Remember Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s outrage over the appearance of Israeli Premier Benjamin Netanyahu at the Paris march for free speech? It seems a rather bizarre scene for a man who had led to one of the greatest rollbacks on free speech and press freedom in Turkey’s history as part of his insertion of Islamic fundamentalism into the once secular state. The irony only grew today after a Turkish court banned websites from show this cover of Charlie Hebdo’s magazine following the massacre of its editors and staff by Muslim extremists.
The order was issued out of the southeastern city of Diyarbakir after a lawyer reportedly filed a petition saying the four sites were a danger to “public order.” It is particularly distressing to see Muslim lawyers joining the mob in denying basic freedoms in the name of their faith.
The primary target was a secular newspaper that was going to print four pages of cartoons in solidarity with their French counterparts. It was a brave act to do in a Muslim country but this lawyer and the court soon intervened to show that intolerance and religious orthodoxy controls in the new Turkey.
Notably, one target did not have the cartoons but did include small, black-and-white images of the cover as their column headers in Wednesday’s issue. The police in their review of the Cumhuriyet magazine appear to have missed those inclusions in allowing the trucks of that publication to roll out of the facility.
It wasn’t immediately clear if the columnists’ use of the cover image escaped the attention of police.
In the meantime, Ergogan’s government took little time in denouncing free speech as he returned from marching in support of it: Turkish Deputy Prime Minister Yalcin Akdogan called the use of the prophet’s image on the magazine an act of “sedition and provocation.”
31 thoughts on “Turkish Court Bans Charlie Hebdo Cover With Mohammad Cartoon After Erdogan Returns From Free Speech March”
re clothing. I went to a nude beach many many years ago, I was clothed and felt completely ill at ease because the context was no clothing. I took the risk and unclothed only to then feel appropriate in the context. The choices we make are often related to what others are doing and how to fit in with the majority. This goes to how people behave in the Islamic countries, majority or terror will often be the deciding factor in whether to uprise or go along to get along, and maybe even to stay alive.
I went to a nude beach I didn’t know was nude – Lido Beach in FL – it didn’t bother me and I kept my top on. I thought it was funny actually because my husband was so embarrassed he couldn’t look lololol 🙂 🙂
Apparently much of the American MSM takes instruction form the Turkish Court.
I’ve not been to Turkey. But for those who have, if you’ve not been there the last 2-3 years you may not recognize it now.
Tyger, I often say I base my wardrobe primarily because it’s the law I be clothed. Clothes for me have this priority, comfortable, comfortable, affordable.
Nick, that would be a very localized and incomplete solution to my personal situation, and it wouldn’t resolve my issue with human society. Turn it around and see how it fits? Suppose one could only wear clothes legally if he or she were confined to a “Wearist” colony?
Comments are closed.