> I'm not disagreeing, but I am pointing out that Turkey really wouldn't have gotten there for a freak chance in getting Ataturk who specifically modeled the country to be viable to enter Europe, and that process is currently being reversed gradually by the those elected in power.

I see where you're coming from but when you look into it the whole thing isn't so clean cut. Ataturk was obviously the singularly biggest influence in modern Turkish history, but because of it's geography Turkey has always had prospects to do well. It's position in control of shipping between the mediterranean and black sea, combined with it's black sea and mediterranean coasts and position as a gateway to Iraq, Russia and Greece has meant that it was always going to be a major trade centre.

Ataturk never modeled the country on being able to enter Europe, he died decades before the coal and steel treaty and the Euro region didn't exist until 1992 depending on your views on EU history. Ataturk's foreign policy doctrine was one of strict neutrality, "Peace at home, Peace in the world" (Yurtta Barış, Dünyada Barış). The decision to keep Turkey out has been largely made by the French and German governments who are worried about uneducated Turks coming into Europe and flooding the labour market and (particularly in the French case) not integrating into their host countries' cultures.

Ataturk modeled his country on the Austrian system as the best way of modernising a new country widely regarded as extremely behind the times. This was a continuation and radical acceleration of work that had been going on for nearly 200 years prior (with the help of the Germans, which is why the Ottomans were forced into the war on the German side, that and an alliance between France and Russia being seen as a threat). The acceleration of that only occurred because of the destruction of the caliphate and the establishment of a secular republic.

Later in Ataturk's life and in order to maintain territorial integrity a personality cult was built around him, this was to keep the revolution going, to ensure that the country didn't sink into religious backwardsness and that they could keep themselves as an independent state without having to deal with external interference. Other leaders who included Ataturk's principles of Kemalism to some extent included Nasser and Mossadegh.

In the end Ataturk's models became so fixed by subsequent leaders that his party CHP lost it's relevance and AKP, the current party gained power. Now AKP is putting it's people into various positions to ensure it's longevity. While it has a much more pro-Islamic agenda, AKP cannot afford to overstep the mark and betray it's financial backers, who'll pull out the rug as soon as someone more moderate comes along.

If you're interested in reading about Ataturk, Andrew Mango's Ataturk book is the definitive English language book on the matter.

"Remember what Christians were doing 600 years ago? Inquisition, Crusades, etc" Yeah Christians did it 600 YEARS AGO. But islamic countries do that kind of horror nowadays and AFAIK they did not developed in a bubble, isolated from the other countries. So it is perfectly relevant to judge them. Human Rights are universal, not a simple "cultural standard".

Oh please, 600 years?! The difference is the modernisation. 150 years ago in Sweden we had blasphemy laws not much better than Pakistan today.

But sure, you might come from some civilised place. :-)

There you go with the 'muslim countries' thing again. It's not like you can lump a whole load of different countries into one basket and make sweeping generalisations.

"How can you even compare holocaust denial laws to what muslim countries do?" - Very easily. The holocaust was over 65 years ago. The perpetrators of this egregious act are mostly dead. The victims of this egregious act are mostly dead. The modern German of today had nothing to do with the holocaust. Their mother and father had nothing to do with the holocaust. What does making holocaust denial do other than prohibit a form of dissent? Does it bring people back to life? No, it does not. Does it stop it from happening again? Just because a crime is unmentionable does not mean that it would not happen (and the holocaust is not the only genocide, nor the most efficient one, there have been many more before and since).

When you remove the right to say fuck, you remove the right to say fuck the government. In Germany any debate on the extent of the holocaust is stifled due to the law, the same (but opposite case) as it is in Turkey with respect to the atrocities referred to by some as the Armenian Genocide. In both cases the law is wrong and stifles free speech and people go to jail[1][2] for dissent against it.

> Religious headscarves should be banned for the same reason slavery is.

You really have no understanding of the purpose, origin or practice of the headscarf in countries around the middle-east and mediterranean whatsoever. Would it come as some surprise to you to know that in the early 20th century Irish women would wear headscarves to protect their modesty? Oh those poor oppressed Irish women, whatever became of them?

[1] - http://www.rense.com/general78/dsdde.htm

[2] - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/4205708.stm (although in this case one of Turkey's most celebrated authors' trials was cancelled at the last minute)

I see where you're coming from but you're incorrect. It's not about sweeping things under the rug. It's the tarring of all 'muslim countries' (whatever that means) with the same brush, as though we ourselves in non 'muslim countries' don't have the same problems.

It's the perpetuation of all muslims as evil savages that leads to the idea that they're somehow subhuman. Just because some of the 'other' may (or may not) talk differently, have a beard, dress differently or not drink alcohol doesn't mean that they aren't people. And yes, all countries have their problems with human rights abuses, people being attacked for various reasons and so on, but it's important to separate the religious element from the culture of individual ethnic and tribal groups.

To tar all 'muslim countries' is to tar 'muslims' as being part of that, and that's a slippery slope some seem to be further down than others.

> so, all in all, you have no fucking clue what you're posting about.

Your response would have been better without this.

Plenty of Occupy protestors around the US have been abused[1][2]. During the civil rights movement in the 1950s the US used water cannons to disperse crowds of non-violent protestors. In the US you have 'free speech zones' far away from events that people would protest against, stopping them from protesting on public property[3]. The US will even stop people entering the country that are critical, or even make jokes about the country[4].

In the UK, 53 people were arrested[5] the day before the royal wedding last year in order to avoid dissent. The police in the UK practice a method known as kettling to force protesters into cramped spaces and deny them access to water or sanitation facilities, even using this against the young[7]. At the London G20 protests in 2009 a man with no connection to the protests was struck by a police officer[8] and later died.

My point to all of this is that to say that 'they' are savages is disingenuous. We aren't so enlightened as we lead ourselves to believe and we shouldn't expect others to meet high standards we continually breach. This isn't a political statement for me. It's an acceptance of the world we live in. If people didn't dissent, this wouldn't happen, but if people didn't dissent, then civil rights wouldn't have happened either.

[1] - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-btt1GsVx0

[2] - http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/nov/...

[3] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone

[4] - http://www.globalpost.com/dispatches/globalpost-blogs/weird-...

[5] - http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/84088/royal-wedding-53-prote...

[6] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babar_Ahmad#Police_abuse_case

[7] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kettling#Student_protests.2C_20...

[8] - http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/interactive/2009/apr/08/g20-pol...