|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On August 02 2016 07:53 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2016 07:46 Keniji wrote:On August 02 2016 07:39 Nyxisto wrote:
If there was legitimate palpable security risk at that moment it's of course a reasonable decision. But I really doubt that Erdogan was going to incite violence or anything that could cause unrest. As long as speech is within constitutional bounds we shouldn't preemtively shut out talkers, even if they're controversial foreign politicians. It doesnt matter if they are controversial or not. Why on earth should germany allow uninvited foreign head of states to make political statements in germany? Because you're free to protest and discuss politics in Germany without any invitation no matter if you're a public official, foreigner or citizen?
Except you are not. That's exactly what the courts ruling was.
Sorry for german quote from a newsarticle:
+ Show Spoiler + Aber selbst wenn Erdogan persönlich hätte in Köln auftreten wollen, stellten die Richter klar, hätte dies nicht ohne Weiteres funktioniert: Denn die "Möglichkeit ausländischer Staatsoberhäupter oder Regierungsmitglieder zur Abgabe politischer Stellungnahmen im Bundesgebiet" gehöre zur "Außenpolitik". Eine solche Entscheidung sei also "Sache des Bunds" - und nicht des Veranstalters einer Demonstration.
Sogar Erdogan selbst hätte demnach keinen solchen Anspruch - zumal sich Erdogan als "Hoheitsträger", so das OVG, hier ohnehin nicht auf eigene Grundrechte berufen könnte. Schließlich sind Grundrechte vor allem Abwehrrechte des Bürgers gegenüber dem Staat.
|
Generally speaking, you are. The fact that they could prevent Erdogan from speaking doesn't mean that they should or that this is somehow an established norm. We're pretty clear on where the line regarding free speech is. Incitement of violence, hate speech, holocaust denial etc.. We usually don't make a habit of shutting foreign speakers up for political reasons.
|
I believe it was wrong to not let him speak. They could have established rules of what may or may not be said. Then it would be in Erdogans hands to play ball or risk even more troubled foreign policy. Right now I can see Erdogan appearing like a martyr to his people.
|
On August 02 2016 08:17 RoomOfMush wrote:
I believe it was wrong to not let him speak. They could have established rules of what may or may not be said. Then it would be in Erdogans hands to play ball or risk even more troubled foreign policy. Right now I can see Erdogan appearing like a martyr to his people.
Oh, he wouldn't have cared. Letting him have his livestream and then cutting it whenever the police deems appropriate would have been much more of a political mess. There is no winning against him and his fans.
|
I didnt say they should cut his live stream, that is just rude. But if he does not play along they have a very good reason to disallow any further live streams in the future. They will have solid arguments against it which they can whip out to silence any protest. Right now Erdogan seems like that poor guy who is not allowed to play and germany is the big bad who tries to bring him down without reason.
|
Who even believes that erdogan is a poor guy except his supporters and they believe anything he says anyway. I'm not a fan of not allowing him to speak but I don't think it's that much of an issue either.
|
Really bothered by Turkey and Erdogan's supporters at the moment... Atatürk must be rolling in his grave
|
On August 02 2016 07:53 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2016 07:46 Keniji wrote:On August 02 2016 07:39 Nyxisto wrote:
If there was legitimate palpable security risk at that moment it's of course a reasonable decision. But I really doubt that Erdogan was going to incite violence or anything that could cause unrest. As long as speech is within constitutional bounds we shouldn't preemtively shut out talkers, even if they're controversial foreign politicians. It doesnt matter if they are controversial or not. Why on earth should germany allow uninvited foreign head of states to make political statements in germany? Because you're free to protest and discuss politics in Germany without any invitation no matter if you're a public official, foreigner or citizen?
First and foremost, that's utter bullshit and you know it. There's no such thing as "free speech" in germany, especially not to the extend you guys make it ought to be.
For starters, hate speech or speeches that induce hatred or violence, are not allowed. If you want to argue that Erdogan, who's doing nothing but blasting against a certain group of people in the last couple of weeks, wasn't going to incite more hate or rile up the mob, you're an idiot.
In fact, he just did it again. Remember what i asked you? That just came up again. Because germany didn't "react" (and by that, he means "jailed") to 4000 people they reported to our government (alleged terrorists, and we know who he's talking about), we're bad guys. Like, he's literally blasting germany for not jailing people HE fucking deemed worthy of being in jail for not going in line with his views.
Better let him speak to his fanbase here, because clearly, bullshit like that wouldn't come up and his supporters, as reasonable as they obviously are, would never react to that. Clearly.
Sidenote: the Verfassungsgericht (german court of constitution) confirmed the decision. So "free speech" is completely out of the question in the first place, if it were against some form of law or right, they would've not.
edit: and then ask yourself what Erdogan would do or think if 40.000 germans in turkey would try and organize a protest against erdogan, with live-correspondence to Merkel or Gabriel. I wonder how that'd go.
|
Germany should hold itself to a higher standard than Turkey, it doesn't matter what Erdogan would do.
|
(Reuters) - Austrian Chancellor Christian Kern said on Wednesday that he would start a discussion among European heads of government to quit talks with Turkey about joining the European Union because of the country's democratic and economic deficits.
European leaders have voiced concern over Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan's crackdown on suspected dissidents after a failed coup attempt month, identifying his idea of reintroducing the death penalty in Turkey as a red line barring accession to the EU.
Kern sharpened the critical rhetoric in an interview with Austrian broadcaster ORF.
"We are all well advised to now say we're pressing the reset button," he said, calling accession talks a "diplomatic fiction".
"We know that the democratic standards are clearly not sufficient to justify (Turkey's) accession ... The economic question is at least just as significant because the Turkish economy is too far from the European average."
When asked whether Austria will table a proposal to stop accession talks at a European council meeting on Sept. 16, Kern said Austria would "start a discussion about this. We will ask for an alternative concept."
uk.reuters.com
|
it's scaremongering; EU wants Turkey to layoff the Putin hype train.
|
Hardly scaremongering. In reality the talks are already done this would just be making it formal. Turkey will never join in it's current state. Even before the coup it would've been a near impossible task.
For all the sucking up to Putin in the end Turkey needs its alliance with NATO as well. All the Sunni powers in the region are allied to the US as well and it gives them a lot more power in the region. There's no country which can replace the US as a military ally.
|
On August 02 2016 08:05 Nyxisto wrote:
Generally speaking, you are. The fact that they could prevent Erdogan from speaking doesn't mean that they should or that this is somehow an established norm. We're pretty clear on where the line regarding free speech is. Incitement of violence, hate speech, holocaust denial etc.. We usually don't make a habit of shutting foreign speakers up for political reasons.
No, we aren't clear on where the line is.
We're at the stage where somebody saying they don't agree with a million muslim migrants coming to Germany in one year is committing "hate speech".
Recall Merkel talking to Zuckerberg a year back about increasing censorship on facebook.
|
On August 04 2016 17:01 RvB wrote:
Hardly scaremongering. In reality the talks are already done this would just be making it formal. Turkey will never join in it's current state. Even before the coup it would've been a near impossible task.
For all the sucking up to Putin in the end Turkey needs its alliance with NATO as well. All the Sunni powers in the region are allied to the US as well and it gives them a lot more power in the region. There's no country which can replace the US as a military ally.
Imagine Turkey would become part of the EU. All refugees coming from Turkey could be send back there (Dublin III) 
Jokes aside: I think you are totally right with your assessment of the situation. But I think the EU is giving up a lot of it's moral and rules right now, if that keeps going and if Turkey changes some things, they might be able to join.
I wonder if Turkey even wants to join the EU right now?
|
On August 04 2016 17:13 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
Recall Merkel talking to Zuckerberg a year back about increasing censorship on facebook.
Do you mean increasing censorship or doing something against people who actually promote hate speech on facebook and facebook just not giving a f*** about it?
|
Zurich15352 Posts
On August 04 2016 17:13 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2016 08:05 Nyxisto wrote:
Generally speaking, you are. The fact that they could prevent Erdogan from speaking doesn't mean that they should or that this is somehow an established norm. We're pretty clear on where the line regarding free speech is. Incitement of violence, hate speech, holocaust denial etc.. We usually don't make a habit of shutting foreign speakers up for political reasons. No, we aren't clear on where the line is. We're at the stage where somebody saying they don't agree with a million muslim migrants coming to Germany in one year is committing "hate speech". Recall Merkel talking to Zuckerberg a year back about increasing censorship on facebook.
Maybe you are unclear where the line is. "Somebody saying they don't agree with a million muslim migrants coming to Germany" is not hate speech in Germany, period. We have a fairly well functioning judicative for these kind of things.
Facebook is a private company, any "censorship" they decide to implement is on them.
If there were actual cases brought against Facebook they were within the boundaries of the well defined laws of hate speech we have over here.
|
On August 04 2016 17:01 RvB wrote:
Hardly scaremongering. In reality the talks are already done this would just be making it formal. Turkey will never join in it's current state. Even before the coup it would've been a near impossible task.
For all the sucking up to Putin in the end Turkey needs its alliance with NATO as well. All the Sunni powers in the region are allied to the US as well and it gives them a lot more power in the region. There's no country which can replace the US as a military ally.
for EU, is better(i'd say mandatory) to have Turkey begging for entrance(for eternity if necessary) than being Putin's ally; 'cause, imagine Russia and Turkey, as allies, being at the gates of EU energy supply routes ... that's checkmate.
|
On August 04 2016 18:19 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2016 17:01 RvB wrote:
Hardly scaremongering. In reality the talks are already done this would just be making it formal. Turkey will never join in it's current state. Even before the coup it would've been a near impossible task.
For all the sucking up to Putin in the end Turkey needs its alliance with NATO as well. All the Sunni powers in the region are allied to the US as well and it gives them a lot more power in the region. There's no country which can replace the US as a military ally. for EU, is better(i'd say mandatory) to have Turkey begging for entrance(for eternity if necessary) than being Putin's ally; 'cause, imagine Russia and Turkey, as allies, being at the gates of EU energy supply routes ... that's checkmate.
And my point is that Turkey has a lot more to benefit from the alliance with NATO than with Russia. Turkey via NATO has a longstanding alliance with the greatest military in the world. It has the added benefit that NATO gives a protection which no other country can give. It also gives access to military technology like the JSF which they bought.
In addition Turkey is reliant on the west for capital inflows to fund their current account deficit.
No sane person would drop all that for an alliance with Putin.
Turkey and Russia controlling the energy checkpoints is hardly check mate. There are alternatives like LNG and green energy if necessary and you can always build a pipeline circumventing Turkey. Not to mention that Russia depends on Europe to sell its oil. Just look at how the low oil price rekt the Russian economy.
|
"the greatest military in the world" is an euphemism for "mine is bigger than yours" and NATO is barely a police force working within EU, unless US says otherwise.
so, NATO is yet to prove its capabilities because what they did in ex-Yugoslavia is police work and in the middle-east is US said so / US allowed it.
you then go on with some moralist and emotional logic and want to pass it as pragmatic. the bottom line is that things are way more complex and Erdogan is not that sane as of late so yea, you nitpicking some pros and cons without knowing the extent of a would be Putin - Erdogan alliance(BRICS?, or Erdogan can close Bosporus to EU ... i don't know man, just saying).
your last phrase looks more like a pipe dream not pipeline because nothing, as far as being competitive goes, beats land routes ( i read about LNG imports from US&Co. alternatives and let me tell you that it was seen as a last resort because it would crash EU competitiveness).
Edit: Erdogan will most likely use both Russia and EU, making concessions to both, pit them against each other, then reap the benefits; sounds pretty smart to me.
|
On August 04 2016 19:12 xM(Z wrote:
Erdogan can close Bosporus to EU.
Thats what a lot of people here hope he will do to stop immigrants from there coming to us
The top list of the turkish export countries consists mostly of European countries, closing those gates is what Erdogan just cant afford and it is also the reason why he maybe wants to be part of the EU market.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
