I wasn't really paying attention so I missed the fact that The TurkEU Blog passed 10 000 views a few days ago! Thanks for visiting and come back often!
 |
| Screenshot from 10/16/2011 |
Sunday, October 16, 2011
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Armenia row hits Turkish-French relations | EurActiv
.jpg) |
| French President Nicolas Sarkozy. |
The EurActiv article has links to other sources on the issue.
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
For Europe, a Bridge Too Far to Turkey | NYTimes.com
I never blogged about this NYT article by John Vinocur, though I spotted it a little over a week ago. Perhaps because it rather annoyed me. In fact, I am disturbed by the very opening sentence:
And with that skeptical opening, Turkey's "turning away" from the EU becomes quite a natural return to an equilibrium:
Admittedly, I am not really doing Vinocur justice, so you should read the piece for yourselves. It has more going for it that I am letting on and there's good reason to be critical of Erdoğan's administration in many respects. If nothing else, the article is worth reading because it is indicative of the emerging consensus around an increasingly pessimistic view of Turkey's EU membership prospects and around the "going East" narrative.
I also understand that it is hard to write sophisticated and nuanced analyses under the kind of time-pressure that correspondents face (but the same goes for bloggers who have full time jobs so I guess that would excuse my one-sided reading of the piece).
Regardless, I can't help but be annoyed. Some historical perspective on the issue would serve Vinocur well.
For Europe, a Bridge Too Far to Turkey - NYTimes.com
There was always, at least for its critics, something preposterous about the idea of Turkey entering the European Union.
It meant, in their eyes, Europe literally extending its frontiers to the borders of Iran, Syria and Iraq, and the E.U. adding to its membership a predominantly Muslim country whose population would soon give it the biggest number of seats in the European Parliament.Sure, Vinocur is just conveying what Turkey's critics have been saying, but he doesn't seem very eager to examine these assumptions critically.
And with that skeptical opening, Turkey's "turning away" from the EU becomes quite a natural return to an equilibrium:
Turkey’s new stance gives Europe (with Germany and France opposing full Turkish membership) a respectable alibi and respite from an issue it cannot easily solve. But in the process, the door closes on the goal of integrating Turkey into a European-led geopolitical and economic order.Here, Vinocur does sound vaguely critical, but then, apparently, the blame can be placed rather easily in one corner:
it is the Turks who are forcing the E.U. to turn away from its candidacy.Given a) that the idea of Turkish EU membership was apparently always preposterous, b) that this is now prospect is now apparently dead, and c) that it is apparently only Turkey's fault that this is so, Vinocur continues:
“The majority of Europe welcomes the moment, thinking, ‘Great, the Turkey thing is off the table,”’ said a Brussels official whose country backs Turkish entry. He added, “We think Turkey is worth it, and that they’re a real risk if they sail off into the distance.”
All the same, a new distance has unspoken pluses.
The apocalyptic notion of Europe being overrun by Turkish Muslims, brandished by right-wing populists like Geert Wilders of the Netherlands — Turkey’s rapidly growing population is approaching 80 million — is deflated as a hysteria-making political argument.OK, that sounds good. The right-wing populist hysteria is proven wrong. But wait a minute - why? Well, as far as I can tell from the piece, not primarily because they were wrong about their analysis of what would happen if Turkey joined the EU. Their apocalyptic visions won't come true because Turkey won't join the EU! Vinocur is (perhaps unwittingly) pretty much embracing the right-wing argument, or at the very least not challenging it.
Admittedly, I am not really doing Vinocur justice, so you should read the piece for yourselves. It has more going for it that I am letting on and there's good reason to be critical of Erdoğan's administration in many respects. If nothing else, the article is worth reading because it is indicative of the emerging consensus around an increasingly pessimistic view of Turkey's EU membership prospects and around the "going East" narrative.
I also understand that it is hard to write sophisticated and nuanced analyses under the kind of time-pressure that correspondents face (but the same goes for bloggers who have full time jobs so I guess that would excuse my one-sided reading of the piece).
Regardless, I can't help but be annoyed. Some historical perspective on the issue would serve Vinocur well.
For Europe, a Bridge Too Far to Turkey - NYTimes.com
Saturday, October 8, 2011
US Islamophobia is Alive and Thriving (Video)
Talking Point Memo (TPM) has some Islamophobic "highlights" from a speech Saturday by a man they describe as a US "Conservative shock jock" (i.e. controversial talk radio host): Bryan Fischer.
At the 2011 Values Voter Summit in Washington DC, Fischer rattled off such statements as "The greatest long-term threat to our security and liberty is not radical Islam, but Islam itself" and was frequently interrupted by applause and loud audience cheers.
Other memorable observations included his assessment that:
Every single Mosque in America is a potential recruiting or training cell for Islamic terror.
This sounds just a tad exaggerated, until you realize why he believes that this is so:
I believe it's important that we have a president who understands that Islam is not a religion of peace, but a religion of war and violence and death.
What does one say? If this is not hate- and fear mongering, what is? Here is a man who has been given a podium and pulpit at the center of US politics, who essentially tells Americans to fear all Muslims, especially those who are pious. This is crossing the line. Unfortunately, it is also quite revealing.
Some might dismiss this and say: who cares what some crazy joe schmoe says at some random event? But Fischer is not only a popular radio host, but also (according to Wikipedia) the Director of Issues Analysis for an organization called the American Family Association (AFA). And the Values Voter Summit is far from a minor event. The scheduled speaker list is a veritable who's who of Conservative (Republican) politics: Rick Perry, John Boehner, Eric Cantor, Rick Santorum etc.
The speaker who went immediately before Fischer? Only the GOP Presidential front-runner, Mitt Romney.
Monday, October 3, 2011
Islamic Community Center Opened on Manhattan
Remember all the hoopla about the proposed Islamic Community Center on lower Manhattan (a.k.a the Ground Zero Mosque) last year?
Well, it opened rather quietly a little less than two weeks ago. The center kicked off with an exhibition by Jewish-American photographer, Danny Goldfield. The exhibit, "NYC Children," featured portraits of children from 169 countries, all living in NYC. The local online newspaper DNAinfo.com reports:
Goldfield attended the opening Wednesday night, along with Rana Sodhi, a Sikh whose brother was murdered in a hate crime four days after 9/11, and whose efforts to fight prejudice in the wake of the crime inspired Goldfield's project.Sodhi, who spoke haltingly, but emotionally, said it was appropriate for Park51 to open so close to the site of the 9/11 attacks, replacing the hatred of that day with a message of tolerance."We are together here today at Park51 to show the world we are still united and we respect each other," Sodhi said.
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Austria documents spike in extreme-right hate crimes | The Washington Post
The Washington Post reports a significant rise in xenophobic crimes in Austria last year.
Austrian authorities say hate crimes by the extreme right spiked 28 percent last year.
Islamophobia has grown in recent years in Austria, in addition to stubborn anti-Semitic sentiment on the part of some citizens. The rightist Freedom Party, which includes fringe neo-Nazi supporters, has exploited such anti-Muslim feelings to gain popularity.
Sunday, September 25, 2011
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
On freedom of speech
The Swedish newspaper Metro is today breaking the news that the group of three men who were arrested in Sweden on the tenth anniversary of 9/11, on suspicion of planning a terrorist attack, were planning to assassinate the artist Lars Vilks.
For those of you who are unfamiliar with Vilks, he is a provocative conceptual artist and author with a Ph.D. in Art History (actually, a better translation would be Art Theory) who most famously portrayed the Muslim prophet Muhammad as a dog in a series of drawings exhibited in 2007.
More recently (May of 2010), he gave a talk at Uppsala University during which he screened Iranian artist Sooreh Hera's Allah ho gaybar - in which two men wearing masks depicting Muhammad and his son-in-law Ali are shown in various "sexually provocative positions," according to Wikipedia.
As a result of his Muhammad drawings, the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq (now captured) placed a bounty on Vilks' head in 2007 and the artist has since lived under constant threat. Last year, a Swedish member of the Somali terrorist network Al-Shabaab also declared a death threat against Vilks. There have been several attempts at his life, and the spectacle at Uppsala University was interrupted when several angry members of the audience stormed the stage.
I have made my position on Vilks' Muhammad drawings and the Danish Muhammad cartoons clear elsewhere (link to an article in Swedish). There is a long tradition of ridiculing and belittling the Muslim prophet in Christian polemics, and widespread prejudice toward and stereotypes of Muslims in today's Europe, and I find this deeply troubling and unfortunate. Vilks' and Jyllandsposten's provocations are part of a broader pattern, and it is no coincidence that Vilks is featured prominently on Islamophobic blogs like Gates of Vienna.
However, in this particular post I want to focus exclusively on freedom of speech. And more precisely, I would like to reaffirm the right of an artist or writer to express him/herself freely - within the bounds of the law - without having to fear violent retribution. This freedom extends to the right to offend, even if people like myself disapprove of the contents.
To be sure, an artist making deeply offensive and provocative statements or drawings - even ones that, like several of the Muhammad cartoons, verge on racism (as long as it stops short of constituting hate speech or the Swedish legal equivalent: agitation against an ethnic group/people) - such an artist should expect vigorous debate and harsh criticism, and perhaps even such 'retaliation' as consumer boycots. But (s)he should not have to suffer through violent attacks against his/her person or the threat thereof.
For those of you who are unfamiliar with Vilks, he is a provocative conceptual artist and author with a Ph.D. in Art History (actually, a better translation would be Art Theory) who most famously portrayed the Muslim prophet Muhammad as a dog in a series of drawings exhibited in 2007.
More recently (May of 2010), he gave a talk at Uppsala University during which he screened Iranian artist Sooreh Hera's Allah ho gaybar - in which two men wearing masks depicting Muhammad and his son-in-law Ali are shown in various "sexually provocative positions," according to Wikipedia.
As a result of his Muhammad drawings, the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq (now captured) placed a bounty on Vilks' head in 2007 and the artist has since lived under constant threat. Last year, a Swedish member of the Somali terrorist network Al-Shabaab also declared a death threat against Vilks. There have been several attempts at his life, and the spectacle at Uppsala University was interrupted when several angry members of the audience stormed the stage.
I have made my position on Vilks' Muhammad drawings and the Danish Muhammad cartoons clear elsewhere (link to an article in Swedish). There is a long tradition of ridiculing and belittling the Muslim prophet in Christian polemics, and widespread prejudice toward and stereotypes of Muslims in today's Europe, and I find this deeply troubling and unfortunate. Vilks' and Jyllandsposten's provocations are part of a broader pattern, and it is no coincidence that Vilks is featured prominently on Islamophobic blogs like Gates of Vienna.
However, in this particular post I want to focus exclusively on freedom of speech. And more precisely, I would like to reaffirm the right of an artist or writer to express him/herself freely - within the bounds of the law - without having to fear violent retribution. This freedom extends to the right to offend, even if people like myself disapprove of the contents.
To be sure, an artist making deeply offensive and provocative statements or drawings - even ones that, like several of the Muhammad cartoons, verge on racism (as long as it stops short of constituting hate speech or the Swedish legal equivalent: agitation against an ethnic group/people) - such an artist should expect vigorous debate and harsh criticism, and perhaps even such 'retaliation' as consumer boycots. But (s)he should not have to suffer through violent attacks against his/her person or the threat thereof.
There is much more to say on these issues - and I have said some of it elsewhere - but there is also a need for critics of Western and European Islamophobia to stand up and clearly express our support for the principle of freedom of speech. That is what I am doing now.
Freedom of speech is a basic and essential cornerstone of a free, open, and democratic society. In such societies, people of all faiths, persuasions, and ethnicities can ideally coexist and express their differences, whether as groups or as individuals, if granted the right of free expression. Thanks to this right they can vocally express their divergent views of what their society should look like, criticize the powers and policies that be as well as criticize, for example, the peddlers of Islamophobia. If this foundation is attacked, however, it constitutes an attack on democracy as such, for without the former the latter means nothing.
There are limits to this freedom of speech (shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, as the classic example goes) but those limits are not the subject of this post. Here I simply want to reaffirm my strong belief that as long as speech stays within those legal limits, it must be allowed and the speaker must be free from violence or the threat thereof.
All violence and threats against Lars Vilks must be strongly denounced and should cease immediately. There are better ways of expressing one's disapproval, preferably by using one's right to free speech.
---
UPDATE: I added the last paragraph after re-reading my original post, just to underline my position on the issue that prompted this post in the first place.
Sunday, September 18, 2011
Friday, September 9, 2011
Turkish leader concerned about Islamophobia in Europe | RT
(Almost) all my diverse research foci converge when Russia Today (RT) reports Abdullah Gül's remarks about the increasing racism and Islamophobia in Europe:
The Turkish leader noted that “increasing ethnic, cultural and religious tensions can result in tensions and division in society,” but it is the state that must control these processes.
“The task of the state is to secure for all its citizens, regardless of religion, language and race, equal constitutional rights and…equal opportunities,” Abdullah Gul said.
One can, of course, point out that making remarks like these while the Turkish military is embarked on a campaign against Kurdish insurgents in Eastern Anatolia invites accusations of throwing rocks while living in a glass house.
But from the Turkish perspective, the same can be said for criticism against Turkish discrimination of Kurds, coming from EU member states in which ethnic Turks and other minority groups face systematic discrimination. And given the large number of Turks living in the EU, racism and Islamophobia that targets these exile communities are legitimate concerns for the Turkish state.
Take Sweden, where I live, as an example. A wonderful country in most ways, which treats newly arrived immigrants better than most other countries, with subsidized entry-level jobs, paid for Swedish language education etc. Still, experimental research shows that even here immigrants are severely discriminated against.
One meta-study (source in Swedish) of experimental research on discrimination on the job and housing markets, reported the following findings: CVs sent by persons with Arabic-sounding names receive between 50% to 88% fewer responses from employers than identical CVs with traditional Swedish names. There were similar results on the very tough Swedish housing market (50-60%). And my hunch is that even these shockingly high numbers hide the true extent of discrimination given the importance of informal contacts in getting both jobs and rental housing in Sweden.
As for the recent rise in Islamophobia, the last chapter of my book
examines the increasingly hostile - and, from the far right, Islamophobic - rhetoric evident in the European Parliament in recent years.
The point is: Gül has a point.
Increasing Islamophobia in Europe dangerous trend – Turkish leader — RTBut from the Turkish perspective, the same can be said for criticism against Turkish discrimination of Kurds, coming from EU member states in which ethnic Turks and other minority groups face systematic discrimination. And given the large number of Turks living in the EU, racism and Islamophobia that targets these exile communities are legitimate concerns for the Turkish state.
Take Sweden, where I live, as an example. A wonderful country in most ways, which treats newly arrived immigrants better than most other countries, with subsidized entry-level jobs, paid for Swedish language education etc. Still, experimental research shows that even here immigrants are severely discriminated against.
One meta-study (source in Swedish) of experimental research on discrimination on the job and housing markets, reported the following findings: CVs sent by persons with Arabic-sounding names receive between 50% to 88% fewer responses from employers than identical CVs with traditional Swedish names. There were similar results on the very tough Swedish housing market (50-60%). And my hunch is that even these shockingly high numbers hide the true extent of discrimination given the importance of informal contacts in getting both jobs and rental housing in Sweden.
As for the recent rise in Islamophobia, the last chapter of my book
examines the increasingly hostile - and, from the far right, Islamophobic - rhetoric evident in the European Parliament in recent years.The point is: Gül has a point.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)