Tweet
By Dr Rebwar Fatah
KurdishMedia.com
4/7/2006
It has become Turkish logic that every Kurd is a potential
terrorist. Under the Turkish regime, Kurds are now put in an impossible
position. A citizen of Turkey must have Turkish blood. Therefore a
Kurd in Turkey cannot be called a citizen. However, refusing to become
"Turkish" (when one is Kurdish) instantly makes one a "separatist":
a term often used to describe "terrorists".
Hence Turkey no longer bothers to distinguish between "Kurds" and
"terrorists".
So I must declare that I am a "terrorist" as I am a staunch believer in
the establishment of a Kurdish state in Northern Kurdistan. And I have
no doubt many of you are also 'terrorists' under this Turkish logic.
And now the Turkish Prime Minster has labelled Kurdish women and
children pawns of terrorists. "Our security will make the necessary
intervention against those who have become the pawns of terrorism,
even if they are children or women," said Recep Tayyip Erdogan.
The Turkish definition of 'terrorist' expands to all aspects of Kurdish
and Kurdistani life, and has recently been taken to a new extreme. The
Turkish government have changed the names of three animals found on its
territory to remove references to Kurdistan or Armenia. The ministry
said the old names were contrary to Turkish unity. Are we to suppose
that a red fox, formerly known as the Vulpes Vulpes Kurdistanica and
now known simply as Vulpes Vulpes, is a terrorist threat too?
In a word, yes. Some Turkish officials say the names are being used
to argue that Kurds had lived in the areas where the animals were
found. So the Turkish government have changed these animal's names
because they are separatists.
Turkey believes that many old names were contrary to Turkish unity, "
Unfortunately there are many other species in Turkey which were named
this way with ill intentions. This ill intent is so obvious that even
species only found in our country were given names against Turkey's
unity," said a statement made by the Turkish Environment Ministry.
These simple examples show how insecure the Turks are, and perhaps they
have reason to be. After all, Turkey has been built on the foundations
of Kurds, Armenians and Greeks. And any form of rebellion is met with
instant oppression. A Kurdish youth was recently crushed to death
by an armoured Turkish vehicle. Turkish Security went on to kill 16
Kurds and arrest hundreds more. Are we really to believe that this
is based solely on Turkey's fear all Kurds are potential terrorists?
In his recent visit the United Nations, Special Rapporteur observed
that, " the definition of terrorism as contained in article 1 of
the Anti-Terror Act of 1991, which defines terrorism based on its
purpose or aims rather than referring to specific criminal acts,
is formulated vaguely and in very broad terms."
The question boils down to this: who is a terrorist?
The Special Rapporteur stated, "It therefore raises concerns in
respect of the principle of legality as prescribed in article 15 of
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR),
a provision that allows for no derogation even during states of
emergency. When applied in conjunction with other provisions of
the Act, this definition of terrorism may result in prosecution and
conviction in cases where the individual concerned is not personally
linked to any terrorist acts properly defined, i.e. acts of deadly or
otherwise grave violence against persons, or the taking of hostages,
in the furtherance of aims covered by the international understanding
of 'terrorism'."
Turkey argue that they legislated terrorism laws to combat
international terror. The UN Special Rapporteur does not think so. "The
Anti-Terror Act of 1991 does not meet the requirements of international
conventions in the fight against terrorism. Not all specific forms
of international terrorism, as defined in these conventions, are
covered by article 1 of the Act, which was drafted at a different
time in response to domestic needs. Whereas the Special Rapporteur
received indications that the 1991 Act was being reconsidered, he
was unable to obtain specific information about the review and the
relevant timelines."
So who are the terrorists in Turkey? The Turkish Prime Minister has
the answer.
They are Kurdish women and children. Or foxes.
My thanks to Chris Lacey.
KurdishMedia.com
4/7/2006
It has become Turkish logic that every Kurd is a potential
terrorist. Under the Turkish regime, Kurds are now put in an impossible
position. A citizen of Turkey must have Turkish blood. Therefore a
Kurd in Turkey cannot be called a citizen. However, refusing to become
"Turkish" (when one is Kurdish) instantly makes one a "separatist":
a term often used to describe "terrorists".
Hence Turkey no longer bothers to distinguish between "Kurds" and
"terrorists".
So I must declare that I am a "terrorist" as I am a staunch believer in
the establishment of a Kurdish state in Northern Kurdistan. And I have
no doubt many of you are also 'terrorists' under this Turkish logic.
And now the Turkish Prime Minster has labelled Kurdish women and
children pawns of terrorists. "Our security will make the necessary
intervention against those who have become the pawns of terrorism,
even if they are children or women," said Recep Tayyip Erdogan.
The Turkish definition of 'terrorist' expands to all aspects of Kurdish
and Kurdistani life, and has recently been taken to a new extreme. The
Turkish government have changed the names of three animals found on its
territory to remove references to Kurdistan or Armenia. The ministry
said the old names were contrary to Turkish unity. Are we to suppose
that a red fox, formerly known as the Vulpes Vulpes Kurdistanica and
now known simply as Vulpes Vulpes, is a terrorist threat too?
In a word, yes. Some Turkish officials say the names are being used
to argue that Kurds had lived in the areas where the animals were
found. So the Turkish government have changed these animal's names
because they are separatists.
Turkey believes that many old names were contrary to Turkish unity, "
Unfortunately there are many other species in Turkey which were named
this way with ill intentions. This ill intent is so obvious that even
species only found in our country were given names against Turkey's
unity," said a statement made by the Turkish Environment Ministry.
These simple examples show how insecure the Turks are, and perhaps they
have reason to be. After all, Turkey has been built on the foundations
of Kurds, Armenians and Greeks. And any form of rebellion is met with
instant oppression. A Kurdish youth was recently crushed to death
by an armoured Turkish vehicle. Turkish Security went on to kill 16
Kurds and arrest hundreds more. Are we really to believe that this
is based solely on Turkey's fear all Kurds are potential terrorists?
In his recent visit the United Nations, Special Rapporteur observed
that, " the definition of terrorism as contained in article 1 of
the Anti-Terror Act of 1991, which defines terrorism based on its
purpose or aims rather than referring to specific criminal acts,
is formulated vaguely and in very broad terms."
The question boils down to this: who is a terrorist?
The Special Rapporteur stated, "It therefore raises concerns in
respect of the principle of legality as prescribed in article 15 of
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR),
a provision that allows for no derogation even during states of
emergency. When applied in conjunction with other provisions of
the Act, this definition of terrorism may result in prosecution and
conviction in cases where the individual concerned is not personally
linked to any terrorist acts properly defined, i.e. acts of deadly or
otherwise grave violence against persons, or the taking of hostages,
in the furtherance of aims covered by the international understanding
of 'terrorism'."
Turkey argue that they legislated terrorism laws to combat
international terror. The UN Special Rapporteur does not think so. "The
Anti-Terror Act of 1991 does not meet the requirements of international
conventions in the fight against terrorism. Not all specific forms
of international terrorism, as defined in these conventions, are
covered by article 1 of the Act, which was drafted at a different
time in response to domestic needs. Whereas the Special Rapporteur
received indications that the 1991 Act was being reconsidered, he
was unable to obtain specific information about the review and the
relevant timelines."
So who are the terrorists in Turkey? The Turkish Prime Minister has
the answer.
They are Kurdish women and children. Or foxes.
My thanks to Chris Lacey.
Comment