RUTHFULLY YOURS

Nobody should be surprised that Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has instituted effective blasphemy laws to defend himself from criticism in Turkey. But many of us had assumed that these lèse-majesté laws would not yet be put in place inside Europe. At least not until David Cameron succeeds in his long-held ambition to bring Turkey fully into the EU. Yet here we are. Erdogan’s rule now already extends to Europe.

At the end of last month, during a late-night comedy programme, a young German comedian called Jan Böhmermann included a poem that was rude about Erdogan. Incidentally the point of Mr Böhmermann’s skit was to highlight the obscenity of Turkey already trying to censor satire in Germany.

What happened next happened in swift order. First of all the Turks complained to their German counterparts. Within a few days the programme had been pulled. A few more days and it was whitewashed out of existence altogether. In the meantime Mr Böhmermann himself was forced to go under police protection. The worst blow then came late last week when Chancellor Merkel allowed the prosecution of Mr Böhmermann to go ahead in Germany. Strangely enough, Chancellor Merkel is currently pretending that the trial of a German comedian in Germany for insulting a foreign despot is a liberal act. Don’t we all understand, she asks, that the courts will decide? Well no – the very possibility of putting someone on trial for being rude about Erdogan is as illiberal or rather anti-liberal as these things come. It will be hardly more of a relief if he is found ‘not guilty’ than if he is found ‘guilty’. The fact such a trial could even be contemplated demonstrates that Germany is becoming little more than a satrapy of Erdogan’s.

Well I’m a free-born British man, and we don’t live under the blasphemy laws of such despots. So in honour of this fact I have spent the weekend writing rude limericks about Mr Erdogan. And I would hereby like to invite all readers to join me in a grand Erdogan limerick competition. That isn’t to say that entries which come in the form of Iambic pentameters, or heroic couplets will be completely discounted. I think a work in the Homeric mode, for example, about the smallness of Erdogan’s manhood could (if suitably disgusting) stand some chance of winning. But I recommend limericks because almost everything insulting that is worth saying can usually be included within the five lines of that beautiful and delicate form.

Since Erdogan was elected president in August 2014 he has sued at least 1,845 Turks for insulting him. Now his judicial challenges have been exported to Europe.

Angela Merkel’s decision to allow Böhmermann’s prosecution hardly complies with the European culture of civil liberties.

“[N]ow the Turkish journalists and artists will even suffer more.” — Rebecca Harms, co-chair of the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance at the European Parliament.

The trouble is, the more Erdogan realizes that his blackmailing works the more willing he will be to export his poor democratic culture into Europe. Merkel has set the wrong precedent and given the prickly sultan what he wants.

The always angry Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Turkey’s president, should have a moment of peace and wonder why is he probably the world’s most insulted president.

Since Erdogan was elected president in August 2014 he has sued at least 1,845 people for insulting him.

Now his judicial challenges have been exported to Europe.

An obscure German law, dating back to 1871, was used to silence Iranian dissidents critical of Iran’s Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi and Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet in the 1960s and 1970s. Now Erdogan has become the third foreign leader taking advantage of that law after a popular German comic satirized him in crude terms.

The law allows prosecution in Germany for insulting a foreign leader, but only with the consent of the government. German Chancellor Angela Merkel granted her consent for the prosecution of German comedian Jan Böhmermann, although she promised that the law allowing legal proceedings would be repealed in 2018.

Is there any other person you trust to decide which ideas and speech you are entitled to hear — or which are too dangerous for you to hear?

The thin-skinned government of Turkey’s President, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, has in the past two years opened at least 1,845 cases over insults to the president.

Turkey’s World Press Freedom Index ranking has plummeted to 149 out of 180, below Zimbabwe (131) and Burundi (145).

Despite the ruling of Turkey’s judicial system that Erdogan could not eliminate access to Twitter, he nevertheless continues to advance his agenda of censorship. He pledges to “eradicate Twitter” which, according to him, encourages “blasphemy and criticism of the Turkish government.”

Is there any other person you trust to decide which ideas and speech you are entitled to hear — or which are too dangerous for you to hear?

Is there any other person you think should have the ability to decide what criticism of the Government is respectful enough?

Would you cede your autonomy to decide what you to hear to a Government? Probably not.

Police, ambulance and fire brigades are not game to enter Islamicised enclaves in France, Germany, Belgium – just about everywhere, in fact, where welfare payments and crime underwrite the aggressive separatism of communities openly contemptuous of their Western benefactors.
Croissant pouvre is a French term for the suburbs least likely to be settled by the European middle classes. Translated literally, it means ‘poor crescent’. This description has nothing to do with the perennial breakfast favourite — it is a word-play on the origin and favoured symbol of the majority of residents in these suburbs. Paris, Brussels, Copenhagen, Stockholm, Berlin – most large European cities have these ‘no-go’ areas, which also have another description – ‘zones sans-droit’: zones without law. Simply put, the law of the land does not apply. Instead, Sharia is firmly in control. France has about 30 zones sans-droit, all of which share three three characteristics.

all are largely populated by the unemployed, unemployable and un-integrated Muslim migrants from Africa and the Middle East and their descendants;
all are blighted by organised crime, with the narcotics trade, associated violence and prostitution dominate the civic landscape;
all have connections with, and supply, the recruits for jihadi activities overseas and terrorism at home, being a shelter, safe haven and breeding ground for organised crime and politically motivated terror.

The previous non-migrant, non-Muslim residents have mostly been squeezed out by threats, implied or real violence, intimidation, crime and plummeting property values. With few exceptions, shops operated by Jewish or Christian owners had closed their doors by 2013. Non-Muslim women, not wearing street clothes in accordance with the Sharia law, are routinely and openly accosted, insulted and manhandled by the self-proclaimed Sharia patrols or Islamic purity enthusiasts. The generous social security benefits paid to the residents of these suburbs are regarded as Jizziya – a head tax on dhimmis. These benefits are treated as an entitlement. This approach helps resolve the theological conundrum, which states that Muslims should not live in lands ruled by non-Muslims. Being paid Jizziya establishes the hierarchy of primacy and subjugation, justifies the contempt and disregard towards local laws and customs and supports the notion that the present situation is a transition towards full control.