Gunman shoots Turkey court judges

[MaineDem]

A gunman has opened fire inside Turkey's highest court in Ankara injuring five judges, two seriously.

There were scenes of panic at the Council of State - the top administrative court - as the injured were carried out of the building.

The attacker, believed to be a lawyer, was detained by police and is being questioned but his motive is not clear.

One of the wounded judges had been criticised for ruling against teachers wearing Muslim headscarves.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4989034.stm

[tocqueville]

1. has Cheney being arrested ? nt

[Kagemusha]

2. This isn't funny though.

This would be bad in most any country, but Turkey is, even if not as *much* as some places, a social powderkeg with serious fault lines between the secular and military forces and islamic forces. The judiciary tries to adjucate between the two. To then attack the judiciary like this is to attack the entire philosophy of the rule of law and any thought of compromise with the other side, which becomes not simply the opposition, but the enemy.

This is just not good at all...

[Igel]

3. I agree.

There's been a creeping increase in how intrusive Islamic customs and law is to be in Turkish society. A lot's barely been in the confines of legal; some has been arguably illegal, but enforcement is hard to come by.

This means that some militant--unless he's just a local loony--feels emboldened enough to act. Not quite novel, but it's a new target, and a significant one. Over an issue that's as much symbolic and political as it is substantive.

[maddezmom]

4. kick

[seafan]

5. Judge killed after blocking promotion of teacher who wore Muslim scarf

Judge shot dead after blocking promotion of teacher who wore Muslim headscarf

From Suna Erdem in Istanbul
May 18, 2006

A SENIOR judge died yesterday after a lawyer opened fire in Turkey’s highest administrative court. He was apparently protesting against a ruling on the Muslim headscarf, which is barred from many places in the secular country.

snip

It is thought that the attack in the centre of the capital, Ankara, was in protest at a decision not to promote a primary school headmistress who wore a Muslim headscarf on her way to work.

snip

The military, which sees itself as the guardian against any attempt to increase religious influence in the country, also condemned the attack.

About 99 per cent of Turks are Muslims. The country’s secular Establishment, however, which includes the courts and the military, has sought for decades to restrict Islamic influence, which some leaders view as an obstacle to Western-style modernisation.

Mr Erdogan’s wife, Emine, wears a headscarf, and his governing Justice and Development Party has made no secret of its desire to lift a ban on wearing them in government buildings and universities.

The wife of Abdullah Gul, the Foreign Minister, was barred from attending university for wearing one.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

6. The shooting of the judge doesn't help the cause of

religious tolerance in Turkey. This is very sad, as I know that the Sufis there are forbidden to hold their ceremonies-even the Sema (the ceremony known as the 'whirling dervishes') is only presented as a tourist attraction without the religious background. To do zkr and other ceremonies in Turkey, Sufis must be very very discreet.

[adriennui]

7. doesn't help what cause

if it was up to me, i'd criminalize all religious displays in public.

i hope the shooter is sent to one of those famous turkish prisons with a rarget on his butt.

[arewenotdemo]

8. problem is you can't criminalize ignorance and superstition

Though given the bloody history and culpability of most all organized religions, there needs to be a solid wall between church and state to protect the sane.

This nation used to have leaders who actually recognized that fact.

[anotherdrew]

9. sure you can

it'll be a bloodbath for awhile but after a generation or two, problem solved.

probably not a good idea tho really

[happyslug]

10. So if I display my Belief in the Freedom of Speech your would ban it?

One of the problem with banning Religious displays in public is first defining what is a religious display. Holding your hand out to shake hand has been adopted as a symbol of peace in many churches (including the Catholic Church), would you thus ban handshaking? Some People knock on wood for luck, which goes back to the old Germanic God Wooden, would you ban such knocking on wood?

I believe in Freedom of Speech and expression, would you ban such speech and expression because such expression and speech is part of my religion? Would you ban expression of toleration because it is religious based? Would you ban someone from talking because the only way he can express him or herself is in terms of religion? Would you ban a person from condemning Bush because condemning a hypocrite is part of his or her religion?

My point is what is Religion and what is a religious display? The Supreme court could NOT draw such a line and instead adopted the view that ANY STRONGLY HELD BELIEF IS A RELIGIOUS BELIEF AND PROTECTED UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT (This includes atheism). The difference between religious and Political beliefs is not a line but a huge blur as shown above. Most of the real horrors in history were NOT done for religious reason but Political and economic Reasons.

Religion has been used only as an excuse when such crimes occurred the reason was almost always Economic, Political or even more basic causations. An example of such more basic causations can be seen in the days before Gunpowder (and for many centuries later). During a siege of a town the town had to surrender before its wall was destroyed, if it did not the blood lust of the troops after seeing their comrades die in front of them as they stormed the city is to high for anyone to stop and thus you have the sacking and pillaging of such cities. This happened when the Christian Crusaders took Jerusalem during the Crusades and again when the Arabs took Acre 130 years later. People try to excuse such blood lust but it is part of the adrenaline rush you get in such situations. This occurred even in today, for example in Iraq. Our Troops find themselves in a fire fight they fight they way out but during that "Rush" they are killing machines and will kill anything around them till the rush is over (Which has lead to a lot of atrocity in Iraq as it did in Vietnam).

As to excuses, any excuse can be used for example the Soviets used Communism and its "Scientific" Truth to commit most of the Crimes done by Stalin, and Hitler used the concept of Ayanism, what ever that was, to commit his crimes. Neither claimed to be acting in a "Christian" manner (Through Hitler did use Christian identity and imagery to get people to go with his ideas, and Stalin re-established the Patriarch of Moscow during WWII and had it bless Some soldiers and Some units of the Red Army).

Another example is Gandhi, who used Hinduism as a political tool to force the British to give India its independence, and lets not forget Martin Luther King's use of the Baptist version of Christianity as a political tool for desegregation.

As you an see Politics and Religion have a HUGE overlap and as such to ban Religion is also to ban Politics and is that what you really want?

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

12. The cause of freedom of and from religion

Just as I would think it abhorrant for any state to force you to practice a religion, I also think it abhorrant for any state to deny people the right to practice their religion. Sufis aren't political; at least the Turkish orders I am familiar with. They don't want to run the government-they want to be able to worship in peace.

[genie_weenie]

11. The man who shot the judge is named...

Aslan Alpaslan. I wonder if that's his real name? Alp Arslan is a Great Hero of the Turkish people who won the crushing defeat of the Byzantines at the Battle of Manzikert in 1071. But his papers identifiying him as a lawyer were possibly faked.