More Erdogan madness

[Flixy]

I'm not sure reluctant is the word there, I don't think the lack of complete extermination was due to lack of trying.

[RandBlade]

I think Hazir's point isn't that Hitler was reluctant but that Turkish education leads people to believe that reluctance was the issue (and the truth be damned).

[earthJoker]

Turkey 'demands deletion' of German video mocking Erdoğan

Ankara summons German envoy to explain song lampooning Turkish president, according to reports


The Turkish government has reportedly ordered the deletion from the internet of a German satirical video that pokes fun at President Recep Tayipp Erdoğan and condemns his human rights record.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...tayyip-erdogan

The video


Barbara Streisand effect much.

[Hazir]

Because of the whole brouhaha they re-broadcasted it. With Turkish subtitles. I think it came with the disclaimer that if he wanted the truth he should come to the makers but that for empty compliments he should contact Angela Merkel.

[Loki]

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/erd...=238&nID=98896

Erdogan found a solution to unemployment.

[Loki]

Meanwhile in Turkey: https://twitter.com/NTarnopolsky/sta...90554561966080

[RandBlade]

Meanwhile in Germany: https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...n-erdogan-poem

[Hazir]

Meanwhile in Germany: https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...n-erdogan-poem

That's not meanwhile, that is 2 months ago. Also Bohmerman announced before reading that 'poem' that he was going to break the law.

[RandBlade]

An obscure antiquated law that required Merkel to greenlight a prosecution.

[Hazir]

Not so antiquated that he didn't know he was intentionally breaking the law when he read out that poem. As for the government allowing prosecution; you like the alternative that every dickhead decides for himself which law he wants to follow and which not better?

[LittleFuzzy]

Not so antiquated that he didn't know he was intentionally breaking the law when he read out that poem. As for the government allowing prosecution; you like the alternative that every dickhead decides for himself which law he wants to follow and which not better?

No, I want the government to have the sense to recognize when something constitutes worthwhile civil disobedience and choose not to prosecute in those circumstances. Do you like the scenario where the government throws the book at every act of protest? Denying prosecutorial discretion isn't any better than mandatory sentencing.

[RandBlade]

Exactly.

[Hazir]

No, I want the government to have the sense to recognize when something constitutes worthwhile civil disobedience and choose not to prosecute in those circumstances. Do you like the scenario where the government throws the book at every act of protest? Denying prosecutorial discretion isn't any better than mandatory sentencing.

Those circumstances being that the person in question meant it as a provocation? A provocation that, as it happened actually was harmful to German interests. Which is the reason why the bloody law exists in the first place? If you don't like the law your either retract it in parliament or you have it examined in court.

[earthJoker]

The law has an extra paragraph that says, the government needs to approve the prosecution. So if the government approves the prosecution in every case, no matter what, why having that extra paragraph in the first place?

[Hazir]

Because the law clearly has the purpose of protecting German interests. The German government would be in a position to know if a particular insult would be a relevant threath to German interests. I am no fan of this type of law, and I am even less a fan of the president of Turkey, but Bohmerman was acting like a complete ass and deserves being prosecuted. It would have been perfectly possible to drag that man through the mud without resorting to claims that would get him in trouble if he would have said them about you or me.

[Aimless]

Those circumstances being that the person in question meant it as a provocation? A provocation that, as it happened actually was harmful to German interests. Which is the reason why the bloody law exists in the first place? If you don't like the law your either retract it in parliament or you have it examined in court.

It will likely be retracted in the near future. Merkel has said as much herself.

[earthJoker]

Because the law clearly has the purpose of protecting German interests. The German government would be in a position to know if a particular insult would be a relevant threath to German interests. I am no fan of this type of law, and I am even less a fan of the president of Turkey, but Bohmerman was acting like a complete ass and deserves being prosecuted. It would have been perfectly possible to drag that man through the mud without resorting to claims that would get him in trouble if he would have said them about you or me.

Erdogan wasn't the target of Böhmermann, Merkel was. It was the very idea of him to put Merkel into the position where she had to give green light to the prosecution.

[Hazir]

It will likely be retracted in the near future. Merkel has said as much herself.

I know, but Merkel can't retract a law by simply stating it will be retracted in the future. Also, she (the EU) needed a deal with Turkey. It was not in the interest of the German state to let this man get away with what amounted to slander.

[Hazir]

Erdogan wasn't the target of Böhmermann, Merkel was. It was the very idea of him to put Merkel into the position where she had to give green light to the prosecution.

And Bohmerman knew this given the statement preceding the reading of the poem. I guess now he doesn't like his game as much any longer.

[RandBlade]

I know, but Merkel can't retract a law by simply stating it will be retracted in the future. Also, she (the EU) needed a deal with Turkey. It was not in the interest of the German state to let this man get away with what amounted to slander.

She could have refused to prosecute a poet for free speech. We don't (or shouldn't) live in an era where free speech that upsets the government is forbidden. That it irritates the governments interests should be neither here nor there.

[Hazir]

She could have refused to prosecute a poet for free speech. We don't (or shouldn't) live in an era where free speech that upsets the government is forbidden. That it irritates the governments interests should be neither here nor there.

Slander is not free speech.

[earthJoker]

I think, it's unfair to judge the poem out of the context. Context is important and relevant, and it changes the meaning of the content in this case.

[Hazir]

I think, it's unfair to judge the poem out of the context. Context is important and relevant, and it changes the meaning of the content in this case.

Context is relevant, but part of the context is that we sometimes have to deal with unsavory types and that the future of Schengen is more important than the experiments with the law of some jackass who was too lazy to come up with fun that actually has some basis in reality. I don't remember the 'Erdowie' song getting the same treatment.

[LittleFuzzy]

[QUOTE=Hazir;172815]Those circumstances being that the person in question meant it as a provocation?[quote]

Seeing as that's pretty much the essence of civil disobedience, particularly as a mechanism for enacting change, YES.

A provocation that, as it happened actually was harmful to German interests.

The idea that "satire" of non-domestic figures can or should in ANY WAY be prosecutable because the target's ego was offended is insane. Which is why Merkel had to overrule her justice minister to order the prosecution forward in the first place, the minister and others recognized how asinine this is. And the law (even as bad as it is) gave the executive the option NOT to prosecute for a reason in the first place. The comedian was a German citizen. Erdogan's ego was not. Guess which one of those is actually owed a duty by the German government. The citizen IS the government's foremost interest, or at least he should be.

Which is the reason why the bloody law exists in the first place? If you don't like the law your either retract it in parliament or you have it examined in court.

The reason the discretion is placed in the law is because it was recognizably bad law and the German government didn't want or expect to follow it except as it suited their whims. Any who find it suits their whims now should be ashamed for putting Erdogan's ego over the protection of their own citizens. On sovereign German territory. Engaged in free speech practices which the Germans, like most of the democratic world, strive to protect exactly to prevent figures like Erdogan from seizing power.

[Flixy]

What are the actual chances of conviction? Wouldn't a judge take free speech plus the fact that the law is very old into account?

[earthJoker]

Guess which one of those is actually owed a duty by the German government. The citizen IS the government's foremost interest, or at least he should be.

Not for Merkel. I don't know what the exact reasons for her actions is, but I can guess that is is either the everlasting German guilt (the Germans must forever suffer for what they have done) or that she really want to have that Nobel Prize. Either way it is not the protection of her own citizen.

[RandBlade]

Besides satire and slander are not the same thing. He is not getting prosecuted for slander either. Nor could he.

Slander is a civil matter not a criminal matter. If Erdogan feels he has been slandered then he should seek recourse through the courts in a civil case. Merkel voluntary seeking a CRIMINAL prosecution goes way above and beyond a civil dispute.

Furthermore in order to be slander certain criteria has to be met which would not here. Saying someone has sex with hundred sheep a night every night (or whatever it was he said) is offensive but is unbelievable so isn't slander.

[earthJoker]

If Erdogan feels he has been slandered then he should seek recourse through the courts in a civil case.

He did that a well.

[Hazir]

[QUOTE=LittleFuzzy;172866][QUOTE=Hazir;172815]Those circumstances being that the person in question meant it as a provocation?

Seeing as that's pretty much the essence of civil disobedience, particularly as a mechanism for enacting change, YES.



The idea that "satire" of non-domestic figures can or should in ANY WAY be prosecutable because the target's ego was offended is insane. Which is why Merkel had to overrule her justice minister to order the prosecution forward in the first place, the minister and others recognized how asinine this is. And the law (even as bad as it is) gave the executive the option NOT to prosecute for a reason in the first place. The comedian was a German citizen. Erdogan's ego was not. Guess which one of those is actually owed a duty by the German government. The citizen IS the government's foremost interest, or at least he should be.



The reason the discretion is placed in the law is because it was recognizably bad law and the German government didn't want or expect to follow it except as it suited their whims. Any who find it suits their whims now should be ashamed for putting Erdogan's ego over the protection of their own citizens. On sovereign German territory. Engaged in free speech practices which the Germans, like most of the democratic world, strive to protect exactly to prevent figures like Erdogan from seizing power.

The Germans also would like to be able to not see their state and the Schengen Agreemen crash under the weight of fifty thousand refugees a week. That I dare say was and is a bigger consideration than some jackass playing games unfettered. So this decision to prosecute was not about the interests of Erdogan vs Bohmerman but about the interests of the German People vs Bohmerman.

I am certain that if Bohmerman would have done the same and had said that it was about Putin, the German government would have not found it expedient to prosecute.

@Flixy; Free speech isn't a 100% protection against conviction here. As usual the courts will consider to what extent it was necessary for the German state to have a law limiting free speech. As things stands what Bohmerman may very well achieve that he is convicted despite the fact that the Germans were going to retract the law. Of course the case lapses if the Bundestag cancels the law before he is tried. Which doesn't deny Erdogan to also sue on the basis of slander, because there can hardly be any doubt about the poem bein slanderous.

[LittleFuzzy]

If it is either tolerable or reasonable to prosecute a comedian for making fun of/insulting a foreign executive in order to make sure that executive doesn't renege wrt the German government's foreign policy goals, then that democratic republic has far bigger problems than worries about refugees or Schengen, Hazir.