Turkey's Application to Join EU

by Rob C - Some of us are individuals Mon Sep 13, 2004 22:49

The above piece is an example of another piece of nonsense from an Irish leftie.

Turkey criminalises adultery? What's wrong with that? Nobody makes people marry and if you don't marry then you can't commit adultery. Nobody makes people stay married (whether in Turkey or in Ireland) and if you divorce then you can't commit adultery. Adulterous men go home and give their wives venereal diseases. Adulterous women give birth to children that men end up raising as theirs without knowing that they're not.

Of course there are reasons against criminalising it - that people will always be tempted to break marriage vows (secular or religious) and that the possibility of them going to jail for doing so isn't going to deter them (or is it?) nor is it going to help the situation then they are.

However, I don't feel that I am in a position to better decide what Turkey's laws should be than the Turkish people themselves and their elected representatives.

That anti-democratic arrogance is of course that of your average over-educated under-achieving Irish leftie who's probably never even been in Turkey (I have - for six months) or even met a Turkish person.

by Badman Mon Sep 13, 2004 23:10

"Nobody makes people stay married (whether in Turkey or in Ireland) "

And I suppose the statistics for abusive relationships where women are literally terrified of leaving are fantasy. The women's refuges are a figment of our collective imagination.

In Ireland many more people are seperated than divorced, for various reasons, often because one partner will not cooperate. In Turkey, it is even more difficult to divorce, particularly for women.

However, the point where you reveal your fundamental inability to understand complex concepts is in your claim that this article amounts to "anti-democratic arrogance". If Turkey joins the EU it will be on the basis of a treaty, a treaty which is more or less freely entered in to by the governments of the EU and the turkish government. As the EU is a state in construction, it makes sense that a precondition for joining is having a relatively similar legal code. The EU has every right to say that they will only allow Turkey to join if their laws are broadly in line with EU legislation and if Turkey's government cannot or will not implement this condition, then they are free not to join. There is nothing anti-democratic about setting pre-conditions for entering into voluntary associations.

Specifically, legal differences from the EU norm are problematic if they are contradicted by the rulings of the European Court of Justice. As it stands, many of Turkey's laws and practices would be quickly challenged and over-turned at the ECJ on human rights grounds and, as it is the paramount legal decision making body with sovereignty over all national law, Turkey would be legally obliged as part of its membership agreement to remove the offending laws and probably pay fines. Ensuring that this is implemented before any treaty is signed, is just common sense.

Your criticisms are laughable and woefully ignorant. Calling the left 'stupid' from your uninformed point of view just shows that you are even ignorant of your own ignorance.

by Rob C - Some of us are individuals Tue Sep 14, 2004 01:19

Badman, you really are the paradigm of the Irish leftie.

Staying married and getting out of a physically abusive relationship are completely different things. The difference is as simple as divorce and separation. By saying that nobody makes people stay married I am simply saying that divorce is possible and available. I think there is a general social view that since people don't have to get married, if they do then they should not have relationships with other people while still together. Of course, it's a different question whether there should be a criminal penalty for adultery. However, abusive relationships have absolutely nothing to do with this issue and you're just being a silly leftie trying to confuse the issues.

Despite your blather about it being difficult for a woman to divorce in Turkey (I don't know enough about Turkish law and practice to contradict you), it is certainly a lot easier to divorce in Turkey than in Ireland. The main reason it is difficult in Ireland is that the electorate decided that people should be separated for four out of the previous five years before they could get a divorce. Contrary to what you say, it is really pretty irrelevant to how quickly one gets a divorce in Ireland whether the other spouse co-operates or not.

My comment about anti-democratic arrogance is quite simply that lefties think that they're in a position to decide on what Turkey's laws should be in order for it to join the EU. Of course the member states of the EU can refuse Turkey's membership for whatever capricious reasons they like (e.g. 1-2 million second and third generation Turkish origin German residents finally getting full EU-based residence rights rather than the second class status they have now). However, I don't think I know enough about Turkish law and society to be able to decide whether or not I know better than the Turkish people do about what is the right law for them. I think those that do are arrogant and anti-democratic.

I have no idea what you mean by your sentence "legal differences from the EU norm are problematic if they are contradicted by the rulings of the European Court of Justice", but then perhaps you don't either.

Like a typical left-winger you seem to think all laws should be made by unelected judges. In fact, despite the best efforts of anti-democratic activists to subvert them, most laws are approved by legislative bodies, in the case of the EU the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament.

What does "problematic" mean? Does it mean such differences are not permissible and there is an obligation upon Turkey to conform to the alleged EU norm? (as your later (incorrect) comment regarding fines appears to suggest). Does it mean that there is no legal obligation on Turkey to conform to EU law, but that politically it would not be acceptable for it to differ.

Yes, to the extent that Turkey's laws are incompatible with the existing body of EU legislation, then they will require to be amended to conform to it. There's nothing new in that. Strange as it may seem to you, the EU and the European Court of Justice (thankfully) does not have a general "human rights" (i.e. make up the law as you go along) jurisdiction. There's certainly nothing in EU law that would prevent Turkey making adultery a criminal offence. Indeed, with certain limited exceptions, the EU has no competence in criminal law matters.

There are already many social and legal differences between the EU's member states. For example in the Netherlands euthanasia is commonly and legally practised. In many other states it is strictly illegal. There is no reason that social and legal differences in Turkey, where not within the scope of EU law, should prevent it joining the EU, unless politically unacceptable.

I have a primary law degree and a master's degree in law, and have practised law in Ireland for three years. I have also lived in Turkey. I think I'm pretty informed about this, at least relative to yourself.

In my experience most Irish lefties like you are second rate students more interested in boosting your own egos and running with whatever the latest fashionable cause or view is than actually thinking in a reasoned and principled way about matters. You try to put people down who disagree with you and bring up emotive ad hominen arguments (like the abusive relationships one you tried to use) to cloud discussions. You like to think you're better informed than those who disagree with you, but while you're not uninformed, you only ever know enough to be ill-informed.

by paulc Tue Sep 14, 2004 01:33

"Like a typical left-winger you seem to think all laws should be made by unelected judges"

i've never heard a lefty say that huh? judges are usual out of touch hasbeens?

you left out your nuj tag

by mr data Tue Sep 14, 2004 01:38

"Despite your blather about it being difficult for a woman to divorce in Turkey (I don't know enough about Turkish law and practice to contradict you), it is certainly a lot easier to divorce in Turkey than in Ireland."

Strange that you don't know bout the laws in Turkey but can say they they are less obstructive the thte Irish laws. Admiting a lack of knowledge should rule out a following compairing to Irish law but it seems that you are fond of sweeping statements eg. bout "lefties" Unless you know the previous poster you can not claim to know their political views or level of schooling, But why let things like these stop you in mid rant?!

by Rob C - Some of us are individuals Tue Sep 14, 2004 01:45

Paulc. It's good to hear that you think that the legislature rather than judges should make the law.

Could you then explain to me the basis for the "human rights" concepts advocated by so many lefties that judges should be given a very wide latitude to decide whether laws passed by the legislature are compatible with the broad human rights principles?

Could you also explain to me the Carrickmines case in which some individuals decided to challenge at length decisions made in relation to a motorway which, at least in the latter stages of the proceedings, simply proceeded on the basis that "we don't like what the National Roads Authority are doing, stop them"?

Finally, could you tell me why in 1986 instead of actively campaigning to repeal legislation making male homosexual acts illegal, David Norris took a case to the Supreme Court asking them to hold that the legislation was unconstitutional.

Of course, Irish anti-war campaigners who've experienced the wobbly scales of Irish justice in the District Court are perhaps a little bit more wary of giving judges more power than champagne socialist barristers like Ivana Bacik who make a good living out of litigation against the state. That's one of the reasons why I have respect for anti-war campaigners even though I don't agree with them.

by Badman Tue Sep 14, 2004 01:45

If you don't understand the simple point that I was making.

If a Turkish law explicitly contradicts a ECJ ruling, then a case can be taking to the ECJ on behalf of any victim of the Turkish law. The Dutch law on euthanasia is not explicitly contradicted by any ECJ ruling, many Turkish laws are.

Your charge that I want laws to be made by judges is absurd and completely unsupported. You still fail to see that there is nothing anti-democratic about setting preconditions for entering into voluntary agreements. Nothing more anti-democratic than me telling you that you can play on my football team if you agree to show up for matches at the specified time wearing the club kit. It doesn't takes a fine forensic mind to spot this glaring flaw in your argument.

by Rob C - Some of us are individuals Tue Sep 14, 2004 01:56

Mr Data

You are being wilfully disingenuous. I know that since laws passed (by the current Turkish governing party) in November 2002, which came into force on 1 January 2003 there is equality for men and women in family law matters. I also know that the separation period necessary for obtaining a divorce is only six months (a lot less than Ireland). What I don't know is whether in practice there are significant delays in the court system which can delay the granting of a divorce. I also don't know if the courts and the way in which the law is implemented discriminate against women. I'm not arrogant enough to think I do. I didn't say I knew nothing about Turkish divorce law, I said I didn't know enough to be able to say whether there was still an element of discrimination against women in practice. But from what I do know it is very clear that it is significantly easier to obtain a divorce in Turkey rather than Ireland.

I don't know anything about Badman's level of schooling. I only said that IN MY EXPERIENCE most lefties are second rate (not second level LOL) students. Unlike the silly incorrect statements that Badman was making about factual matters I was merely giving my opinion on lefties. An opinion which your posting has only served to strengthen.

by mr data Tue Sep 14, 2004 02:00

"Like a typical left-winger you seem to think all laws should be made by unelected judges. In fact, despite the best efforts of anti-democratic activists to subvert them, most laws are approved by legislative bodies, in the case of the EU the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament. "


Now Im really confused Rob C what do you stand for? First you rant against then for a cause.

"Of course, Irish anti-war campaigners who've experienced the wobbly scales of Irish justice in the District Court are perhaps a little bit more wary of giving judges more power than champagne socialist barristers like Ivana Bacik who make a good living out of litigation against the state. That's one of the reasons why I have respect for anti-war campaigners..."
What are you trying to say, is there a point to it or are you unable to define where you stand on the issue?

by Rob C - Some of us are individuals Tue Sep 14, 2004 02:11

Badman: I suggest you reread my post again . . . slowly.

We are talking not about the entire body of Turkish law. We are talking about a law making it a criminal offence to commit adultery. I am saying that this is perfectly compatible with EU law. Do you accept this?

I don't know why you keep talking about European Court of Justice rulings. ECJ rulings are not law as such, merely interpretations of the law. It's the treaties, directives, regulations, etc. that are law. These would not stop criminalisation of adultery? Do you accept this?

I agree that there is nothing anti-democratic about setting preconditions for entering into voluntary agreements. However, would be something both arrogant and anti-democratic in the EU saying to Turkey the following:

(1) We do not require existing member states to conform their laws in the area of family law and criminal law (except in certain limited areas) and they are and have been widely divergent.

(2) However, we don't like the fact that adultery is a criminal offence in Turkey. Even though most Turkish people want the law to be that way, and the EU law does not deal with the area, we want you to change your law on this before you can join the EU.

It is arrogant because it suggests that the EU and its existing members knows better than Turkey what laws Turkey should have and is forcing Turkey to conform to some perceived norm in a way an existing member state is not required to do.

It is anti-democratic because the Turkish parliament as the elected representatives of the Turkish people have approved the law and they are best placed to know Turkish society and its needs.

Those such as the first poster who suggest that criminalising adultery should be a negative for Turkey's EU membership application are just as arrogant and anti-democratic.

Your analogy about football teams and kit is a nice one, but is wrong. What we have here is something equivalent to the GAA saying that people who play GAA sports can't also play soccer as well in their own time. Yes, they are withing their rights to do it, but that doesn't make it right.

by mr data Tue Sep 14, 2004 02:22

What on earth gave you the impressoin that I am left wing, I have not made any statements to my political views? Not everyone on this forum is left wing? You are on it are you a "lefty"? I cant strenghten youre views on lefties without stating what i stand for but have you have proved that you DO make sweeping statements by placing me in a place I may not belong.

by Badman Tue Sep 14, 2004 02:30

Convention for the Protection
of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms

This law could be challenged under:

Article 8 – Right to respect for private and family life
1 Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
2 There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Although no constitutional expert, I think that it would be a relatively easy task to argue that this law represented an "interference" into the private life of the individual by the state and that the example of every other state in the EU demonstrates that this law is not "necessary in a democratic society...for the protection of health or morals" (the only possibly relevant clause).

Also, your list of rhetorical questions about the legal system lead me to believe that you are fibbing when you say that you are a lawyer. There are very standard and well known rationales for the various institutions of the judicial system and its relationship to the legislature. Not that I agree with them mind, I'm with Ray O'Reilly on this one, but you don't seem to understand the logic which you presumably agree with as a conservative.

by Rob C Tue Sep 14, 2004 02:36

Mr Data:

To address your comments briefly:

(1) I did not intend to label you as a leftie. My apologies. I suppose to some extent I do have the impression that a majority of posters are lefties.

(2) I am very much against judicial activism. That means both judges banning people from Co. Clare when they have no power to do so under the law and judges striking down prohibitions on homosexual acts on the basis that they are contrary to some concept of "due process". I believe that if you want the law changed you should publicly campaign to have it changed. I think judges are unrepresentative and inefficient mechanisms for deciding broad legal questions. This is perhaps why it riles me so much that posters like Badman, whom I do identify as a leftie, blather on about the European Court of Justice being the supreme power. The law is in the legislation, not in the court rulings.

My reply to Paulc was to address his comment that lefties weren't actually keen on judicial activism. I gave a number of illustrations of where they were, while noting that in at least one case judicial activism had been hostile to left interests and those involved had therefore taken a much more cautious approach to judicial activism as a result. I said that I respect lefties more when they don't try and rely on judges to get the results they want.

Admittedly this is a considerable digression from the subject matter of this post, but my core point is the same - lefties these days have a very anti-democratic and often arrogant view that they know best, no matter how remote from the issue or whether the majority of those actually involved are of a different view.

by mr data Tue Sep 14, 2004 02:47

You will find me in complete agreement on the issue of preaching from the left. The tone and delivery of often valid points is so sickening and self rightious that one can not help but be annoyed. Im not sure it is a left wing thing however all sides of the political map can posess it, its just some people have it in spades.

by paulc Tue Sep 14, 2004 02:51

if alot of lefites don't believe or subscribe to democracy how can they be anti-democractic? you sound like an neo-american using the word freedom to defend every point made

oh yes i dont believe legistature should make the laws either... you well know that lefties use the law AND any other means open to them..

do you really believe the national monuments at is democratic?

and yes back to turkey

by Rob C Tue Sep 14, 2004 03:01

Badman:

A few points:

The European Convention on Human Rights is not any part of EU law and the European Court of Justice does not rule on it.

Individual countries can sign up to the ECHR and then the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg can make rulings. Turkey is already a part to the ECHR and the ECHR is currently considering the compatibility of Turkey's ban on headscarves with the ECHR.

There is currently a proposal from the EU to make a separate Charter of Fundamental Rights legally binding on EU member states. However, this has not happened yet - although it may be provided for under the draft EU Constitution.

So, do you accept that there is no EU law with which Turkey's criminalisation of adultery conflicts, or will you keep raising irrelevancies?

As far as Article 8 of the ECHR is concerned, how long is a piece of string. What usually happens is that of the 20 odd judges on the European Court of Human Rights a majority vote one way and a minority vote the other. It's not very democratic is it?

Although you think "it would be a relatively easy task" to argue that Turkey's criminalisation of adultery represents an "interference" into the private life of the individual by the state, I am not so sure. I would have thought that the venereal disease issue I mentioned earlier raises the prospect of the ban being justified on public health grounds. I would also have thought the protection of the rights of the other spouse as provided for under the marriage is a relevant consideration as well. Ultimately, nobody is required to marry or stay married. If people do then should they not take responsibility for what they agree to when they do marry? Unlike you, I think that the Turkish people who know their own society are best placed to take a view on this.

However irrespective of these arguments, as I have outlined above, at present Turkish criminalisation of adultery is not contrary to EU law, because the EU has no human rights jurisdiction, especially not in areas outside its competence such as family and criminal law.

It's a bit silly to question my legal qualifications when you're not really up to speed on what you're talking about. Stop being a silly leftie - go and do your reading before you pontificate.

I don't know what you mean by saying that I don't seem to understand the logic which I presumably agree with as a conservative. I wouldn't self-identify as a conservative and I think you've enough to do in addressing this topic and my posts without worrying about rationales for relationships between the judiciary and the legislature.

by Badman Tue Sep 14, 2004 04:32

For a man who walks onto a web site and calls all lefties stupid for holding a view that a large number of them do not in fact hold, you look like a man in a glass house to me. Arrogance rebounds from badman. You can give it but you can't take it.

The simple thing that you seem to miss about legislation is that it is always open to different interpretations. In the case of a dispute over the correct interpretation of a particular law in a particular case, then somebody has to decide which of the disputed interpretations is to be deemed lawful and will be enforced by the might of the state. This is the function of judges, the fact that they rule on matters of law is a consequence of the ambiguity and lack of detail of much legislation.

But, rather than appealing for more power for judges, I think that you'll find the virtually all lefties view the power of judges as largely another way of enforcing the rule of powerful elites. For example, they can find that parts of the constitution are 'aspirational' when the powerful really need them to.

The EU is constituted by formal, legally binding treaties agreed by the member states. The ECJ has authority over the interpretation of the legal contracts that constitute the treaties. The national governments of each member state are legally obliged to comply with the treaties and this has precedence over any national law. The draft constitution contains a reference to the human rights declarartion and once the constitution is passed this will be legally binding for the member states.

by Michael Hennigan - Finfacts.com Tue Sep 14, 2004 12:20

Rob C wrote: 'Turkey criminalises adultery? What's wrong with that?'...However, I don't feel that I am in a position to better decide what Turkey's laws should be than the Turkish people themselves and their elected representatives.

That anti-democratic arrogance is of course that of your average over-educated under-achieving Irish leftie who's probably never even been in Turkey (I have - for six months) or even met a Turkish person.'

I haven't been to Turkey but I have lived in a country for over 5 yrs which has the Holy Quoran as its constitution. So I have some experience of life where there are such laws.

Firstly, your ranting style does not help your case. As to anti-democratic arrogance, as I pointed out, I have been in favour of Turkey joining the EU but this measure on adultery, gives ammunition to the significant number in the EU who oppose Turkish entry.

Turkey has applied for membership. As a EU citizen, have I not a right to raise an issue concerning Turkey?

Turkey's record on human rights has not been good. To me this plan to criminalise adultery is an example of the hypocrisy of politicians who are pandering to the ignorant. The application of such laws increases the potential for abuse of human rights. If the next pressure from fundamentalists is to wage a campaign against gays as is happenning in Egypt, I guess we shouldn't object either.

The whole point about membership of the EU is respect for what are regarded as human/individual rights. Turkey has a choice a to make- its democratic choice. The EU also has a choice.

by John D Tue Sep 14, 2004 13:59

What happened to the prescient comment about Bertie?