Atheist Turkish pianist Say to face jail: lawyer

[rug]

(AFP) – 4 hours ago

ANKARA — Acclaimed Turkish composer and pianist Fazil Say faces trial in October on charges of insulting religious values, with a possible 18-month prison sentence, his lawyer said Friday.

"The trial will open on October 18 in an Istanbul court," Meltem Akyol told AFP, adding that Say, 42, would attend the hearing.

The multiple award-winning artist, who is a culture ambassador for the European Union, drew the ire of conservatives in Turkey with a series of provocative tweets about Islam.

The virtuoso will be tried under Article 216 of Turkish Penal Code, which makes insults against religious values and instigation of enmity punishable by prison terms, according to the lawyer.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hSOZLrzf8Dd5KyO1beZLufbboWBQ?docId=CNG.4ed88ecca6ac1517d1d9798b1e0b8a72.1e1

[msongs]

1. people insecure in their religious beliefs are easily "insulted" nt

[rug]

2. Given this is an action by a government, it's about power, not sensitive believers.

[daaron]

4. It's an action by a gov't with anti-blasphemy laws. nt

[rug]

5. And that has everything to do with power and nothing to do with sensitive believers.

[laconicsax]

8. Anti-blasphemy laws only exist for the sake of sensitive believers.

Can you name a government whose power is threatened by blasphemy?

[rug]

9. That's obvious, oversensitive nonsense.

All discrimination laws, race, religon, ethnicity, gender, orientation, etc., are written, passed and enforced by the ruling powers, i.e., economic powers, with the core purpose of dividing people, thereby allowing their continued power.

It's interesting you foster this false division.

[laconicsax]

10. Am I to take it that you regard blasphemy as equivalent to racism, homophobia, etc.?

[rug]

12. No, you are not to take that.

The point stands: seizing these incidents as an opportunity to characterize believers as "sensitive" is simulteneously obtuse, if you think that's what these laws are about, and divisive, whether intentionally or not.

[laconicsax]

14. I'll remind you that you characterized believers as "sensitive."

But, seeing as that doesn't really matter, I'll simply ask who you believe blasphemy laws meant to protect, and from what?

[rug]

15. You assume, wrongly, that they are meant to protect anyone.

They are meant to divide.

[laconicsax]

17. That's interesting, especially when you named them alongside other anti-discrimination laws.

All discrimination laws, race, religon, ethnicity, gender, orientation, etc., are written, passed and enforced by the ruling powers, i.e., economic powers, with the core purpose of dividing people, thereby allowing their continued power.

It would seem that, according to you, the Civil Rights Acts, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, the Hate Crimes Prevention Act, ENDA, etc. are only "meant to divide" rather than serve a useful purpose such as ending discrimination.

I always suspected that you weren't terribly keen on guaranteeing minorities and marginalized groups equal protection under the law, but never expected such a direct statement to that effect. I'm quite interested in how you plan to spin this.

[font color="white"]BTW, I win a $20 bet if you try to make this subthread about me[/font]

[rug]

18. Anti-discrimination laws are the opposite of discrimination laws.

Nice of you to provide the quote to illustrate how clearly you attempt to reverse meanings.

Why don't you now explain how Jim Crow laws, the Nuremburg Laws, the male inheritance laws, religious discrimination laws and the like do anything but serve the ruling economic class?

I always suspected you of dissembling and distorting words. Thank you for removing any lingering doubt.

[laconicsax]

19. It seems I misread your comment as being about anti-discrimination laws. My bad.

By the way, your response here won me a $20 bet.

[rug]

20. I doubt both.

[laconicsax]

21. Both are true.

I did misread your comment, and am a little disappointed in myself for not reading more closely.

For confirmation of the bet, highlight the area between my last paragraph and my sigline in #17. I doubt the other party will pay, but the bet was real.

[rug]

22. Then you lost the bet unless you are a proponent of the laws in #18.

As to making this subthread personal,

I always suspected that you weren't terribly keen on guaranteeing minorities and marginalized groups equal protection under the law, but never expected such a direct statement to that effect. I'm quite interested in how you plan to spin this.

Oops, I highlighted the wrong section of #17. My bad.

[laconicsax]

23. Nope, the bet was about what your response would be.

I said, "I'll bet you $20 rug tries to make this about me with his next comment." The bet was accepted, you made your post, and I won.

[rug]

24. I believe every word. After all, you quoted yourself.

Fortunately, I don't come here to make bets on how often laconicsax attempts to inject persons into posts. My wallet is too thin.

[laconicsax]

25. Why do you come here then?

Is it to defend the hate group that runs your church?

[rug]

26. Lol. Here comes the desparate lashing out.

To be followed by, "Anyone who belongs to this criminal enterprise is an ennabler of pedophilia and misogyny." Of course you won't actually name anyone or directly accuse a DU member of it. That's not your style.

Come now, get it all out. Reel out the rest of it. You'll feel better.

Your shtick is old but if it helps you I don't mind.

In the meantime, the actual answer is in the OP and the few comments before your derailing and disrupting antics.

[laconicsax]

27. Is it inaccurate to say that someone who gives money to a criminal, homophobic, and misogynist org

is enabling them?

I think in your case, "enable" is too weak. Church officials make and enforce homophobic and misogynist polices and have committed criminal offenses, but you give them your money.

I think "active supporter" suits your level of participation much more than mere "enabling."

Now here comes the desperate attempt to shift the focus away from the fact that you provide material support to a hate group.

[rug]

28. Lol.

[LeftishBrit]

30. As an atheist who agrees with you on most issues, I have to disagree here

Catholicism is not a 'hate group', though the Church as an institution, like most large institutions, it is readily corrupted by people who do wish to spread hate or who otherwise indulge in greed or dishonesty. But the same is true of most governments, for example: and one would not normally attack all the citizens of a country because they pay taxes to support that government. Even in the case of people who vote for a party that acts in an immoral fashion (I have voted for two different parties that ended up, respectively, imitating the right-wingers and collaborating with them), they may vote for it because of support for its basic principles, rather than its corruptions - most British Labour voters did not support Blair's war in Iraq, for example.

I think that one has to beware of associating all holders of a philosophy or belief with all the evils perpetrated by some powerful people who hold that belief - e.g. equating all Muslims with terrorism, or all atheists, or for that matter all far-leftists, with communist state oppression.

But the problem here is that Catholicism is both a faith, and an institution; which makes life difficult for those who hold the faith but disapprove of the institution in its current form. As I don't hold the faith, I don't feel I can tell others what to do on this.

[laconicsax]

33. I'm not saying that Catholicism is a hate group. I'm saying that the institution at the helm is.

The RCC (institution, not religion or laity) openly promotes a homophobic and misogynistic agenda. That's a hate group in my book.

A significant difference between voting Labour or Lib Dem (I assume they're the other party you were talking about) and supporting the RCC (institution) is that neither Labour nor Lib Dem openly indicated that they would take the country to war or become Cameron's lap dog whereas the RCC (institution) has been open about their homophobia and misogyny.

Had Labour run on going to war with Iraq and the Lib Dems run on being Tories, your analogy would be more apt. With the RCC (institution), there are no surprises on where they stand and what they stand for.

[LeftishBrit]

29. I think the implication is more that ANTI-blasphemy is equivalent to racism, homophobia, etc.

[laconicsax]

32. I got that a bit too late. n/t

[daaron]

11. N'Kaaaay... If'n you say so; therefore debate is over.

'Sides, you clearly have the advantage in bumper-sticker, one-liner, back-n-forth tête-à-tête, in which I have zero desire to engage with anyone. Even someone who is so clearly wrong.

[rug]

13. That's very persuasive.

[daaron]

16. sudo !!

[cbayer]

3. Definitely about the politics and grabs for power in Turkey.

I hope he gets to move to Japan and does not go to jail.

[rug]

6. I hadn't heard of him at all until April.

I checked him out on youtube. He's phenemonal. This prosecution will backfire on the government.

[cbayer]

7. I hope it does backfire.

Turkey needs to address these free speech issues if they want to get into the EU.

[LeftishBrit]

31. Exactly

This is a big bar to EU admission, which I hope will be a strong incentive for Turkey to change its policies. Unfortunately from this point of view, EU membership is probably no longer as attractive as it once was.