I am an historian of Russia and the Middle East, focusing especially upon incidences of Russian-Turkic contact. My work mainly uses sources written in Russian, Ottoman Turkish, and the Turkic
languages of the former USSR to look at issues like human mobility, communication, politics, and cross-cultural interaction in late imperial Russia, the Ottoman Empire, and Turkey. A resident of
Istanbul from 1992 to 1999, I completed an MA from Princeton in 2001 and a PhD from Brown in 2007. Since August of 2009 I've been an assistant professor of Islamic world history at Montana State
University. Other interests of mine include skiing, record collecting, travel, and the exploits of Detroit sports teams.
Jim Meyer's Borderlands: News & Propaganda: July 13
News & Propaganda: July 13
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
7:27 pm, Istanbul time
Give me a break: US officials anonymously leak news that Turkey has agreed to quit its involvement in the Iran-nuke issue, claiming that Turkish FM Davutoglu made the pledge during a phone call with Hillary Clinton on Monday....
Cengiz Çandar, a well-known journalist in Turkey, is facing possible prison time over a column he wrote in which he expresses frustration with the way in which the Hrant Dink murder case is being handled. Dink, the editor of the Armenian-language newspaper Agos, was shot to death in January of 2007. A seventeen year-old boy was arrested for the murder, but some believe that a cover-up is taking place. Specifically, many people would like to see further investigation into a possible link between state authorities and the murder.
Here is the English-language version of the offending column.
How times change: Just after paying homage to the victims of the Srebrenica massacre in Bosnia, Turkish PM Tayyip Erdogan traveled to Belgrade to hold talks with Serbian Premier Mirko Svetkovic. The two announced that they were lifting visa requirements on one another's citizens.
So, is this another example of Turkey "turning east?" Oh wait, it's "neo-Ottomanism," because Serbia used to be part of the Ottoman Empire. Wait a second...I guess almost all of Turkey's neighbors were once part of the Ottoman Empire, so a policy focused on establishing good relations with all neighbors must constitute some sort of "neo-Ottomanist" strategy...
Except for when it comes to maintaining good relations with Iran, which wasn't part of the Ottoman Empire. That's just plain old "turning east" again...
Once again we see an infringement that should be obvious to those who purport to advocate civil liberties. Our famous civil libertarians appear to be silent about it though. We are, instead, told that the constitutional amendment package which does nothing about freedom of expression is somehow a great step for liberties here. A constitutional amendment wouldn't even be necessary to remove the legal basis of such lawsuits but nobody visible seems to be pushing for rescinding those laws. It seems keeping the laws concerning speech intact and changing who influences the selection of judges and prosecutors is seen as an enhancement of liberties here. Something doesn't add up. Surely social science professors and such would know better than that. No?
I would understand (but might disagree) if our intellectuals outright claimed that Western (or, rather, US) style freedoms are unsuitable for this society or somehow undesirable anyway and the restrictions are fine as long as an elected authority gets to run things. I don't understand the present situation. Our -- visible -- intellectuals are getting considerable Western support on the grounds that they are civil libertarians but you wouldn't quite call them that if you look at how they behave.
A legal defense in this case, given the law, would indeed need to be based on arguing that the speech in question is not 'insulting.' A principled approach, however, would entail protection of speech even if it is 'insulting.' Now, the people might not want that principle, that's fine if it is so, but they need to be told that they are picking an approach that involves gov't control of expression about the gov't itself. Do you see anyone explaining this? Reply to this
Re: Candar's case.
Once again we see an infringement that should be obvious to those who purport to advocate civil liberties. Our famous civil libertarians appear to be silent about it though. We are, instead, told that the constitutional amendment package which does nothing about freedom of expression is somehow a great step for liberties here. A constitutional amendment wouldn't even be necessary to remove the legal basis of such lawsuits but nobody visible seems to be pushing for rescinding those laws. It seems keeping the laws concerning speech intact and changing who influences the selection of judges and prosecutors is seen as an enhancement of liberties here. Something doesn't add up. Surely social science professors and such would know better than that. No?
I would understand (but might disagree) if our intellectuals outright claimed that Western (or, rather, US) style freedoms are unsuitable for this society or somehow undesirable anyway and the restrictions are fine as long as an elected authority gets to run things. I don't understand the present situation. Our -- visible -- intellectuals are getting considerable Western support on the grounds that they are civil libertarians but you wouldn't quite call them that if you look at how they behave.
A legal defense in this case, given the law, would indeed need to be based on arguing that the speech in question is not 'insulting.' A principled approach, however, would entail protection of speech even if it is 'insulting.' Now, the people might not want that principle, that's fine if it is so, but they need to be told that they are picking an approach that involves gov't control of expression about the gov't itself. Do you see anyone explaining this?
Reply to this