On Freedom of Speech, Rush and the Turkish viewpoint

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Today at the pazar I ran into a lawyer acquaintance of mine. I mentioned this discussion and he said that my information was outdated... so I have to correct myself.

In Turkey today, Rush would not be prosecuted. His radio station would be fined and taken off of the air for 24 hours or so and he would be open to civil suits from the woman he called a slut. Also, Rush would not be allowed to have a radio show anymore... not due to anything political... but rather due to using profanity on the public airwaves. This is much like the old rules the FCC had for radio in the US.

He said that after the military was removed from power, the free speech laws underwent several changes. Currently only Attaturk is protected when it comes to speech. He pointed out that the reason that things remain so civil is simply because the people won't tolerate such absurd behavior. A guy like Rush would be derided from all political directions, his employers would be horrified and embarrassed and his listeners would lose all respect for him. He also said, that while its a bit embarrassing to admit, the biggest threat to Rush would be the girls father and brothers who might well kill the guy, or beat the shit out of him for being so rude to their daughter/sister.

He said the incident with Pamuk was embarrassing to many in the legal profession and once the military was out of power, they tried to repair the laws so that such abuses couldn't be done again. Though, his personal view was that Pamuk was an asshole and wrote the book knowing what the outcome would be and used it to boost his PR in Europe and win the Nobel prize. However, he was glad that Pamuk's books are on the market today.

On the question of political debate, he said that the legal system strongly supports civil lawsuits. Discussing the Obama birthers for example, in Turkey, Obama would have been expected to sue the accusers once the truth was known.

In the end though, he says that the laws aren't nearly as important as the culture.... since the culture demands respect, the people are respectful, and since the US culture revels in disrespect, the politicians and pundits reflect the culture.

I think that makes me feel much better about my view of Free Speech... and a little worse about the culture of my homeland. 

[Doktor Howl]

Oh you could totally say that to people... just not as part of public discourse.

Then it's not free speech.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Oh you could totally say that to people... just not as part of public discourse.

Then it's not free speech.

See my update.

To clarify, you can't curse at people on air. If you got up on a podium and said that someone was a raving slut who spent 60 hours a week on her back.... the government wouldn't do anything to you. The people around you might lynch you or toss you into the sea, but the government wouldn't stop you.

If you made that comment on air, you would likely lose your job and the station would be shut down for a day as penalty.

In either situation, the individual could sue you.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Wait wait wait wow... so, I think we need to start a list of issues you have been ignoring in this thread despite the fact that they've been repeatedly brought up.

Let's start with the ~100 journalists that are imprisoned because of Turkey's censorship laws... maybe after that we can move on to discuss how a genocide could be "unpremeditated".

Perhaps at some point we could come around to the fucked-up sexism implied in that fact that a woman's father and brothers might kill a man for calling her a slut.

[Scribbly]

Wait wait wait wow... so, I think we need to start a list of issues you have been ignoring in this thread despite the fact that they've been repeatedly brought up.

Let's start with the ~100 journalists that are imprisoned because of Turkey's censorship laws... maybe after that we can move on to discuss how a genocide could be "unpremeditated".

Perhaps at some point we could come around to the fucked-up sexism implied in that fact that a woman's father and brothers might kill a man for calling her a slut.

But Nigel, they all seem so HAPPY!

If people are smiling and cheerful all the time, then everything is great, right? It isn't like there could be anything underneath those smiles! Nope! Just keep smiling! 

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Wait wait wait wow... so, I think we need to start a list of issues you have been ignoring in this thread despite the fact that they've been repeatedly brought up.

Let's start with the ~100 journalists that are imprisoned because of Turkey's censorship laws... maybe after that we can move on to discuss how a genocide could be "unpremeditated".

Perhaps at some point we could come around to the fucked-up sexism implied in that fact that a woman's father and brothers might kill a man for calling her a slut.

But Nigel, they all seem so HAPPY!

If people are smiling and cheerful all the time, then everything is great, right? It isn't like there could be anything underneath those smiles! Nope! Just keep smiling! 

SHINE!

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Wait wait wait wow... so, I think we need to start a list of issues you have been ignoring in this thread despite the fact that they've been repeatedly brought up.

Let's start with the ~100 journalists that are imprisoned because of Turkey's censorship laws...

Thats something I have to research, its news to me.

ETA: Oh correction I had heard about this. The people imprisoned were not simply anti-President or anti-political party X. They were writing in journals that are considered Terrorist journals (particularly the PKK). The turkish law used is one that makes it illegal to support illegal organizations.

In some cases, apparently (I haven't read all the articles, this is second hand) the articles were supporting acts of terror against the state. In others they were praising the PKK or the far left communist (also illegal) for their actions. On the other hand, some were stating support for their cause (an independent Kurdish state).

I would imagine if the US uncovered someone writing articles for a AlQeda website, they would get tossed in jail too.

Personally, I don't think that anyone should go to jail for what they might write. However, in Turkey the public broadly supports anything that is anti-terror (from the PKK, islamic extremists or the communists groups that engage in blowing things up).

The most recent is troubling. The guy in prison has generally been against the ultra-secular group, and he's being charged with being part of that group. He claims its because he was writing about a ultra conservative imam that he believes is working with the AK Party to drag Turkey into an islamo-capitalist society.

Scary shit.

maybe after that we can move on to discuss how a genocide could be "unpremeditated".

Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction of a specific group. If intent cannot be verified, it cannot be considered genocide (per the UN definition).

In the situation with the Ottoman empire, there is a lot of evidence that indicates incompetence and war crimes... but there is not evidence of intent (or at least most modern writers on the subject conclude that the evidence doesn't support intent).

ETA:

Also, after the incident, the sultan charged three generals with a number of things including war crimes related to the Armenians. All three were found guilty and sentenced to death. They had fled the country, eventually two were killed by Armenian assassins.

I'd forgotten about that.

Perhaps at some point we could come around to the fucked-up sexism implied in that fact that a woman's father and brothers might kill a man for calling her a slut.

Actually, thats one of the terrible things about Turkey. The rural conservatives were killing their wives and daughters over honor issues a few years ago, without much intervention from the government. With the new government they've cracked down heavily, but the statistics are horrifying. On top of the conservatives with their honor beliefs, there are a lot of village/redneck/blue collar men that think slapping their wife around is perfectly normal. If a girls was called a slut in public, they would likely get punched by her brother, her father or possibly any guy in the area that was friends with the girl. If it was in national media and based on the logic Rush used.... this lawyer guy was serious about his life being in danger.

The urban Turks are horribly embarrassed by the women's rights issues and at this point there are lots of commercials asking people to call in and report abuse cases. They are vehemently prosecuting murderers that are caught and the media uses the topic quite a bit in the weekly dramas.

I wasn't trying to say it like it was a good thing... I think its insane.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I posted a number of websites that detailed the charges against the journalists, and which claim that the charges of terrorism are spurious at best and that their real crime is being critical of the government.

I have no idea whether you have access to those sites, though, because you're in a country that censors the internet.

As for the genocide issue, I cannot believe that you're seriously taking the stance that since premeditation can't be proven, it's not technically genocide.

Rounding up and butchering over a million people based on their ethnicity is really hard to do without premeditation.

Lemkin (the dude who made up the word) said:

Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aimed at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves.

The Armenian genocide is the basis on which Lemkin formed his concept of genocide as a crime, and also is the basis for the word itself. You are trying to say that the very historical events the word was coined to describe does not fit the definition. Do you understand what I am saying, Rat? Lemkin invented the word to describe what the Ottomans did to the Armenians.

You seem to be saying that it's unclear that the intention of the Ottomans was to eliminate Armenians from Turkey. If that is what you're saying, I really have no words. I recognize that you are probably still in the honeymoon phase with Turkey, but I'm asking you to pull your head out of your ass for this one because you're really shaming yourself.

[Roly Poly Oly-Garch]

The problem with Limbaugh's statements isn't that he's legally allowed to say what he says, it's that political discourse in this country has sunk so low that people will listen to what he says. If Americans were actually concerned with political debate rather than left-right tribalism, Rush would be back on unemployment.

I agree with the assessment of the lowly state of political discourse in this nation, but not necessarily that it's a new phenomenon. IIRC the accounts of Thomas Jefferson having sexual relations with his slaves was something that was brought up in political debate at the time it was going on, not just something that came out in the historical record.

Even though they're not usually mentioned in the same sentence, screaming slut in political debate is right up there with Mom, Apple Pie and the Fourth of July.

[Roly Poly Oly-Garch]

Therefore, there is no freedom of speech in Turkey.

I thought that was the assumption this thread started out with, anyway?

The question was whether it's a good idea to limit freedom of speech under certain circumstances. And indeed limited freedom of speech is of course not freedom of speech.

BTW in the Netherlands, we're not allowed to publically deny the Holocaust happened.

Also, on hate speech:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech#Netherlands

Article 137c: He who publicly, orally, in writing or graphically, intentionally expresses himself insultingly regarding a group of people because of their race, their religion or their life philosophy, their heterosexual or homosexual orientation or their physical, psychological or mental disability, shall be punished by imprisonment of no more than a year or a monetary penalty of the third category.[29]
Article 137d: He who publicly, orally, in writing or graphically, incites hatred against, discrimination of or violent action against person or belongings of people because of their race, their religion or their life philosophy, their gender, their heterosexual or homosexual orientation or their physical, psychological or mental disability, shall be punished by imprisonment of no more than a year or a monetary penalty of the third category.[30]

Apparently we're allowed to incite hatred against furries, though.

(until the new DSM classifies it as a mental disability, at least)

I see what you mean about wording that looks like computer code.

Being a natural rights nut-job myself, can't say as I agree with laws such as this, but at least this one does limit it's scope to public speech, etc. I would assume if someone overhears your dinner conversation about God smiting the homos, that's not something you can be prosecuted for? (want to know just in case I'm ever in a discussion that goes Godwin on the subject)

[Triple Zero]

I see what you mean about wording that looks like computer code.

Hahaha, yeah. This is pretty much what all our legal code looks like. For everything. I'm mostly familiar myself with the ones concerning copyrights and intellectual properties, but they're all unambiguously defined like that.

You're supposed to take them literally like a pedant which is why I highlighted the bolded part, cause it made me wonder "what about bisexuals?"

Except it doesn't work like that in NL because there's also the "intent" of the law that a judge is allowed to call upon--may seem kind of paradoxical, but given all the laws are defined so strictly, the "intent" of the law cannot be ambiguous either (otherwise it needs to be amended).

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I posted a number of websites that detailed the charges against the journalists, and which claim that the charges of terrorism are spurious at best and that their real crime is being critical of the government.

I have no idea whether you have access to those sites, though, because you're in a country that censors the internet.

Yes, I'm looking through those as I have time as well as other information sources. Internet censorship,right now seems only to apply to free porn. I haven't been blocked on anything else yet.

As for the genocide issue, I cannot believe that you're seriously taking the stance that since premeditation can't be proven, it's not technically genocide.

Rounding up and butchering over a million people based on their ethnicity is really hard to do without premeditation.

Lemkin (the dude who made up the word) said:

Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aimed at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves.

The Armenian genocide is the basis on which Lemkin formed his concept of genocide as a crime, and also is the basis for the word itself. You are trying to say that the very historical events the word was coined to describe does not fit the definition. Do you understand what I am saying, Rat? Lemkin invented the word to describe what the Ottomans did to the Armenians.

You seem to be saying that it's unclear that the intention of the Ottomans was to eliminate Armenians from Turkey. If that is what you're saying, I really have no words. I recognize that you are probably still in the honeymoon phase with Turkey, but I'm asking you to pull your head out of your ass for this one because you're really shaming yourself.

Here's the thing. The Ottoman empire recoginized that bad things happened and dealth with them. The Turks then overthrew the Ottomans (for other reasons). In the time since then, and since the word has been coined... the official definition used internationally includes premeditation.

Article II -     1) the mental element, meaning the "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such", and

    2) the physical element which includes five acts described in sections a, b, c, d and e. A crime must include both elements to be called "genocide."

http://www.preventgenocide.org/law/convention/text.htm

"Article II:  In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

    (a) Killing members of the group;

    (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

    (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

    (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

    (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

This is the problem the Turks have with the claim. They claim that there is no evidence that the intent was to wipe out the Armenians, but rather to extract them from the province, where they were assisting the Russians in an invasion of the Ottoman territory. They do admit that bad things were done in that process and the three generals that were sentenced to death included criminal charges related to the event. These guys were members of the CUP a group in the military that had pulled off a successful coup and taken control of much of the military.

They also claim that the 5 acts were not involved, with the exception of the first one... which they claim was part of an active war, rather than an intent to wipe out a race of people.

In what I've read on the subject, many modern, respected scholars appear to agree with this position. Other respected historians claim that there is enough evidence for a 'broader' claim of genocide which doesn't fully meet the international definition.

Much of the damage done during that time was due to Kurdish-Armenian relations, after the Armenians had begun pushing anti-islamic rhetoric, the kurds responded with anti-christian rhetoric and a number of terrible events ensued with lots of casualties on both sides.

An eyewitness account from a prior of franciscan monks in the area claimed that the Turks had been attacked by the Armenians under the direction of Russia. Their record claims that Armenians mercilessly hacked down Turks destroyed Mosques, set the Turkish sections of cities on fire and actively attacked the supply lines to the front where the Ottoman and Russian forces were fighting.

Something I had not realized before reading more on the topic and time: The behaviors of the Ottoman's with the Armenians, was identical to acts in Russia against Turks, Turks against Bulgarians, Bulgarians against Turks, Bulgarian, Serbia and Greece against Turks and Albanians... it was common practice, at that time in that region by many countries.

Turks argue that if they are guilty of genocide then so are the Russians, Bulgarians, Serbs, Greeks etc etc. in some cases there was obvious intent and the massacre of entire villages (as ordered by command). In the Turkish situation, there was rape and murder committed by soldiers (not ordered by command).

The reason the Turks are so sticky on this issue is because they believe that as the losers in WWI they were singled out with this claim... and their entrance into the EU had admission of guilt as a requirement for entry, while the same didn't apply to other nations, like Greece that were involved in the same kinds of actions.

I AM NOT trying to claim that nothing bad happened or that modern Turkey is perfect. Nor am I trying to say the Ottomans didn't do something horrible. I'm only presenting the argument that the Turks use about the term genocide... one that does seem to have some support in the facts.

I think that there is a confusion of issues involved here.

War at the turn of the century was really terrible.
The Ottoman Empire was falling apart at the seams, a military coup had put the Young Turks (CUP) in power over the military as separate from the Sultan.
The Armenians had tried to revolt multiple times in the late 1800's early 1900's. They helped invading forces (Greece and Russia), they promoted a Christian vs Muslim war on the ground, attacked and wiped out sections of cities and villages where turks/kurds were.
Many of the acts against the Armenians that are considered part of the genocide, were done by Kurdish soldiers who had not been ordered to act.
What evidence there is of ANY plan, indicates that the CUP saw the Armenians as a threat to the front lines and believed they should move them so that their flanks weren't being attacked. It doesn't talk about wiping them out as a race.

During the early 21st century things get even more confusing as the military was secretly controlling the whole government. A number of shady actions by the government of that time were designed to refute the term genocide (including paying historians not to include it, or pressuring historians that they should change their wording). When the military conspiracy was uncovered, the current government removed many of the leaders from power and sentenced many to prison.

That have in the past few years opened the Turkish archives fully on the subject.

Further, some of the older publications that made a case for genocide are now considered suspect, not just by the Turks, but by western scholars as well. In some cases, secret testimony from anonymous sources were quoted, in others interpretations of statements made were taken (so the claim is) out of context or interpreted incorrectly.

At the very least, I think its clear that the issue is not as obvious or open and shut as the Holocaust (the Israeli state doesn't officially consider it genocide). I think that it was a terrible time in human history with millions of people from multiple countries dying in horrific ways (1 million turks died in the actions between Russian, Greek, Armenian and Balkan fighting, while about the same number of Armenians died and who knows how many Greeks, Russians, Hungarians, Bulgarians, Australians, British and New Zealanders). I am not defending ANY of those actions as just, right or acceptable. In fact, the Ottoman empire apparently felt the same, as the prosecuted the generals responsible for the area and the soldiers involved. They found individuals within the CUP guilty of planning to and actively trying to wipe out Armenians. One Pasha actually sent a communication to 'wipe' out all Armenians... However, this was his own statement and not a statement from the government, which is why he was convicted and sentenced to death.

I do think that the initial usage of genocide may well have been part of the western plan to destroy the Ottoman empire. Remember, this was just at the end of WWI, where the Allied powers had a well documented plan on how to slice up the empire and give full control to the Brits, Greeks and other nations. These actions led to an occupied empire (what was left of it) and created the environment that put Attaturk in a position to overthrow the Sultan, chase out the occupying nations and create modern Turkey.

I believe that the Turks honestly considered this argument as a continuation of the West's policy... and most still seem to see it that way today.

If we use a broad term for genocide (ie, killing a huge number of people of a ethnic group) then absolutely it was genocide. So was what all the other nations were involved in. If we use the technical UN definition accepted by the international community, the evidence is not so clear.

Were I in charge, I would just say "OK, sure, genocide... lets get over this embarrassing part of our history"... but I'm not a Turk and Turkish pride means you have to prove they're wrong before they admit it.

Back to the main point of this discussion which brought up this topic. I think its absurd that Pamuk was stripped of his citizenship and kicked out of the country for writing a book. It was an absolute restriction on free speech. However, it was done while the military conspiracy was controlling things... once they had been removed, his books went back into publication and you can buy them today (I almost picked up a copy last week in fact...).

ETA:

I will also agree that the Ottoman government was guilty of incompetence and failing to protect their citizens. In areas where the Armenians  suffered the worst, the government protection was slim (two guards for thousands of Armenians). In those areas, local tribal groups attacked and killed many. These tribes are the ones who suffered high casualties from the Armenians when the Russian army had invaded all the way into the city of Van. The government should have realized that the locals would seize on an opportunity to exact revenge and sent more protection.

It's also obvious from the communications to the soldiers that they were to 'protect' the Armenians during the relocation. However, the details, necessary support and resources required weren't made available which led to most of the Armenians dying due to disease, starvation and exposure.

On the other hand, in the western areas that weren't a warzone, there is no debate over the treatment of the Armenians. They weren't attacked, rounded up and their churches remained open through the wars. If we compare this to Germany an indisputable genocide, Jews in any area under their control were rounded up, all synagogues were destroyed or defiled.

Also it is indisputable that in the Anatoila region around 50% of the Armenian population died. During this same conflict, around 60% of the Muslim population were killed. This included the muslims that were forcibly relocated from areas Russia controlled (forcibly relocated by Russians and Armenians). By the end of the conflict, almost all of the Muslim and Armenian population in Anatolia were refugees

-------------
I had, before my move to Turkey assumed the Armenian genocide was fact. After coming here and debating the issue I read a number of books on the subject as well as extensive Googling. In the end, I don't feel confident calling it a genocide, based on the arguments I've presented here. I cannot say that it wasn't genocide. There could have been secret orders that have never been made public (though the current government has opened all archives on the subject). However, for me, I think the evidence has provided a level of doubt. At the least, it has changed my view that the Armenians were a peaceful people that were killed simply because of their ethnic and religious heritage.

Nigel, if you, or anyone else here has references that you used to form you opinion, I'd love to review those as well. I by no means think I know it all, there's tons of writings on this subject... a lot of which contradicts each other or relies on/doesn't rely on the broader circumstances of the event.

------------

Sidenote: Also, thanks to everyone on the original topic. After months in a country where 'some' speech was blocked, I'd come doubt my view that only completely free speech is acceptable. This discussion helped me reaffirm my view.

[Doktor Howl]

At the least, it has changed my view that the Armenians were a peaceful people that were killed simply because of their ethnic and religious heritage.

2/3rds of them deserved it?

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

At the least, it has changed my view that the Armenians were a peaceful people that were killed simply because of their ethnic and religious heritage.

2/3rds of them deserved it?

Not at all. No one deserves it. However, the armenians were actively at war with the Turks, supporting a Russian invasion after engaging in Christian on Muslim violence and wiping out entire cities of Muslims. Unlike the Jews in Germany and Europe, who weren't doing anything against the government, these people had attacked government troops and local civilians multiple times... ergo not 'peaceful' and the deaths appear far more likely to be related to the military action, rather than their ethnic heritage.

I had not realized that before. I certainly hadn't realized that both sides were guilty of war crimes.

[Triple Zero]

Fine, so it's murderous ethnic cleansing, which fits the definition exactly:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_cleansing

An earlier draft by the Commission of Experts described ethnic cleansing as "the planned deliberate removal from a specific territory, persons of a particular ethnic group, by force or intimidation, in order to render that area ethnically homogenous." (...) 'ethnic cleansing' has been carried out by means of murder, torture, arbitrary arrest and detention, extra-judicial executions, rape and sexual assaults, confinement of civilian population in ghetto areas, forcible removal, displacement and deportation of civilian population, deliberate military attacks or threats of attacks on civilians and civilian areas, and wanton destruction of property. Those practices constitute crimes against humanity and can be assimilated to specific war crimes. Furthermore, such acts could also fall within the meaning of the Genocide Convention".

Ethnic cleansing is not to be confused with genocide. These terms are not synonymous, yet the academic discourse considers both as existing in a spectrum of assaults on nations or religio-ethnic groups. Ethnic cleansing is similar to forced deportation or 'population transfer' whereas genocide is the "intentional murder of part or all of a particular ethnic, religious, or national group."[3] The idea in ethnic cleansing is "to get people to move, and the means used to this end range from the legal to the semi-legal."[4] Some academics consider genocide as a subset of "murderous ethnic cleansing."[5] Thus, these concepts are different, but related, "literally and figuratively, ethnic cleansing bleeds into genocide, as mass murder is committed in order to rid the land of a people."[6]

Murderous Ethnic Cleansing:
Murdering a race or religion in order to get rid of them in a certain area.

Genocide:
Murdering a race or religion in order to get rid of the race or religion.


They're both considered crimes against humanity.

The difference also seems somewhat academic to me. And many academics even argue that the difference is not even that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide#Study_of_the_Armenian_Genocide



So anyway, can you argue it's murderous ethnic cleansing, then? And I don't mean if you, Rat, agree with the term (because if you don't you might need to reboot your brainlogic circuits), but rather if it's allowed to argue this in Turkey?