When the world gets closer.

We help you see farther.

Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter.

Turkey

Censorship In Turkey: "The Allergic Reaction" Of A Corrupt Leader

Protests are on the rise, on the streets, and online
Protests are on the rise, on the streets, and online
Serdar KuzuloÄŸlu

-OpEd-

ISTANBULThe saying goes that if the word “but” is featured in a sentence, nothing that comes before it should be taken seriously. Whether this is always true, I don’t really know, but what happened after Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan targeted Twitter at a political rally in Bursa reminds me of this thesis.

“We do not want the Internet to be censored, but Twitter does not recognize Turkey,” Erdogan said during one of his more tempered moments. The utterance is dangerously similar to the reasoning for Law No: 5651, also known as the Internet Act.

When it was passed in 2007, license to regulate the Internet was justified based on fears about child pornography (“OK, but do you want child pornography to be distributed easily?”). Today’s excuse is even more slick — this claim that Turkey is not being “recognized.”

But the illegal censorship we are experiencing now is neither about protecting the rights of individuals nor about silencing a few people. The Twitter ban in Egypt — which has been followed in the last few days with blocks on YouTube and Google DNS — is the allergic reaction of an embattled leader who does not tolerate criticism and expects total submission without question by his people.


[rebelmouse-image 27087909 alt="""" original_size="600x400" expand=1]

(Anon-HAS)

The latest censorship on YouTube came hours after an audio recording of a high-level security meeting was leaked on the video-sharing website, and after other recordings have of Erdogan’s indiscretions have put the leader on the political hot seat. Turkey’s telecommunications authority (TIB) made the decision as a “precautionary administrative measure.” In February, Turkey passed a controversial, much-criticized new Internet law that allows the telecommunications regulator to block websites without a court order.

The Google DNS service was banned without any administrative decision, which is no different than shutting down the entire communications infrastructure to guard against the possibility of citizens speaking undesirable things to one other. Or of shutting down the postal service over fear that someone might write something objectionable and mail it.

Blocking Twitter wholesale was equally illegal. The government defended Law No: 5651 in 2007 by saying, “From now on, the websites will not be blocked as a whole, just the parts that feature inconvenient content.”

What is this then?

The government is attempting to transfer its intolerance to the Internet by its front organization: The Presidency of Telecommunication (TIB). Even critical news from foreign newspapers is inconvenient. For example, an article from British newspaper The Guardian on the subject of censorship in Turkey was inaccessible as I was writing this column.

Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has a vision of Turkey in his mind that is scary for everybody but himself and his family. (Remember the kids who were taken from their homes in the middle of the night by the police because they were using their real names on Twitter during the Gezi events?) The administration is trying to silence every undesirable critic while Twitter is putting up resistance against the government to remain a venue where everybody can express ideas freely.

We all may need that someday.

You've reached your limit of free articles.

To read the full story, start your free trial today.

Get unlimited access. Cancel anytime.

Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.

Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries.

Geopolitics

Utter Pessimism, What Israelis And Palestinians Share In Common

Right now, according to a joint survey of Israelis and Palestinians, hopes for a peaceful solution of coexistence simply don't exist. The recent spate of violence is confirmation of the deepest kind of pessimism on both sides for any solution other than domination of the other.

An old Palestinian protester waves Palestinian flag while he confronts the Israeli soldiers during the demonstration against Israeli settlements in the village of Beit Dajan near the West Bank city of Nablus.

A Palestinian protester confronts Israeli soldiers during the demonstration against Israeli settlements in the West Bank village of Beit Dajan on Jan. 6.

Pierre Haski

-Analysis-

PARIS — Just before the latest outbreak of violence between Israelis and Palestinians, a survey of public opinion among the two peoples provided a key to understanding the current situation unfolding before our eyes.

It was a joint study, entitled "Palestinian-Israeli Pulse", carried out by two research centers, one Israeli, the other Palestinian, which for years have been regularly asking the same questions to both sides.

The result is disastrous: not only is the support for the two-state solution — Israel and Palestine side by side — at its lowest point in two decades, but there is now a significant share of opinion on both sides that favors a "non-democratic" solution, i.e., a single state controlled by either the Israelis or Palestinians.

This captures the absolute sense of pessimism commonly felt regarding the chances of the two-state option ever being realized, which currently appears to be our grim reality today. But the results are also an expression of the growing acceptance on both sides that it is inconceivable for either state to live without dominating the other — and therefore impossible to live in peace.

Keep reading...Show less

You've reached your limit of free articles.

To read the full story, start your free trial today.

Get unlimited access. Cancel anytime.

Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.

Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries.

The latest