That is true actually..

In the middle east, in arabic countries, they are not reported.. Example will be "Iran not having any gays". In Egypt there are no honor killings for example according to statistics..

(Even in London, there was this case: The guy kills his daughter for his honor; buries her ; reports her as missing etc.. Years later his wife comes out and tells what happened.. If it was in Turkey, possibly, that woman would not come up. She would be fearful of her life. The difference of living in the UK made the difference.. She knows that her life can be protected in the uk..  If the same case was in Turkey, there is a great chance that we would not hear anything at all..)

I think all these secrecy is quite related to islamic societies and Islam´s allowance for male supremacy. No wonder why honor killings are generically speaking an Islamic thing..

In the end "it is a shame and it is a barbaric thing to do"..

Trying to deflect this shame or not to talk about it, does not help those girls.

It only helps the killers and the rapists..

That makes me laugh too..

Actually, I think, even they dont believe what they are saying. It is just the fact that they have nothing to say about Kurdish problem which they were told "it did not exist" all those years.. After all these, after again and again they were  proved to be wrong, what can they say?

That is part of the reason why I keep asking:

which part in that commandment  is against the human rights of the people and how?

For example:

-you can not bring sheria with the constitution or referendum (even with 99% majority. what about 1% basic rights?)

-you can not kick out Kurds with the referendum or constitution (it will be violating the basic  rights of living..).

So, is  anybody able to tell me which part?  

I am really puzzled with your understandings about what democracy is..

I really am..

Can somebody explain it here that what is against the democracy here?

What is it not democratic here, in this process?

-There is a constitution there.

-where is it from? from 1982..from the army days..

Is that constitution more democratic than the one after the changes?

Are you saying that the one made one by the army is much better for the Turks? 

People wanted to change that (in fact, personally, I have wanted to change that constitution in my entire life).. what is the problem here? 

Then, how could we change that army made constitution? 

You just tell me!!! 

I will ask again:

-which part of the amendments are not democratic? 

-can you show which part?

If you are unable to show which part is anti democratic, how is it you are able to say that ´51% is asserting the majority dictatorship´? 

-what is it.. which part of amendment is trying to assert the "majority´s dictatorship"?

Please... Everybody should respect the decision of Turkish people..

I agree 100% about the definition of democracy " is where every citizen´s rights are respected, not 51% of the people´s dictatorship over the other 49%".

But can you say that  "49% of Turkish people´s citizenship rights have been disrespected with this referendum"?

can anybody say that?

if so..Could you tell me which  changes in this approved  amendments do that?

Which basic rights of Turkish citizens have taken away? 

The changes are noting to do  approving the sheria. It was just clipping the powers of the army and judiciary over the parliament..   

Well at least it was not like in 1982 referendum.. it was not done under the army rule. Opposition was not put in jail like in 1982. In 1982, you could only speak in favor of the new constitution. You would be put in jail or have ´troubles´ if you opposed publicly.. Even  the envelopes, where you put your colored paper´ were made very thin so the color of your vote could be seen..

As I said, these amendments were supposed to be opening the path for making a new full more democratic constitution..

That is what is happening right now..   

I hope this time all opposition parties will join the process..

Wow

Thank you very much for this honest account of what happened in your country in your view. I always wanted to know what people would think after all those.

I always thought something went wrong when disintegrating and I blamed the supressed nationalism for that.. I believe you could have lived as a one single country if nationalism had been curbed succesfully. I am not  blaming the Serbs only  there though..

There was this nice analysis about who lost in this referendum:

-The army and judiciary (They lost their power. They are not a political force any more)
-MHP -ultra right wings- (lost serious amount of vote..Or his supporters did not listen to their party)
-CHP -main opposition party-(They still have not registered that "they can not be in politics as the lawyers in ergenekon case" and they can not win anything without producing a clear solution to Kurdish problem and they can not ignore scarf wearing  conservative population )
-Turkish left (Some of them become more right wing than MHP)
-BDP (PKK) (Some kurds showed us that if it is not for the right thing, they will defy PKK and its political wings. The changes have accepted without their contribution -with 6 million difference. With this referendum, BDP-PKK- and its politcal groups were planning to have more cards in their hands to negotiate but it did not happen)

I completely agree with the compromise.. But it is almost impossible to make any agreement with the opposition.. It is the cheap politics in the end..

I wish the difference was much more.. But then it would have been seen as approval for AKP. Which is not good either because a party should not be that powerful..

I really wish it was not turned into ´vote of confidence for AKP´. I really wish people talked about the changes themselves in the campaigns..

I guess, this one is more important than the others as it was approved by the people in a referendum and opened the way of making a new non-army  based constitution.

I think it is a nice thing and a real victory for Turkish democracy..

Taking what Turkish racists say about the Kurds, replace the word ´Kurds´ with ´Turks´ will suffice I think...

As far as the racism is concerned no difference at all..