Turkey |
Thread locked by a moderator or admin. |
|
|
|
|
Absurd news from Turkie
|
| 90. |
02 Nov 2010 Tue 10:45 pm |
|
I do not think I missed the point. Did I say that article says he was alcoholic? I only mentioned that he was maybe affected by some slanderers. Of course he was drinking, he has also weak belief in traditional Islam teachings but those does not change anything about the importance of him.
It is true there is a line between criticizing and insulting, and everyone has right to comment on if the statement about him is a critical or an insult, and everyone has right to appeal the courts, in the end Turkish judiciary will decide...
haha you missed the point. The article was not a statement that he actually was an alcoholic but a description of the fact that as soon as such voices were heard they were immediately silenced. Of course, how could a Polish author know the truth if even Turkish ones don´t?  I don´t think you can find any articles or books criticising Ataturk in libraries, can you? I´ve read somewhere that even letters and diaries of Latife are securely locked in a bank and neither historians or journalists cannot get to them. What if they contain the sad reality where Ataturk spends evenings drinking and playing cards with male friends rather than his wife? Would that make him a less important person in turkish history? I doubt it. What he did was crucial for the rise of the Republic. You don´t need to make a saint of him to appreciate him.
Democracy and freedom of speech don´t grant you the right to insult. Of course! If somebody calls you an idiot for no reason, you can sue them. But there´s a line between criticising public people and insulting them. If stating you don´t love Ataturk is considered an isult, there´s something very wrong with the law 
|
|
| 91. |
02 Nov 2010 Tue 10:48 pm |
|
Right, but I was pointing out the fact that a German company have those videos that cause trouble in Turkie according to the current law (5651). Why do they have them? And why have they decided to remove them from utube?
This article contains a little bit more information about this case:
http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=turkey-lifts-ban-on-access-to-youtube-2010-10-31
Quote: A German-based international licensing service owned by a Turkish citizen bought the right to remove the disputed videos from YouTube and announced Friday that they were no longer viewable on the site. Following this development, the court in Ankara acted immediately to allow access to YouTube.
|
|
| 92. |
02 Nov 2010 Tue 10:52 pm |
|
It is again banned now
Right, but I was pointing out the fact that a German company have those videos that cause trouble in Turkie according to the current law (5651). Why do they have them? And why have they decided to remove them from utube?
This article contains a little bit more information about this case:
http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=turkey-lifts-ban-on-access-to-youtube-2010-10-31
Quote: A German-based international licensing service owned by a Turkish citizen bought the right to remove the disputed videos from YouTube and announced Friday that they were no longer viewable on the site. Following this development, the court in Ankara acted immediately to allow access to YouTube.
|
|
| 93. |
02 Nov 2010 Tue 11:11 pm |
|
I wonder if there are many cases of people actually being sentenced because they were charged with insulting Ataturk. Sure it all depends on the courts to decide what is an insult. Please, let me remain sceptical as to their being objective. After all, it´s them who make sure Ataturk is treated like god 
|
|
| 94. |
02 Nov 2010 Tue 11:13 pm |
|
It is again banned now
 I just check the post 15 minutes ago and the ban was lifted now it´s back on!
the law makers are changing their minds faster than a PMS´ing woman who is getting dressed for a diner party( I just know I am going to get slammed for this one  )
|
|
| 95. |
02 Nov 2010 Tue 11:21 pm |
|
Some people can also remain sceptical about the objectivity if some statements are not seen as insult which has many examples. Then let ask God to decide 
I wonder if there are many cases of people actually being sentenced because they were charged with insulting Ataturk. Sure it all depends on the courts to decide what is an insult. Please, let me remain sceptical as to their being objective. After all, it´s them who make sure Ataturk is treated like god
|
|
| 96. |
02 Nov 2010 Tue 11:21 pm |
|
I wonder if there are many cases of people actually being sentenced because they were charged with insulting Ataturk. Sure it all depends on the courts to decide what is an insult. Please, let me remain sceptical as to their being objective. After all, it´s them who make sure Ataturk is treated like god
Why dont people go insult the likes of Winston Churchill; he miserably lost two important wars...Is there a law against insulting him, too?
|
|
| 97. |
02 Nov 2010 Tue 11:21 pm |
|
I wonder if there are many cases of people actually being sentenced because they were charged with insulting Ataturk. Sure it all depends on the courts to decide what is an insult. Please, let me remain sceptical as to their being objective. After all, it´s them who make sure Ataturk is treated like god
Why dont people go insult the likes of Winston Churchill; he miserably lost two important wars...Is there a law against insulting him, too?
|
|
| 98. |
02 Nov 2010 Tue 11:23 pm |
|
This one is because of the videos of Baykal on youtube.
I just check the post 15 minutes ago and the ban was lifted now it´s back on!
the law makers are changing their minds faster than a PMS´ing woman who is getting dressed for a diner party( I just know I am going to get slammed for this one )
|
|
| 99. |
03 Nov 2010 Wed 12:03 am |
|
Almost all authoroties in the world want the society to act within the borders they drow. Authorities want their policies to remain forever, thats why, they can forbid anything that may be a risk against their ethos. Indeed, almost none of the authorities care about how the society feels but how the societies feelings effect their power.
The reason why not to wear a scarf is forbidden in Iran is saving the regime. The same as the ban not to accept so called genocide in France. The authority existing there wishes, low profile relations with Turkey.
Eventually, The law of protecting Ataturk is existing just because to save the regime he brought. The authority do not want the symbol of the regime to be questioned in order it may be risky for the regime.
I think that kind of forbids remain as long as the communuties are leader based groups of human beings who gathers under the cloak of adorable supreme leaders. I know that anyone is adorable. Everyone has goods and foults. Me, as a person who tries to be responsible of his own life can not combine my self esteem with another human being. That chilidsh and sluggishly action would be disrispect to myself. If i did that, i would feel that i adore power!
If anyone think that there is democracy in the world, s/he fails. The democracy i believe doesn´t mean to choose one of the two alternatives that is introduced to the society. I am for the third way. I reject to be an extra passionate supporter of another human being but the supporter of my own values like justice, freedom, respect and etc.
|
|
| 100. |
03 Nov 2010 Wed 12:36 am |
|
Some people can also remain sceptical about the objectivity if some statements are not seen as insult which has many examples. Then let ask God to decide
What if there´s no god? no hope for objective sentence either way
Alpha - you´re free to criticise Churchil. How about starting with giving Poland to Stalin?
|
|
|
