»

[countzero]

The decision by the constitutional court is rather strange, and it will have serious side effects in the future. Now any party (or a group of parties) having a one third seat in the parliament can boycott the presidential election ! So future presidential elections will most probably require a consensus...

I wish president is selected by the voters directly like in European countries. I heard the government is taking steps in this direction, so I'm happy about that.

The way the government handled the whole situation was very un-democratic though. Erdogan wanted the presidency for himself from the beginning. But he was too afraid to voice it, so he waited until the last minute. Then he couldn't have the guts so backed up his best friend instead. But it was like there were no candidates till the day before the election day ! It was the choice of a one man, and somebody backed by the ruling party would just appear last minute and claim the presidency. It was very absurd.

[CannonFodder]

countzero wrote:
The decision by the constitutional court is rather strange, and it will have serious side effects in the future. Now any party (or a group of parties) having a one third seat in the parliament can boycott the presidential election ! So future presidential elections will most probably require a consensus...

I wish president is selected by the voters directly like in European countries. I heard the government is taking steps in this direction, so I'm happy about that.

The way the government handled the whole situation was very un-democratic though. Erdogan wanted the presidency for himself from the beginning. But he was too afraid to voice it, so he waited until the last minute. Then he couldn't have the guts so backed up his best friend instead. But it was like there were no candidates till the day before the election day ! It was the choice of a one man, and somebody backed by the ruling party would just appear last minute and claim the presidency. It was very absurd.

I'nt dimocrisy brill'yunt?

[countzero]

Karlos wrote:
One thing worth asking is, why is this contest happening? Is it the stated aim of said party to establish an Islamic state, or is it just recognised that the party has Islamic-oriented views? Is this something being blown out of all proportion?

No, such a party can not exist in Turkey. Secularism is an attribute that can not be changed, even proposed.

If you look into the history of Mr Erdogan, you'll see why some people are too scared of him.

He was a prominent figure of Mr Erbakan's welfare party, which was in charge in the late 90's. Welfare party was a much more hardline islamic party, and Mr Erbakan has stupid quotes like, "The revolution is coming, but will it be bloody or bloodless ? that's the question ... " (implying an islamic revolution) which caused the army to act and oust Erbakan from power in a post-modern coup and the party getting closed and banned shortly after.

Mr Erdogan has similar quotes too ... He's read a poem which goes like "mosques are our barracks, domes our helmets. minarets are our blades and the muslims our infantry" or "Democracy is a tool for us, not an ambition" . Anyway, he has served in prison for some of these words, and when he got out, he said he 'changed'. And he rose till prime minister with the current AK party he founded with moderate
members of the dissolved welfare party (which is still active in another name though Erbakan retired.)


What do our Turkish members think?

In either case, what is the probability they will win and if so, why are they so popular amongst a population that has enjoyed a secular government for some time now (especially if said party wishes to enforce a more Islamic style of government)?

well that is a very complicated issue. For example, I usually find left - center left parties closer to my ideals. However, we don't have a proper left party for decades in Turkey. The current opposition, CHP (which was the party Ataturk founded personally) should have been a left-wing party, but their stance on certain issues are so hard, they're very close to extreme right at certain points. Also, they have a really stupid leader who rules the party for nearly twenty years, despite countless humiliating election losses, in a very anti-democtratic way. I for one would never vote for that guy. Add to that the general tendency of left-wing parties to suck at economics. And I like the current governments position at certain foreign matters (like cyprus), where opposition has a much more hardline position (influenced by the army).

So I really don't have any idea what to vote for in the coming election. I don't want to vote for a party which may have a religious agenda, but on the other hand I don't believe the opposition party will do a good job and they don't represent my ideas. If I vote for other smaller parties, most probably my vote will go wasted cause they won't get past the minimum percentage to enter the parliament.

My heart lies with the late Ismail Cem who was the previous foreign minister. Unfortunately he passed away this january

[metalman]

Karlos wrote:
For example, do you think polygamous marriage should be accepted in the UK? Presently, bigamy is illegal as far as I am aware. I don't think it would suit the mood of the general population either. Yet there are various cultures where it is perfectly acceptable. Do people belonging to these cultures have equality here?

Apparently they do.

Muslim men use UK law loophole to get a harem of wives

Polygamous husbands settling in Britain with multiple wives can claim extra benefits for their "harems" even though bigamy is a crime in the UK.

[Speelgoedmannetje]

countzero wrote:
If I vote for other smaller parties, most probably my vote will go wasted cause they won't get past the minimum percentage to enter the parliament.

That's nonsense. Only if you do not vote, or vote for a party wich does not represents your opinions, your vote will be lost. It's a very undemocratic thought.
I have voted for years for a far-left party, wich happened to be quite an underdog. now it's one of the biggest parties in NL. Here the political rates have been shifting very quickly these years. And I think it's good. It's what's democracy is all about, to represent all of us.

[Karlos]

@Metalman

Read past the headline and you will see that, in fact, they don't. The entire reason the issue is brought up is the fact that people are having nikah ceremonies which do not, in isolation, constitute marriage under UK law, therefore these people are not getting married: the additional wives would have no comparable legal status to the first. This puts them at serious risk.

Furthermore, if you read the first article you will see that muslim leaders are trying to discourage the existing practise.

The slant in the second article is typical of the Daily Mail.

[Karlos]

@CannonFodder

CannonFodder wrote:

motorollin wrote:

I have, it really doesn't match the real thing. :-)

What, you tried letting yourself be rodgered? :-o

That must have been one evil drunken bet...

[CannonFodder]

Karlos wrote:
@CannonFodder

CannonFodder wrote:

What, you tried letting yourself be rodgered? :-o

Yes, but her clitoris was too small to fit up there. ;-)

[Karlos]

Must... resist.... obvious.... retort....

[metalman]

Karlos wrote:
@Metalman

Read past the headline and you will see that, in fact, they don't. The entire reason the issue is brought up is the fact that people are having nikah ceremonies which do not, in isolation, constitute marriage under UK law, therefore these people are not getting married: the additional wives would have no comparable legal status to the first. This puts them at serious risk.

Furthermore, if you read the first article you will see that muslim leaders are trying to discourage the existing practise.

As Pope you need to issue a decree! :-P

Muslims in Britain challenge UK law which forbids husbands from having more than one wife.

The Inland Revenue is considering recognising polygamy for some religious groups for tax purposes. Officials have agreed to examine “family friendly” representations from Muslims who take up to four wives under sharia law.

[Karlos]

motorollin wrote:
... As Speel has pointed out, bumholes are well tight. And it's (apparrently) pretty good for the other guy too, since the male g-spot is up there.

Personally, if I wanted to be entertained by a tight arsehole I'd have gone to the company's xmas bash...