On Bruises, Beauties, and Makeup

[Gavur]

Parents of Kurdish activist killed

3/4/2006 KurdishMedia.com - By Vladimir van Wilgenburg
London (KurdishMedia.com) 04 March 2006: On 2 March 2006, the parents of the chairmen of the Kurdish Institute Brussels, Ferho & Fatim Akgül were killed by special assassins and village guards in the village Mizizah (near Merdin) in North-Kurdistan. According to the Kurdish institute, they were killed because of the “anti-Turkish”
activities of their son Derwich Ferho.

The aged couple were threatened for at least a month by the Turkish authorities. They were told, that their sons Medeni Akgül and also Derwich M. Ferho had to stop with their anti-Kurdish activities. Ferho is fighting for the rights of Kurds for several years.

The aged persons were killed on a horrible way, by special trained teams and local village guards.

The Kurdish institute concludes that the Turkish authorities aren’t planning to live in peace with Kurds, but to continue to oppress the Kurdish people.

Kurdish Institute

[imported_RUDO]

Yes ,Turks' aim for Kurds is clear.They think like Young Turks.They are assimilating,oppressing and killing Kurds.

[Gavur]

The very same people that control Turkey today was controlling it when they became a Republic

"HOW HAPPY THE ONE CALLS HIMSELF TURK"

so his existence is converted and spared

[imported_RUDO]

How Sad The One Calls Himself Turk

The very same people that control Turkey today was controlling it when they became a Republic

"HOW HAPPY THE ONE CALLS HIMSELF TURK"

so his existence is converted and spared

Yes!!!
I think todayTurks should say:'How Sad The One Calls Himself Turk'

[Gavur]

'No evidence' proving death squad killed Kurd's parents

13 March 2006

BRUSSELS — A report from the Belgian ambassador in Turkey has poured cold water on suspicions that the death of the parents of Kurdish activist Derwish Ferho was the work of a death squad.

The confidential report has been handed over to Foreign Minister Karel De Gucht who has confirmed its findings to newspaper 'De Morgen'.

De Gucht had previously criticised Flemish Foreign Minister Geert Bourgeois for suggesting that the murder of Derwish Ferho's parents could be a form of state terror. Bourgeois had demanded an investigation.

Ferho — who fled Turkey years ago as a political refugee — is the head of the Kurdish Institute in Brussels. It was feared that the violent death

of his parents might have been in retaliation for his activist work.

However, the Belgian ambassador in Turkey suspects the murders were the work of local village guards. The embassy also stressed that Turkey has made good progress on human rights in recent years.

One of the embassy's workers visited the Kurdish region of Turkey where the murders took place and spoke with the opposition party DTP. The DTP also raised doubts about the possibility that a state-backed death squad carried out the killings.

The 85-year-old Ferho and 81-year-old Fatim Akgül were brutally killed at the start of March in the village of Mizizah, in Turkish Kurdistan.

The Kurdish Institute in Brussels then claimed the couple was killed by death squads linked to the Turkish Interior Ministry and local security services in retaliation for the "anti-Turkish activities" of their two sons, who fled to Belgium years ago as political refugees.

But the report said: "There is little reason to believe that the murder was the work of a death squad, such as Ferho hinted at".

[Gavur]

US report: Torture in Turkey declines, but remains widespread

http://www.info-turk.be/#FULL

During the year 2005 there were improvements in Turkey in a number of areas related to human rights; however, serious problems remain, according to the U.S. State Department. The U.S. State Department's Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor on Wednesday released its "2005 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices." ( http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2005/61680.htm )

The Turkish government generally respected the human rights of its citizens, the report asserted, while listing many issues that were considered as currently ongoing serious problems. Although Turkish law prohibits such practices, members of the security forces continued to torture, beat and otherwise abuse people, the report said.

The Turkey section of the new 2005 international human right report, unlike the previous report, did not emphasize religious freedom.

The report criticized both the Turkish media and Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan from the standpoint of freedom of expression. "Journalists practice self-censorship" in 2005, it said. "Most media were privately owned by large holding companies that had a wide range of outside business interests; the concentration of media ownership influenced the content of reporting and limited the scope of debate."

The criticism of Erdogan concerned his intolerance towards media critics and cartoons published against him or his performance. A long list was given by the report of the lawsuits filed by the prime minister against some media members or organizations, including cartoonist Musa Kart for drawing Erdogan as a cat.

"The government generally respected the human rights of its citizens; although there were improvements in a number of areas, serious problems remained," said the report.

It listed the main human rights problems as follows:

Unlawful killings -- "The government or its agents did not commit any politically motivated killings; however, security forces killed a number of persons, particularly in the southeast and east, for allegedly failing to obey stop warnings," said the report. "The courts investigated most alleged unlawful killings by security forces; however, the number of arrests and prosecutions in such cases remained low compared with the number of incidents, and convictions remained rare."

Torture, beatings, and other abuses of persons by security forces -- According to the report, although law prohibits such practices; members of the security forces continued to torture, beat, and otherwise abuse persons regularly. "Incidents of torture and abuse declined during the year but remained widespread. Courts rarely convicted security officials accused of torture and tended to issue light sentences when they did convict," it stated. And it also listed the "methods" of torture still used by security forces as follow: "Security officials mainly used torture methods that did not leave physical signs, including repeated slapping, exposure to cold, stripping and blindfolding, food and sleep deprivation, threats to detainees or family members, dripping water on the head, isolation, and mock executions. They reported the near elimination of more severe methods, such as electric shocks, high-pressure cold water hoses, rape, beatings on the soles of the feet and genitalia, hanging by the arms, and burns."

Poor prison conditions -- Conditions in many prisons remained poor, according to the report. "Underfunding, overcrowding, and insufficient staff training were problems," it said, underlining that some observers reported that the government made significant improvements in the food provided in the prisons, although there was a lack of potable water in some facilities.

Arbitrary detention -- Although the law prohibits arbitrary arrest and detention, the government at times did not observe these prohibitions, according to the report. The report also criticized the civil defense force known as village guards, mainly used in the southeastern part of the country, as being less professional and disciplined than other security forces. "The village guards were accused repeatedly of drug trafficking, rape, corruption, theft, and other human rights abuses. Inadequate oversight and compensation contributed to this problem, and in some cases Jandarma [gendarmerie] allegedly protected village guards from prosecution," said the report. It added that courts investigated many allegations of abuse and torture by security forces during the year, but rarely convicted or punished offenders.

"When courts did convict offenders, punishment generally was minimal and sentences were sometimes suspended. Authorities typically allowed officers accused of abuse to remain on duty and, in some cases, promoted them during their trial, which often took years." I

Lengthy pretrial detention -- Underlining that lengthy pretrial detention was a problem, the report said: "The law provides detainees the right to request speedy arraignment and trial; however, judges have ordered that some suspects be detained indefinitely, at times for years."

Excessively long trials -- According to the report, the law provides for an independent judiciary, however, the judiciary was sometimes subject to outside influence. "There were allegations of judicial corruption," it said. "The law prohibits the government from issuing orders or recommendations concerning the exercise of judicial power; however, the government and the National Security Council (MGK) periodically issued announcements or directives about threats to the government, which could be interpreted as general directions to the judiciary." The report also underlined the criticisms against the High Council of Judges and Prosecutors, where the justice minister serves as chairman.

Restrictions on freedoms of speech, press, assembly, and association -- Although the law provides for freedom of speech and of the press, the government continued to limit these freedoms in some cases, according to the report. "The government, particularly the police and judiciary, limited freedom of expression through the use of constitutional restrictions and numerous laws, including articles of the penal code prohibiting insults to the government, the state, 'Turkish identity,' or the institutions and symbols of the republic. Other laws, such as the Anti-Terror Law and laws governing the press and elections, also restrict speech," it said.

Restrictions on religious freedom -- Unlike the previous year"s report, the U.S State Department report did not emphasize religious freedom. But it still criticized some practices of the Turkish government restricting religious freedom. The law provides for freedom of religion, and the government generally respected this right in practice," it said. But some groups, particularly Alevis, claimed that the Religious Affairs Directorate reflected mainstream Sunni Islamic beliefs to the exclusion of other beliefs, according to the report.

Another interesting note from the report was about the religious-social orders and lodges in Turkey. "Although they were banned officially since the mid 1920s, religious-social orders and lodges remained active and widespread," the report said. "Some prominent political and social leaders continued to associate with religious-social orders, lodges, and other Islamic societies."

The report reiterated that the Turkish government did not recognize the ecumenical status of the Fener Greek patriarch, acknowledging him only as the head of the country's dwindling Greek Orthodox community. "Under existing restrictions, religious communities other than Sunni Muslims cannot legally train new clergy in the country for eventual leadership," said the report, underlining that the government did not allow the reopening of the Halki seminary on Heybeli island.

The report also criticized the Turkish media for featuring anti-Christian and anti-Jewish messages. "ATV broadcast a report in January mixing coverage of a Protestant church with footage of a sex cult," the report said. "In May the Islamist daily Yeni Safak published an interview with a person who claimed missionaries were using hypnosis to convert Muslims."

Trafficking in persons -- Although the law prohibits trafficking in persons, there were reports of trafficking in women and children to, from, and within the country for the purpose of sexual exploitation, according to the report. "There were allegations that police corruption at all levels contributed to the trafficking problem," it said.

The report also focused on violence and discrimination against women, underlining that "honor" killings remained a problem. It also talked about child abuse and widespread child labor. (TDN -TNA, March 10, 2006)

[Gavur]

Regular, old fashioned, garden-variety fascism

Sunday, April 9, 2006






Elif ŞAFAK

http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/editorial.php?ed=elif_safak

I get into the taxi at the height of rush hour. With the trip long and the traffic snarled, we lapse into conversation. The conversation deepens, first just talking about this and that, then moving on to politics and politicians. Like all Turks, we ask, 'What on earth will happen with this country?' and then, answering our own question, jabber away as we move along.

Elif Şafak
I get into the taxi at the height of rush hour. With the trip long and the traffic snarled, we lapse into conversation. The conversation deepens, first just talking about this and that, then moving on to politics and politicians. Like all Turks, we ask, "What on earth will happen with this country?" and then, answering our own question, jabber away as we move along. He is an Istanbul taxi driver, in his mid-50s, talkative and mirthful. He tells three jokes in a row, all about his own mother-in-law. He is full of complaints about this mother-in-law of his -- 30 years married and he's still not used to her. This taxi driver has perfected the art of exaggeration. He is literally one of the most jovial people I have ever seen. Full of wisecracks, clearly very clever. And in a way, naive. He is not angry with the system but with the leaders. He questions not organizations themselves but the people who lead them. The taxi driver tells me he lived in Germany for 20 years and then returned to Turkey. He also tells me his oldest son is still there, though, soon to marry a young Turkish bride brought in from the village, no less. An arranged marriage. The girl was to board a flight from Trabzon and fly out to wed her groom in Frankfurt. I can imagine it all: a young Turkish girl, newly emerged from the village, on a plane headed to Germany to meet with her betrothed, a man she barely knows, if at all. I ask the taxi driver about his soon-to-be daughter-in-law: "Won't it be difficult for her?" He replies, "No, it's better this way. Innocent village girls are honorable. Once they open up their eyes to the world, that's when the trouble starts. Do you really think any honor remains in those girls whose eyes are open to world?" How recklessly, how sloppily males like to use this word "honor" to judge others. Never to judge other males, though, only females. Men sometimes divide women into two groups, "those with honor" and "those without honor," as though they are in possession of some magic formula that allows them to measure the varying degrees of honor present in each woman. "Back in the place I'm from, honor is the most valued thing," says the taxi driver. It's hard to figure out what he means by this phrase, "back in the place where I'm from." Is he referring to Trabzon, the place of his roots to which he has not been for years? Or to Istanbul, where he lives now? Or Frankfurt, where he lived for years and to where he is about to send out a new bride? Where exactly is this “place where I'm from,” anyway? "Whenever I see a mistake, I'm the first to clean it up," says the taxi driver suddenly. I have him repeat the sentence as I didn't really hear it the first time round. All at once I feel chilled. The hairs on my arms stand on end. I realized he was talking about his new bride and about his daughter. He says that, in the future, if he catches any "mistakes" on their parts, he would use the pistol he keeps at home without any hesitation. To clean up the stained honor. This man lives in a world where abstract and subjective concepts are more important than physical lives. And suddenly, that jovial, jolly taxi driver disappears before my eyes, replaced by a man who could, at any moment, carry out an honor killing. The turning point is... well, actually, everything is connected, there is really no turning point. Fascism is in that way such a regular old thing. It is a part of daily life, tucked into its nooks and crannies. It is practiced not by characters that we see in conspiracy films, making their evil plans behind closed doors, but instead by truly good-hearted, completely normal and recognizable sorts. These regular people live without questioning the truths that are presented to them, this tyranny of their very own creation. It's just regular, old fashioned, garden-variety fascism.

[Gavur]

Mark Thomas refuses to ignore the problem of Turkey

Columnists
Mark Thomas
Monday 24th April 2006

http://www.newstatesman.com/nssubsfilter.php3?newTemplate=NSArticle_NS&newDisplayURN=200604240014

There is one EU problem that is resolutely not going away and will only get worse: that is, Turkey's membership, writes Mark Thomas

For some in Britain, slagging off the European Union (something I am about to do for the next 900 words) is an instinctive act of patriotic faith, akin to not knowing the second verse of the National Anthem. For many of us, the EU remains a quasi-democratic institution in search of an electorate. Quite tellingly, we tend to see the EU not so much as a vehicle for change as a means of registering a protest vote. Remember Robert Kilroy-Silk? Who can forget a tan like that? Britons loved him so much that we voted for him to leave the country five days a week, to spend that time in a place he says he despises.

The EU has become adept at dealing with its many problems and crises. By which I mean it ignores them and hopes they will go away. The EU constitution is a case in point. However, there is one problem that is resolutely not going away and is going to get worse: that is, Turkey's membership. The patrician consensus is that Turkey joining would be a jolly good thing as having a Muslim state in the EU would bring all sorts of benefits. However, Turkey's membership is dependent on the country introducing significant reforms - including many in the area of minorities' rights, eradicating the role of the military in the running of the state and bringing democratic procedures into the institutions of the country.

So far, Turkey has failed to come up to scratch, but more importantly the EU has allowed this situation to continue. The deal was this: Turkey is allowed into the EU but the EU gets to monitor and investigate human-rights abuses and pressurise Turkey to reform. Neither side has kept to the deal.

The Kurdish region of Turkey has suffered a steep rise in violence over the past weeks, with a huge deployment of troops against the civilian population. The Turkish police and military have attacked demonstrators using tear gas, batons, tanks and other lethal weapons. The Kurdish cities have seen a de facto return to state-of-emergency rule. Significant numbers of Kurdish trade unionists, human-rights defenders and political activists have been imprisoned, many of them shot and wounded by troops. Across the Kurdish region, at least 15 people have died, including three children, aged three, six and nine. Reports from human-rights defenders state that some of those killed were shot in the head at close range, suggesting execution.

The mayor of Diyarbakir, who tried to mediate between the authorities and protesters, has been physically attacked by the military, which has called for his suspension. And democratic Kurdish parties are being raided and their members imprisoned. How did it return to this so quickly?

The events that led to this escalation started with the funeral, on 28 March, of four PKK guerrillas, attended by a crowd of between 20,000 and 30,000 Kurds. After provocation from the local police, mourners clashed with the authorities and troops were called in.

However, the real motor at work has been the failure of the Turkish state to work with the Kurds to take advantage of the PKK ceasefire. Ankara has refused to negotiate. "We will not talk to terrorists," the prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, declares. And he has done so with the backing of the EU. Instead of urging dialogue, the EU has followed the UK and the United States in proscribing the PKK, even though it announced a ceasefire and formally renounced violence. Just about every attempt by grass-roots Kurdish groups to form inclusive democratic movements has been regarded by the EU and the UK as merely another group to add to the list of terrorist organisations. At the same time, unemployment, poverty and political stagnation have fuelled the clashes between Kurds and the Turkish state.

With the region threatening to return to the bad old days of the mid-1990s, when 3,500 Kurdish villages were destroyed, 30,000 people killed and over a million Kurds internally displaced, the EU simply has to intervene. If the deal is that Turkey gets to join if it respects minority rights and introduces democracy to the institutions of the state, what happens if it breaks the deal? At the moment, the penalty is . . . nothing.



The British media tend to regard Turkey through the lens of bird flu and the occasional bomb, though in tabloid terms Turkey is strictly sick chickens. Occasionally, the broadsheets will rally round a cause célèbres, such as the case of the internationally renowned writer Orhan Pamuk. When he was threatened with prison for mentioning the Armenian genocide, the literary world rushed to his defence. But the trouble with causes célèbres is that once the celeb has gone, little attention remains on the cause.

It is doubtful that Eren Keskin will get the same press attention. Keskin was the founder of the Legal Aid Office for the Victims of Sexual Harassment and Rape in Custody. When I met her in 2001, her Istanbul office was cramped and insalubrious. She talked about how Kurdish women had to endure sexual harassment and rape at the hands of the Turkish authorities. In 2002, she gave a lecture in Germany describing her work and the horrific scale of rape in custody in Turkey. For daring to speak about this, she was put on trial back home. This year, she was sentenced to ten months for the crime of "insulting the moral character of the military".

[Gavur]

Making sense of irrationality: nationalism in Turkey and its opposite

Sunday, April 30, 2006

http://www.turkishdailynews.co.tr/editorial.php?ed=elif_safak

Elif ŞAFAK





These days the Turkish media is assiduously discussing an academic survey which came up with an announcement that took almost no one by surprise: that nationalism was becoming more vocal and visible in Turkey.

Elif Şafak
These days the Turkish media is assiduously discussing an academic survey which came up with an announcement that took almost no one by surprise: that nationalism was becoming more vocal and visible in Turkey. T

he survey was carried out by one of the most prominent universities in the country in collaboration with a popular weekly magazine that had set its sights on answering a fundamental question: Quo vadimus? Is Turkish nationalism on the rise? When the research results poured in, it looked like the answer was “Yes, indeed.” Fully 53 percent of the respondents had stated that they were proud to be Turks while an additional 30 percent of the people were "very proud" of the same fact. Being “patriotic” and “nationalist” were in high demand. When asked to name the things that were out of tune with an ideal Turkishness, 45 percent said “atheism,” while 23 percent answered “homosexuality.” Overall, the survey demonstrated that not only homophobia runs deep in Turkish society but that also nationalism and sexism make a perfect match. Fervent nationalists tend to be fervent homophobics.

The crux of the debate in Turkish society and the media today revolves around the notion of identity. When asked if they were in favor of joining the EU, a whooping majority of Turks wholeheartedly say “Yes!” Yet at the same time, a considerable amount of people harbor deep suspicions about the intentions of European politicians and fear they might destroy Turkish culture and traditions. The European Union is both pined for and distrusted. After all, we are used to conflicts. Making opposites marry -- even if it is not a happy marriage -- is perhaps the most characteristic basic tenet of Turkish identity. No wonder a strikingly high percentage of respondents stated that they see the present-day nation-state as the successor to the Ottoman Empire and yet at the same time they tend to start national history in 1923 and thereby have a sense of chronological rupture. Collective amnesia creates a sense of historical vacuum. We effortlessly believe that we are the heirs to the great Ottomans, but we have nothing to do with them or their mistakes. This schizophrenia impedes coming to terms with the past, not to mention the difficulty of facing the atrocities of the past. We think it is perfectly possible to hate and love something/someone in the same breath, just as it is possible to be “A” and “non-A” at the same time. Underlying this unique cultural amalgamation, which might seem quite “baffling” to outsiders but is only “standard” to us, is a central question -- a question, to be perfectly honest, we Turks do not like to be asked too often: Who exactly are the Turks? Are we a Western society and if so, why do the Europeans treat us like a different species? Are we Middle Easterners and if so, why do we feel so aloof to their ways? Are we the symbol of "in-between-dom" and if so, in today's increasingly polarized world is it possible to take up one's abode in a threshold? The thresholds, after all, are culturally believed to be the domain of the djinni. Old women believe they are no good for human beings. Then the question that hovers over the heads of numerous Turks becomes: “Do we have to make a choice between Westerness and Easterness once and for all? Can't we just keep being equally pro-European Union and suspicious of the Europeans? Can't we just have a pro-nationalist ideology and yet at the same time yearn to transcend the boundaries of the nation-state? Can't we carry on with this deep homophobia and at the same time wholeheartedly keep welcoming all these Turkish popular icons who are visibly, openly, homosexual or transsexual? We are a society of quite irrational fusions that oftentimes defy academic explanations and expectations made by positivistic scholars. And deep inside we ponder: Can't we just stay happily situated in this unreasonable synthesis of ours?” These are the questions no survey heretofore has been able to answer for us.

[Joseph]

Sunday, April 30, 2006

http://www.turkishdailynews.co.tr/editorial.php?ed=elif_safak

Elif S¸AFAK





These days the Turkish media is assiduously discussing an academic survey which came up with an announcement that took almost no one by surprise: that nationalism was becoming more vocal and visible in Turkey.

Elif S¸afak
These days the Turkish media is assiduously discussing an academic survey which came up with an announcement that took almost no one by surprise: that nationalism was becoming more vocal and visible in Turkey. T

he survey was carried out by one of the most prominent universities in the country in collaboration with a popular weekly magazine that had set its sights on answering a fundamental question: Quo vadimus? Is Turkish nationalism on the rise? When the research results poured in, it looked like the answer was “Yes, indeed.” Fully 53 percent of the respondents had stated that they were proud to be Turks while an additional 30 percent of the people were "very proud" of the same fact. Being “patriotic” and “nationalist” were in high demand. When asked to name the things that were out of tune with an ideal Turkishness, 45 percent said “atheism,” while 23 percent answered “homosexuality.” Overall, the survey demonstrated that not only homophobia runs deep in Turkish society but that also nationalism and sexism make a perfect match. Fervent nationalists tend to be fervent homophobics.

The crux of the debate in Turkish society and the media today revolves around the notion of identity. When asked if they were in favor of joining the EU, a whooping majority of Turks wholeheartedly say “Yes!” Yet at the same time, a considerable amount of people harbor deep suspicions about the intentions of European politicians and fear they might destroy Turkish culture and traditions. The European Union is both pined for and distrusted. After all, we are used to conflicts. Making opposites marry -- even if it is not a happy marriage -- is perhaps the most characteristic basic tenet of Turkish identity. No wonder a strikingly high percentage of respondents stated that they see the present-day nation-state as the successor to the Ottoman Empire and yet at the same time they tend to start national history in 1923 and thereby have a sense of chronological rupture. Collective amnesia creates a sense of historical vacuum. We effortlessly believe that we are the heirs to the great Ottomans, but we have nothing to do with them or their mistakes. This schizophrenia impedes coming to terms with the past, not to mention the difficulty of facing the atrocities of the past. We think it is perfectly possible to hate and love something/someone in the same breath, just as it is possible to be “A” and “non-A” at the same time. Underlying this unique cultural amalgamation, which might seem quite “baffling” to outsiders but is only “standard” to us, is a central question -- a question, to be perfectly honest, we Turks do not like to be asked too often: Who exactly are the Turks? Are we a Western society and if so, why do the Europeans treat us like a different species? Are we Middle Easterners and if so, why do we feel so aloof to their ways? Are we the symbol of "in-between-dom" and if so, in today's increasingly polarized world is it possible to take up one's abode in a threshold? The thresholds, after all, are culturally believed to be the domain of the djinni. Old women believe they are no good for human beings. Then the question that hovers over the heads of numerous Turks becomes: “Do we have to make a choice between Westerness and Easterness once and for all? Can't we just keep being equally pro-European Union and suspicious of the Europeans? Can't we just have a pro-nationalist ideology and yet at the same time yearn to transcend the boundaries of the nation-state? Can't we carry on with this deep homophobia and at the same time wholeheartedly keep welcoming all these Turkish popular icons who are visibly, openly, homosexual or transsexual? We are a society of quite irrational fusions that oftentimes defy academic explanations and expectations made by positivistic scholars. And deep inside we ponder: Can't we just stay happily situated in this unreasonable synthesis of ours?” These are the questions no survey heretofore has been able to answer for us.

"What am I to make of a country [Turkey] that insists that the Turks, unlike their Western neighbors, are a compassionate people, incapable of genocide, while nationalist political groups are pelting me with death threats?"

- Orhan Pamuk,
The New Yorker, page 34
19 December 2005