Turkey’s parliament speaker seeks religious constitution

AFP, April 25

Istanbul – Turkey should have a religious constitution, parliament speaker Ismail Kahraman said Monday, in comments that will likely add to concerns of creeping Islamisation under the ruling AKP party.

“As a Muslim country, why should we be in a situation where we are in retreat from religion?” state-run news agency Anatolia quoted him as saying.

“We are a Muslim country. As a consequence, we must have a religious constitution,” the AKP lawmaker told a conference in Istanbul.

This post was read 1674 times.

About author View all posts


5 CommentsLeave a comment

    • A good deal longer article here:

      Apparently I’m not allowed to comment there, but I will add here that it will take some time for us to determine whether the coup was allowed to go ahead to enable the subsequent purges or not. Large lists of victims are solely indicative of pre-planning only when they are discriminative. It will be a while before we know that – given the language / conceptual barriers (and the considerable agitprop from a range of actors) it may very well be a long time.

      I tend to think that much of the analysis being put forward by many commentators in various places is weak. If I were playing this type of coup-chess, I would not place my king at threat of being captured by a tier one/two team (apparently he was very nearly bagged by one) and I would damned sure ensure that I had better comms than an iPhone on the civilian net. I think this is a lot more ambiguous set of events than many are billing it as.

      • I suspect that SPK’s post to Ian’s site was more considered than his original post on FB. As he once remarked, it is wise to remember where/why the term ‘Byzantine’ originated.

        BTW: I have no trouble commenting on Ian’s site. Just need to pick a name and provide your email (which is not displayed). Unless Ian is specifically purging your comments.

        • My comment was specifically purged. Relatedly, it amuses me that self described absolutists on free speech appear increasingly to operationalize their approach as “people who agree with me / don’t piss me off too much” when it comes to Internet-mediated discourse. Audiences who rely on such ersatz “public intellectuals” for structuring their thought / opinion would do well to remember what echo chambers they increasingly choose to inhabit.

Leave a Reply