tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-593912816967885402024-03-21T11:25:07.818+03:00The View from IstanbulRichard Pereshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13344024979966718012noreply@blogger.comBlogger24125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-59391281696788540.post-24163346063000980582012-06-29T14:49:00.000+03:002012-06-29T14:49:05.675+03:00This blog has been replaced<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Please visit my new blog: http://richperes.com<br />
<br />
Thank you!<br />
<br />
Richard Peres </div>Richard Pereshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13344024979966718012noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-59391281696788540.post-31589818572180590062011-08-19T16:02:00.003+03:002011-08-23T06:51:33.586+03:00Democracy Includes Feminists<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><div closure_uid_r9xpui="106"><img border="0" height="291" src="mhtml:file://C:\Users\Public\Documents\PeresArticles\Democracy includes feminists briby-i bRichard Peres-b.mht!http://medya.todayszaman.com/todayszaman/2011/07/31/oped.jpg" width="582" /></div><div closure_uid_r9xpui="106"><br />
</div><div closure_uid_r9xpui="106">by Richard Peres, published in Sunday's Zaman, July 31, 2011</div><div closure_uid_r9xpui="106"><br />
</div><div closure_uid_r9xpui="106">The sad state of affairs for women in Turkey is well documented. The Global Gender Gap Report for 2010, a compilation based on five years of data by the World Economic Forum, is but one of many such indicators and reports. </div><div closure_uid_r9xpui="114"></div><br />
In the report, Turkey is ranked 126th of 134 countries, behind even Egypt, Syria and Iran. The report focuses on four fundamental areas to measure how well women are doing compared to men in their country: economic participation and opportunity, educational attainment, health and survival and political empowerment. For example, labor force participation by women in Turkey is just 26 percent, the lowest in Europe, which includes rural women who work without pay. Also, women in Turkey earn about a fourth of what men earn and do not generally receive equal pay for equal work compared to men. Other reports by international and Turkish NGO’s further document the situation for women in Turkey, including continuing violence against women, lack of protection by the judiciary and law enforcement, and widespread employment discrimination. In addition, there is the additional burden borne by headscarf-wearing women, who only recently gained entrance into universities and continue to be unable to enter teaching jobs, state employment, and professional occupations. <br />
<div closure_uid_r9xpui="115"><br />
</div><div closure_uid_r9xpui="116"><strong>Enter Fatma Şahin </strong></div><br />
Fatma Şahin was recently appointed minister of family and social policies, which is the new name for what was previously called the Ministry of Women and Family Affairs. Women’s groups lobbied unsuccessfully for this change not to occur, because it reduces the state’s focus on women. Fatma Şahin has an excellent reputation for championing the interests of women as a member of Parliament and head of the Justice and Development Party’s (AK Party) Women’s Branch. However, she opposes affirmative action for women, has voiced belief in a “strong family” over “free women,” and recently stated that “feminism has not benefited anyone until now and will not in the future.” When I read this last statement of hers I was stunned. I asked myself, how is it possible for a women’s advocate to speak so strongly against other women who are also fighting for women’s causes? <br />
<div closure_uid_r9xpui="119"><br />
</div>As a possible explanation, Nicole Pope of Today’s Zaman wrote in a recent column that conservatives in Turkey associate feminism “with immorality, or they view the women’s movement as a Western construct.” In explaining the ministry’s name change, the prime minister said, “We are a conservative democratic party. The family is important to us.” For me these explanations fall short. I do not doubt or question the values put forth by conservatives from all parties regarding moral principles and customs. The issue in question is the imposition of those values to the exclusion of others, in this case, condemning advocates of women’s rights, equal treatment and safety simply because they call themselves “feminists.” This suggests not just a moral issue or a lack of sympathy with Western cultural constructs. It indicates an incomplete understanding of democracy. In a true democracy, rights and freedoms are not dealt with from only from the viewpoint of the majority, but from an all-inclusive perspective including women and minorities. Does not the AK Party government, as the ruling party, represent all of Turkey’s people, including all of Turkey’s women? How is it that the only woman minister in a cabinet of men doesn’t have a kind word for women’s organizations? <br />
<div closure_uid_r9xpui="120"><br />
</div><div closure_uid_r9xpui="121"><strong>Feminists in Turkey </strong></div><div closure_uid_r9xpui="130"><br />
</div>The most disturbing thing about Fatma Şahin’s comments is their lack of validity. In the early twentieth century women’s organizations advocated civil and political liberties for women, ideals which were adopted by the new Turkish Republic and were a major tenet of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk’s revolution. Beginning in the 1980s women’s organizations in Turkey fought against violence inflicted on women. However, a decade later identity politics began to fragment the feminist movement. For example, while Islamic feminist activists took up the issue of the headscarf ban, protesting in the streets and at university gates, secular feminist organizations went their own way. <br />
<div closure_uid_r9xpui="131"><br />
</div>In the last 40 years or so, feminist organizations in Turkey have progressed far beyond demonstrations and marches. They have become significant NGOs that bolster Turkey’s civil society and take an active role in social development programs in support of women, including efforts to improve literacy, provide health information and job training, to build women’s shelters and provide legal assistance. In some respects the government is just catching up to the work of these “feminist” women’s groups. Meanwhile, these organizations are in leadership roles, providing consulting to the World Bank and being funded by the United Nations. It seems obvious that these groups have benefited Turkey and will continue to do so in the future. <br />
<div closure_uid_r9xpui="132"><br />
</div><div closure_uid_r9xpui="134"><strong>Divisiveness weakens the cause </strong></div><div closure_uid_r9xpui="135"><br />
</div>The movement in the US to gain women the right to vote, which began in 1848, suffered changes in leadership and internal conflicts for generations, but eventually saw victory more than 70 years later, in 1920, thanks to the collective and increasing support of most women in the country. In the 1960’s women like Simone de Beauvoir in France, Betty Friedan, Gloria Steinem, Bella Abzug and many others in America fought for equal pay and anti-discrimination laws. By the 1980s those laws were not only passed but implemented with substantial funding and institutional support at local, state and federal levels. Early US feminists were often subject to ridicule and opposition by men but managed by their sheer numbers and organization to affect substantial change in employment practices, the implementation of equitable civil laws, and increased protection against violence. <br />
<div closure_uid_r9xpui="136"><br />
</div>Unfortunately, the feminist movement in Turkey remains highly fragmented. Many conservative women do not support feminists and seem even revolted by the mere mention of the word, even though they have benefited from their increasing public presence, and from their pressuring government, the courts and other institutions to provide more freedom and better treatment for women. In addition, secular and Islamic women’s groups are not empathetic toward each other and do not cooperate nor collaborate – a sad state of affairs. Much like MÜSIAD and TÜSIAD they go their separate ways in lobbying the government. KADER, which supports the political rights of women, for example, shows no interest in supporting headscarf-wearing women. Lacking unity, the struggle to face the gender bias of men at work, in the courts, and in social life, seems insurmountable. Cultural values and the secular-Islamic split take precedence over solidarity and empathy. When women raised within this milieu of incomplete democracy and failure to understand what feminism stands for hold public office, the damage to the cause of women is that much more significant. Fatma Şahin’s comments about feminists within this context are not surprising. <br />
<div closure_uid_r9xpui="137"><br />
</div>Women have the numbers and accumulated wisdom to matter in Turkey, influence government and society, positively impact their status, and move Turkey out of its embarrassing ranking in the world regarding gender equality. The question is, will women respect the differing cultural values of their “sisters” and see the commonality of their cause? Will they come together on issues of freedom and equality over their own cultural preferences and personal values? I hope that the next generation of women in Turkey can figure out how to make this happen. All signs indicate that the current generation of Turkish women cannot seem to get their act “together” to support their own cause. <br />
<br />
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />
<br />
*Richard Peres is an author and journalist living in İstanbul. Rich.peres@gmail.com <br />
<br />
<br />
</div>Richard Pereshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13344024979966718012noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-59391281696788540.post-74216408764134121962011-08-19T15:58:00.000+03:002011-08-19T15:58:18.303+03:00CNN Falls Short in a Video on Press Freedom in Turkey<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><div closure_uid_jzocj7="95">by Richard Peres</div>Ekrem Dumanli’s article, “Time to Counter Global Lies,” (TZ, May 9, 2011) told of misinformation campaigns aimed against the AK Party and the Gulen movement outside of Turkey. However, it seems to me that the bigger issue relates to the mainstream Western media. To the casual television and Internet viewer of short news videos, the segments appear to be objective, balanced and fair minded. Both sides of an issue are presented. However the result can sometimes be distorted. I wrote about this phenomenon in a recent piece, “MSNBC Paints a Distorted Picture of Turkey” (TZ, April 25, 2011), exposing the flaws of an online article.<br />
<br />
Ivan Watson’s two-minute video on the repression of journalists<br />
<br />
Ivan Watson is a young yet veteran international journalist for CNN with an impressive track record at CNN and NPR, which is why I do not understand a recent short video he produced on CNN, called “Turkey’s Battle over Press Freedom.” It not only links Prime Minister Erdogan and the AK Party to the prosecution of thousands of journalists in Turkey, it does so without any attribution of supporting sources. <br />
<br />
This is not to say that the arrests of journalists are not troubling and that the government has no accountability. Turkey’s record in this area is bad and indefensible, as revealed by visiting the sites of Freedom House and Reporters Without Borders, reading their reports on Turkey and seeing where Turkey is ranked. Certainly the Counterterrorism Law and articles 215 and 301 of the Turkish Penal Code, that facilitate the prosecution of journalists, are partly to blame, as well as a problematic judicial system subject to the same polarization prevalent elsewhere in Turkey. Moreover, there are those who cite the government for not doing enough to overhaul the judicial system to clear these obvious obstacles to press freedom. However, the video begins and ends with opponents of the government, with a five-second interval of comments by another view. It also intertwines the issue of Ergenekon arrests and repression of criticism of Fetullah Gulen, as if they were one and the same. It never stops to consider why the government would even want to have journalists who cover alleged coup plots against the government to be arrested. The result is a decidedly one-side report, unfortunately<br />
<br />
I can understand how the Western press has picked up on the issue of journalists’ freedom in Turkey. As a Western journalist myself I can tell you that it irks me as well. But it’s up to CNN to delve a little deeper into the complexities of Turkish politics even in its short videos.<br />
<br />
The CNN video begins and ends with the opposition<br />
<br />
The video begins with coverage on the arrests of newspaper columnists Nedim Sener and Akmet Sik and states that more and more journalists are being arrested as part of a “coup investigation” (Ergenekon). It shows journalists protesting, then we see Can Dundar telling the camera: “As Turkish journalists we are here to protest the growing repression of the Turkish media by the Turkish government for the last couple of years.” By the Turkish government? It would have been better had Mr. Watson delved into this issue and let us know who in the judiciary are in the service of the government and who is not. The issue needs to be explained to viewers as well as the depth of political opposition to the AK Party on almost every issue. Instead the tone of the piece is quickly set by an opposition leader to the government.<br />
<br />
The video then switches to the topic of Fetullah Gulen and the repression of Akmet Sik’s book. The clear implication is that the government is going after those who criticize Mr. Gulen, who is pictured as closely aligned to the government. Ihsan Yilmaz was asked if it’s dangerous to criticize Fetullah Gulen in Turkey today and responded, “That’s the image they are trying to create; this is a smokescreen campaign.” Full stop. Mr. Yilmaz is on screen for all of five seconds the is quickly gone. An allegation that attacks on the journalists come from Turkey’s generals is mentioned, but then Prime Minister Erdogan becomes the subject on screen to the following voice over: “Commentators say that as his grip on power has tightened, Erdogan has become less tolerant of criticism.” Thus the video again links journalist repression to Erdogan thanks to unknown “commentators.” This statement is immediately followed by Andrew Finkel on camera: “I thought that Turkey was becoming a more liberal place; I thought that if you dismantled the military apparatus then the country would be freer.” Full stop. What questions was he answering? What was the context of his statement? We will never know but the impression given is that he is referring to Turkey not being free. Switch to picturesque shots of Istanbul with another voice over that “over 50 journalists are now in prison and thousands of others are defending themselves in criminal cases in court.” <br />
<br />
This video ends with how it began, with Can Dundar, who states: “We want to be free to write. We want to be free to talk. And we want to be free to publish our books without any repression or fear.” Switch to protests led by Mr. Dundar with the final voice over from Mr. Watson: “Under fire, journalists are demanding that the government do more to protect a fundamental democratic right.” This is the third strike against the government. It is the guilty party regarding journalists. <br />
<br />
A serious problem for Turkey<br />
<br />
The lack of press freedom in Turkey strikes a nerve in the West, and for good reason. It is a clear indicator of democratic values. The mainstream press has picked up on this issue and will not drop it easily, an area that generates bad PR for Turkey and provides a hindrance to its joining the EU. The ruling party needs to do a better job of addressing the issues and explaining its actions to the West, particularly when asked in public forums. Nevertheless, CNN should take more care in how it covers this complex topic in Turkey.<br />
<br />
</div>Richard Pereshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13344024979966718012noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-59391281696788540.post-75609313718186570202011-08-19T15:56:00.002+03:002011-08-19T15:56:48.399+03:00Bush, Obama and the Post Bin Laden Era<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><div closure_uid_3p6p8x="119"></div><br />
by Richard Peres<br />
<br />
I was at a business meeting in New Jersey on September 11, 2001, arriving early in the morning. A close colleague of mind lamented to me about his inability to book a booth for his company on the top floor of the World Trade Center, at the Windows of the World restaurant. He had tried until the evening of the day before that fateful horrible event. Then, as the news came in, the disappointment on his face suddenly changed to shock. The conference abruptly ended.<br />
<br />
Driving home that day the smoke from the WTC could be seen across the Hudson, eventually smothering us with grief and torment. It was as if a dagger was struck into the hearts of us New Yorkers and it affected all Americans.<br />
<br />
The impact was extraordinary, devastating and lasting not only on the American economy and world politics, but the American psyche. After 9-11, a galvanizing wave of nationalism swept the country unlike anything I had witnessed in my lifetime, similar to December 7, 1941, the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor in Hawaii. That touchstone event of my father’s generation had sparked the start of World War II, something that the invasion of Poland, bombing of London and sinking of ships in the Atlantic could not do. Similarly, after 9-11, the political differences of Americans were temporarily forgotten as the country came together. US flags appeared everywhere, flying from cars, hanging from bridges and buildings, including my house. The need to fight back in the defense of the nation was overwhelming.<br />
<br />
From 9-11 to the Iraq War<br />
<br />
But the most compelling characteristic of this fight was that the enemy was not easily identifiable, so much so that Osama ben Laden himself had avoided the full force of US intelligence resources for almost ten years. The US public’s unfortunate support for the invasion of Iraq two years later – despite little evidence that Iraq had any involvement in supporting terrorism or was even a threat to America – was emblematic of how America’s frustrations needed a target to alleviate its pain. American military recruiters now had an easy time to get young men to sign up for a stint in the US Army without the need for conscription because many of them thought they were fighting the good fight in the “war on terror” as they left for Iraq. More than 5000 never returned.<br />
<br />
I watched disapprovingly at the relentless campaign by the Bush administration to gain support for the invasion of Iraq from an American public that was easily swayed in this post-911 environment. Any accurate assessment of the so-called Iraqi threat seemed to dissipate in the wind. The CIA’s objections were smothered and those in the Pentagon who objected were either ignored or dismissed. The investigation by ex-ambassador Joe Wilson of a so-called nuclear threat supposedly evidenced by Iraq’s purchase of nuclear materials was attacked and his CIA agent wife, Valerie Plame was “outed” by sources in the Vice President’s office. One of the few voices of opposition to the Iraq invasion by an elected official was a young Senator from Illinois, Barack Obama, but little attention was given to him at that time. Journalists lacked the motivation and heart to oppose the invasion and the rest, as is said, is history. <br />
<br />
Bush played the security card again in the 2004 elections to get re-elected, pitching the Democrats as weak on terrorism. Ten years later America is still in Afghanistan – a deceptively fast expedition that initially eliminated the Taliban -- and Iraq, despite increasing disinterest on the part of the American public, although most want to exit in a feasible manner.<br />
<br />
Now the situation has been reversed. The Democrats can take responsibility for eliminating Ben Laden, a big disappointment for Republicans that will only be expressed in private. If the economy continues to improve, one wonders what compelling issue the Republicans can use to regain the White House.<br />
<br />
Spontaneity<br />
<br />
Waking to the news on May 2 that Osama Bin Laden had been killed, I was initially surprised at the spontaneous celebratory crowds in the early morning hours in Washington and New York. I guess I had forgotten the impact of what had happened ten years ago. I can see now how important spontaneity is: a true, clear, honest and immediate response of feelings and passions. It was spontaneity, after all, that sparked the events in Tunisia, then Egypt, toppling governments in weeks after years of repression. It was spontaneity that overcame what guerrilla movements, political groups and organizations could not do in decades in those countries, including Al Qaeda. One should never underestimate the meaning of a spontaneous demonstration, but fully absorb it. Nor should one give little value to the impact of nationalistic fervor.<br />
<br />
This leads to the question of whether Bin Laden’s death will end a siege mentality after ten years of worrying over threats of terrorism. It will once again depend on the managing of the force of nationalism in the post- Bin Laden era. The answer is unclear. But President Obama shows no sign of mismanaging, if not abusing, American nationalism the way the Bush administration did. His absolute reluctance to be the lead participant in the NATO-run Libya operation is one example. The seemingly unending way the US presence in Afghanistan and Iraq turned out to be complex supports this view; Obama’s unique and original opposition to the Iraq war provides another source of optimism for competent leadership in the future. <br />
<br />
Right vs. Wrong<br />
<br />
The killing of Osama ben Laden was naturally more enthusiastically celebrated in America than elsewhere, as seen by television coverage on Monday morning coming from Qatar, England, France, Italy and Turkey. It was the CNN US commentators who were obviously caught up in the celebrations and covered them as the main story. It was as if a sleeping giant was awakened after a decade of slumber and had something to celebrate – a decade of Bin Laden videos, threats and pronouncements, color-coded terrorism warnings, and killings of innocent people regardless of religion or nationality.<br />
<br />
America inherited a particular brand of puritan ethics from the British, a view of right and wrong that does not necessarily relate to religion. Getting back at Bin Laden was righting a horrible wrong. Burying him within 24 hours in adherence to Islamic values was also, it seems, a result of respect for right and wrong, a clear sign echoed by both Bush and Obama that the war on terror is unrelated to religion.<br />
<br />
An event that motivates a nation as radically as this is tapping into a powerful force, perhaps the most powerful on earth. Such a force can have hard-to-imagine impacts on the human race, some good and others bad. As humans we should try to remain cognizant of the differences and not let politics interfere with discouraging the bad and supporting the good. Killing innocent people, ignoring past injustices, shooting demonstrators and protesters need to be universally recognized as bad by all countries regardless of politics Too much is at stake to do otherwise.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
</div>Richard Pereshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13344024979966718012noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-59391281696788540.post-38578687538458077382011-08-19T15:54:00.000+03:002011-08-19T15:54:39.513+03:00America's Preference for Turkish Secularism and its Implications<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><div closure_uid_f1no52="112">by Richard Peres, published by Star Acik Gorus, end of April, 2011 in Turkish</div><div closure_uid_f1no52="112"><br />
</div><div closure_uid_f1no52="112">The words “secular” and “secularism” do not exist in the American constitution. For Americans, “secular” means not having anything to do with religion; “secularism” is a system that does not mix religion and the state. Moreover, Americans are not familiar with the French concept of “laicism” adopted by Turkey almost 90 years ago. America was founded by people of various religions and denominations who fled religious persecution in Europe. For this reason, the first amendment to the US constitution enacted in 1791 was very clear and direct without qualification: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Period. All Americans know this by heart. You have a right to believe in what you want, how you want, when you want and to dress according to your beliefs. The state’s role in religion in the US is zero, nothing – no role whatsoever. Obviously, there is no Directorate of Religious Affairs, no rules about what to wear, and no restrictions concerning the visibility of religion in public, even though the country is mainly Christian and religion plays a part in the rhetoric of politicians. In addition, the US military plays no political role in protecting any ideological concepts or values (like secularism) or even “internal” enemies of any kind. Thus American secularism stands in stark contrast to Turkish secularism which controls religion, restricts religious freedom, and provides insurmountable barriers to education, politics, education and employment.</div><br />
<br />
However, it is interesting to note that by and large Americans do not object to Turkish secularism, are generally comfortable with it, and many support it. Why is this the case? What are the implications of this relaxed attitude for Turkey’s relationship with the US and, specifically, for the AK Party’s relationship with American policy makers? How does it affect the AK Party’s efforts for democratization, including civilian control of the military and more religious freedoms in Turkey?<br />
<br />
During a year of living and writing in Turkey about human rights issues and restrictions on religious freedoms I always wondered why my American liberal friends do not share my passion, or even interest. On the other hand, stories in the media about possible restrictions on journalists’ rights of expression clearly resonate with them and the West. The European Parliament asked Prime Minister Erdogan about journalists, and likewise the US Ambassador commented first on this subject just after arriving in Turkey, all of which get covered by the American press. A recent article on Turkish foreign policy by MSNBC, which I recently criticized in Today’s Zaman, completely misreads the issues in the upcoming elections and directly relates Turkish secularism to democracy, thanks to an interview with a CHP member, who viewed democracy as threatened by the AK Party. The article barely mentions the military’s four coups during the last 60 years and leaves out CHP’s nomination of Engenekon suspects as deputies for the upcoming general elections.<br />
<br />
<div closure_uid_f1no52="127"><strong>Islam as the exception to religious freedoms</strong></div><div closure_uid_f1no52="128"><br />
</div>The US’s only Muslim member of Congress, Keith Ellison, recently said during a visit to Turkey that it’s more difficult being a Muslim in America than being black. Statistics about discrimination complaints in America support this. American Muslims file many times more complaints than others compared to their presence in the population. We all know about last summer’s demonstrations in the US’s most liberal city, New York, over the building of an Islamic Center and many other instances of Islamaphobia. <br />
<br />
And yet, even Mr. Ellison will not criticize Turkey’s “French” secularism, saying very diplomatically that it is “Turkey’s choice.” In fact, he says that “Turkey is the best example of how Islam and democracy can co-exist.” Past US diplomats have taken the same position not to get involved in religious conflicts in Turkey, especially during the February 28th coup process when the secular-religious split emerged more sharply than ever. Mr. Ellison noted that Americans know nothing about Islam. He could have added that they know little about Turkey and Turkey’s democracy problems. .<br />
<br />
By raising the ignorance issue, Ellison touches on the second dimension of the American attitude toward Turkish secularism, which is viewing it as a prerequisite to democracy. Few Americans are inclined to argue with this view. Perhaps it’s because Turkey is a buffer state between the West and the “always-suspicious” Muslim world. The public and policy makers are either oblivious to the anti-democratic downside of Turkish secularism, or simply aren’t much bothered by it, even though it is the number one factor restricting and distorting democracy. Similarly it is not bothered by the Turkish military’s self-proclaimed role of protector of Turkish secularism. The recent Wikileaks cables from Turkey from 2007 portray the US as more worried about Tayyip Erdogan’s religious views in spite of his efforts of democratization. <br />
<div closure_uid_f1no52="126"><br />
</div><div closure_uid_f1no52="124"><strong>Implications</strong></div><br />
The implications of the US attitude may be serious for the AK Party’s democratization efforts particularly as they risk provoking the secular bloc. NGO committees, like those from TUSIAD and most recently TESEV, are making significant recommendations to change Turkey’s constitution. These changes strike at the heart of Turkish secularism and its protection by the military. A rights-based constitution could lead to battles over major issues regarding religion in the public sphere – ranging from state employment of headscarved women, their participation in the Parliament, to even perhaps challenges to the Religious Directorate. Would the US keep supporting the AK Party as crises develop? The US has never jumped in to get involved in debates over religious freedoms in the past, it seems illogical that they would start now.<br />
<br />
This brings us to a second major concern, the notion of a possible fifth military intervention. In view of the advances made over the last few years it seems unfathomable to many. But if one occurred with the support of Turkey’s considerable secular bloc – parts of the media, judiciary, state institutions and opposition parties --what would the United States and Europe do? It was only four years ago that the military threatened the AKP government with an e-memo. What if it carried out its threats? Given Turkey’s important position in the world, wouldn’t the US administration opt to not interfere, favoring stability over democracy as it has so many times in the past?<br />
<br />
For Turkey, there are reasons to believe that the US and Europe would respond the way they did initially to the uprisings in the Middle East and favor stability at all costs. Any perception of an “Islamic threat” in Turkey, regardless of its not being based on reality and facts, and regardless of the democratic intentions of its government, could permanently endanger the AK Party government. The American public would not be upset because, after all, it has little empathy for an Islam-friendly government. They will not want to get involved in an “internal matter.” Certainly President Obama understands and sympathizes with the issue, given his exceptional multi-racial and religious background and intelligence. But the American public is another matter. <br />
<br />
<div closure_uid_f1no52="120"><strong>The AKP needs to communicate better</strong></div><br />
<div closure_uid_f1no52="123">To prevent this situation, assuming it continues with its democratic reforms, the AKP needs to improve its “PR” and pay particular attention to demonstrating to the West the need for democratic reforms that counter Turkey’s aggressive secularism and do so in understandable and compelling terms. It must help redefine the Turkish state as devoid of ideology and promote secularism along the lines of individual rights while clearly supporting and demonstrating the state’s not being involved in matters pertaining to religion religious sects, beliefs and lifestyles. At the same time, it needs to convey the importance of genuine democratic civilian control of the military as a prerequisite of democracy – extending its leadership role in the region. These efforts will require an increased focus on expressing, explaining and communicating Turkey’s democratic course as it moves beyond the 2011 elections. Rich.peres@gmail.com </div><br />
</div>Richard Pereshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13344024979966718012noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-59391281696788540.post-35459757909526785412011-08-19T15:52:00.000+03:002011-08-19T15:52:01.864+03:00MSNBC Paints a Distorted Picture of Turkey<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><div closure_uid_93iwn0="117"> by Richard Peres, published in Today's Zaman, April 25, 2011</div><div closure_uid_93iwn0="118"><br />
</div>Even though casual observers often misinterpret happenings in Turkey, MSNBC’s recent article (msnbc.com, April 20) is disappointing, and surprising given its lineage. After all, its immediate parent company is NBC Universal, a $16.9 billion media powerhouse with a significant news organization. <br />
<br />
In interviewing both sides of polarized issues -- like secularism, democracy and Turkey’s foreign policy - - and arriving at shaky conclusions based on misleading inferences, MSNBC writer F. Brinley Bruton makes it abundantly clear that she fails to understand Turkey’s democratization efforts. Her intent may be to enlighten, but the result has a familiar Islamophobic ring<br />
<br />
Overseeing NBC is GE, the 13th largest corporation in the world with over $150 billion in annual revenues and $750 billion in assets. With all those resources, couldn’t MSNBC do a better informed piece about Turkey? In interviewing both sides of polarized issues -- like secularism, democracy and Turkey’s foreign policy – and arriving at shaky conclusions based on misleading inferences, writer F. Brinley Bruton makes it abundantly clear that she fails to understand Turkey’s democratization efforts. Her intent may be to enlighten, but the result has a familiar Islamophobic ring.<br />
<div closure_uid_93iwn0="119"><br />
</div><div closure_uid_93iwn0="120"><strong>A complete misreading of the upcoming election</strong></div><br />
The article is entitled, “US ally Turkey flirts with Mideast’s ‘bad boys’ -- Some fear the role model for the democracy movements sweeping the region is abandoning its secular roots.” The clear implication is that Turkey is straying from the Western fold, becoming more Islamic friendly, and less secular. The “bad boys” are Iran and Syria. This is the familiar stick that Turkey is beaten with.<br />
<div closure_uid_93iwn0="129"><br />
</div>Ms. Bruton’s article makes the big mistake of not only misreading the upcoming election but of equating Turkish secularism with Europe and democracy: “With voters due to head to the ballot box in June, Turkey stands at a crucial juncture: will its new ruling class stick to the country’s secular roots and continue toward European stance and many of its democratic achievements?” The big issue in the election is not “continuing with secularism.” Just ask the EU or the new US ambassador in Turkey and look at the facts. The issue is one of continuing democratization first, then democratizing Turkish secularism, which goes far beyond separating “church and state” and violates religious freedom in public education, the rights to elect and be elected to the political sphere and social life. Ms. Bruton should know this because of her accompanying article on the headscarf issues.<br />
<div closure_uid_93iwn0="130"><br />
</div>The big issues relate also to democratizing the military with civilian controls, which the AK Party [Justice and Development Party] has continually pushed for and continues with plans for a new constitution, which one of the country’s most prominent NGOs, TESEV [Turkish Economic and Social Studies Foundation], has just supported with its publication of suggestions for a new constitution. Her focus instead is on the arrest of journalists and doubts about Ergenekon: “While it is possible that such a plot existed – the military has staged four coups since 1960 – Human Rights Watch has described the arrests as a ‘disturbing development’.” Freedom of journalists remains an issue in Turkey. But nothing blocks democracy in Turkey more than its military tutelage, usurping civilian authority, often in the name of “protecting secularism.” Four military coups cannot be subjugated to a parenthetical phrase. She takes the “secularism-in-danger” argument from the CHP [Republican People’s Party] at face value as the prominent issue on the minds of Turkey’s majority, sounding very much like the generals of the 1997 coup. Given the military’s record in Turkey, Mr. Erdoğan has been nothing less than courageous in his term in office.<br />
<div closure_uid_93iwn0="131"><br />
</div><div closure_uid_93iwn0="132"><strong>Distorting Mr. Erdoğan, moves for democratization and Turks</strong></div><div closure_uid_93iwn0="133"><br />
</div>Certainly Ms. Bruton’s description of Prime Minister Erdoğan as “the AK Party’s charismatic leader [that] is known for his provocative statements” rings true. However, picking out particular statements from him and other comments, without sources, are pure editorializing. She falls into the trap of giving credibility to citing Mr. Erdoğan’s prosecution by the military-led coup government for reciting a poem, which allegedly “incited hatred,” whereas it is common knowledge that Mr. Erdoğan was simply a popular political threat to the coup regime. He had, at the time, a sterling reputation of honesty and efficiency as mayor of Istanbul, one of the world’s largest cities. All this suggests that the writer might want to do a little research into the Feb. 28 coup process that lasted from 1997 to 2002 before siding with the generals.<br />
<div closure_uid_93iwn0="134"><br />
</div><div closure_uid_93iwn0="137">The writer also states that Mr. Erdoğan described himself as a “Shariah-ist,” (no source), and to substantiate it she quotes 2007 WikiLeaks’ allegations from the US Embassy of five years ago. Then she states that he is “admired and reviled for his religious devotion” and cites his comments about the EU being a “Christian club.” The coup de grace in her shaky analysis is quoting a CHP member who states: “Without secularism, democracy is under threat. Today democracy in Turkey is in real danger.” Of course, this is the same CHP that nominated four Ergenekon suspects, i.e., the alleged coup plotters against the current government, to Parliament last week, and that has sided with the military on countless occasions in opposition to freely elected governments. Noticeably left out is the mention of last summer’s referendum regarding democratizing changes to the constitution, led by Mr. Erdoğan and the AK Party, opposed by the CHP and approved by 58 percent of the population.</div><div closure_uid_93iwn0="135"><br />
</div><div closure_uid_93iwn0="136"><strong>Foreign policy comments</strong></div><div closure_uid_93iwn0="138"><br />
</div>The argument about moving to the East at the expense of the West, tying it to being Islamic, is an old cliché. Given the end of the Cold War, Turkey has a more independent foreign policy that fits with the realities of living with neighboring countries on its borders. Ms. Bruton states, “Turkey’s rejection of United Nations sanctions against Iran was another sign that it no longer walks in lockstep with Europe and the US.” She fails to mention that Brazil also voted against the latest UN sanctions last year, that Turkey negotiated a deal with Iran to send some of its low-enriched uranium abroad in exchange for access to fuel for a medical reactor and that both Brazil and Turkey viewed the sanctions as derailing a fresh chance for diplomacy. Turkey’s foreign minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, is well respected around the world and has a close relationship with the Obama administration.<br />
<div closure_uid_93iwn0="139"><br />
</div>The writer accuses Turkey of increasing “its ties with the likes of Iran and Syria” and “abolishing visa requirements with Syria” but is forgetting a big fact: Iran and Syria border Turkey and are Turkey’s trading partners. After all, Turkey is, for the most part, in the Middle East, whose other “bad boys” have close ties with the United States, including Bahrain, Yemen and Saudi Arabia. Yes, Turkey does not walk lockstep with Europe and the US. What, exactly, is wrong with an independent foreign policy reflective of where Turkey is located and its leadership role in the region? <br />
<div closure_uid_93iwn0="140"><br />
</div>On the “secularism is more important than democracy” subject, Ms. Bruton cites various people. The first is Sinem Yoruk, an Istanbul gallery owner who witnessed the mob attack of last fall. “Many took it as the latest sign of growing intolerance toward Western values in the Muslim-majority country.” Yes, there have been and remain conflicts in this very polarized country. But to say that Turkey has a “growing intolerance toward Western values” is a low blow to Turks and an unfair characterization of Islamic people who maintain their faith in this very modern and increasingly progressive country. Ms. Yoruk is right to be upset and nervous about the government’s statements favoring large families and criticizing alcohol, but overgeneralizations abound. Let’s not transform her statements into dogma.<br />
<div closure_uid_93iwn0="141"><br />
</div>Finally, Ms. Bruton also cites Nihal Kizil of the Support for Modern Life Association (ÇYDD) in this article and another one, “Headscarves slam brakes on women’s careers.” Ms. Kizil is rightly upset at the treatment of Dr. Turkan Saylan. However, in the headscarf article Ms. Kizil is quoted: “The headscarf is a religious symbol but today it is a political symbol. … Can you imagine a headscarf-wearing judge presiding over a woman without a headscarf?” The reverse has been true in Turkey since 1923. Yes, I can imagine Dr. Saylan’s scenario in the new Turkey that is coming without reservation.<br />
<div closure_uid_93iwn0="142"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
</div>Richard Pereshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13344024979966718012noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-59391281696788540.post-18341213767364968872011-08-19T12:35:00.001+03:002011-08-19T12:35:50.213+03:00The AK Party and Headscarved Women<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><div closure_uid_x6k9aq="110">by Richard Peres, published in Star Acik Gorus (in Turkish), April 18, 2011</div><div closure_uid_x6k9aq="110"><br />
</div><div closure_uid_x6k9aq="110">Although they comprise 18 million Turkish citizens, headscarved women have once again been left out of the political sphere by Turkey’s major political parties for the upcoming parliamentary elections. For the supporters of the ruling AK Party, which has repeatedly defined itself as the advocate of democracy in Turkey, this is particularly a major disappointment. How is it possible that the AK Party did not nominate any headscarved candidates when it reportedly conducted polls on voter preferences and public opinion in the provinces? The recent statement by Deputy Prime Minister Bulent Arinc according to the Associated Press says it all: “I am for the election of a deputy with a headscarf in principle, but I am not sure the time has come for that.” Party leaders have also stated the need for a new constitution to bring real change in this area. Others have said they do not want to repeat the “bitter experience” of 1999 and Merve Kavakci.</div><br />
<br />
Memories of the Past<br />
<br />
The AK Party’s position is problematic in several ways. First, polls have shown over the last few years that a majority of people are tolerant of freely-elected headscarved women in the Parliament, and the referendum results of last summer demonstrate support of the people for reforms. The secular bloc is opposed but it appears to be clearly in the minority. Secondly, no one has indicated exactly what in the current Turkish constitution or laws prevents headscarved women from serving in the Parliament. The reason is that nothing in the constitution prevents it. The issue may come down to how “secularism” is defined but it is highly unlikely that this phrase will be removed from any new constitution. This is also supported by what really happened regarding the Merve Kavakci incident, which has often been distorted and needs to be revisited. Her being blocked from the Parliament had nothing to do with the constitution. She was not found to have violated any laws or regulations regarding the wearing of her headscarf in Parliament. Moreover, the Parliament never voted on her removal, as required by the Turkish Constitution. She was selectively prosecuted regarding her dual citizenship, which did not legally affect her parliamentary status -- there is no court ruling that links dual citizenship or her loss of citizenship by the Cabinet to her seat in Parliament. In fact, other members of the Parliament, and a past Prime Minister, Tansu Ciller, were also dual citizens. For all of these reasons Merve Kavakci won her case in the European Court of Human Rights in 2005 and was supported by the Inter-Parliamentary Union.<br />
<br />
The reason for the AK Party’s reluctance in nominating headscarved women today appears to be fear, either of a Constitutional Court overstepping its bounds and unfairly closing the party, or the military, or both. That fear is reasonable, given how the current leaders of the AKP originated from closed-down Refah and Fazilet parties. They probably have vivid and horrible memories of those years under the 1997 coup-by-ultimatum process in which the full force of the government, military and mainstream press came down hard on them– a constant stream of party closures, imprisonment, and prosecutorial threats. They have stayed in power by not crossing certain boundaries and seem unwilling to risk everything for the headscarf issue. <br />
<br />
The AK Party’s Debt to Headscarved Women<br />
<br />
Headscarved women played a major role in the election of Tayyip Erodogan as Mayor of Istanbul In 1994. These women were also a major reason, if not the most important reason, for the election of Refah candidates for Parliament in 1995, including Bulent Arinc, deputy of Manisa, and the eventual rise of the Erbakan government in 1996<br />
<br />
I recently interviewed Sibel Eraslan for a book on Merve Kavakci. In the 1990’s she was the head of the Refah Party’s Women’s Commission in Istanbul and later she would help manage Merve Kavakci’s campaign and a key person in mobilizing the women’s vote for the 1994 elections, gaining the powerful municipalities of Istanbul and Ankara. She led a force of 18,000 thousand women workers who met in just one month with 200,000 women voters. Yet after the victories in March, 1994, Sibel was not given any position within the newly elected Welfare party administration and was expected to go back home. Such was the plight of Sibel Eraslan and other headscarved women workers during this time, a key part of the party’s success yet treated in a patriarchal and unequal manner compared to men. By 1999 headscarved women working for Refah’s successor, the Fazilet Party, no longer wanted to be excluded from nominations for the Parliament, especially since the Party was now including secular women in the party administration, such as Nazli Ilicak and Oya Akgonenc, and considering them to be nominees. Thus the party leadership responded and put several headscarf candidates on its list for the 1999 elections, including the 30 year old head of the Fazilet Party’s Women’s International Commission, Merve Kavakci (now Merve Kavakci Islam). Necmettin Erbakan had the courage to support headscarf candidates, which was not supported by party moderates, including the current AKP leadership, because they felt it would endanger the party. They were correct and Fazilet was closed down.<br />
<br />
These women also have memories that are just as powerful and just as bad as the AKP leadership. The difference is that the AKP leadership is in power while headscarved women remain outside of the political sphere. In addition, except for last summer’s YOK memo that granted them entrance into Turkey’s universities, they are still blocked from teaching, blocked from many professions, blocked from appearing as lawyers in court, blocked from being public employees, and suffer widespread discrimination in employment which, as recent reports show, come from both religious and secular employers<br />
<br />
Moving Forward<br />
<br />
Waiting for the AKP to solve this issue does not appear to be a viable option. Turkey may not want to relive 1999, but to truly become democratic it must face the past and overcome it in the present. Abdullah Dilipak told me that Merve Kavakci hangs over the AK Party like the sword of Damocles. Certainly, it appears that for now he is correct <br />
<br />
One positive step may be to change the Law of Political Parties and requiring party elections for candidates, letting the members of the parties themselves decide, as is the case in other countries. These “primary” elections are a key first step to democratizing Turkey’s political parties, enabling the will of their voters to be heard, ending accusations of unfairness and misrepresentation, despite some of its disadvantages. It would likely end the exclusion of headscarved women from the democratic process, support all women and, in fact, all voters for all parties. It may also bring fairness to the practice that nominates certain individuals but puts them low on the list of candidates, essentially preventing their election.<br />
<br />
Another option is to withhold their vote from parties that did not nominate any headscarved candidates, along the lines of the movement called, “No headscarf-wearing candidate – No votes.” This could be effective in helping them wield influence which, after all, is what politics is all about. At the same time they could focus on supporting the headscarved candidates who may be running for electable seats and those running independently. Long term, however, they need the major parties to affect change and to bring about dozens of headscarved candidates to the Parliament, representative of their presence in the population.<br />
<br />
Finally, the 10 percent rule on party representation in Parliament has to end. The reason is simple: under the present system a party with less than a majority of votes can gain a majority of the seats in Parliament. Yes, this brings stability, but at what price? Presently, the AKP can ignore headscarved women and not suffer political consequences. Turkey cannot be called a democracy a large part of its population is excluded from representation in the Parliament <br />
<br />
</div>Richard Pereshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13344024979966718012noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-59391281696788540.post-8460515956084227992011-08-19T12:32:00.002+03:002011-08-19T12:33:52.694+03:00Başörtülü kadınlar ne zaman Meclis’te olacak?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><div closure_uid_re0vkr="105"><div closure_uid_1ki5mz="96">By Richard Peres, translated by Esra Elmas, published in Star's Acik Gorus on April 18, 2011</div></div><div closure_uid_re0vkr="105" closure_uid_uwqqcx="103"><br />
</div><div closure_uid_re0vkr="105" closure_uid_uwqqcx="105"><br />
Merve Kavakçı’ya ‘haddinin bildirildiği’ o meşum olaydan bu yana Türkiye’deki başörtüsü sorununu yakından takip eden gazeteci yazar Richard Peres, nüfusun büyük çoğunluğunun temsil hakkı engellenirken, Türkiye asla gerçek bir demokrasi olamaz diyor. <br />
<br />
Gazeteci - Yazar <br />
<div closure_uid_uwqqcx="108"><br />
</div>Başörtülü kadınlar Türkiye’de nüfusun 18 milyonunu oluşturmalarına rağmen ülkenin önde gelen partilerince yine siyaset alanının dışında bırakıldılar. İktidar partisini destekleyenler için bu durum, AK Parti’nin kendini her fırsatta demokrasinin savunucusu olarak tanımlaması da akılda tutulduğunda, tam bir hayal kırıklığı. Seçmen tercihlerine ilişkin anket sonuçları ve taşrada hâkim olan kamuoyu eğilimi ortadayken nasıl olur da AK Parti başörtülü bir milletvekili adayı göstermez? <br />
<div closure_uid_uwqqcx="109"><br />
</div>Bu soruya cevap niteliği taşıyan açıklamalardan birini kısa süre önce başbakan yardımcısı Bülent Arınç Associated Press’e yaptı. Arınç açıklamasında, ‘Ben prensip olarak parlamentoda başörtülü milletvekili olmasından yanayım, ama bunun zamanının gelip gelmediğinden emin değilim’ diyordu. Partinin önde gelen milletvekillerinden bir kısmı ise meclise başörtülü kadınların girebilmesi için yeni bir anayasanın gerekliliğini vurgularken diğer bir kısmı 1999’da Merve Kavakçı’nın meclise girmesiyle yaşanan “acı tecrübe”nin tekrarından kaçındıklarını söylüyorlar.<br />
<div closure_uid_uwqqcx="110"><br />
</div><div closure_uid_uwqqcx="111"><strong>Geçmişin izleri nasıl silinecek?</strong></div><div closure_uid_uwqqcx="123"><br />
</div>Bugün AK Parti’nin çeşitli açılardan problemli bir pozisyonu var. Birincisi, son birkaç yıldır yapılan anketler Türkiye’de nüfusun çoğunluğunun başörtülü kadınların serbestçe milletvekili olabilmesi yönünde olumlu bir tutuma sahip olduğunu gösteriyor. Yanı sıra geçen yaz yapılan referandum sonuçları da reformların büyük ölçüde desteklendiğini ortaya koyuyor. Laik blok her ne kadar bu taleplere muhalefet etmiş olsa da azınlıkta kaldı. İkincisi, tam olarak hiç kimse mevcut anayasanın hangi maddesinin başörtülü kadınların meclise girmesine engel teşkil ettiği sorusuna yanıt veremiyor. Çünkü esasen anayasada böyle bir engel yok. Mesele laikliğin nasıl tanımlandığı noktasına dayandırılabilir fakat bu ibarenin gelecekte yapılacak herhangi bir yeni anayasadan çıkarılması çok da ihtimal dâhilinde değil. Bu aslında sıkça çarpıtılan “Merve Kavakçı kazası”nı yeniden hatırlamayı gerekli kılan ve işin aslının ne olduğuna da dikkat çeken bir çelişki. Kavakçı’nın meclisten tasfiyesinin aslında anayasa ile bir ilgisi yoktu. Kavakçı’nın başörtüsüyle meclise girmesi yasalara ya da kurallara dayanılarak püskürtülmedi ya da meclis onu anayasaya dayanarak ihraç etmedi. Kavakçı aslında yasal olarak milletvekilliği koltuğunu kaybetmesine sebebiyet vermeyecek olmasına rağmen çifte vatandaşlığı bahane edilerek kovuşturuldu. Nitekim eski başbakanlardan Tansu Çiller’in de çifte vatandaşlığı vardı. Zaten tüm bu sebepler nedeniyle Kavakçı, 2005’te Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi’nde Türkiye aleyhine açtığı davayı kazandı ve Parlamentolar Arası Birlik’ten de destek aldı. <br />
<br />
Bugün AK Parti’nin başörtülü milletvekili adayı göstermedeki isteksizliği ya Anayasa Mahkemesi’nin parti hakkında yeni bir kapatma davası açması ya da ordu karşısında duyduğu korkudan kaynaklı gibi gözüküyor. <br />
<div closure_uid_uwqqcx="124"><br />
</div>Bu da AK Parti’nin içinden çıktığı Refah Partisi’nin ve Fazilet Partisi’nin akıbeti hatırlandığında anlaşılabilir bir korku. Büyük ihtimalle AK Partililerin hafızaları 28 Şubat sürecinde maruz kaldıkları hükümet, ordu, yargı ve ana akım medya kaynaklı, parti kapatma ve mahkûmiyetlerle sonuçlanan baskılara dair hala dipdiri. Bugüne kadar belli sınırları geçmeyerek iktidarda kaldılar ve öyle görünüyor ki başörtüsü meselesi yüzünden şu an durumlarını riske atmak istemiyorlar. <br />
<div closure_uid_uwqqcx="126"><br />
</div>Başörtülü kadınlar Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’ın İstanbul Büyükşehir Belediye başkanlığına seçildiği 1994 yerel seçimlerinde önemli bir rol oynadılar. Yine 1995’te Manisa milletvekili Bülent Arınç da dahil olmak üzere pek çok Refah Partili adayın meclise girmesinde ve nihayet 1996’da Erbakan hükümetinin yükselişinde de başörtülü kadınların hayati bir rolü var. <br />
<div closure_uid_uwqqcx="127"><br />
</div><div closure_uid_uwqqcx="128"><strong>Siyasetin kadınlara borcu</strong></div><div closure_uid_uwqqcx="130"><br />
</div>Yakın bir zamanda Merve Kavakçı üstüne hazırlığım kitabımla ilgili olarak Sibel Eraslan ile bir röportaj yaptım. Eraslan, 1990’larda Refah Partisi İstanbul Kadın Kolları başkanıydı ve Kavakçı’nın seçim kampanyasına da destek verdi. 1994 yerel seçimlerinde Ankara ve İstanbul belediyelerinin kazanılmasıyla sonuçlanan süreçte, kadın oylarının seferber edilmesi noktasında kilit bir rol oynadı. Eraslan’ın 18 bin kadın çalışanı bir ay içinde 200.000 kadın seçmen ile buluşmuştu. 1994’ün Mart ayında kazanılan zaferden sonra Eraslan, Refah Partisi’nin yeni kurulan yönetiminde yer bulamadı ve ondan evine geri dönmesi beklendi. Sibel Eraslan ve o dönem parti için çalışan pek çok başörtülü kadın, partinin başarısında hatırı sayılır bir katkıya sahip olmalarına rağmen ataerkil bir düşünce yapısının da sonucu olarak, partinin erkeklerine kıyasla eşitsiz bir muamele gördüler. <br />
<div closure_uid_uwqqcx="131"><br />
</div>1999’a gelindiğinde Refah’ın halefi Fazilet Partisi için çalışan başörtülü kadınlar artık milletvekili adaylığından mahrum bırakılmak istemiyorlardı. Hele de Nazlı Ilıcak ve Oya Akgönenç gibi laik yaşam tarzına sahip kadınların parti yönetiminde yer almasının ve adaylıklarının söz konusu olmasının ardından, başörtülü kadınların dışarıda bırakılmama talepleri daha da arttı. Parti yönetimi bu taleplere olumlu karşılık verdi ve 1999 seçimleri için Fazilet Partisi listesine, o dönem partinin kadın kolları başkanlığının uluslararası ilişkilerini yürüten 30 yaşındaki Merve Kavakçı dahil olmak üzere birkaç başörtülü aday kondu. Necmettin Erbakan, başörtülü adayların partiyi tehlikeye sokacağını düşünen ve şu anda AK Parti hükümetinde de yer alan bazı isimlerin aksine Kavakçı’nın adaylığını destekledi. Fakat haklı çıkan kötümseler oldu ve Fazilet partisi kapatıldı.<br />
<div closure_uid_uwqqcx="132"><br />
</div>Öte yandan üstünde durulması gereken nokta şu ki, bugün başörtülü kadınların hafızları da en az AK Parti yöneticilerininki kadar kötü anılarla dolu. Aradaki fark AK Parti’nin iktidarda, başörtülü kadınların ise siyasal alanın dışında olması. Ek olarak, geçen yaz YÖK’ün başörtülü öğrencilerin üniversitelere girebilmeleri yönündeki çabalarını saymaksak, bu kadınlar öğretmen, avukat, kamu görevlisi olmaktan ve herhangi bir meslekte profesyonelleşme hakkından men edilmiş durumdalar. Son araştırmalar çalışan başörtülü kadınların ise hem dindar hem de laik işverenler tarafından ayrımcılığa uğradığını gösteriyor. <br />
<div closure_uid_uwqqcx="133"><br />
</div><div closure_uid_uwqqcx="134"><strong>Çözümü ertelemek doğru mu</strong>?</div><div closure_uid_uwqqcx="137"><br />
</div>Bugün AK Parti’nin başörtüsü sorununu çözmesini beklemek gerçekçi bir seçenek gibi görünmüyor. Türkiye 1999’la yüzleşmek istemeyebilir fakat gerçekten demokratik bir ülke olabilmenin yolu geçmişle yüzleşmekten ve onun üstesinden gelmekten geçiyor. Abdurrahman Dilipak, Merve Kavakçı olayının AK Parti’nin üstünde demoklesin kılıcı gibi durduğunu söylüyor ve şu an için bu söylediğinde oldukça haklı. <br />
<div closure_uid_uwqqcx="138"><br />
</div>Atılacak olumlu bir adım Siyasal Partiler Yasası’nın diğer pek çok ülkedeki gibi önseçimlere dayanan, parti üyelerinin karar almalarına ve toplumun bütün kesimlerinin siyasal temsiline olanak sağlayan şekilde değişmesi olabilir. Önseçim bir takım dezavantajlarına rağmen Türkiye’deki siyasi partilerin, kendilerini destekleyen seçmenlerin seslerinin duyulabilmesi, adaletsizliğin ve eksik temsilin ortadan kalkması yani demokratikleşmesi yönünde ilk adım olacak. Daha katılımcı ve demokratik yönde bir değişim, kuşkusuz ki başörtülü kadınların da aslında bütün kadınlar ve parti seçmenleri ile birlikte, demokratik süreçten dışlanmasını sona erdirecektir. Böylece bazı adayları, seçilmelerini önleyecek şekilde liste sonlarına ekleyen aday gösterme pratiği de adil hale getirilmiş olur. Öte yandan başka bir seçenek ‘Başörtülü Aday Yoksa Oy da Yok!’ hareketinin yaptığı gibi, başörtülü milletvekili adayı göstermemiş partilere oy vermemek olabilir. Bu, “Başörtülü Milletvekili İstiyoruz” inisiyatifine etki alanının genişlemesi adına destek vermek demek olur ki siyaset de esasen böyle bir şeydir. Böylece İnisiyatif, seçilme şansı olan bağımsız başörtülü adayları destekleyemeye odaklanabilir. Öte yandan başörtülü kadınların nüfuslarına karşılık gelen bir meclis temsiline ulaşabilmeleri ve uzun vadede etkili bir değişim için majör partilere ihtiyaçları var.<br />
<div closure_uid_uwqqcx="139"><br />
</div>Son olarak, sahici bir demokratikleşme süreci için yüzde 10 seçim barajı kesinlikle kalkmalı. Sebebi basit: Bu sistemle oyların çoğunluğunu alamayan bir parti mecliste çoğunluğu elde edebiliyor. Evet, mevcut sistem istikrar getiriyor ama bedeli ağır. Bugün AK Parti başörtülü kadınları yok sayarak çıkabilecek muhtemel siyasi problemlerden kendini uzak tutabilir. Fakat Türkiye, nüfusun büyük çoğunluğunun temsil hakkı engellenirken, asla gerçek bir demokrasi olamaz<br />
<br />
</div></div>Richard Pereshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13344024979966718012noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-59391281696788540.post-37699294038405633572011-08-19T12:19:00.000+03:002011-08-19T12:19:51.692+03:00Headscarved Women Take the Lead towards Democracy<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><div closure_uid_kay8hm="105">By Richard Peres, published in Today's Zaman, March 27, 2011</div><div closure_uid_kay8hm="105"><br />
</div><div closure_uid_kay8hm="105">According to Juan Linz and Alfred Stepan, authors of “Problems of Democratic Transition and Consolidation,” transitioning to democracy will not occur until the government “de facto” has the authority to generate new policies and does not have to share power “de jure” with any other group. In the case of headscarved women candidates for Parliament, there is still nothing in the law that prevents a covered woman from running for office or taking her oath of office. The real issue is who “de facto” has the power in Turkey? </div><br />
<div closure_uid_kay8hm="120"><br />
A new poll revealed that “a full 78.1 percent of respondents said they would favor the idea of women being allowed to become deputies with their headscarves.” (March 25, 2011, Today’s Zaman) There are 18 million headscarved women in Turkey today. If they are prevented, de facto or de jure, from running for office, then Turkey cannot claim to be a full democracy by any accepted Western definition of the term, even minimally because elections are not completely free with a large part of the population excluded from representing the people. </div><br />
Some courageous women are trying to change things, to push Turkey across red lines and barriers that have existed for too long. Will Turkey’s political parties follow the old course or take the lead? Time is running out for them to provide their list of candidates to Turkey’s Supreme Election Board (YSK).<br />
<div closure_uid_kay8hm="122"><br />
</div><div closure_uid_kay8hm="123"><strong>Not waiting for the AK Party</strong></div><br />
Unfortunately, there are no positive indicators that the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) will nominate headscarved women. In fact, all the signs are the opposite. By not taking a leadership role in this area, the AK Party cannot be seen as the true advocates of a new democracy in Turkey. Only fear appears to stand in their way. Can the AK Party overcome it? <br />
<div closure_uid_kay8hm="125"><br />
</div>Rosa Parks did when she refused to give up her seat to a white person on Dec. 1, 1955, in Montgomery, Alabama. She was all alone in the racist deep south of America before the civil rights movement, with centuries of laws and customs against her and only the courage of her convictions to guide her. That courageous act set in motion the US civil rights movement and eventually the election of Barack Obama more than 50 tumultuous years later. <br />
<br />
<div closure_uid_kay8hm="126">About 12 years ago the Turkish equivalent of Parks, Merve Kavakçı, walked into Parliament to take her oath of office. She also was very much alone. The entire secular bloc attacked her, selectively and unfairly prosecuting her. No vote ever occurred in Parliament to remove her as set forth in the Constitution, which is why she won her case in the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). However, her seat remained empty. </div><br />
<div closure_uid_kay8hm="127">Many other “Merves” are coming forth: Ayşe Böhürler, Fatma Bostan Ünsal, Ceyda Karan, Yasemin Göksü, Nihal Bengisu Karaca, Hilal Kaplan, Cihan Aktaş, Hidayet Şefkatli Tuksal and Sibel Eraslan are taking leadership roles to make it happen. The new campaign is called “If not now, no votes from us,” or “Başörtülü aday yoksa oy da yok!” http://basortuluadayyoksaoydayok.wordpress.com. While they are pressing political parties to support them, they are not sitting back and waiting for the phone to ring but organizing and moving forward on their own. </div><br />
<div closure_uid_kay8hm="128">Why now? The reason is obvious: This is a clear issue of electoral enfranchisement, central to democracy, conveying a belief in the people’s will that is sweeping the Middle East now. It seems that the timing is not only right but perfect for headscarved women to take their legitimate place in Turkey’s democracy, establish the real “Turkish model” that so many other countries in the Middle East seem to be genuinely yearning for.</div><div closure_uid_kay8hm="129"><br />
</div><div closure_uid_kay8hm="130"><strong>What about the HAS Party?</strong></div><br />
Perhaps the AK Party does not want to take the risk. Party closure threats and tutelage are certainly possible. If no political party is willing to test the barriers to a headscarved candidate, that alone makes a case for Turkey not being democratic. Democracy requires political will and freedom to make choices without worrying about barriers, whether direct or indirect, whether by law or in practice, both de jure and de facto. <br />
<div closure_uid_kay8hm="132"><br />
</div>Certainly the environment in 1999, during the height of the “coup process,” was not the right time for a covered candidate to get elected without being blocked by the establishment from taking office. Should this fact set a precedent moving forward, forever blocking Turkey’s transition to full democracy? The issue is not only one of fairness and democracy. Excluding 18 million people from participating in governing is not practical or efficient for it excludes the talents and contribution of a big part of the population. They represent a vast, unused resource for Turkey, socially, politically and economically. <br />
<div closure_uid_kay8hm="133"><br />
</div>Who will take the first step? It may be that the founding members of the AK Party have too many bad memories of how the Virtue Party (FP) was treated in 1999 to escape from the past. The Republican People’s Party (CHP) has flirted with a new direction and has promised to resolve the headscarf issue for many years. Are they bold enough to change direction and gain a bigger constituency? <br />
<div closure_uid_kay8hm="134"><br />
</div>What about the Voice of the People Party (HAS Party), formed last year as a splinter from Necmettin Erbakan’s Felicity Party (SP). At its congress last November after his formal election as party leader, Numan Kurtulmuş said: “The HAS Party is at the center of the nation. The designations of others such as leftists or rightists are not binding for us. What binds us are our moral values and conscience. What brings us together is our will for justice and siding with the oppressed.” I cannot think of a group more worthy of their support and more pressing regarding the “moral values and conscience” of Turkey than its headscarved women. <br />
<div closure_uid_kay8hm="135"><br />
</div>The past does not have to dictate the future. When I see covered and uncovered young women having coffee together in a café, or enjoying themselves at a Tarkan concert or walking arm in arm down the street, I am optimistic about the future. Perhaps the youth of Turkey, the third largest number of Facebook users in the world, will take the next step.<br />
<div closure_uid_kay8hm="136"><br />
</div><div closure_uid_kay8hm="137"><strong>New voices of democracy</strong></div><br />
What happened in Tunisia and Egypt and now Libya had nothing to do with political parties. The sheer power of the people’s voice made itself heard. No one predicted it, not journalists, political scientists, heads of state, foreign ministers or party leaders, whether covert or visible. Their courage was startling, facing not just criticism and legal threats, but bullets. <br />
<div closure_uid_kay8hm="138"><br />
</div>If the AK Party follows its process for selecting parliamentary candidates, it should hear that voice and respond accordingly. On March 19 Mustafa Ataş, the head of the AK Party’s election coordinating center said, according to Today’s Zaman, “First, separate surveys will be conducted in 85 voting districts in order to identify the local organizations’ preferences.” Certainly the party wants to pick candidates who have local support. Is there any doubt that covered candidates have that support today? They did 12 years ago, even during the repressive atmosphere of the coup process. Tens of thousands cheered for Kavakçı at rallies in İstanbul’s 1st District, with women chanting, “We are women, we are strong and we exist.” <br />
<div closure_uid_kay8hm="139"><br />
</div>That voice will only get stronger in 2011 in light of a more open society and increased freedom of expression compared to 1999. Women who do not receive the nomination of a particular party will run as independents. Only when the de facto and de jure barriers are overcome will Turkish democracy finally arrive in Parliament. <br />
<div closure_uid_kay8hm="140">--------------------------------------------------------------------------------</div><br />
<br />
<div closure_uid_kay8hm="142"><br />
</div><br />
</div>Richard Pereshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13344024979966718012noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-59391281696788540.post-9279183125042675342011-02-01T10:27:00.001+02:002011-02-01T10:29:41.998+02:00Democracy in the Islamic Middle East - a scary prospect for American policy-makers<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">[Published in Today's Zaman, February 1, 2011]<br />
<br />
I understand “realpolitik.” I am familiar with the driving concept of “national interest,” as espoused by Hans Morgenthau of the University of Chicago in the 1950’s that has been at the center of American foreign policy ever since. It is a policy that often leads the U.S. to make “friends” with dictators, kings, and other nefarious people to sustain a strategic partnership, regional defensive effort, or stability that supports U.S. interests abroad.<br />
<br />
When no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq, the Bush administration changed its discourse and switched to “democracy” as its justification for the invasion in 2003. After all, Saddam Hussein was a “bad guy” anyway, even if his role as a “war on terror” target made little sense. Ironically, the unfairness of the invasion led to more terror in the world and more need for the Western alliance to lend support for undemocratic and unjust regimes to protect its interests. <br />
<br />
<strong>The Winds of Democracy</strong><br />
<br />
Now, in the Middle East, an area of the world with many repressive regimes and long-term leaders who have remained in power by suppressing democratic representation by means of military power, constrictive constitutions, sham parliaments, lack of free speech and individual rights, and systems that have hard-wired support for the government’s party making it impossible for an opposition to take hold, something amazing is happening: from Tunisia to Yemen, to Egypt, to Jordan people have awakened from years of subjugation by being pushed to the brink by political dysfunction and economic destitution. They have started to express themselves by means of the only option left for them, and the only venue they know: taking to the streets.<br />
<br />
America’s response is telling, and disappointing. Not long before Ben Ali fled Tunisia, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated that her government was “not taking sides” in that conflict. Last Friday, in the heat of the street demonstrations and battles all over Egypt, she pressed for non-violence and “reforms,” once again not taking sides against a close personal friend and long-time U.S. ally, President Mubarak, seen as a key to “stability” in the Middle East. The American news anchor of CNN International could not help asking, “Who is behind the demonstrations in Egypt?” a question which expresses a mindset suspicious of the genuineness of democracy and welfare demands of the masses in the streets. In a similar vein, he said that the U.S. would be very interested in knowing if the Muslim Brotherhood or other Islamist groups were involved in these demonstrations, which “would change things substantially.” Really? This is the same old Cold War mentality, which we can now call the War on Terror mentality, which believes that if it is organized by Islamic groups, the demands of the masses in the streets are not genuinely democratic and not on “our” side. The reports of Al Jazeera were refreshingly free of this perspective, reports that are not seen in the U.S. That network knows the difference between Islamic and Islamist, and also that the latter term can mean any type of political movement, not simply the “bad” one in the minds of the West.<br />
<br />
<strong>Democracy at the Expense of Stability</strong><br />
<br />
How sad. Earth to America: the vast majority of people in the Middle East are Islamic. Their political parties and organizations come in many variations but for the most part are simply made up of people who have not had a voice in their various countries and have suffered politically, economically, and socially. Freely expressing that voice comes with democracy. <br />
<br />
During the Cold War, for those of us old enough to remember, the world got used to America’s defense of “the free world” against the scourge of communism. Radio Free Europe and other information organizations constantly spread the word, until it seems the Soviet Union, our “evil empire,” succumbed to the words of Ronald Reagan and the Berlin Wall fell. Was the defense of democracy just rhetoric?<br />
<br />
Democracy in the Middle East is a volatile concept. It’s unpredictable, has an unforeseen path, and hardly breeds stability and peace. At Davos, Tony Blair called for an “orderly” path of change in the Middle East, reminding us once more that the magic words “orderly” or “stable” are the only safeguards for protecting strategic, economic and political interests of the bloc he represents amid the sea change that is bound to take place in this part of the world. Blair forgets that “stability” is a precious concept only when it nourishes, protects and cherishes democracy, not dictatorships.<br />
<br />
<strong>“Democracy We Can Believe In”?</strong><br />
<br />
That is not the only reason that word – democracy -- is no longer heard from American and Western policy-makers. The main reason is that the West has a very hard time grasping two concepts together: democracy and Islam. When those concepts are mixed together, eyebrows wince and lips are tightened or become silent. It might work, perhaps in Iraq, in a purely secular way, via elections, as long as Islamic-centered parties are not involved and Islamic traditions do not conflict with an American view of democracy.<br />
<br />
But democracy is not simply an American concept. The Greeks gave birth to the concept before America existed, when London was barely farm land, before the rise of nation-states. The concept of a people deciding on how they shall govern themselves does not impose hard and fast rules on a particular form of representation or government or how religion is practiced. It simply enables people to decide for themselves, which sometimes may differ from the values and cultures of others and which sometimes produces unhappiness given that democracies have different trajectories in different conditions.<br />
<br />
Democracy in the Middle East can be very messy and bring instability. In many ways it is a dangerous concept. This is particularly the case when political institutions in a country have not been allowed to develop, when participation has been repressed for decades, when political power originates from the end of a gun and not the support of a people. It takes some struggle, instability, uncertainty, ups and downs and time to develop civil and political institutions; rules on how polemical discourse is resolved; and how the transition of political power takes place without violence.<br />
<br />
On the other hand, democracy is the answer to terrorism and the best solution to terrorist groups who have been rewarded with too much notoriety and press coverage by the West without due consideration given to the average person who struggles each day to find work, make a living, raise children, and hold a family together in peace. In the long run, it would be nice if America and the West could manage to place that concept within the context of countries where Islam is the main religion, allowing them to define on their own how Islam and democracy are manifested. <br />
<br />
*Richard Peres is a writer and journalist living in Istanbul http://richperes.blogspot.com rich.peres@gmail.com <br />
<br />
</div>Richard Pereshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13344024979966718012noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-59391281696788540.post-30572161765987187822011-01-10T15:20:00.000+02:002011-01-10T15:20:19.659+02:00Religious Freedom, published in Today's Zaman, January 9, 2011<span style="font-size: large;">Religious freedom in America and its source </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">by RICHARD PERES* </span><br />
<br />
09 January 2011, Sunday <br />
<br />
While I was in America in December an important anniversary came and went with little notice by anyone. On Dec. 15, 1791, Virginia became the 11th state to approve the ratification of the first 10 amendments -- also called the Bill of Rights -- to the US Constitution. <br />
<br />
There were only 14 states at the time, and Virginia’s approval met the three-fourths requirement for states to approve constitutional changes.<br />
<br />
What the early American settlers did more than 200 years ago has direct applicability today to the WikiLeaks revelations, the so-called Ground Zero mosque controversy and the lives of millions. The First Amendment often comes up in conversations; its meaning is continually discussed and seems to sit in the forefront of American consciousness.<br />
<br />
The First Amendment amounts to just 45 words, the first 16 providing religious freedom. It is clear, concise, amazingly to the point and without qualification:<br />
<br />
<em><strong>Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof</strong>; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.</em><br />
<br />
How is it that such a religious country so clearly kept religion out of the realm of government?<br />
<br />
<strong>The paradox of American secularism</strong><br />
<br />
It is well known that the founding fathers of America -- Alexander Hamilton, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, John Hancock, etc. -- were all Christians who openly espoused their beliefs within the context of establishing government in America, as do today’s presidents who proclaim “God bless America” during official events. Hamilton’s comments after the constitutional convention in 1787 were typical: “For my own part, I sincerely esteem it [the Constitution] as a system which without the finger of God, never could have been suggested and agreed upon by such a diversity of interests.” Yet, notwithstanding these orations, and the fact that “In God We Trust” adorns US currency, the clear language of the first amendment is a barrier to government intrusions into the religious realm. Religious freedom was the first right of the first amendment to the US Constitution -- why was it so important?<br />
<br />
The answer stems from the fact that America was most often settled by those who fled religious persecution. In fact, it was a group of French Protestants, called Huguenots, who founded the first European colony in America in 1564 (in what is now Florida), escaping the persecution of Catholics. Their freedom was a matter of life and death. Beginning with the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre of Aug. 24, 1572, 25,000 Huguenots were slaughtered by French Catholics just in Paris alone in less than a month. Throughout the 17th century they and other Christians who were victimized for their beliefs arrived in US ports, looking for religious freedom and assimilating with the population. In fact Paul Revere, the famous first hero of the Revolutionary War, was descended from Huguenots, as well as Henry Laurens, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, and Alexander Hamilton. Similarly, the Massachusetts Bay Colony was established by English Puritans (Congregationalists), Pennsylvania by British Quakers, Maryland by English Catholics and Virginia by English Anglicans. Today there are more than 200 different religious denominations in America and a growing number of non-Christian ones, including those believing in Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam and Judaism.<br />
<br />
The key point here is that there is no contradiction between the religious character of American society and the fact that American public life is organized around religious freedom. Religious freedom in America emanates from below, that is, from the interests of its people, not its government. The government, or state, has no involvement other than to stipulate and enforce the free exercise of religion.<br />
<br />
<strong>Islam in America</strong><br />
<br />
Although religion is not asked by US census takers, the general estimate, based on NGO surveys, is that there are between 6 million and 10 million believers of Islam in America today. Initial settlers came from the Ottoman Empire between the 1880s and 1914. Today’s US Muslim population consists of people mostly from South Asia and Arab countries.<br />
<br />
The Islamic population in America suffers more discrimination than other groups but knows that such discrimination is unlawful and is willing to exercise its rights. “While Muslims comprise less than 2 percent of the American population, they accounted for approximately one quarter of the religious discrimination claims filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission during 2009.”<br />
<br />
Ironically, America’s founding fathers were sympathetic to Islamic people. Among the many fascinating bits of information you will find on the Internet, through sites such as Wikipedia, regarding Islam in America:<br />
<br />
“In 1776, John Adams published ‘Thoughts on Government,’ in which he praises the Islamic prophet Muhammad as a ‘sober inquirer after truth’ alongside Confucius, Zoroaster, Socrates and other pagan and Christian thinkers.”<br />
<br />
“In 1785, George Washington stated a willingness to hire ‘Mahometans,’ as well as people of any nation or religion, to work on his private estate at Mount Vernon if they were ‘good workmen’.”<br />
<br />
Benjamin Franklin, in his autobiography, and Thomas Jefferson defended the religious freedom of Muslim people in America.<br />
<br />
In summary, despite America’s religiosity, it is no wonder that America’s earliest legislators enacted the First Amendment and took a “hands-off” attitude towards religion on the part of government.<br />
<br />
<strong>The post-9/11 world</strong><br />
<br />
Unquestionably, religious freedom is being tested in America in regards to Islamic people after the traumatizing events of Sept. 11. The divide is serious and comes to the surface even in my discussions with friends regardless of their religion or education. I try to combat vindictive generalizations with my own experiences in Turkey, and the people I know personally and interact with daily -- sometimes without success.<br />
<br />
The latest attack on the political front in the US comes from one Peter King, the new Republican chairman of the Homeland Security Committee in the US House of Representatives. He is launching an investigation into the “radicalization” of American Muslims, similar to the “investigation” of the New York City mosque he touted last summer. Representative Keith Ellison, America’s first Muslim member of congress, objected and told this to Mr. King face-to-face in the halls of Congress. He said that vilifying one community was the wrong approach.<br />
<br />
Even in this environment I remain hopeful. For one thing, religious freedom and respect for others’ beliefs enabled Mr. Ellison to get elected in the first place. The First Amendment’s protections are well-established in America.<br />
<br />
And there are the people I met during my recent visit to the States. One is a middle school principal in Maryland who supports the right to wear any kind of religious attire in her school, including a young Sikh who wears a turban and has never had a haircut.<br />
<br />
And finally there is a Turkish friend, an Islamic woman, living in New York City. Her 9-year-old girl wants to wear a headscarf. She tried to have her postpone that decision until she is older, but her daughter insisted. Having faced bad treatment because of her own religious beliefs and concerned about how she might be treated unfairly at school, the mother met with her daughter’s school principal. But the principal assured her that this was not a problem and that she would watch out for her daughter and intercede should she be harassed or have difficulties in school. <br />
<br />
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />
<br />
*Richard Peres is the author of two books on discrimination law and a writer living in İstanbul. http://richperes.blogspot.com rich.peres@gmail.comRichard Pereshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13344024979966718012noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-59391281696788540.post-49574211290438298432010-12-07T20:25:00.000+02:002010-12-07T20:25:38.773+02:00Proving Employment Discrimination - by Richard PeresThis was published December 7, 2010, in Today's Zaman, in anticipation of a new law in Turkey prohibiting discrimination law,<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;">How do you prove employment discrimination?</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">The challenge of a new law </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">by </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">Richard Peres* </span><br />
<br />
I welcome the report that the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) government will soon create an Equality and Anti-Discrimination Board, subject to Parliament’s approval. <br />
<br />
The new board is intended to “make sure that all people are treated equally regardless of their race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation and political choices.” (Today’s Zaman, Dec. 1, 2010) It is a bold and noble first step in the recognition of a problem that may be obvious to many, but which many employers would rather not discuss. The most recent Turkish Economic and Social Studies Foundation (TESEV) study on the treatment of headscarved women in employment, Turkey’s very low employment rate for women and a myriad of other studies, surveys, and anecdotal evidence all point to the need for a solution. Moreover, there is a pervasive practice of discrimination against those who are perceived as minorities, the powerless and the ones who are different in terms of their beliefs and lifestyles from the mainstream.<br />
<br />
One of the first issues that investigators and the courts will need to address is how discrimination is proved. The answer is tricky. Discrimination is not something that people will readily admit. At least that has been the American experience after more than 50 years of investigating millions of complaints and deciding thousands of cases in state and federal courts. The fact that discrimination is often subtle and by nature hidden has directly affected the development of a judicial approach to proving your case in court in America. How this works might surprise you! Why? Admissions of guilt are not expected and circumstantial evidence is admissible.<br />
<br />
<strong>Burden of proof</strong><br />
<br />
The first issue addressed by the US courts was, who has to prove what? In other words, who has the burden of proof? The courts agreed that the plaintiff does not have to prove intent to discriminate on the part of an employer. The initial burden on the plaintiff is the need to prove that initially – “prima facie” (meaning “first face” in Latin) – discrimination occurred. Then the burden shifts to the employer to provide a valid or “bona fide” reason for what occurred.<br />
<br />
For example, let’s assume that a headscarved woman, named Esra, sends in her resume to an employer in response to a job posting. The job requires a college degree and two years of sales experience, which the woman has. Esra receives an initial screening interview phone call by the employer, which she passes. The employer sounds positive and a personal interview is then scheduled.<br />
<br />
However, when Esra shows up for the scheduled personal interview, she is shown a different attitude by the employer. She is asked only a few perfunctory questions and is told that the employer still has many applicants to interview and that she will be contacted for any job offers. Suspicious, Esra asks the interviewer if her wearing a headscarf is a problem. The employer’s response is, “Of course not.” Esra waits for several weeks and is eventually told that someone else was hired for the position. She finds out through a male friend who works at the company that the person hired is a man named Burak.<br />
<br />
Has Esra made a “prima facie” case of discrimination against the employer?<br />
<br />
<strong>The answer is yes.</strong><br />
<br />
The reasons for this are:<br />
<br />
1. She applied for an available position.<br />
<br />
2. She met the initial qualification standards<br />
<br />
3. The employer’s attitude appeared to change when he saw Esra.<br />
<br />
4. Esra is protected by the anti-discrimination law because she is a woman and she wears a headscarf. She is basing her claim on her gender and religious beliefs, two areas covered by the law.<br />
<br />
5. A person not of her category (protected class) was given the position. The key point here is the existence of a special category of persons named and formalized in law as “protected class.” If Esra does not fall into this category, there is nothing she can do.<br />
<br />
<strong>The burden shifts</strong><br />
<br />
This is all circumstantial evidence, but it is enough to shift the burden of proof. Now the employer must explain why he did not hire Esra and why he hired Burak. The employer’s explanation needs to be reasonable, that is, valid and objective.<br />
<br />
In answering the complaint, the employer states that Esra did not make a good impression during the personal interview. Although this is subjective, the employer argues that it is valid because salespeople need to personable and likeable to succeed with customers. The person hired, Burak, was well liked by his past employer, who said that he got along wonderfully with customers.<br />
<br />
Let’s carry on with this imaginary scenario. An investigation by a state anti-discrimination agency finds that the employer has never hired a headscarved woman in the sales department, although two worked in the accounting office away from customers. Also, it is revealed that the employer did not check Esra’s references. It was found that Burak’s references were only checked after he was hired when Esra filed her complaint. An investigation would typically also look at the requirements for the job and whether they are valid, that is, are they really necessary to performing the job’s duties. An analysis would also be done of the employer’s past hiring practices, how job openings are posted and communicated, all the other applications for the position and all those applicants who were interviewed.<br />
<br />
Based on the investigation, the agency will make a finding of “probable cause” and try to settle the case with a suitable remedy and without the time and expense of a court hearing. Typical remedies would include a job offer to Esra and payment for the lost wages that she would have earned had she been hired.<br />
<br />
The important point to note here is that fines are rarely imposed. This is because some employers would rather pay a fine and keep discriminating. More importantly, fines do not help those who are discriminated against. A person discriminated against in hiring has a right to the job in question, or lost wages, or both.<br />
<br />
Employers who do settle these types of cases always stipulate that the settlement is not an admission of guilt. They settle at this stage because they will likely lose their case in court, or a court case would be bad publicity for the company. Should the case not settle in Esra’s favor, the agency might take the case to court for Esra, a big advantage for her, saving her the need to get her own lawyer.<br />
<br />
There are many types of employment discrimination cases, relating to hiring, promotions, firing and working conditions. In all such cases the investigator will look for “differential treatment,” that is, whether the plaintiff was treated differently compared to others not in her “protected class” or grouping. It is assumed that this differential treatment is because of her being in that group. In the case of Esra, that she is a woman or because of her religion.<br />
<br />
<strong>Change is a long process</strong><br />
<br />
Many employers in the US structure their hiring practices to avoid committing discrimination. This is because subjective hiring and firing criteria make employers vulnerable to complaints. Also, employers are responsible for the decisions of their managers, whether they approve of them or not.<br />
<br />
Despite a myriad of anti-discrimination laws and agencies in all 50 US states, and in several federal agencies, such as the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, complaints are still filed and many multi-million dollar class action lawsuits are handled by the courts. Ending discrimination is a long process.<br />
<br />
Turkey is just beginning on this path with few court precedents, regulations and guidelines, and little investigative experience. Nevertheless, it is a major step that deserves our admiration and support. Only by handling complaints one at a time can a discrimination-free environment be achieved, a key ingredient to a functioning economy and educational system. Getting started is half the battle. Turkey will find its own way in handling such cases, establishing proofs and alleviating the pain of those treated unfairly for reasons unrelated to their performing a job. <br />
<br />
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />
<br />
*Richard Peres spent several years handling discrimination cases in the US and is the author of two books on discrimination law, its proofs and how to prevent complaints. He is a writer living in İstanbul and a contributor to Today’s Zaman. Rich.peres@gmail.com<br />
<br />
2010-12-07 <br />
<br />
Muhabir: Richard Peres*Richard Pereshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13344024979966718012noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-59391281696788540.post-22919226124795084072010-11-09T17:46:00.000+02:002010-11-09T17:46:38.954+02:00Richard Peres on Russia Today televisionI was asked to comment on Michael Bloomberg's statement about how the US should not blame their economic problems on the Chinese.<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVyPUQFm33Q">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVyPUQFm33Q</a>Richard Pereshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13344024979966718012noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-59391281696788540.post-18512355948070363972010-10-31T14:30:00.000+02:002010-10-31T14:30:23.683+02:00Merve Kavakci Islam Interview - by Richard PeresThis interview was published on the front page of Today's Zaman, October 31, 2010.<br />
<br />
INTERVIEW WITH DR. MERVE KAVAKCI ISLAM<br />
<br />
<br />
WILL SHE RETURN TO HER VACANT SEAT IN THE PARLIAMENT?<br />
<br />
BY RICHARD PERES*<br />
<br />
Dr. Merve Kavakci Islam is currently a Lecturer in International Affairs at George Washington University.. She was elected to the Turkish Parliament on April 18, 1999 but was subsequently not allowed to take her oath of office due to protests over her wearing of a headscarf. She holds a Ph.D in political science from Howard University, an MPA from Harvard University and a B.S. in software engineering from the University of Texas at Dallas. Her areas of expertise are the democratization of the Muslim world, contemporary Turkish politics, women in Islam, and Muslim women in politics. She spoke with me by phone on October 26, 2010 from her office in Washington, DC.<br />
<br />
<strong>I see your name has changed. Congratulations on your marriage, Dr. Kavakci</strong><br />
<br />
Thank you. Yes, it is Dr. Merve Kavakci Islam and I am very happy, married to Nazir Cihangir Islam MD, orthopedic and spine surgeon in Istanbul.<br />
<br />
<strong>And I also understand you have a book coming out?</strong><br />
<br />
Yes, in fact today. It’s published by Palgrave-Macmillan and it’s called, “Headscarf Politics in Turkey: A Post-Colonial Reading.”<br />
<br />
<strong>Sounds like an academic book?</strong><br />
<br />
Yes, in fact it was my PhD thesis with some modifications.<br />
<br />
<strong>Can you tell us what the book is about and how it relates to your experience in the Parliament?</strong><br />
<br />
It analyzes Turkey’s role model status within the context of Turkey’s treatment of headscarved women, and tries to shed a personal light on the rights of these women and how their lives are affected over the decades.<br />
<br />
<strong>What does that mean, a “post-colonial reading”?</strong><br />
<br />
It basically looks at the Orientalist assumptions within the Turkish context and brings a critique to those Orientalist ideals that are entrenched within the Turkish Republic, and how these Orientalist assumptions were used to marginalize headscarved women from public life. At the end I argue that is a disservice to the republic politically, socially, and economically as well.<br />
<br />
<strong>So the West was Orientalist and felt itself superior towards its colonies, and in the post-colonial era Turkey followed this although it had no colonial experience in the past?</strong><br />
<br />
Yes. The Turkish Republic found its way to modernization at the outset and embraced the Westernization project in a fervent and adamant manner. It also internalized the very Orientalist assumptions itself, that the West was much better than the East and therefore the Turkish people needed to keep up with Western civilization and this process led to the “indigenous-ation” of Orientalist assumptions by the regime. So I name these people Orientalized Orientals and I shed light on how they treated headscarved women and argue that they are actually neither part of the Orient nor Occident – they are caught in-between. They look up to the West and thus legitimize marginalization of headscarved women from society. Of course it is also a misreading by Turkey of the West as well. Here our own Orientalized Orientals, rather than taking in and internalizing the concept of liberties and freedom from the West, import an attitude of bans which is antithetical to what the West really stands for. As a result for an Orientalized Oriental to be “uncovered” supersedes to be educated. <br />
<br />
<strong>What are some of your feelings about what is happening now in Turkey with renewed public discussions regarding headscarf prohibitions?</strong><br />
<br />
The headscarf ban is a cancerous wound that needs immediate attention. It is finally sitting on the national agenda with national coverage and hopefully an in-depth discussion because this is a matter that has been affecting Turkish women’s lives for over 30 years. It’s unfortunate we women fail to attract much attention in the political arena. It’s often been a matter that no one wanted to think about or talk about and try to resolve. Now we are finally addressing what we really want to do with this large population of women who are in a way ostracized from society. They are here, they are not going away, and they are maybe growing in number and they want to participate in public life.<br />
<br />
<strong>But most articles in the paper say the ban has been in effect since 1997. You are saying it’s really been much longer?</strong><br />
<br />
Yes, many of the women who are affected by the ban are not aware of its history. This is not a new thing. It started in 1981 right after the military coup. Prior to that, individual cases were raised. Of course, afterwards, depending on the political environment, and administrators in the universities, the ban was loosened up here and there but it has been part and parcel of Turkish women’s history for the past 30 years.<br />
<br />
<strong>You are well known in Turkish political history but wasn’t your first goal in life to be a doctor?</strong><br />
<br />
Yes, well I suppose you could call me a person who believes in destiny and I am a person who goes with the flow with the terms of her life. I never thought that I would end up in political life. Politics was not one of my passions early on. I come for an academically established family so my parents always wanted to see me in academia and I wanted originally to be a medical doctor and so I entered Ankara University Medical School, one of the top medical schools in the country. However the headscarf ban hit me right there, right then, as a freshman in 1986 and it was really impossible to go to school and sneak into classes in and out with my headscarf so by my second year I had to choose between my convictions and my profession.<br />
<br />
<strong>And this coincided with your family being subject to the ban as well?</strong><br />
<br />
Yes, this is a very sad fact about the headscarf ban in Turkey. It affects generations. It’s not just one small group of people whom you could overlook and tend to ignore. It affects not just one generation but so far in the last 30 years we are talking about three generations. I am a living example of that very fact. My mother had to leave the university when she taught German literature right after the ban was implemented by the coup government and right when I was in medical school I ran into the same problem. I was the second generation. But my parents took this very bold step of leaving everything behind and moving to another country so that I and my two younger sisters could have an education without having to compromise our religious values. And now I look at my daughters who have already graduated from college, two young women with a headscarf , and unfortunately three generations have already been affected.<br />
<br />
<strong>And yet you decided to come back to Turkey in the 1990’s. Why?</strong><br />
<br />
It was important for me to be in my country and to expose my children at an early age to Turkish culture and language and to the rest of our larger extended family. We were also homesick. You cannot stay too long away from where your loved ones are and we came back to Turkey only to find out that I would find my new niche in life, that was politics. Because I was coming back to Turkey with a software engineering degree and in those years I thought what can I do? I am a woman with a headscarf? And therefore the only thing I could do was rear my children and meanwhile with the power of destiny I was asked to volunteer for a political party which I felt was my niche.<br />
<br />
<strong>When you started working for the Refah Party, what was the role of women?</strong><br />
<br />
The Refah Party was one of the first to organize women in large numbers. We hadn’t seen that in the political Islamic tradition and those preceding the party, including the National Salvation Party, but the Refah was different. It was more comprehensive, more embracing and it wanted to utilize women’s effort, half the population of Turkey, and bring them into the political realm. So what was interesting to see was how women, who only had an agency in the family as mothers, wives and sisters, were brought out to the public realm and rendered political agency. I was one of the women who were working at the headquarters. I was overseeing this whole project and was responsible for International Affairs.<br />
<br />
<strong>When was this?</strong><br />
<br />
In 1993, 1994. We were going into the municipality elections.<br />
<br />
<strong>Did Tayyip Erdogan benefit from women’s involvement in the party?</strong><br />
<br />
Yes, definitely. In fact Tayyip Erdogan, who was head of the Istanbul branch of the party and got elected mayor, was one of the front liners who encouraged women’s participation in political life and he worked very closely with the women’s commission and of course benefited by their involvement.<br />
<br />
<strong>Did this participation by women continued in the Fazilet Party</strong>?<br />
<br />
Yes. What happened was at the end of the general elections in 1995 everyone conceded that it was the women of Refah who helped bring it to power, and other parties emulated what Refah had done with women involved in one to one interaction with constituents. They took this as a model so it became a focus of study if you will because women’s power was for the first time wielded to bring a party to power. We are talking of about 200,000 women across the country who were responsible, from the headquarters down to the street level, who covered every apartment to get out the message for Refah. So when the Refah went down, Fazilet continued in the same tradition.<br />
<br />
Refah Party was very much criticized for not nominating women, for utilizing women’s efforts but not letting them represent themselves in parliament. Ironically, this criticism came from outside, from the Kemalists, who used this to bash the Refah movement. It also came from liberals, it came from women’s groups, it came from leftist groups too, and was a topic of discourse within the party as well. So, when Refah was closed down and Fazilet was established, the question of including women at higher representative places was raised. Fazilet became more of an open party, more democratic. And women from secular life styles came into the party, women like Nazli Ilicak and for the first time in a political Islamic movement women were included in the General Executive Board. But I continued with heading the Foreign Affairs Division of the Women’s Commission. When the early election time came there were pressures from within and outside the party regarding headscarved women on the question of nominations. They had played an indispensable role in the success of the movement. The nomination of women who were secular would be embarrassing without nominations of women with headscarves. After all, this is the Turkish nation and, like it or not, at the time it seventy-three percent of Turkish women wore a headscarf. This is part of our culture, tradition, history, but most importantly part of our religion. The Fazilet Party had a healthy discourse and made the right decision by involving women.<br />
<br />
<strong>But many writers in the West described your nomination as something that simply came from Erbakan. How do you respond to that?</strong><br />
<br />
Well, it is unfortunate. The reality is actually a lot more complicated. Erbakan always had a sway over the Islamic political movement. However at this time he was banned from politics. He had an indirect role in the decision-making body as well, still, nonetheless, the nomination of a headscarved women was discussed at the General Executive Board time after time, people put out their views, the advantages and disadvantages, and a list of the ones who were brought in. I was only one of the 17 women, covered and uncovered who were nominated. It was almost a guarantee that two women with, and two without headscarves were going to be elected but it turned out that I was the only one who got elected, so it is a wrong reading of history to put this on one person. When they started discussing the nomination of Nazli Ilicak and other secular women the hardcore workers who put their lives in this 24/7 over the years started raising their voices that they wanted to be represented. I know this because I worked with these women. We know that we carried the party to power in 1997, and therefore it was very important that we have some sort of representation. So there was a pressure from bottom up, not just at the decision-making body of the party.<br />
<br />
<strong>Is</strong> <strong>Islamic women’s support part of AK Party’s support today?</strong><br />
<br />
Well, I am just speaking as an outsider now and I am not too familiar with how the Women’s Commission under the AK Party is working currently but by personal experience I know that some of my friends who worked for Fazilet are now working for AKP and still women hold an important, influential part of the party. However, I do not understand the AKP’s position of just wanting to lift the ban at the universities and of course CHP coming from the Kemalist tradition they are even having trouble with that. I do not feel rights can be partially granted. Lifting the ban just for the universities would be similar to eradicating the cancer halfway. Once we are there in the operating theater let’s complete the job and free the body of this cancer.<br />
<br />
<strong>Do you think there is now a bottom-up movement to bring about headscarved women candidates today, given how some women are speaking out now?</strong><br />
<br />
I think it is a similar one. The AKP embraces and values women participation. The prime minister has talked about it as well, including in the political realm, where women’s representation is very low. Unfortunately, the reality on the ground is very grim and therefore to include the number of women in the parliament and decision-making bodies is critical and therefore women with headscarves also need more representation.<br />
<br />
<strong>What are your plans for running for office? Would you consider doing it again?</strong><br />
<br />
Women must be represented in higher numbers in all facets of the political machinery. Therefore I believe that more women including women with headscarves must run for office in the next election. After all, all concur that Turkey must democratize itself, and this is one way of doing it. As far as my case is concerned, I have a court decree in hand, that of the European Court of Human Rights that states that Turkey violated free elections in the Kavakci Affair. I was ready to do my job but was never permitted to complete it. Not only was I precluded from carrying the responsibility of representing people of Istanbul but they were also stripped of their right to representation. Because the due process never took place, my seat remained vacant, leaving the constituents deprived of their representation. There is a suspended duty that needs completion. <br />
<br />
<strong>When you walked into the Parliament in 1999 were you expecting the almost violent response? How did you manage to deal with all that you went through?</strong><br />
<br />
Well, I usually know what to expect because I am a woman with a headscarf, and a daughter of a woman with a headscarf. Very early on in the 1970’s when I was a child I had seen my mother being verbally harassed when she was driving a car in Ankara where we lived, where there were very few women who could have a car and drive. This was unfathomable from a Kemalist point of view, and I also had seen many times belittling remarks made at my mother. When I grew up I faced the same thing walking in the streets of Ankara, people shouting at me, “You are too young to cover,” “Why are you covering?” “Are you getting paid from Iran or somewhere?” while I was trying to go about my life. So yes, I was expecting some sort of protest from people who cannot even accept our right to existence on this earth, very intolerant. Looking back I was probably too naive to think that democracy would win, that even if they do not like me they will have to put up tolerating me, but of course that didn’t occur. I don’t think I saw it coming at this very level. I don’t think anyone who was in the Parliament including the protesters knew what was coming. So not only I was shocked but they must have been shocked from the show they put together.<br />
<br />
<strong>What was it like to campaign, win, and then face what happened in the Parliament?</strong><br />
<br />
I was running after my life, my life was ahead of me if you will. I had to deal with all the tabloid’s so-called news about me and my family and attacks from the media while I tried to keep my composure and focus on my campaign as well. I had to make sure that people got to know me and explain what I wanted to do for Turkey so I could receive their votes. It was quite a difficult time. On the one hand I felt very proud to be nominated and elected, as both a woman and a covered woman, because that group needed to be represented. So I had to handle the attacks. I received my credentials from the state, based on that I ran for office, got elected to Parliament and then we had the trouble of taking my oath of office because people in the Parliament chose to protest and unfortunately the presiding president that day, the speaker, couldn’t placate their anger and their wrath towards me. He had to cut the session off. Of 550 people there were around 110 or so, we’re talking about one fifth of the Parliament, protesting against an officially elected member.<br />
<br />
<strong>When President Demirel later that evening called you an “agent provocateur” how did you feel?</strong><br />
<br />
I was shocked and disappointed. I was trying to make sense of what was going on in the Parliament and outside as well. Seeing women on the front lines of that protest was unexplainable for me and the President of Turkey, who very much knew my family, calling me an “agent provocateur” without any knowledge was very disappointing.<br />
<br />
<strong>The President knew your family?</strong><br />
<br />
Of course. His family is from Isparta and my mother’s family is from Isparta. He knows my uncle, calls him by his first name.<br />
<br />
<strong>So how could he make these statements? Was it coming from the military?</strong><br />
<br />
Actually two years later I was informed by a member of the Parliament from my party that actually Demirel carried the message from the military to my party and that this would end up in a military intervention if I were to take my oath of office.<br />
<br />
<strong>So with the president, prime minister, the press and the military, opposed to you, it was impossible for your party to do anything?</strong><br />
<br />
Well, they chose not to do anything.<br />
<br />
<strong>Getting back to Turkey today, what are your feelings about those who still oppose lifting the ban in the universities?</strong><br />
<br />
The surveys are very clear that the majority of Turkish people in large numbers favor lifting the ban, almost 90%, and almost 60% have no problem with a headscarved woman being elected to the Parliament. On the ground, at the people’s level, on the street, we have no problem living together, hand in hand, shoulder to shoulder, neighbor to neighbor, women with headscarves and women without headscarves. The trouble is up above in institutions. The matter must be approached from the perspective of freedom of expression. If we claim that we are a democracy we must live up to the standards of human rights and liberties with freedom of expression, freedom of religion and equal opportunity in education and at work. At this time and age it is unexplainable to live in a country where you cannot live with your dignity and you cannot have access to education or work because of your religious convictions; particularly in a Muslim country this is unexplainable. And if you look at the opposition, I suppose it has very much to do with the sharing of the public pie if you will. When you look at the rhetoric against lifting the ban, the pretexts, you find remarks belittling Islam and the religion or not respecting peoples’ choice, or you find insinuations of the threat these women will cause to the sharing of the public life and I suppose one can try to understand the mentality when a certain group of people assumed the public sphere for over eighty years. They need to know that there is no other way but to respect and tolerate one another. If we claim we are a democracy we can’t keep ignoring the majority of the female population who lack agency.<br />
<br />
<strong><em>*Richard Peres is a writer living in Istanbul and contributor to Today’s Zaman. He is completing a book on Merve Kavakci. http://richperes.blogspot.com rich.peres@gmail.com </em></strong>Richard Pereshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13344024979966718012noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-59391281696788540.post-61706938187979230002010-10-29T09:14:00.001+03:002010-10-29T09:22:33.011+03:0018,000,000 Individuals by Richard PeresThis article appeared in the October 29, 2010 issue of Today's Zaman.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;">Eighteen Million Individuals</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;">By Richard Peres*</span><br />
<br />
The other night I watched several vociferous headscarf debates on television. Two of them included Merve Kavakci Islam, an individual who was prevented from taking her oath of office in the Turkish Parliament on May 2, 1999.<br />
<br />
Yes, an individual. She is also a mother of two young women, holder of a PhD in Political Science, licensed driver in the State of Virginia, graduate of Harvard University, fan of the Dallas Cowboys (American) football team, person who puts three sugars in her Turkish cay, and a devout Muslim who wears a headscarf.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgGnvineLJIR84iefqWL1rd2fk-GsykwUN1hwn3qe7BuAsdtHSEleoNZ249Qsh8iotWnhncds9Z9Ue7zmq0cIBTRFvtIamCxhyLvRHrdlvc-BLY3TrweYBMDGcTwtmXktyHQ0nYw9kAig/s1600/RamadanIstanbul+069.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="240" nx="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgGnvineLJIR84iefqWL1rd2fk-GsykwUN1hwn3qe7BuAsdtHSEleoNZ249Qsh8iotWnhncds9Z9Ue7zmq0cIBTRFvtIamCxhyLvRHrdlvc-BLY3TrweYBMDGcTwtmXktyHQ0nYw9kAig/s320/RamadanIstanbul+069.JPG" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">First night of Ramazan, near Istanbul University, 2010</td></tr>
</tbody></table>That last characteristic places her in a category that, for some, eliminates her individuality. One of my readers, in response to my last article, wrote that “This ‘sack’ (‘cuval’ in Turkish, referring to a headscarf) is a call for fundamentalism. It fades the future of society and destroys the rights that were gained.” Another wrote that wearing the headscarf “is not a result of a ‘free choice,’ but of a social pressure to conform with the conservative norms promoted by the AKP and its Islamist allies... ... it is neither a sign of sincere piety nor conviction. And on top of it all, it is not even mandated in Islam.”<br />
<br />
These comments fall into a deep, dark area, one that cannot be penetrated by laws and regulations, where letters from YOK and even a new constitution would likely have little effect on their perceptions. Not even meeting a woman wearing a headscarf, or having a conversation with one over cay, would make much difference, I know. At the heart of what these people think is the eradication of free will, the marginalization of an entire group of people, and the effort to delegitimize their beliefs, feelings and motives. <br />
<br />
<strong>Incredible Mind Reading Capabilities</strong><br />
<br />
It’s amazing how some people can read the minds of others and know their motives. It appears that this ability exists in spite of the old assumption that the 6.5 billion of us on earth are unique, from finger prints and DNA to personalities and character; that we are influenced by infinite combinations of parents and friends, advertisements and movies, events, accidents and strokes of luck, and more of that unique DNA derived from a multitude of previous generations. All that stuff is simply not true, apparently<br />
<br />
And that’s not all.<br />
<br />
They seem to actually be telepathic and can detect when your motives aren’t what they seem. They know, for example, when you are not telling the truth, when you have a “hidden agenda.” The AK Party is often accused of having a “hidden agenda.” The most recent accusation was made a couple of days ago by the head of the CHP. He is not alone. Journalists, generals, presidents, American think tanks, and countless others seem to have the ability to know the motives of others, and those whose motives they know are almost always devout Muslims. In fact, these particular mind readers also know more about the Quran and “what is mandated in Islam.” For example, when General Evren banned the wearing of headscarves for students in 1981 via a decree by the National Security Council, he said, “There is no such thing in the religion anyway.” It doesn’t matter that they are neither religious nor academically trained in religion, Islamic Studies, or related fields. What is more important, It doesn’t matter that 18 million women in Turkey seem to disagree with them. They know what these women do not. There are thousands of books on Islam to consult I suppose, but that is not the point. Isn’t it enough to see that a majority of Muslims in Turkey are devout in their beliefs and can interpret the teachings of their religion for themselves? <br />
<br />
<strong>A Mind of One’s Own</strong><br />
<br />
Mind reading is particularly easy if you assume that a person does not have a mind of one’s own. In academic terms this is called “lack of agency.” Because they lack “agency,” there is no need to pay attention to these people because they have all been brainwashed and indoctrinated. This argument was expressed even against educated and accomplished covered women, who managed to become doctors, lawyers and academics by getting their education outside of Turkey. It has been espoused by so many people and cited so many times it is no wonder that my critic assumes it as fact. In her new book, just published by Palgrave-Macmillan, “Headscarf Politics in Turkey: A Postcolonial Reading,” Merve Kavakci Islam refers to those who marginalize others in this way as “Orientalized Orientals” who do not believe in democracy if it means “the other” coming to power.<br />
<br />
Merve Kavakci Islam has an intimate knowledge of what it is like to be placed in a category regardless of who you really are, regardless of your individuality. President Demirel labeled her an “agent provocateur” on May 2, 1999, a few hours after she walked into the Turkish Grand National Assembly to take her oath of office after being elected by the people of Istanbul’s 1st Electoral District. She was similarly prevented from entering Ankara University Medical School in 1988. Her mother was harassed because of her headscarf, ending her teaching career at Ataturk University in Erzurum six years earlier, after the bans imposed by the 1980 coup. Her father had also been forced to resign as dean of the religious faculty shortly after her mother. With all three Kavakci family members unable to pursue their education or careers, the family emigrated to America. After Merve Kavakci got her degree at the University of Texas she returned to her country so that her children would be raised in Turkey.<br />
<br />
The rest, as they say, is history.<br />
<br />
Last Thursday, October 21,2010, Merve Kavakci Islam appeared on CNN Turk and answered questions about what happened eleven years ago, what she thinks about the headscarf discussions that have recently emerged in Turkey, and whether she would want to run for office again. It was a far cry from the way she was treated on the Ali Kirca program on May 3, 1999. Perhaps Turkey really is ready for change.<br />
<br />
<strong>Who Is Pressured?</strong><br />
<br />
Facing educational barriers, marginalization and discrimination in employment and public places, the real pressures on covered women are to “uncover.” As Merve Kavakci Islam noted in her interview, some of these women were horribly subjected to persuasion rooms at Istanbul University and others. They suffered immeasurably because of their faith and most were not able to do what she did and get their education outside of Turkey. <br />
<br />
In a study done by TESEV in 2006 the following question was asked of covered women: “What would you do if your social circle took off their scarves?” 87.7% of respondents answered “I would still keep my scarf on” and 3.6% said “I would take my scarf off.” Another study done a year later found that 98.6% of women with headscarves said that they have the right to choose their marital spouse, 85.6% said that women should work to be economically independent and 87.5% believe that men and women have equal rights and responsibilities in the family. (“The Covered Reality of Turkey – Turkiyenin ortulu gercegi,” Istanbul, 2007).<br />
<br />
In spite of all the pressures against covered women, the data show that they do indeed have a mind of their own. They simply want to get an education, or practice their profession, or represent their constituents – all their constituents – while practicing their faith. <br />
<br />
The individuals of the 1st District in Istanbul made up their own minds about who should represent them in Parliament on April 18, 1999.<br />
<br />
When individuality is respected and rights are recognized, the headscarf “issue” -- in universities, employment, and even in the Parliament – will finally be resolved.<br />
<br />
--------------------<br />
<br />
* Richard Peres is a contributor to Today’s Zaman and a writer living in Istanbul. He is currently writing a book about Merve Kavakci, to be published in the Spring. http://richperes.blogspot.com rich.peres@gmail.comRichard Pereshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13344024979966718012noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-59391281696788540.post-8825451079064233572010-10-11T12:43:00.001+03:002010-10-11T12:53:22.183+03:00The Next Challenge for Headscarved Women: Getting A Job, by Richard Peres*[This article was published in Today's Zaman on October 11, 2010]<br />
<br />
The recent signs that all of Turkey’s universities may open their gates and class rooms to headscarved women are welcome and worthy of celebration. Their struggle began more than a generation ago, before the February 1997 coup process, and before the enactment of restrictions after the 1980 coup. The unwritten practice of preventing covered women from studying in undergraduate and graduate institutions across Turkey was first publicized with an incident at Ankara Divinity School involving Hatice Babacan but many non-publicized incidents occurred before then. Before any regulations or “dress codes,” unwritten customs and practices bred fear and discrimination, keeping covered women out of the university gates. <br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEil6AXGQbZWrZPSOjrjQxqeyDkP4pmscV-0bWgGgs6FFUvF2Jqh3O_p1hyV6BTliFAxtOfRz3k0tMH1zZjr3ZzcqFkU1c7NmOhdO12qq2YEqWO4r0F_R810o5_qf_Z2nSndQ9_AWhWSNg/s1600/RamadanIstanbul+032.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" ex="true" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEil6AXGQbZWrZPSOjrjQxqeyDkP4pmscV-0bWgGgs6FFUvF2Jqh3O_p1hyV6BTliFAxtOfRz3k0tMH1zZjr3ZzcqFkU1c7NmOhdO12qq2YEqWO4r0F_R810o5_qf_Z2nSndQ9_AWhWSNg/s320/RamadanIstanbul+032.JPG" width="320" /></a></div><br />
As this struggle plays out over the coming months or even years – we can assume that the issue of taking the university entrance exam will also be addressed -- and covered women start getting an education, a more challenging one will quickly surface. What will these new covered graduates do with their diplomas? Where will they be able to work? How will they apply their skills to increase their income and thereby add to Turkey’s economic growth? How will they gain employment in medical, academic and legal professions to provide needed services to the people of Turkey? They face a number of barriers to employment, many times more difficult to overcome than the university ban.<br />
<br />
Difficult Employment Barriers<br />
<br />
First, covered women are unable to work as civil servants, which accounts for about two and a half million jobs, according to a 2008 report prepared by Fatma Benli, attorney for AKDER. According to her report, this barrier would have to be addressed legally. Article 70 of the Constitution and Article 48 of the State Civil Servants’ Law sets out the requirements for civil servants without mentioning dress, but in the regulation on personnel dress in the Official Gazette of 25.10.1982 it is stated that “heads shall be uncovered at all times.” Between 1998 and 2002 15,000 women were dismissed or forced to resign because of the enforcement of this policy, and after 1999 covered women were not permitted to take the civil servant entry exam. Moreover, there is no sign from the opposition parties, including CHP, that removal of this restriction would be acceptable.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj6mjLVkwQ7TinVERtC4BhzLO3Uu9LjUJSrS235JLeSbzt184EBh-YBTULlYFY73eTFsLa1N9bDLJuz83JO6BM5wb1JC5ui8lgYPl8VGkTBfDqx2ZBR6R2pBXdEpr_MRuy5Qw4G0ceNIw/s1600/SehirCatsFenerbahceIstanbulOct52010+280.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" ex="true" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj6mjLVkwQ7TinVERtC4BhzLO3Uu9LjUJSrS235JLeSbzt184EBh-YBTULlYFY73eTFsLa1N9bDLJuz83JO6BM5wb1JC5ui8lgYPl8VGkTBfDqx2ZBR6R2pBXdEpr_MRuy5Qw4G0ceNIw/s320/SehirCatsFenerbahceIstanbulOct52010+280.JPG" width="320" /></a></div><br />
Second, there is evidence to support the notion that women generally (covered and uncovered) face discrimination in Turkey. Their participation in the workforce was 24.9% in 2006, the lowest in the EU, whose average is 49%. In addition, these women tend to have lower-paying, low status traditional women’s jobs. Half of them do piece or day work, often working part-time and without social security. Keeping such large numbers of women out of the workplace hurts the economy. They make less money and therefore spend less money, lessening their support for businesses and weakening the economy.<br />
<br />
Third, private employment sectors raise additional barriers to covered women. Doctors, lawyers, dentists, pharmacists, academics and other professionals are prevented from working due to restrictions of their professional chambers and associations. Headscarved lawyers, including Fatma Benli, are not allowed in court, a legal restriction supported by the Council of State. In addition to the suffering of these professionals, the people of Turkey end up with less services, less doctors, and, once again, a weakening of the economy.<br />
<br />
In addition to professionals, covered women face perhaps the largest and most difficult barrier in white collar jobs. Preference is given to uncovered women for good positions in private industry, such as office and information workers, as well as sales positions. The reasons vary from simple prejudice against covered women to organizations not wanting to be viewed as fundamentalist. “Even in sectors for production of commercial goods and services, the employment level of the women who wear the headscarf is low.” (AKDER, November, 2008). A covered friend of mine who had to go to Cyprus for her college degree and is bilingual – she helped me interview Turks for a book I am writing – has been unable for over a year to find a white collar job. As soon as she shows up for the interview, she finds that the position has been mysteriously filled or is no longer available. She has little recourse but to keep trying or emigrate to another country. <br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjfYqWMdFtvHVvhl4diwdQwhGX_afgpJXFl2QQzHcwzCkMa6p3uq4UgquAq3Odhv_Csh2vPtUsMd_bx5Syiv1tiDanshc4hFDOKwm7fMr_ygZ24kKLOV4ua1nC8gZYvsDiw912q94TN5Q/s1600/August-September2010+053.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" ex="true" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjfYqWMdFtvHVvhl4diwdQwhGX_afgpJXFl2QQzHcwzCkMa6p3uq4UgquAq3Odhv_Csh2vPtUsMd_bx5Syiv1tiDanshc4hFDOKwm7fMr_ygZ24kKLOV4ua1nC8gZYvsDiw912q94TN5Q/s320/August-September2010+053.JPG" width="320" /></a><br />
The American Example<br />
<br />
In America the most important legislation to fight discrimination was signed into law in 1964, approximately 350 years after the first slave ship landed on American shores. The battle to provide civil rights to African Americans was long, violent and almost without end. The Civil War was fought over the issue of slavery. It was America’s bloodiest war, resulting in 700,000 deaths, or three percent of the total population of the country. But even after that war, which resulted in African Americans being given their civil rights, African Americans still faced a horror story of prejudice and subjugation. Once Northern troops left the South after Reconstruction, anti-black laws and practices blocked African Americans from succeeding for 90 more years, years of blatant segregation, inequality, wholesale discrimination, lynching, and violation of voting rights. It was only after a sustained, non-violent, and integrated civil rights movement, led by Martin Luther King Jr., that laws against discrimination, with real enforcement power behind them, were enacted. Even then, riots broke out across America in city after city in 1967. This resulted in increased funding for anti-discrimination administrative agencies at both the state and federal level. Anyone can easily file a discrimination complaint in the US today based on race, religion, gender, national origin, sexual preference and other attributes.<br />
<br />
In the 1970’s I spent many years as a civil rights worker investigating such complaints of discrimination for a state agency. If a person filing a complaint could show that there was differential treatment compared to another person who was not a minority – or a male in the case of a sex discrimination complaint – the employer had to prove that uniform, non-discriminatory treatment occurred or face the consequences of fines, reinstatement, and changes in personnel policies. Proving discrimination is different from other legal proofs and I even wrote two books about it to help employers end discrimination at work.<br />
<br />
The goal of anti-discrimination laws in the US was not to change attitudes against African-Americans nor prejudices against women. Instead, the objective was to change behaviors in the workplace. In the last 50 years tens of thousands of cases have been filed and litigated. The result today is that employers do all they can to avoid preferential treatment of one group or the other. The laws worked and they worked because of tough and free enforcement by administrative agencies. Making discrimination against the law without enforcement, like the laws passed after the Civil War in America, did nothing to end discrimination on its own. It took about another one hundred years for real anti-discrimination laws to be passed and enforced, after a long civil rights movement<br />
<br />
Are Headscarved Women Ready?<br />
<br />
Is Turkey ready to implement a remedy for discrimination against covered women like the American experience? I doubt it. The reason: the American civil rights movement was the result of a long political struggle that mobilized millions of people throughout the country to bring about change. African Americans and women did not sit back and wait for one political party or another to affect change, or for an agency like YOK to send a letter. They got organized, influenced elections directly, exposed discrimination, fought cases in court, ran for elections, and put real political pressure on state legislatures and the US Congress. Waiting for the government to act was not enough to bring about landmark legislation with real enforcement power and supportive agencies to handle and investigate complaints, and go to court on the behalf of complainants if necessary.<br />
<br />
According to Tarhan Erdem there are now 17.9 million covered women in Turkey, an increase from 16.8 million in 2007 and 14.8 million in 2003. The number of uncovered women has decreased from 8.1 million in 2003 to 7.4 million in 2007 to 7.6 million in 2010. (Article in Radikal, October 5, 2010). Think of it: 18 million covered women. That is potentially a very significant political force but one that is not yet fully organized or led. Covered women should consider getting better organized and involved, perhaps even forming their own political party, to influence the passage of anti-discrimination laws. If this force were ever to get organized, on the model of the US civil rights movement, it could bring about the landmark legislation and sweeping changes necessary to enable covered women to work in a non-discriminatory workplace environment. It could bring about “behavior change” in the workplace, compelled not by changing attitudes only but by the law. That type of change would also bring about more integration of covered women into the mainstream of employment and would support non-covered women as well, providing Turkey with a richer and more productive economy and society as a whole.<br />
<br />
However, covered women must take their struggle into their own hands and get involved in the political process. Waiting for uncovered women, or men, regardless of political affiliation, to bring about real change, to truly reward their attainment of a university education, will unfortunately not be enough.<br />
<br />
* Richard Peres is the author two books on discrimination law published by McGraw-Hill, Inc. and a writer living in Istanbul. http://richperes.blogspot.com, rich.peres@gmail.comRichard Pereshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13344024979966718012noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-59391281696788540.post-33475087038870558342010-09-23T11:56:00.000+03:002010-09-23T11:56:39.491+03:00US & Turkish Opposition Parties - Just Say NOThis article was published in Today's Zaman on September 23, 2010<br />
<br />
Turkey and the US have one big thing in common when it comes to politics: there is no YES on the lips of its opposition parties.<br />
<br />
<br />
In the US two years ago Obama ran a fantastic, grass-roots, new media-driven campaign. But the essence of that campaign was an emphatic NO to George Bush’s policies rather than a big legislative plan. This worked exceedingly well because, well, by 2008 practically everyone disliked Bush. His “popularity,” if you could call it that, was under 30 percent. Attempting in the beginning to run a positive campaign, Obama eventually joined the negative forays against poor George and was elected. He’s kept most of his promises and pushed through a massive health care bill, consumer protection, financial reforms, and economic bail-outs, however.<br />
<br />
During these last two years the Republicans, on the other hand, voted uniformly NO for every piece of legislation Obama proposed, aligning with the belligerent Tea Party movement defined as anti-OBAMA. But what, exactly, are the Republicans for? It’s difficult to say these days. They have been the party of NO for the last two years. While Obama’s popularity has fallen, the Republican’s popularity ratings are even worse. Trying to take advantage of a continually stagnant economy, the Republicans are for replacing the Democratic majorities in Congress in the upcoming mid-term elections but are, as usual, staying away from specifics. Opposition? Yes. An alternative, NO.<br />
<br />
The situation in Turkey is achingly similar to the states. In fact I feel quite at home living here in Istanbul compared to my permanent home in Florida. The Turkish cuisine is healthier and the politics are pretty much the same. But, with the referendum finally over, it’s amusing to watch CHP (Republican People’s Party) and MHP (Nationalist Movement Party ) argue over who delivered the most NO votes. Both have launched accusations about who worked harder in opposition to the changes to the Constitution that Parliament recently approved, who put on more rallies and who visited more cities. Interesting in-fighting, but what, exactly, are CHP and MHP for? What are their platforms for Turkey? Are there alternative programs, ideologies, proposals to counter what the Parliament approved and what the referendum was about? What is their direction for political, economic and social change in Turkey or is everything just fine the way it is?<br />
<br />
Since they were opposed to the referendum, what are their proposals to increase protection for women, children and seniors with disabilities? Should children not have the right to communicate with their parents? What should public servants be able to bargain for if not for improved financial benefits? Should citizens not be able to solve conflicts with state institutions? Should there be more travel bans rather than less? Should people not be granted privacy of their personal data? The goals of these measures seem clear and are hardly controversial in Western countries. During all those rallies for voting NO, I missed the reason that these parts of the referendum should not be supported.<br />
<br />
The AKP has been in power for eight years. Perhaps it might occur to the” opposition” parties to become “alternative” parties with positive agendas to provide a real choice for Turkish citizens. It’s reminiscent of the behavior of opposition parties that do not really want to take power one day.<br />
<br />
I sat back from afar and watched with dismay the year long debates about Obama’s moderate, insurance-based health care proposals. Tens of millions of US dollars were spent on a massive, disinformation campaign against them. The proposed laws were attacked as “socialism” and warnings were propagated that “death panels” would decide which elderly people would be denied healthcare if they were too sick. Not one Republican in Congress voted for the proposals, as if there were no need for improvement in one of the world’s most expensive and disproportionate health care systems in which 40 million Americans are unprotected.<br />
<br />
A number of the provisions in the Turkish referendum related to increased democracy via the rights of individuals and the ability of elected officials to have more influence on the courts. In the US, Congress has to approve all Federal judges proposed by the administration in power (and all appointments of military generals, by the way). There is no such thing as an “independent” court system or, for that matter, independent presidency or congress. A system of “checks and balances” insures that no one branch of government gets too powerful and violates the rights of individuals. CHP and MHP were very much opposed to violating the “ independence” of the courts and prosecutors but in Western democracies the courts are rarely that independent.<br />
<br />
I assume that the opposition of these opposition parties may be something else all together, like wanting the Constitutional Courts to overrule what the majority of Parliament favors, such as pass constitutional amendments, or lift the headscarf ban. Fine, I understand that. But what, exactly, is proposed by CHP and MHP to provide more balance to the court system, or are no changes needed?<br />
<br />
I agree with Lale Kemal’s recent assertion for the “need for the emergence of a progressive party due to the absence of such a mentality within existing opposition parties” for a new constitution. There is certainly room for a new party that takes a positive approach, that favors new programs moving Turkey forward, that supports a progressive coalition and is not stuck in the same old NO syndrome. However, it’s less likely in the US, which has been locked into a two party system for two centuries. Whereas it may still be possible for Turkey given the weaknesses of its opposition parties. That may be the only difference between Turkish and US politics.Richard Pereshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13344024979966718012noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-59391281696788540.post-59336164257684875492010-08-30T11:16:00.001+03:002010-09-23T12:38:40.121+03:00The Islamic Center Controversy in America - II - Richard Peres<em>This article was published in Today's Zaman, a Turkish newspaper, on August 30, 2010, also available online at <a href="http://www.todayszaman.com/">http://www.todayszaman.com/</a></em><br />
<br />
<br />
It took only three months or so to get American public opinion opposed to the planned Islamic community center a few blocks from the World Trade Center site in New York City. <br />
<br />
<br />
It took only three months to have most Republican senators, representatives, governors and candidates for office join in, and even some key Democratic politicians to oppose their own president of the United States. All you need is a blog, an emotional issue and lots of misinformation. Facts? Not necessary. <br />
<br />
<br />
Enter Pamela Geller, a woman who lives in the upper West Side of New York City. She started a blog in 2005 called Atlas Shrugs.com. Prior to May of this year her blog got little attention, except by the extreme right wing in America, who loved her. Perhaps it was because of her crazy stories and allegations, including that Obama is the illegitimate son of Malcolm X; that he changed his name to Barack Obama after visiting Pakistan in the 1980s because of jihad, that Obama is really a Muslim with a hidden agenda, that “everything he has done so far is to foster America’s submission to Islam,” that the “Nazis adopted jihad,” that Israel should nuke Tehran, Mecca and Medina and even Europe, and the promotion of other allegations that are too vicious, vile and disgusting to mention here in Turkey or anywhere for that matter. <br />
<br />
Well, you get the picture. (By the way, Barack Obama was always his real name). <br />
<br />
This person, with no background in Middle Eastern politics or history, and no credibility, wrote a blog on May 6, 2010, with the following title, “Monster Mosque Pushes Ahead in the Shadow of World Trade Center Islamic Death and Destruction.” Here is an excerpt from this article: “This best demonstrates the territorial nature of Islam. This is Islamic domination and expansionism. The location is no accident … And what about the Hagia Sophia, the ancient cathedral of the church of Constantinople, one of the great buildings of the world, the grandest church in Christendom at that time and for 1,000 years thereafter -- and now a mosque? The Aya Sofya mosque -- they didn’t change the name, just Islamified it.” <br />
<br />
<strong>A mind-boggling comparison </strong><br />
<br />
This is quite the historical comparison: converting an empty old building on Park Place into a community center, providing daycare services, meeting rooms and community facilities much needed in lower Manhattan with Mehmet II’s defeat of the Byzantines (who deserves credit for not destroying the Hagia Sophia). Later on a TV show, she claimed that the imam of the mosque had help fund the “jihad genocidal flotilla.” <br />
<br />
A week later, Andrea Peyser, a columnist for the NY Post -- a paper expert at getting people excited -- picked up on Pamela’s blog and wrote a column, “Mosque Madness at Ground Zero,” in which she stated: “A mosque rises over Ground Zero. And fed-up New Yorkers are crying, ‘No!’ A chorus of critics -- from neighbors to those who lost loved ones on 9/11 to me -- feel as if they’ve received a swift kick in the teeth.” A few days after that yet another columnist, Diane West, of the right-wing Washington Examiner, wrote yet another fiery article, this one entitled “A Mosque to Mock 9/11’s Victims and Families” -- an unfounded accusation if ever there was one. <br />
<br />
The mainstream media then picked up on the “Ground Zero mosque,” which has a certain deceiving ring to it. They labeled it a controversy, facilitating a media explosion, although it was not a controversy during its planning phase. “Ground Zero mosque” is certainly easier to write than the “Islamic community center two blocks from the WTC site in what is now an abandoned building.” The proposition was simple and clear: The people who attacked the WTC now want a mosque rising “over ground zero.” CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox News, the NY Times, LA Times, etc., all brought in opposing sides to discuss the “controversy.” <br />
<br />
<strong>Oppostion to the ‘Ground Zero mosque’</strong> <br />
<br />
Then the CNN poll came out showing most Americans opposed the “Ground Zero mosque.” <br />
<br />
Where there is a poll, you will find a politician, not taking the lead, but following, with a few exceptions, one being Barack Obama. On Aug. 13 the president said: “This is America. Our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakeable.” And then Michael Bloomberg, NYC’s mayor, with the Statue of Liberty in the background, reminding his audience about bigotry against Jews and Catholics in the past, said, “But we would be untrue to the best parts of ourselves -- and who we as New Yorkers and Americans -- if we said no to a mosque in Lower Manhattan.” <br />
<br />
Obama’s statement, in a Congressional election year, unleashed a torrent of opposition, following the polls, exploiting emotions and trying to gain an advantage. Three days later, Newt Gingrich, the former speaker of the House and possibly a Republican candidate for president in 2012, compared the supporters of the proposed mosque, whom he referred to as “radical Islamists,” to Nazis when interviewed by Fox News. Republicans across the nation followed suit, leading demonstrations, giving speeches, although trying not to be viewed as against religious freedom, but just “against the mosque at ground zero.” <br />
<br />
Congressmen implored Speaker Nancy Pelosi to investigate the funding of the mosque. <br />
<br />
Moreover, even some Democratic politicians switched sides, including the top Democrat in the US Senate, Harry Reid. Facing a tough re-election race in Nevada this Fall, he stated that he was opposed to the center and urged “all parties to work with local community leaders to find a more appropriate site.” His Republican opponent, Sharron Angle, said that Obama’s support of the building “ignored the wishes of the American people, this time at the expense of victims of 9/11 and their families.” <br />
<br />
Of course, the issue has grown in complexity, with various NGO’s taking sides, with demonstrations and counter-demonstrations, and with even an organization that includes victims of 9/11 supporting the center. <br />
<br />
But when we step back, we can see how the damage was done. One blogger, with a track record of hatred against Muslims, was able to easily equate the attacks on 9/11 with all of Islam, and also attribute to them a deplorable insensitivity to the feelings of Americans. It was extraordinarily easy to do, to rally most Americans against the project with the [distorted] image of the “mosque rising above ground zero.” <br />
<br />
And once the polls kicked in, most politicians followed, a perfect issue to exploit a US president with a Muslim name in a congressional election year. It does not bode well for the need to educate Americans on the world that resides outside my İstanbul window. <br />
<br />
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />
<br />
*Richard Peres is an American writer living in İstanbul. <br />
<br />
<br />
30 August 2010, MondayRichard Pereshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13344024979966718012noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-59391281696788540.post-23889271178502286542010-08-28T12:09:00.007+03:002010-09-23T12:40:18.125+03:00Mosque Controversy in America - Part I - Today's ZamanToday's Zaman, one of Turkey's largest newspapers, published my article on 8/27/2010. <span style="color: black; font-size: large;"> </span><br />
<br />
I recently asked my wife’s niece, who is Turkish, “What do you think of the mosque controversy in New York City?” She replied, “What controversy?” Most people in Turkey seem unaware of this front-page story regarding Islam in the US. <br />
<br />
The plan to build an Islamic community center in a building a few blocks from the World Trade Center site in New York City created a firestorm in the US more than a week ago. The mayor of New York, who is Jewish, supports the project, as does President Barack Obama, in the name of religious freedom. But a CNN poll found that 68 percent of Americans opposed the center, which will include a mosque, so close to the target of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. <br />
<br />
It is a $100 million project that will have a multicultural and religious board of directors, and will support the entire community in that part of lower Manhattan. The center will add 15 stories to a non-descript building not at the World Trade Center site, but two to three blocks away. <br />
<br />
Obama said, at the White House’s annual iftar dinner, “I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country.” However, his view is in the minority, based on the CNN poll and the loud opposition of many Republicans and other conservative leaders. <br />
<br />
Many Americans understand that the Sept. 11 attacks, although carried out in the name of Islam by its participants, were not representative of the one-and-a-half billion Muslims in the world. But that level of understanding and awareness seems to be a minority view, unfortunately. Last year when Barack Obama toured the Middle East, a poll found that 46 percent of Americans had an unfavorable view of Muslim countries, compared to 20 percent who viewed them favorably. Certainly unfamiliarity is partially to blame. Six in 10 Americans do not personally know a practicing Muslim, and those who do have a more favorable view than those who do not. Three in four Americans do not have a passport, making personal familiarity with any foreign country problematic. <br />
<br />
I came to Turkey at the beginning of 2010 to teach (at Bilkent University) and write a book relating to Turkey. I found that people who consider themselves Muslim are hardly monolithic: some are more secular than others; some are observant, while others are not; some women want to wear headscarves, while others are uncovered; some are Sunni, or Shiite, or Alevi, all with different religious viewpoints. And Muslims also support a variety of political parties and ideologies, from the Republican People’s Party (CHP) to the Justice and Development Party (AK Party), from the left to the right and everywhere in between. <br />
<br />
Last June I returned to the US for a month and was anxious to share with my friends and relatives my experiences in Turkey and what it was like to live in a country in which everyone was Muslim and did not fit the American stereotype. But Americans I spoke to seemed oblivious to any diversity in the Muslim world. It was a concept they had a hard time grasping, perhaps because the news that dominates the airways regarding Islamists relates to the insurgents in Iraq, finding Osama bin Laden, repressive policies of the Taliban and the latest suicide attack somewhere in the world. <br />
<br />
I was asked, however, about the Mavi Marmara incident. I suggested that the people on the ship meant well, that they were not the aggressive ones and that the Israelis caused the incident by taking a militaristic stance. No one agreed. The standard response was: “Israel represents the only hope in the Middle East. They are simply protecting themselves from terrorists and rocket attacks.” One person wondered what had happened to me while I was in Turkey. <br />
<br />
Criticism of Israel is almost nonexistent in the US and has been politically incorrect for as long as I can remember. In fact, Republicans and Democrats will criticize each other for failing to support Israel enough. When Israel seems to be too aggressive, too zealous in its foreign policy and acting with a “besieged mentality,” it is given the benefit of the doubt and politicians tread lightly on any negative comments. Or they qualify their criticisms with, “It’s for Israel’s own good.” Even Barack Obama -- a liberal, enlightened and intelligent US president if there ever was one -- did not condemn the Israeli attack on the Mavi Marmara and only questioned the continuation of the Gaza blockade in response to global outcries over the incident. <br />
<br />
Perhaps it is that lack of familiarity mentioned earlier. America is very much an isolated country, separated by the world’s two largest oceans. It is a big island. I lived all my life in America, taught International Politics and International Marketing at American universities, as recently as two years ago, and found this lack of familiarity with the world in young people as well, I am sorry to say. For each class I handed out blank maps of the world and asked students to fill in the names of the countries. The average number of countries correctly identified was less than 10, just 5 percent of the world. And no student ever located Turkey correctly. <br />
<br />
During my visit to the States I sent a package to Turkey and, as a joke, tried paying with a Turkish TL 10 note. The woman at the UPS store counter looked at it and asked, “What’s this?” I replied that it’s from Turkey. “Oh,” she said, “I didn’t know Turkey had its own money.” <br />
<br />
I am not sure exactly what, if anything, was inside the brain of that young woman, but I can admit to you that I too was fairly ignorant of Turkey before arriving here last January. I had been to Europe dozens of times, for pleasure and work, and was very familiar with Asia and Latin America. But Turkey? Yes, I figured Turkey had its own money. But I knew little of its history, of the birth of modern Turkey in 1923, the story of Atatürk, its political and cultural history, its imperial past, its rapid modernization in the last couple of decades and the push and pull of its secularism/Islamism conflicts over the years. <br />
<br />
Perhaps there is an invisible wall when you reach the Bosporus coming from the West. For academics and foreign policy creators, Turkey may be the bridge to the Middle East, a “model” of Middle Eastern democracy. Perhaps. But it is part of another very different part of the world, one that gets thrown into the same category as Iraq and Afghanistan, the topics for 90 percent of the news coming from the Middle East for Americans. When they hear that Turkey is 99 percent Muslim that is all they need to hear. The monolithic view of the Muslim world automatically switches on and there is not much else to say. <br />
<br />
That wall exists for academics as well. When I get together with my academic friends in the US they seem to know very little about Turkey -- “They’re against Israel, aren’t they?” -- and the interest to learn more is simply not there. The subject changes fast. I get asked little about the country where I now live and what is happening here. On the other hand, Americans love Turkey as tourists: the food, the people, the hospitality, the ancient sites and the magnificent, unequaled skyline of İstanbul. They may even realize that Turkey does have its own money. <br />
<br />
So it is not surprising that a few neoconservative writers in America can make an Islamic center three blocks from the World Trade Center into an incendiary issue, causing American Islamophobia to explode in frenzy and rear its ugly head. The media can light this fuse with incredible ease and raise passions without thinking, without careful thought, without accurate information and without regard to the truth. Fueled by ignorance, the truth has no chance of winning out. <br />
<br />
<br />
Next in Part II -- the politicians get involved … <br />
<br />
------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />
<br />
*Richard Peres is an American writer living in İstanbul. <br />
27 August 2010, FridayRichard Pereshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13344024979966718012noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-59391281696788540.post-83574723629303123972010-02-18T11:13:00.067+02:002010-02-20T10:37:34.956+02:00A Fishy Day on Sakarya Caddesi<div><br />
<em><strong>Let's Escape!</strong></em><br />
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;"><br />
I awoke last Saturday and begged Umit to let me escape from the protected enclave of Bilkent University campus and travel to downtown Ankara. "Let's tour the fish stands in Sakarya and have a great lunch," she responded. So...... we took a Bilkent bus (it was free) downtown, then boarded the Metro for a 15 minute ride. We emerged to the bustling neighborhood of Sakarya.<br />
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;"><br />
</div><br />
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEigmZ6HUZtiZbl6abxnpZT2dGffrpnjnk62cGML10G4tqtHoV27rg8p7vdP81yOtKhjrsEzbCWbqTghNJir9l7mybDpfPm6Iob04-CjpzLqkQ2A8OKiF2_483Sb72bRrCHdmNk81WfehQ/s1600-h/P2120514.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; cssfloat: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" ct="true" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEigmZ6HUZtiZbl6abxnpZT2dGffrpnjnk62cGML10G4tqtHoV27rg8p7vdP81yOtKhjrsEzbCWbqTghNJir9l7mybDpfPm6Iob04-CjpzLqkQ2A8OKiF2_483Sb72bRrCHdmNk81WfehQ/s400/P2120514.JPG" width="400" /></a></div><br />
<div></div><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div></div><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Some of the unhappy fish in Sakarya<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<strong><em>This Could Be New York</em></strong><br />
<div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiwIaqkh_CfwT4WnZvTeoeWtffTYFrY2O5xEcvBhoMaR6UhH9X9Z7SpZq-Kf2EeVP2FGwZuyivluNx8rjg3rSlO9tN0MMpx3zq6PtCvnpDaNc59vQIUesR9-pWApocPUlVBOjpt7XVANw/s1600-h/P2120512.JPG" style="cssfloat: right; margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" border="0" height="300" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5439501199055692978" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiwIaqkh_CfwT4WnZvTeoeWtffTYFrY2O5xEcvBhoMaR6UhH9X9Z7SpZq-Kf2EeVP2FGwZuyivluNx8rjg3rSlO9tN0MMpx3zq6PtCvnpDaNc59vQIUesR9-pWApocPUlVBOjpt7XVANw/s400/P2120512.JPG" style="float: right; height: 240px; margin: 0px 0px 10px 10px; width: 320px;" width="400" /></a></div><br />
Simmitz are so good!<br />
<br />
Immediately I heard the sound of street vendors and shop owners shouting, trying to attract customers. The fish stands were the flashiest, with a myriad of unhappy fish lined up like little soldiers for the crowds. I pressed my camera into action, a relatively small Olympus DSLR. Another man handled little pieces of pistrami, heard me speaking English, and yelled "Come taste, come taste." Another was selling simmitz, Turkey's version of sesame covered bagels, which looked delicious. This could easily have been Delancey Street in NYC, complete with the selling of bagels and yelling vendors, except that the "bagels" in Turkey are much better -- sorry New York!</div></div><br />
<strong><em>Karanfil Sokak</em></strong><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;"><div class="separator" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiPwkeudcMIF_6J2P7BXSuEaSJT_fyZWlxr8CfUpM0GFPecSnhlqdoU0ZVOu8Do5t9yc4q9Zucq0qeQFQew47McYEnbHVZet7tp-UhG0fiNC8TkuE403JWzmlPd_ErPy6rv0nxR-wKwlg/s1600-h/P2120515.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; cssfloat: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" ct="true" height="150" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiPwkeudcMIF_6J2P7BXSuEaSJT_fyZWlxr8CfUpM0GFPecSnhlqdoU0ZVOu8Do5t9yc4q9Zucq0qeQFQew47McYEnbHVZet7tp-UhG0fiNC8TkuE403JWzmlPd_ErPy6rv0nxR-wKwlg/s200/P2120515.JPG" width="200" /></a></div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">We also walked around Karanfil Sokak, which is nearby, an area of many book stores and students sitting out in cafes, smoking and drinking coffee, or arguing about politics. Every once in a while a small demonstration would take place, people starting to yell slogans in small groups. Some looked on, others ignored what was happening. I also could not help noticing a gathering of police dressed in riot gear standing nearby. (It was at this point that I decided to put my camera away). However, the atmosphere was relaxed. Umit pointed out that this area is a favorite for demonstrations. None of this seemed to stop anyone from shopping, eating and having a good time.</div></div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;"><br />
</div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;"><strong><em>Are You Looking at Me?? Kumsal Restaurant</em></strong></div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg67HMP5rwbLH_qcaXBnJmwwxIHRIednHM2GL6V2j36B907o3u09vF4y6SDgCmdka_Vn6w9U1NLxTaE968ELj_gr69zPEeCcOad8ijgxeZtjHb6JVmcqFGOQcWIy80u82cXLweO6VoN8g/s1600-h/P2120531.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; cssfloat: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" ct="true" height="150" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg67HMP5rwbLH_qcaXBnJmwwxIHRIednHM2GL6V2j36B907o3u09vF4y6SDgCmdka_Vn6w9U1NLxTaE968ELj_gr69zPEeCcOad8ijgxeZtjHb6JVmcqFGOQcWIy80u82cXLweO6VoN8g/s200/P2120531.JPG" width="200" /></a></div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;"><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;"> Kumsal Restaurant, a second-floor restaurant in Sakarya, is a well-known place. Inside the atmosphere is fairly simple but the food is spectacular. In Turkey often the waiter will bring you the fish before it is cooked for your approval, which our waiter did. Turkey enjoys fresh fish from the Black Sea and Sakarya orders it every afternoon for delivery by truck the next day. And of course, no Turkish meal would be complete without small dishes (messa) including salad.</div></div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;"><br />
</div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgjgOYrlXGQdQlHhoKU3K7dvp4Al1e_iLFmS8EOSmOkinlEAYePplyMXkUuRhdk5p8EYSw74VE6kpnf6CSNstwLN3cNoDyRCA7TN7o-Z9uhDP23GVvfGa82B8pm4azORNV2DJZyPANMCQ/s1600-h/P2120530.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; cssfloat: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" ct="true" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgjgOYrlXGQdQlHhoKU3K7dvp4Al1e_iLFmS8EOSmOkinlEAYePplyMXkUuRhdk5p8EYSw74VE6kpnf6CSNstwLN3cNoDyRCA7TN7o-Z9uhDP23GVvfGa82B8pm4azORNV2DJZyPANMCQ/s320/P2120530.JPG" width="320" /></a></div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;"><br />
</div>Turkish food is so healthy<br />
<br />
Stay tuned for our next excursion.<br />
<div></div><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div></div></div></div>Richard Pereshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13344024979966718012noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-59391281696788540.post-52589063952707247672010-02-11T10:51:00.002+02:002010-02-18T18:37:25.087+02:00The Return of Puffy<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEieCTISnh_q8tZ1sBdiJGgDRp0NSqb7hC4_qNzrYTmaUhawSHKXAeWektL34S9CUdVAmAhAeT8OrCnSfj5tIk-9sgP6Jp6p1F0EK9pe68hNjiJSpJb_2NrdliDDhCYZs8jzEPCphnZZ3Q/s1600-h/Puffy.JPG"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5436911534849796754" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEieCTISnh_q8tZ1sBdiJGgDRp0NSqb7hC4_qNzrYTmaUhawSHKXAeWektL34S9CUdVAmAhAeT8OrCnSfj5tIk-9sgP6Jp6p1F0EK9pe68hNjiJSpJb_2NrdliDDhCYZs8jzEPCphnZZ3Q/s320/Puffy.JPG" style="cursor: hand; float: right; height: 240px; margin: 0px 0px 10px 10px; width: 320px;" /></a><br />
<div>Puffy, also known around Ankara cat circles as the "boss of bosses" and "the blob," made her triumphal return to our flat (apartment) at Bilkent University. Gone for two years, thanks to Umit's extended trip to the United States -- Binghamton University, Princeton University, Woodrow Wilson Center -- she needed about five minutes to get used to her old place.</div><br />
<div></div><br />
<div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjmIJxQrWrV9MuHZ5zNyXMcNJ4DL30xW95SrjWbpMg4YxwBLCb09OTcGhrQlUzxwCtlhOZrCJYJ-mtorhHrVsAhE4iEnjm78dEulcq2ax2GoRYrcBSFaC5lh2_tkmTmjpEesTqslHv7zw/s1600-h/P2080480.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; cssfloat: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" ct="true" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjmIJxQrWrV9MuHZ5zNyXMcNJ4DL30xW95SrjWbpMg4YxwBLCb09OTcGhrQlUzxwCtlhOZrCJYJ-mtorhHrVsAhE4iEnjm78dEulcq2ax2GoRYrcBSFaC5lh2_tkmTmjpEesTqslHv7zw/s320/P2080480.JPG" width="320" /></a></div>Inbetween eating, Puffy spends her time sleeping on various window sills and occasionally, during rare moments when she is awake, checking out the black and white crows that mockingly fly by. Then a little stretch, a yawn, and it's back to sleep. All in a day's hard work!</div><br />
<div></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><br />
<div>The students in my Communication's class are brightening my life here. They have all created their own blogs, and are indeed quite "creative." Their blogs are where they post their assignments, for all to see and comment on. I think the best way to learn about new media is to jump in and start, and they all have.</div><br />
<div></div><br />
<div>Thanks to the Internet, I don't miss the states at all. I stayed up to 5 a.m. and watched the Super Bowl online on nfl.com (for a fee) and Skype is letting me call anywhere in the states for practically nothing (.017 euros per minute!). My complaints are minor: no large drug stores (Europe has only tiny pharmacies), commercials in the middle of movies (intermission), and no objective, non-opinionated newspaper (but there are several in English). Apart from those items, it's hard to tell that I am not on a college campus in Akron, Ohio. My students seem just like students everywhere, except perhaps here in Turkey they dress up more.</div><br />
<div></div><br />
<div>A bird just flew by my desk window and Puffy almost fell off her perch. Poor thing, she's probably exhausted now.</div>Richard Pereshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13344024979966718012noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-59391281696788540.post-83910733539827327922010-02-01T10:22:00.001+02:002010-02-18T18:20:18.414+02:00Settled Finally in TurkeyTurkey is an amazingly interesting country located at the crossroads of the Middle East and Europe. After three weeks of living here, the stereotypes us Americans adhere to about other countries fade rapidly. Turkey is decidedly, almost fanatically, modern, as can be seen in its shopping malls and apartment towers, prevalence of stylish Western-dressed population, universities, transportation systems and outlook on the world. It also has its own highly distinct culture of traditions, including hospitality, food and music, a language like no other and a thousand years of history visible especially in Istanbul and the anceint ruins that dot the country.<br />
<br />
Thanks to the Internet -- and particularly Skype, Facebook, Blogger, Email, nytimes.com, nfl.com . etc - I am completely in touch with the states, just 7 to 10 hours ahead. Last night I yelled "Sawyer" while on Skype and saw my daughter's Golden Retriever perk up his ears and turn his head 8000 miles away in California. Skype also has incredibly cheap rates to phones.<br />
<br />
The food is wonderfully healthy and delicious. Typical breakfast is olives, tomatoes, cucumbers and cheese. Salads (contents cut into small pieces) are prevalent with every meal. Pastries stuffed with vegetables or cheese, and the best "bagels" in the world, called Simits, add interest and enjoyment. Olives, lemons, burger wheat, kebabs are everywhere. Turks are also highly fond of fish from the Black Sea.<br />
<br />
Upon arrival I became ill with severe bronchitis, in spite of which we spent 5 days in Istanbul so I could interview people for the book I am writing. I coughed my way through my birthday, looking out on a snow storm in Taksim Square, and opening one present after another from dear Umit. Arriving back in Ankara on a Sunday I went to a private hospital, where I received fast and thorough treatment: xray, blood test, throat culture and diagnosis in less than a half hour. A follow-up visit was similarly excellent and I am feeling fine now.<br />
<br />
Tomorrow I teach my first class and the online systems here for managing your course and handling student records are the same as when I was teaching at St. Joe's University. <br />
<br />
In summary, we are well settled in and except for the fact that no one here has heard of the NY Giants, I could be anywhere in the states and feel "at home." Cheers, RichRichard Pereshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13344024979966718012noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-59391281696788540.post-8595597146891324262009-08-13T22:57:00.000+03:002009-08-14T18:09:10.370+03:00The "Reason Why" Is Too MuchToday's writers, with few exceptions, do not get paid by the word because verbosity is to be avoided not compensated. Accordingly, today's readers prefer brevity -- call it the USA Today approach to literature. Perhaps it's a chronic muscle problem we all have. No one wants to turn a page to finish an article in a newspaper or magazine.<br /><br />This tendency towards brevity can also be found in the "In Depth" segments on broadcast news programs, which are all of three minutes.<br /><br />Or notice the decreasing lengths of television advertising - some segments are only about ten seconds long - and fast-paced editing allows three or four scenes in that period. It's simply a global tendency towards ADD. As a species that is the way we are evolving in post-modern society. We no longer take the time to watch the wheat grow.<br /><br />And yet....some redundancies, such as the "reason why" persist. Write "the reason is" or "here's why" but please do not use them together. It's unnecessary. Possibly the "reason why" is said and written, even by the NY Times, as a crude means of emphasis. I don't know. Whatever the reason, you should take a stand and refuse to participate. Cut out some of these redundancies in your writing and people will absorb what you writer easier.<br /><br />In my writing seminars I ask students to take an exercise in which they reduce what they have written, or the person seated next to them, or another author by half. It's the "get-to-the-point" exercise that lets you see redundancies in a new lights. You can try this exercise easily on an section of Shakespeare's work. You know how difficult it is for today's modern person to get through Shakespeare. Modern film versions of the bard's works, such as Romeo and Juliet starting Leonardo DiCaprio, use rock music, heightened violence and outlandish costumes so alleviate boredom.<br /><br />A first step to editing your work, whether it's an email, report, or short story, is to start cutting out unnecessary words and redundant phrases. Once you get into the habit of doing this your writing will improve.Richard Pereshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13344024979966718012noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-59391281696788540.post-16703124258533414382009-08-06T20:45:00.000+03:002009-08-14T18:06:30.922+03:00"Hopefully" No More!Successful writing begins with clear language that conveys meaning accurately and effectively. Unfortunately, the evil forces of bad usage unwittingly conspire to obfuscate rules and guidelines upon which good writers depend. Is there hope?<br /><br />The meaning of "hopefully" is one obvious example. Thank you Barack Obama, Larry King, Anderson Cooper, and every television reporter in America -- with the exception of one Jessica Peres who works for ABC TV in Fresno -- for murdering the meaning of this word thousands of times each day. From this day forward I shall no longer fight hopeless battles with my brother-in-law on how "hopefully" is improperly used.<br /><br />No matter. William Strunk Jr. and E.B. White are probably tired anyway of tossing around in their respective graves. Their "The Elements of Style" notwithstanding -- the most popular book on writing ever published -- explained this loss long ago on page 48 in discussing "hopefully:"<br /><br /><em>This once-useful adverb meaning "with hope" has been distorted and is now widely used to mean "I hope" or "it is to be hoped." Such use is not merely wrong, it is silly. To say, "Hopefully I'll leave on the noon plane" is to talk nonesense. Do you mean you'll leave on the noon plane in a hopeful frame of mind? Or do you mean you hope you'll leave on the noon plane? Whichever you mean, you haven't said it clearly</em>.<br /><br />The point that Strunk and White is making is not one of grammatical erudition, but rather of sloppiness that leads to ambiguity. That sloppiness is accentuated by the need for speed. The erosion of today's language by the on-demand mass media, whose time for consideration and thought is limited, places more demands on today's writers to convey the meaning they want. Thinking before writing used to be the key to effective writing over off-the-cuff, unorganized talking. But the time factor has been diminished by the need for on-demand information and tools to provide it, such as email, texting, twitter and blogging.<br /><br />When you write please take some time to think about some of these sloppy words if, in fact, you care about clarity.<br /><br />Some other common examples: "very unique," "the reason why," and "many alternatives." I won't live much longer if I continue to crindge every time I hear them. The "reason why" is my infamous favorite. You can explain the reason, or why, but you needn't put them both together. It's a redundancy, an "unnecessary redundancy." Like "plan for the future" (as opposed to just planning).<br /><br />The first step to good writing is good language. If you haven't read "The Elements of Style," stop reading this article, get online, and order one today. You life will never be the same and your writing will improve. -- Rich Peres, August 6, 2009Richard Pereshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13344024979966718012noreply@blogger.com1