More Erdogan madness

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

The net positive is meaningless because there was discretion to not exercise this in the first place. All well and good if the case gets tossed but we've talked before about how just prosecuting (or throwing lawsuits) at a person or behavior has a chilling effect even if they fight it off. And it doesn't matter if there is no real change in the status quo because it demonstrates that the status quo is BAD, that the Chancellor is willing to stifle free speech, to stifle comic commentary for political policy and the laws apparently fully support this.

---

Maybe not having this article on the book would have been the best, but it kind of fits the German attitude with regard to insult in general, so I guess that's up to them. As for the particular situation of Bohmerman; he's a German, he knows how the penal system Germany deals with insults and slander and he still decided to provoke Erdogan, Merkel or the system. If Bohmerman would be some sap who posted this on his facebook and then got the police after him I think I'd wholeheartedly agree with your appeal to the chilling effect of being prosecuted at all. Bohmerman however knowingly and willingly insulted Erdogan.

Quote:

---

<snip>
She'd find herself in an awkward position of having to try and justify herself to Erdogan, yes, since he is not going to be inclined to be satisfied. You know what's even more awkward? Campaigning to repeal something she is actively exercising her discretion to require. The former is socially awkward and potentially damaging to her policy. The latter is damaging to her policy and to domestic politics, not to mention for her personally. There's a third way, of course. Wait for a conviction and THEN push for repeal, the "have cake and eat it too" approach. And that one is morally reprehensible.

---

All true, and I am edging to the idea that this case should run its course and only after they have the opinions of the court they should take a position on whether or not they should scrap this particular article.

Quote:

---

Erdogan is not actually a moron. Saying no could make him become uncooperative, yes. Saying yes and working to undermine the "yes" runs the same risk. And if Merkel and the German government isn't actually doing the latter at the very least, then my condemnation that the democratic republic in question has worse problems than Schengen and the refugee crisis stands.

---

I will not comment on your initial statement. Having said that he's a great tactician so he may even consider this blowing up and souring the relations with Germany a success.

As for your claim that the problem is some deep fundamental problem with the state of the German democracy because a provocateur got the court case he could expect; I seriously don't see that. Germany made the consious choice to exclude insult and slander from free speech. That doesn't impeed the opinions expressed, it merely sets standards for the way you express your opinions. That is at worst a marginal tweaking of a complete freedom of speech.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

Bohmerman however knowingly and willingly insulted Erdogan.

---

Good!

Not only is it important for free political speech that political opponents can be knowingly and willingly insulted but in this instance Erdogan fully deserves to be knowingly and willingly insulted.

"Well it goes against the interests of the state" or "well the law exists" are not defences for such an attack on political speech.

And Minx on reflection the notion that banning a kiss and tell story is worse than banning free political speech is just deluded.

I don't think you can make a good case for accusations of watching child porn being political commentary on Germany.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

I don't think you can make a good case for accusations of watching child porn being political commentary on Germany.

---

If they were genuine accusations or even alleged reporting, I might agree with you. But comedy constantly screws around with reality and is by definition not serious* in presentation, even if it can and is used as commentary or to provoke thought.

*not being serious does not make it necessarily funny, of course.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

If they were genuine accusations or even alleged reporting, I might agree with you. But comedy constantly screws around with reality and is by definition not serious* in presentation, even if it can and is used as commentary or to provoke thought.

*not being serious does not make it necessarily funny, of course.

---

Except that Bohmerman knew he wasn't 'just being funny'. He knew he was breaking the law, and what's obviously the norm in Germany. Just like you can't expect speeding rules to not exist any longer because you announce you are going to step down on it, you can't expect decency rules to go away because you announce you're going to be rude. I know that offends American absolutism with regards to free speech. But Germany is not only not the United States, it also doesn't want to be like the United States.

@RB it's really funny that you are attacking the German's for not wanting to let people freely insult eachother, yet are from a country where simply telling the truth about people can be forbidden. People who live in glass houses etc.

God knows there are enough things about that man you could make fun about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

If they were genuine accusations or even alleged reporting, I might agree with you. But comedy constantly screws around with reality and is by definition not serious* in presentation, even if it can and is used as commentary or to provoke thought.

*not being serious does not make it necessarily funny, of course.

---

My take on the situation is that it is in fact not at all clear whether or not accusing, on TV, a person of watching child porn constitutes legally protected speech that trumps that person's limited right to not have his human dignity assaulted. I have no problems with offensive comedy, but being a comedian or a "commentator" does not give a person carte blanche to do whatever he wishes to another person. In some European countries, saying--even "jokingly"--that someone's a goat-fucker who consumes child porn may amount to "doing" something to that person that violates his right to dignity.

If Germany is anything like Sweden (which I believe it is in this matter), and if this had involved a German individual rather than a foreign politician, the aggrieved party may well have been within his rights to have the case tried in some form of court. While the law, as it pertains to severe insults directed at foreign leaders, gives the German head of state the discretion to authorise or block prosecution, any time one uses one's discretion to deny someone the legal rights and protection to which they may be entitled I believe that decision must be very well justified. In this case there's the added problem of this being a diplomatic issue, with a lot at stake, where the justification has to be even stronger and accepted by both parties.

My personal beliefs being what they are, I don't believe the govt. or the head of state in a constitutional democracy should have this sort of discretion and, if she does, that she should err on the side of caution by leaving it to the courts to determine whether or not the law or someone's rights have been violated and what the appropriate remedy may be. To me that's preferable to the greater potential for indefensible arbitrariness in the implementation of the law that would come with having a politician use her discretionary power to deny someone the right to pursue a case without strong justification. It serves to affirm the indepence of the judiciary and respect for the rule of law.

If a law sucks, if it can be expected to be abused or have a dangerous chilling effect, that law should be repealed through the usual means. The onus should be on the legislature to make good laws and to remove bad ones. Of course it should be remembered that, while the law involving foreign leaders may well be repealed, the protections that German individuals enjoy (in principle) are not likely to go away anytime soon unless someone replaces the entire judiciary in one fell swoop. With the continuing barbarization/Russification of European society, and a growing fondness for harrassing Muslims, n*ggers, f*ggots and c*nts who don't know when to shut up, norms relating to freedom of expression may be changing but the law may be a bit behind the times.

It's clear, from Merkel's statement, from her open criticism of the law and her promise that it will be repealed--as well as her publicly expressed concerns about the prosecution of journalists in Turkey--that her decision was consistent with principles that I share and that are about more than sucking up to Erdogan purely out of convenience or pragmatism or weakness. While the decision may damage her standing in various ways it's the principled thing to do and I think that it would have been more morally reprehensible for her to put aside those principles purely for the sake of placating voters.

That being said, I understand if you disagree although I don't think weäll ever see completely eye to eye on the matter :o

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

@RB it's really funny that you are attacking the German's for not wanting to let people freely insult eachother, yet are from a country where simply telling the truth about people can be forbidden. People who live in glass houses etc.

---

Considering I vigorously oppose our courts restrictions on free speech, I fail to see any hypocrisy or how it's funny to oppose Merkel's voluntary restrictions on free speech. I'm consistent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Considering I vigorously oppose our courts restrictions on free speech, I fail to see any hypocrisy or how it's funny to oppose Merkel's voluntary restrictions on free speech. I'm consistent.

---

You oppose them vigorously? So do something against them? Who exactly are these celebritries whose dalliances cause such an uproar and what was it again that one of them engaged in? Or do you just pretend to oppose them.

I posted against them as a keyboard warrior, how much more does anyone ever normally do? ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

I posted against them as a keyboard warrior, how much more does anyone ever normally do? ;)

---

You didn't answer the question, thus at best submitting yourself to an unacceptable bridle on free speech.

Submitting myself to the law yes, Like a Candle in the Wind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Submitting myself to the law yes, Like a Candle in the Wind.

---

So, let me get this straight, vigorously opposing a rule in your book means basically following it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

So, let me get this straight, vigorously opposing a rule in your book means basically following it?

---

The alternative is civil disobedience, which in this thread you seem opposed to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flixy

The alternative is civil disobedience, which in this thread you seem opposed to.

---

I do? I'm not aware of that, at least not in this thread. With regards to Bohmerman I think he knew what he was doing so shouldn't whine about getting the result he was aiming for. That doesn't necessarily mean I think that he's doing the wrong thing trying to bring down the law. Neither does it mean I am agreeing with him on the tactics he used.

On balance I guess what I think is that it's a bit silly to have a rule like this on the books for foreign dignitaries who aren't even in the country but Bohmerman didn't make fun of the man and his ideas, he also didn't stop at the goat-fucking jibe which has some political traction as you and I should know, but he went as far as implying he likes child pornography. That was a step too far in my not so humble opinion.

You wouldn't think it funny in the least if you would see your face on TV while a person is telling you are a regular user of child pornography. And neither would I.

But sometimes you still get the right results through actions you don't agree with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

So, let me get this straight, vigorously opposing a rule in your book means basically following it?

---

Yes. You can agitate to get a law changed without breaking it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Yes. You can agitate to get a law changed without breaking it.

---

Oh really, so what about Bohmerman. He obviously broke the law; does that mean he was wrong? Or is it just that you are too scared to do the right thing?

The guy is spelled with two 'n'. [/grammarnazi]

Bohnerman? :o

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

Oh really, so what about Bohmerman. He obviously broke the law; does that mean he was wrong? Or is it just that you are too scared to do the right thing?

---

Why is it that one and only one of those approaches can be the right thing? I catch the scent of a false dichotomy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

Bohnerman? :o

---

No, at the end :o

http://creategermany.typepad.com/.a/...88579e8970b-pi

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

Why is it that one and only one of those approaches can be the right thing? I catch the scent of a false dichotomy.

---

You may think that, but this thread went on this tangent because somebody threw in a quote about sacrificing freedom for security. And that someone wasn't me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

Oh really, so what about Bohmerman. He obviously broke the law; does that mean he was wrong? Or is it just that you are too scared to do the right thing?

---

No I think it's a free choice. I also don't think my breaking the law on this website will change anything while his protest could do.

Also there is a key difference here, in that the bad English and Welsh law is a bad one being enforced by the courts. The bad German one is an antiquated old one that needed the Chancellor of Germany to actually approve a prosecution, which reasonably she should not have done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

No I think it's a free choice. I also don't think my breaking the law on this website will change anything while his protest could do.

Also there is a key difference here, in that the bad English and Welsh law is a bad one being enforced by the courts. The bad German one is an antiquated old one that needed the Chancellor of Germany to actually approve a prosecution, which reasonably she should not have done.

---

whatever mr absolute freedom of speech.

An unknown number of Syria refugees were killed by Turkish border guards. I predict nobody will lose his job over that.

You sound happy over that fact. Are you morphing into Lewkowski?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

You sound happy over that fact. Are you morphing into Lewkowski?

---

I don't know what gives you that idea. I don't condone mowing down civilians trying to escape war zones. Neither do I like an utter lack of accountability for doing so.

I wonder why I had to write this post.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...an-jet-turkish

Don't know whether to be terrified or hopeful. Leaning towards the former.

Oh don't worry too much; he can never stay friends for long with someone who's not a sunni muslim. And even with those he starts calling terrorists as soon as it turns out they actually sometimes have a diverging opinion.

Couldn't be bothered to start a new thread. Turkish police blaming attack on ISIS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Couldn't be bothered to start a new thread. Turkish place blaming attack on ISIS.

---

Seems like IS sop.

So in the past few days I've seen an astonishing number of otherwise non-crazy people advance the bizarre argument that we should excuse Erdogan's shenanigans because he's done so much for the Turkish economy. Of course that's ridiculous but it got me wondering about what kind of impact Erdogan has had on the Turkish economy. Has he worked wonders, as some seem to believe? If not, who/what was responsible for the improvement really? Has he contributed to worsening the economy in less visible ways? Any and all input welcome.

Not only is it a very bizarre logic (the ends justify the means), it isn't even true. Turkish GDP growth growth has not been particularly special under Erdogan's rule. Not terrible, but not great amongst developing nations.

The answer is yes he and his party have done great things to improve the economy. However a lot of it is based on attracting foreign money and that means that the political instability he is causing by his autocratic tendencies does severe damage. If the rule of law is what the ruler decides it is, that gives people pause to think if their investment is safe in Turkey. Once the foreign money dries up the Turkish economy goes over the cliff. By the way half of the malls opened over the last decade are half empty and underperforming. There are serious indications that part of the reason why Davutoğlu had to go was that Davutoğlu had said that the Turkish state couldn't afford the big projects Erdoğan likes so much any longer.

I too am seeing mixed answers. On the one hand, greater fiscal discipline, esp. early on. On the other hand, rampant clientelism, unsustainable projects of dubious value, questionable policy wrt interest rates and a worrying over-reliance on foreign investment and debt (worrying because of the possible impact, on investors' perceptions and behavior, of political instability as well as of shenanigans).

Btw, does the Turkish constitution really explicitly allow or even require the armed forces to intervene eg. when Turkey's secular nature is threatened or in any such situation?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

Btw, does the Turkish constitution really explicitly allow or even require the armed forces to intervene eg. when Turkey's secular nature is threatened or in any such situation?

---

As far as I know yes. You should not forget the present constitution was written by the generals who disposed of the civil government in september 1980. The way I understand it, article 4 of the Constitution, which declares even proposals for changes to the first 3 articles illegal was put there to curtail the powers of civil society.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

As far as I know yes. You should not forget the present constitution was written by the generals who disposed of the civil government in september 1980

---

I ask because I keep seeing the claim but I've been unable to find the specific text that grants the armed forces this power.

Wikileaks has a huge cache of 300,000 Turkish government emails

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steely Glint

Wikileaks has a huge cache of 300,000 Turkish government emails

---

About as interesting as when they would have dumped 300,000 random e-mails.