German -Turkey Relations: German journalist says Turkey court lifts travel ban

A German journalist and translator who is on trial in Turkey on terror-related charges said Monday that Turkish authorities had lifted her overseas travel ban.

"The reports about the lifting of my exit ban are correct," Mesale Tolu wrote on Twitter.

"I would like to thank my supporters and all those who sympathised with me and stood by my side to win my freedom."

An Istanbul court in December had conditionally released Tolu, 34, who was held for over half a year on charges of membership of the Marxist-Leninist Communist Party (MLKP), which is banned in Turkey as a terror organisation.

Under that ruling, she had to report to the authorities every week and could not leave Turkey.

With the latest verdict, she will be allowed to leave the country.

However Tolu wrote on Twitter that the next hearing in her trial is scheduled for October 16. If convicted, she faces up to 15 years in prison.

In February, an Istanbul court ordered the conditional release of German-Turkish journalist Deniz Yucel after receiving an indictment from prosecutors seeking a prison sentence of up to 18 years.

The latest court ruling on Tolu comes amid a thaw in Turkish-German relations after months of sharp tensions.

German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas said he was relieved by the "good news" that Tolu would be allowed to travel and called it "a step forward in improving our relationship with Turkey".

But he added in a statement that more steps must follow and said that "we continue to view critically many rule-of-law issues in Turkey and are addressing these openly with our Turkish counterparts".

Read more: Flash - German journalist says Turkey court lifts travel ban - France 24

Russia: Vladimir Putin's Top Critic Arrested as Russians Protest Election - by Damien Sharkov

Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin

Russian President Vladimir Putin’s most prominent critic has been arrested on the day of nationwide protests against the leader’s bid to stay in office for at least another six years.

Anti-corruption blogger Alexey Navalny mobilized two waves of protests in dozens of cities last year, incensed at the reported wealth of government officials under Putin’s protection.

As Putin announced last month he is seeking re-election in March’s presidential vote, Navalny has repeatedly called for a boycott at the ballot boxes in a bid to cast doubt on the legitimacy of Putin’s campaign by lowering turnout.

While Navalny is regularly arrested at his rallies, police went a step further in the early afternoon on Sunday, forcing their way into Navalny’s office and detaining six members of his team in a raid, according to independent monitoring group OVD-Info.

Protests gripped not only Moscow but Russia’s second most important city, St. Petersburg, as well as cities in the country’s east.

“They are the future of Russia,” Navalny tweeted with a photo of two young protesters. “Putin and his band of thieves are her past.”

Read more: Newsweek  Vladimir Putin's Top Critic Arrested as Russians Protest Election

USA: U.N. Defies Trump's Bullying and Threats by Passing Resolution on Jerusalem - by Kambiz Foroohar

The United Nations General Assembly overwhelmingly backed a measure critical of President Donald Trump’s decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel despite U.S. Ambassador Nikki Haley’s warning that the move could put funding for their nations and the global body at risk.

The nonbinding UN resolution passed on Thursday by a vote of 128-9, with 35 nations abstaining. Key U.S. allies backing the measure over Trump’s threats included the U.K., France, Italy, Japan and Germany. The U.S. was joined in opposition by countries including Guatemala, Nauru and Micronesia. Abstentions included Australia, Canada and Argentina.

“The United States will remember this day when it was singled out for attack in the General Assembly,” Haley said at the U.N. podium ahead of the vote. “We will remember it when so many countries come calling on us, as they often do, to pay even more. This vote will be remembered.”

That threat was repudiated by speakers from countries supporting the resolution, which says the status of Jerusalem must be resolved through negotiations. A similar resolution had 14 votes in favor in the 15-member Security Council last week, prompting Haley to exercise the first U.S. veto since 2011.

“We were all asked to vote no or face the consequences,” Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu said before Thursday’s vote. “Some even threatened to cut development aid. This is bullying. It is unethical to think that the votes and dignity of member states are for sale.” 

Read more: U.N. Defies Trump's Threats by Passing Resolution on Jerusalem

Democracy and Secularism go hand in hand and freedom of religion is part of that equation - by RM

Secularism - the only way Democracy can work

The word democracy means only that the people rule. Other than, perhaps, requiring freedom of speech and equal access to the ballot, indispensable requirements of self-rule, the notion of democracy sets no limits on what the people may do in their sovereign capacity.

All liberal constitutional democracies in the world impose restrictions on what private activity government may and should regulate, including, of course, religious behavior, and what values it may assimilate, and enforce, as its own.

There are several broad generalizations that can be made about the role and place of religion in liberal democracies. First, in a liberal democracy, citizenship is not dependent on adherence to an official religion or even a state approved religion. Religion, therefore, should never be the constitutive element of citizenship.

This principle is today accepted universally in the Western world. Equally well accepted is that in a liberal democracy the government may not penalize citizens because they profess a faith that is not shared by a majority of their fellow citizens. It is also settled that in a liberal democracy citizens enjoy the freedom to express their religious views, and to form institutions consistent with those views, without fear of punishment or civic disability.

Liberal democracies also assume that citizens should not be prevented from practicing their faith and that the government ought not to interfere with the religious decisions of citizens or their institutions.

This last principle is not always observed, at least as a matter of enforceable legal principle. In the United States the principle means only that the government may not single out religious practices for regulation. In the name of equal treatment of religious and nonreligious citizens, the courts have increasingly refused to recognize a special right to exemption from ostensibly neutral government regulation for religious practice, even though the constitutional text surely sounds as if one were intended. 

It is likewise universally accepted that liberal democracies cannot compel the doing of religious acts or attendance at worship services, although there is less than full agreement over the extent of this principle as it applies to children in state-run schools. Whether the state can compel participation in some form of prayer services, and, even if not, what constitutes coercion to participate in religious activities, are unfortunately still sharply disputed questions.

It should, in our opinion, however, be widely recognized that Secular Democracies can not and must never allow for any kind of worship in public schools financed by taxpayers monies. On the other hand, it should not deny that right to private schools financed by private funds.

The United States is the most religiously diverse country in the world. In no other nation can you find as many varied religious groups, beliefs and practices as there are there. The Founding Fathers recognized in their own times the great theological differences among not only different religions, but also among the many Protestant sects.

They saw the tyranny that government-sponsored religion wrought. That is why the US has a secular constitution – and Bill of Rights—that provide strict protections for religious practice and safeguards against government-endorsed religion. The US  secular government and protections of religion are what have allowed religion to flourish and grow there.

However, there has been a constant stream of legislation and executive action to impose religious ideas into law with the mistaken belief that what is good for one group of religious people should be good for everyone.This is absolutely not permissible in a Secular Democracy.

The truest test of religious freedom within a Secular Democratic State is not the ability of every religious group to do as it pleases, but for every individual to be able to freely choose his or her own religious or nonreligious path without recrimination or consequence.

Bottom-line - religious freedom should be an equal part within every Secular Democracy but nothing more or less than that. 

EU-Digest  

The Netherlands: No Justice in the Netherlands - by Judith Bergman

A court in The Hague decided on October 14 that the charges of hate speech against Dutch politician Geert Wilders, for statements he made in March 2014 at a political rally, are admissible in a court of law. It thereby rejected the Wilders' appeal to throw out the charges as inadmissible in a court of law on the grounds that these are political issues and that a trial would in fact amount to a political process. The criminal trial against Wilders will begin on Monday, October 31.

While campaigning in The Hague in March 2014, Wilders argued the need for fewer Moroccans in the Netherlands. At an election meeting in The Hague, he asked those present a number of questions, one of which was "Do you want more or fewer Moroccans?" After the crowd responded "fewer" Wilders said, "We're going to organize that."

Because of the "fewer Moroccans" statements, repeated again in an interview a few days later, Wilders will be prosecuted on two counts: First for "deliberately insulting a group of people because of their race." Second, for "inciting hatred or discrimination against these people."

Wilders' defense attorney, Geert Jan Knoops, has argued that the trial amounts to a political trial against Wilders and his party, the PVV: "Sensitive issues must be judged by public opinion or through the ballot box,", Knoops said "The Prosecutor is indirectly asking for a ruling over the functioning of the PVV and its political program. The court must not interfere with this."

As a politician, Wilders can say more than an ordinary citizen, Knoops said, arguing that Wilders used his statements to point out shortcomings in the Dutch state. "It is his duty to name shortcomings. He takes that responsibility and proposes solutions." Knoops argued that the prosecutor is limiting Wilders' freedom of speech by prosecuting him for his statements.

The court's response was that although politicians are entitled to freedom of expression, they should "avoid public statements that feed intolerance" and that the trial would determine where the border lies between politicians' freedom of expression and their obligation, as the court sees it, to avoid public statements that feed intolerance.

Other politicians, notably all from the Labour Party, have uttered the following about Moroccans without being prosecuted:

    "We also have sh*t Moroccans over here." -- Rob Oudkerk, a Dutch Labour Party (PvDA) politician.
    "We must humiliate Moroccans." -- Hans Spekman, PvDA politician.
    "Moroccans have the ethnic monopoly on trouble-making." -- Diederik Samsom, PvDA politician.

The court discarded Wilders' defense attorney's argument that the failure to prosecute any of these politicians renders the trial against Wilders discriminatory. The court said that because of the different time, place and context of the statements of other politicians, they cannot be equated with the statements of Mr. Wilders and for that reason, the court considers that there has been no infringement of the principle of equality.

The statements of those other politicians, however, were, objectively speaking, far worse in their use of language ("sh*t Moroccans") and what could be considered direct incitement ("We must humiliate Moroccans"). What other time, place and context could possibly make the above statements more acceptable than asking whether voters would like more or fewer Moroccans? And what circumstances render it legitimate to call someone "sh*t" because of their ethnic origin?

It is deeply troubling that the court already in its preliminary ruling, and before the criminal trial itself has even begun, so obviously compromises its own impartiality and objectivity. To the outside world, this court no longer appears impartial. Are other European courts also quietly submitting to jihadist values of curtailing free speech and "inconvenient" political views?

The Netherlands is a party to the European Convention of Human Rights. This means that Dutch courts are obligated to interpret domestic legislation in a way compatible with the ECHR and the case law of the European Court on Human Rights. Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights states:

    1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers...

    2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.



Read more: No Justice in the Netherlands

Dutch PM talks to Dutch/Turkish journalist trapped in Turkey about local security concerns - by Janene Pieters

Ebru Umar - security dangers

Dutch Prime Minster Mark Rutte spoke to Ebru Umar about security for her when she returns to the Netherlands, the Turkish-Dutch journalist said to NRC. According to Umar, she and the Prime Minister are both concerned about her safety, especially after the break in at her home in Amsterdam last week.

Umar was arrested in Turkey last week Saturday because of insulting tweets about Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan. She was released, but cannot leave turkey until a decision was made on whether or not she will be prosecuted.

According to Umar, she is being threatened on social media, mostly by Turkish-Dutch who feel she insulted Erdogan. In a column she wrote last week, Umar blamed the Turkish-Dutch for her arrest and compared them to fascist.

“I think those who have it on their conscious would love it if I need security. There is no greater deprivation of freedom than security”, she said to NRC.

The government information service would not comment on Umar’s comments to broadcaster NOS. A spokesperson for Rutte stated that they do not disclose information on individuals’ security.

Read more: Dutch PM talks to journalist trapped in Turkey about security concerns - NL Times

Turkey: The Press and "Erdowo, Erdowie, Erdogan": Turkey's Erdogan files case against German comedian

Angela Merkel please note: 
"when  playing with fire you risk to get burnt"

Turkey's President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has filed a legal complaint against a German comedian who recited a satirical poem about him - an incident that has created a diplomatic headache for Angela Merkel.

The move on Tuesday came as a pact between the European Union and Turkey, which involves refugee and so-called economic migrant swaps, was being implemented in attempt to stop the flow of people to Europe.

In a March 31 television programme, Jan Boehmermann, the host of the late-night Neo Magazin Royale programme on public broadcaster ZDF, recited the poem with references to bestiality and accusations that the Turkish leader repressed minorities and mistreated Kurds and Christians.

The poem, seemingly a deliberate provocation by Boehmermann, has exploded into a diplomatic incident that pits freedoms championed by Western Europe against recent moves in Turkey that many in the West see as an attempt to silence opposition voices.

Merkel, asked about the case on Tuesday, tried to separate the two issues and stressed her commitment to freedom of expression.

"Turkey is bearing a very big burden in relation to the Syrian civil war but all of that is completely separate from Germany's fundamental values ... freedom of the press, opinion and science apply and are completely separate from that," she told reporters.

Note EU-Digest: Hopefully Mrs. Merkel is aware of the saying: " when playing with fire, you risk to get burnt"

EU-Digest/
    and     ALJAZEERA

EU Rule of Law Crises: Europe’s Rule-of-Law "obstructed by Hungary and Poland "- by Guy Verhofstadt

Rule of Law - one of the basic princiles of Democracy

From the rubble of two world wars, European countries came together to launch what would become the world’s largest experiment in unification and cooperative, shared sovereignty. But, despite its impressive achievements over the decades, the European project now risks disintegration.

An unresolved financial crisis, a refugee crisis, a deteriorating security environment, and a stalled integration process have created throughout Europe a toxic, unstable political environment in which populism and nationalism thrive. Perhaps the clearest manifestation of this is the erosion of the rule of law in the European Union.

Two EU members in particular, Hungary and Poland, are now jeopardizing hard-won European democratic norms – and thus undermining the very purpose of European integration.

In Hungary, liberal-democratic values have come under systematic attack from Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s government. Since his return to the premiership in 2010, Orbán has committed Hungary to an authoritarian nationalist path, and he has exploited the refugee crisis to cement a “siege mentality” that helps him sustain popular support.

In the process, fundamental rights have been ignored, media freed refugees have been demonized, and Orbán is doing everything in his power to weaken the EU. Attempts by EU institutions to convince Orbán to change course have only emboldened him to commit further outrages against democratic norms.

Meanwhile, a democratic crisis has emerged in Poland as well, starting last October, when the Law and Justice (PiS), a Euroskeptic party that also opposes immigration, secured an outright parliamentary majority by promising to implement populist economic policies and “put Poland first.” Yet, since the election, PiS has launched a series of attacks on the Polish constitution itself.

Government legislation aimed at reforming Poland’s Constitutional Court has been condemned by the Court itself and the European democracy watchdog, the Venice Commission. The government has effectively precluded the Court from ruling on the constitutionality of legislation. This weakens a key pillar of the democratic rule of law – and thus is highly problematic for Poland and Europe alike.

Hungary and Poland are the leading edge of a far-right agenda that has taken hold throughout Europe, pursued by parties that are exploiting the political vacuum created by the EU’s failure to address the financial and refugee crises. So how can the tables be turned?

In democratic countries, it is vital that democracy’s enemies be fought with democratic means. It is vital that the outside world impress on the Hungarian and Polish people themselves that in a globalized world, nationalism offers only false security and economic irrelevance. Both countries, at the heart of Europe, have profited enormously in every sense from EU membership; they must not throw away their opportunity to make further progress.

Hungarians and Poles rejected international isolation in 1989. After the fall of the Iron Curtain, both countries became staunch NATO allies even before they joined the EU. The geopolitical and security arguments for European unity are overwhelming, and there can be no united Europe without Hungary and Poland.

But all of us, and in particular the peoples of Hungary and Poland, must remember that NATO, like the EU, was founded on the fundamental principles of democracy, individual liberty, and the rule of law. A government that flouts those principles jeopardizes the coherence and solidarity of the alliance. It is therefore vital that the United States and other NATO allies speak out now and insist that functioning democratic checks and balances are safeguarded. It would be unimaginable for NATO heads of state to go ahead with their planned leadership summit in Warsaw in June if Poland remains in its constitutional crisis, with the government disregarding the rule of law and the opinion of a respected international body.

Hungarians and Poles must be reminded that Russian President Vladimir Putin is actively attempting to divide and weaken the EU and NATO. If Europe is to face down aggression from the Kremlin, it is essential that Poland and Hungary adhere to these groups’ fundamental values and principles.

But it is also necessary that the EU itself develop a more comprehensive mechanism for safeguarding the rule of law within the Union. The EU has mechanisms to regulate economic policies, safeguard the environment, and police the Single Market. But Europe has always been much more than an economic project; it is also a union of values, which no member can be allowed to repudiate without consequence.

Governments are created and fall apart, and politicians come and go; but democratic institutions should be spared from political interference. The sad reality is that, were they to apply for EU membership today, neither Hungary nor Poland would be admitted. Their people should weigh carefully what that means. 

Their current leaders claim to be defending national interests. But is it really in their countries’ interest to be sidelined by the US, NATO, and the rest of Europe?

Note EU-Digest: Guy Verhofstadt, a former Belgian prime minister, is President of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe Group (ALDE) in the European Parliament. 

NATO's Planned June Leadership in June should be cancelled if Hungary and Poland  both continue to obstruct  the fundamental principles of democracy, individual liberty, and the rule of law on which not only the EU was founded but also the NATO.

EU-Digest

Middle East: Protection of Christians in the Middle East must become an international priority

The Middle East, the cradle of Christianity and human civilization, has been swept by a wave of extremism, while its interfaith and civilizational contradictions have become sharply aggravated.

Normal life and the very existence of many religious communities have been put under threat.

Since the beginning of the so-called Arab Spring, Russia has urged the world community to prevent religious extremists from hijacking the processes of change. Russia has been advocating settling the crises by political and diplomatic means and promoting the long overdue reforms via national dialogue.

We spoke for a search for peace and accord between all religious groups, including various denominations of Islam and Christianity.

A dramatic situation has taken shape in Syria, which has historically been a multi-ethnic and multi-religious country. Its life was based on a unique model of peaceful and mutually respectful co-existence of various religious communities. Now this model is being destroyed as a result of connivance with extremists and attempts to use them in the struggle against President Assad.

Terrorist groups are engaging in an orgy of violence in Syria and Iraq, which is being accompanied by the destruction of dozens of Christian churches, including ancient shrines, and by a Christian exodus.

Jihadists are perpetrating heinous crimes on the lands of “the caliphate” and are forcibly imposing obscurantist views by killing Christians, including clergymen, burning them alive, selling them into slavery, robbing them of their property, driving them from their lands or taking them hostage. It is hard to find words in reaction to the brutal massacre of 21 Egyptian Coptic Christians that has been perpetrated in Libya recently.

The Christian exodus from the Middle East is likely to have the most negative influence on the structure of Arab societies and the preservation of the historical and spiritual legacy that is important for all humankind.

Note EU-Digest: Can only happen if Muslim Nations, including Saudi Arabia, accept democracy with all its "trimmings"; freedom of expression, religion, equal rights for women and men, in fact democratic secularism, as the main pillar of their political thinking. Similar to what Turkey did after Ataturk created the Turkish Republic.

Read more: Protection of Christians in the Middle East must become an international priority — RT Op-Edge

Turkey: AKP faces tough test in Turkey's local polls - by Osman Kaytazoglu

Turkey is going to the polls in local elections on March 30. The vote comes amid allegations of government corruption and bribery, debates about a so-called "parallel state", and with government moves to block Twitter and YouTube heavily criticized.

Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and his ruling Justice and Development Party [AKP] have come out of each general election since the party was first elected to power in 2002 with more votes than before, securing nearly 50 percent of the vote in 2011 general elections.

But this election may represent the AKP’s biggest challenge to date, and is being described as a litmus test for upcoming presidential and parliamentary elections. The main parties fielding candidates are Erdogan’s AKP, the main opposition party Republican People’s Party (CHP), the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) and the pro-Kurdish Justice and Development Party (BDP).

The local elections first garnered attention with anti-government Gezi Park protests in June 2013, when thousands of people descended on a park in central Istanbul against the municipality’s gentrification plans.

The elections have been dominated by a new scandal that began on December 17 last year, when three AKP cabinet ministers’ children were arrested on corruption charges, and several government figures were implicated in graft probes.

Turkey’s main opposition party, the Republic People’s Party (CHP), has tried to make sure the graft probe remains at the centre of the election process. "The state’s conscience woke up on December 17," CHP leader, Kemal Kilicdaroglu, said, referring to when the first arrests were made.

Erdogan blamed rival Fethullah Gulen, the US-based head of the Gulen movement, for the recent controversies, and their feud has dominated the headlines. Erdogan described the Gulen movement as "a threat to national security" and called the Gulen movement "a terrorist organisation".

Recent opinion polls show that people are confused about the public AKP-Gulen feud. While 60 percent of Turkish people believe the corruption allegations are true, 57 percent also think that the graft probe is a coup attempt targeting Erdogan.

Ahead of the polls, various audio recordings have also leaked, with the latest reportedly showing top government and security officials discussing launching military operations into Syria. The Turkish government banned Twitter and YouTube over these leaks.

Read more: AKP faces tough test in Turkey's local polls - Europe - Al Jazeera English

Turkey: Europe Should Say No to Turkey for Good - by Michael Rubin

Not only does Turkey dream about being a member of the European Union, but the future of Europe depends on it. At least that is the narrative put forward by both American officials and many European diplomats for quite some time. In 2009, for example, President Obama said that European Union membership would “firmly anchor” Turkey in Europe.

Whether out of conviction or a desire for access, some U.S.-based Turkey analysts also push the line, and suggest that EU membership will further Turkey’s reform and bolster Europe’s economy.

Such sentiments may be politically correct, but they are nonsense. Rather than become more democratic or truly reform, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has transformed Turkey into a banana republic. In recent days, he has not only fired police chiefs across the country to ensure that his own personal cronies take their place, but has moved to punish Zekeriya Öz, the prosecutor once embraced for targeting Turkey’s generals, but who now is a pariah for questioning those in the prime minister’s inner circle. On Tuesday, Öz released a statement detailing the threats he received. “Soon after the first wave of warrants,” he wrote, “I was called to a meeting by two people from the high judiciary.

We met in a hotel in Bursa. They told me that Erdoğan was very angry with me. They asked me to write an apology letter to Erdoğan and stop the investigations. Otherwise I would have to suffer the consequences ….”
 Despite the constant threats he now receives, Erdoğan has stripped him of security. He is, effectively, a dead man walking.

At its root, the reason for the corruption scandal targeting Erdoğan’s inner circle was the prime minister’s targeting of a network of lucrative test-prep centers run by adherent of Fethullah Gülen. That many Western-leaning Turks, diplomats, and journalists now place their hopes in Gülen, a shadowy religious cult leader whose about-face has been motivated not by democratic enlightenment but personal spite and greed, reinforces the notion that not only is Turkey not ready for Europe, but it never will be.

Within Turkey, demography favors the conservative, Islamist-leaning followers of Erdoğan. Both Erdoğan and Gülen’s recent behavior show that real democratic culture has not accompanied the much-heralded reforms implemented by Erdoğan.

No matter who comes out in Turkey’s political struggle, it is time once and for all to put to rest the idea that Turkey will ever join Europe, nor should it. Enabling Turkish membership into the European Union would at this point be little different in effect than allowing Egyptian, Syrian, Lebanese, or Libyan accession. Policy must be based on reality, not wishful thinking. Erdoğan should go down in history as the man that ruined Turkey’s decade-long dream.

Read more: Europe Should Say No to Turkey for Good « Commentary Magazine