.

I'm not sure about that, in 2030 he'll be 75 years old, he might have different perspective at this age.

you clearly underestimate the man. erdogan is a brilliant politician probably the greatest of our generation with putin and do not worry he does not need europe. actually joining europe will be bad for turkey on so much levels that it does not make sense

I think Turkey won't become a full EU member for at least 20 years. Turkey is childishly sensitive about its military past, and still refuses to acknowledge Cyprus, which is a full EU member state.

I've found the following 2013 status report [1] which is surprisingly readable. From this document (my interpretations, not quotes):

As a prelude to EU membership, the EU and Turkey entered a Customs Union in 1995. The formal accession process, which requires that Turkey ratify and comply with 35 chapters, was started in 2001 but put on hold in 2004 by Turkey's refusal to accept Cyprus (a new EU member) as part of the Customs Union.

Between 2006 and 2011, hardly any progress was made, with the EC and EP basically playing good-cop bad-cop with Turkey: the Commission would highlight the few positive steps made, while the Parliament kept slamming Turkey over the slow pace of change. This made the support for the EU changes wither in Turkey.

In July 2012, Cyprus gained presidency of the EU and Turkey halted all formal talks, although the EC (again playing good cop) did continue negotiations about visa requirements between Turkey and the EU. Then the 2013 Gezi park protests happened, and that only soured the relationship more.

As of today, only 15 out of 35 chapters in the accession process have even been opened, and only one (Science&Research) has been completed. Since Turkey's first application for EU membership in 1987, 17 states have completed the full membership process, while Turkey's PM keeps making clear that he doesn't even understand the fundamental principles underlying Europe's free society.

No, I really don't see Turkey moving closer towards the European Union. Maybe when the AKP loses power...

[1] http://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RS22517.pdf

So there's basically a media bureaucracy that can decide how much money it wants to earn, without asking any customers. Awesome!