Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
NEW INTERNET LEGISLATION adopted by Turkish MPs has been roundly criticised as a fresh assault by Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan on freedom of expression, access to information and investigative journalism.
The proposals come amid parallel moves by Erdogan to push through contentious judicial reforms as he fights to keep the lid on a deeply damaging corruption probe entangling some of his closest allies.
After hours of debate, during which opposition MPs blasted the bill as “censorship”, the measures were adopted in the chamber, where Erdogan’s ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) dominates with 319 of the 550 seats.
The bill extends what are already hefty internet curbs in place under a controversial 2007 law that earned Turkey equal ranking with China as the world’s biggest web censor according to a Google transparency report published in December.
The text notably permits a government agency, the Telecommunications Communications Presidency (TIB), to block access to websites without court authorisation if they are deemed to violate privacy or with content seen as “insulting”.
‘A few steps closer to China’
Yaman Akdeniz, law professor at Bilgi private university in Istanbul, said the powers given to the TIB were “Orwellian”.
This body will also be able to request users’ communications and traffic information from hosting providers – obliged to retain up to two years’ worth of data – without a court order, Akdeniz told AFP.
The measures, Akdeniz said, will “move Turkey away from the European Union in terms of internet policy, perhaps a few steps closer to China”, where the web is heavily censored by the communist authorities.
At the start of the debate, opposition lawmaker Hasan Oren had harsher words, comparing Erdogan to Hitler.
“When you came to power you talked of enhancing democracy in Turkey, Now you are trying to implement fascism,” Oren said. “Remember that Adolf Hitler used the same methods when he rose to power.”
The amendments, which form part of a so-called omnibus bill containing a mishmash of other measures, add to an already draconian approach under the 2007 law.
Under that existing legislation, websites including blogging tool Wordpress and video-sharing services DailyMotion and Vimeo have been blocked temporarily by court orders, while YouTube was off limits for two years until 2010.
Some alternative news websites cannot be accessed and people have been fined, jailed or given suspended sentences – like world-renowned pianist Fazil Say in 2013 – for tweets insulting religious values.
The Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) said the new powers for the TIB mean it will be able to “gather communications data about all internet users without any legal limits or restrictions,” with users “never… able to know when and how this information is gathered”.
‘Internet authoritarianism’
Dutch MEP Marietje Schaake said that in Turkey’s EU accession talks, Brussels needed to tell Ankara such legislation is “unacceptable” and that “the rule of law and fundamental freedoms are at the centre of EU policy”.
Reporters Without Borders said the aim is “to reinforce cyber-censorship, government control of the internet and surveillance”.
The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) called it a “slide into internet authoritarianism” in a country that is the “the leading jailer of journalists worldwide”.
Even Turkey’s Industry and Business Association was critical, saying the proposals “conflict with the principles of checks and balances” and would increase censorship and deter investors.
The Islamic-rooted government rejects the criticism, with Deputy Prime Minister Bulent Arinc saying there is “no such thing as internet censorship. We are freer compared to many other countries and have freedom of press.”
Erdogan, Turkey’s all-powerful leader since 2003, is openly suspicious of the internet, branding Twitter a “menace” for helping organise mass nationwide protests in June in which six people died and thousands injured.
For critics, last week gave a taste of things to come when Umut Oran, deputy leader of the opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP), was told by the TIB to remove a parliamentary question from his website.
The question, which media were also told to not report on, was close to the bone for Erdogan, asking about purported recordings of phone calls involving the prime minister, his son and a minister.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
The Journal seems to have missed a lot of news this weekend. e.g. CNN being caught spreading fake news, Amnesty Ireland breaking the law and a synagogue being firebombed in Sweden.
There must have been a staff Christmas party.
@Chad Rockett: Fake News! Colm O’Gorman! Muslims! Wah wah wah! Jesus man, either broaden your interests or change the record.
@Justin Barrett: So none of this happened?! Btw, why did you assume Muslims firebombed the synagogue? Seems kind of bigoted.
@Justin Barrett: Islamophobic jerk. Unbelievable. There are over 1.6 BILLION Muslims in the world, are you saying they’re all terrorists? You sir, are literally Hitler.
@Woke Bloke: LOL!
President of America makes a decision that people don’t like. In England, Sweden and Germany people are threatening to kill Jews. Not Americans or Israelis, but Jews. This is sickening behaviour enabled by the left.
@Chad Rockett: But weren’t the neo-Nazis marching in Charlottesville supporting Trump ?
@Larry Doyle: The Alt-Right are first and foremost anti-Semitic, Chad is just a bit confused over who he is supposed to be supporting!
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/why-anti-semitism-remains-so-important-to-the-alt-right_us_59a5df3de4b0d81379a81c01
@Larry Doyle: That’s the thing. The far right and left have more in common than they’d like to think.
@Justin Barrett: What do the alt right believe? What views do they espouse, please be specific.
@Justin Barrett: Shouldn’t you be in bed by now, what with school and stuff.
@Woke Bloke: You’re a member and you don’t know? Better not let the rest of the guys find out, you might get kicked out of the club!
@Justin Barrett: Thought as much
@Justin Barrett: Cultural Marxist with a new profile. Must get lonesome!
@Woke Bloke: look up “literally” .
@Chad Rockett: No. the right need cheap foreign labour to carry out their neo liberal agenda.
@Woke Bloke: You dont understand what ‘literally’ means
Quite right, some of these proposed referenda are really dumb, if it’s not broke don’t fix it
@Stephen: stupid referenda are a good idea for a government only concerned about protecting the wealth of the 1%.
Offer us not very important topics e.g. Should we lower the presidential age to 18? Should we lower voting to 16?
That won’t make a bit of difference to anyone’s life.
All it does it make them sick of democracy.
@Franklin Roosevelt: So right, I’d forgotten about the President one, that was a whole other level of absurdity!
@Stephen: yup, very, very stupid.
We want referenda on Irish Water and the 8th amendment. Maybe even a referendum on term limits would be a good idea.
But no.
I wonder what the next silly referendum will be?
“Do you think Leo should wear green socks on St. Patrick’s Day, or green socks with shamrocks on them?”
@Stephen: it is broke
@Stephen: If they’re old enough to pay taxes, they’re old enough to vote. Simple really.
@Niall Sullivan: VAT is a tax
@Niall Sullivan: If they’re old enough to vote, they are adults. Full criminal responsibility, purchase of alcohol and tobacco, gambling and lottery tickets and marriage are things, among others, restricted to adults. Child benefit no longer applies. Etc.
@George Salter: If a 16 year old works and pays taxes, then they should be allowed a say in how that money is to be spent. They should be allowed to do that just like the rest of us. I’d also be in favour of extending the vote to those who have moved here and pay taxes.
The legal requirements you state have nothing to do with voting nor act as a justification for denying others a vote.
@Niall Sullivan: They are privileges restricted to adults, as is voting. There is a reason that a say in how things are run implies accepting the consequences of exercising that right. This is not esoteric or controversial, and having to explain this says quite a bit about why some rights are restricted.
@George Salter: Nailed it
Any chance on a vote to get rid of Senate again.
@John Scott: reforming it would be great.
As it stands now, it’s extremely undemocratic, it favors friends of the Taoiseach etc.
2 senators per county, cap it at 64 senators.
@John Scott: You are right what a waste of money the Senate is, They have zero power and it’s just used as a stop gap for failed politicians.
@Franklin Roosevelt: There’s no one capable of reforming the Senate .
@Franklin Roosevelt: you think we need more senators?
@Franklin Roosevelt: It is currently capped at 60 – so your proposal would be to increase it by 4. There are 43 Senators elected by the Vocational Panels, 6 elected by the Universities and 11 are nominated by the Taoiseach.
@Franklin Roosevelt: So just like the Dáil, but a bit smaller? No. The Senate should represent sectors of society. 2 Senators from education, 2 from agriculture, 2 from sport, 2 from tourism, 2 from business, 2 from culture, etc, etc. Every citizen can register to vote a senator into office in one of the sectors. So every citizen would have 2 votes, Dáil for regional representation and Senate for sectoral representation.
If anything, the voting age should be raised to 25.
@John III Sobieski: Only those participating in the economy and paying taxes have a clue about real life.
@Tom Molloy: You must have some pretty great co-workers if you believe that
“Young people are lazy and useless, they can’t be bothered voting”
“Whatever we do, we cannot let 16 and 17 year olds vote, they’ll all vote for themselves and they haven’t a clue what they’re doing!”
Two completely opposite conclusions but the majority of Irish people do think like that.
Better off leaving the voting to us 18+ adults –
We managed to quadruple our debt from €50b to €200b at the stroke of a pen, make 8,000+ homeless, have 680,000+ on hospital waiting lists, and force 300,000+ young people to emigrate!
Them 16 year olds might ruin the country!
I think one interesting recent matter here is the UK Brexit vote. It was apparently decided by people of advancing years who would not effectively be party to the consequences of the vote.
So how would one accommodate the idea that people vote for their own interests which are limited in range in some way, including due to their age?
The logical consequence is that it might arguably be sensible to place an upper limit on the voting age as well as a lower one. So the debate is certainly a difficult one.
@Franklin Roosevelt:
Exactly.
@Mick Tobin: people over the age of 75 shouldn’t be allowed to vote in referenda. The real impact and normalisation of them can’t been seen for at least a generation after the vote even takes place. These people won’t be around long enough to see the effect of their vote either way. Brexit is a prime example – droves of elderly bigots choosing the future of younger generations when theyll never have to suffer the ill effects of it. Especially in the case of referenda, young people should be allowed to vote.
@Ebony: droves of elderly bigots….over 17m voted for brexit and the young vote couldn’t be arsed but you think they should have a vote and the people who have worked and built the country shouldn’t? I think you may be the bigot here I’m afraid.
When I was that age, I was more interested in drinking and jerking off, still am
Why not? There’s not a lot of difference between the mindset of a 16 year old & an 18 year old so who cares if it’s lowered? I certainly don’t.
@Keith McDonagh: I’d say there is a huge difference. Most 16 year olds are almost entirely dependent on their parents and haven’t really thought much about the future, their careers etc.
At 18, you’re legally an adult, you take on more responsibilities and you’re either going out in the working world or deciding on a long-term career with your CAO choice. There’s a lot of growing up done between 16 and 18.
@Malachi: I was still dependent on my parents when I was 18. That’s a weird disqualifier.
Kinda like America. You must be 21 to drink, but if you want to volunteer to die with the US army in Afghanistan, step right up 17 year olds!
@Franklin Roosevelt: Many 18 year olds are still dependents, but my point is that it’s a lot lower than the proportion of dependent 16 year olds (i.e. nearly all of them).
At 16 most people have a fairly poor idea of where they’re going in life and thus making political decisions (electing a government to represent you) at that stage would be premature.
@Malachi: 16 but still in school and likely in TY so citizenship programmes can be introduced to ensure people understand voting its purpose and how it works. i canvassed elections since i was 15 in 1991 and there people in their 30s and 40s who dont have a clue and others in that age group who have never voted. So i says to votes at 16
Voting at 16?! They should only be doing childlike things that people are allowed to do at 16 like having sex and getting married! FFS, it’s a vote, young people are entitled to have a say on their future and actually be engaged in politics. What are you old fogies afraid of?
@Ser Barristan Selmy: if you can’t differentiate between 16 and 6 year olds you need to talk to a professional
@Ser Barristan Selmy: 6 minute abs vs 7 minute abs..which one wins?
Let’s be honest. A 16 year old knows nada in 90% of the cases with regard current affairs and politics. It would be a call for lefty brain washing, nothing else.
@Ebony: A professional would be able to tell you that the pre-frontal cortex in men isn’t even fully formed until their early twenties.
Most of these referenda are much to do about nothing ,a diversionary tactic from confronting real issues ,like consumer rights ,health care ,pensions,affordable housing ,policing ect.,Let the government get back to real issues that have serious impact on all our lives .I do think that if you have a vote, then there should be a legal obligation to use it .
@Anthony Gallagher: The unelected, unidentified, unrepresentative ‘citizen’s assembly’in trying to justify it’s existence came up with these gems, having been advised by selected ‘expert’s.
I would prefer a vote on making voting compulsory (like Australia) rather than lowering the age.
@Kevin O’Donnell: FG or FF would never go for that.. They rely on non voters to get in.
I think at 16 you should be able to register for a vote and that should become automatic upon your 18th birthday. This could be done through transition year along with a lesson on the importance of the vote.
There was a time when you could not vote in Ireland until you were 21. I resented this at the time as I was married and had two children when I was 21 but not allowed to vote. 18 is about right.
@Aine O Connor: I remember that referendum and young people were passionate about it. This time the demand appears to be coming from the top town. Nice to see the public having the good sense to reject it.
@VladosHat:
Yes it was the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution 1972. The referendum was held on 7th December 1972 and it was signed into law on 5th January 1973. 84% voted in favour.
Lowering the voting age to 16 is lunacy, if anybody remembers, your belief in anything changed from week to week when you were 16.
Anybody in college at 22, your beliefs changed from week to week depending on your train of thought, sexual interest, narcotics taken or lecturer
So maybe we leave it as is so the 18-25 can try to put a spanner in the works.
Only those interested will vote anyway. I don’t really see what the problem is, when I doubt most voters would bat an eye at a 16 year old who commits a crime being tried as an adult. On the contrary, people would be outraged if some 16 year old thug was charged with assault and got away with being tried as a child (and rightly so).
You can’t have it both ways.
Perhaps we should move up the voting age to 25 which would be in line with modern
research on human brain maturation:
http://mentalhealthdaily.com/2015/02/18/at-what-age-is-the-brain-fully-developed/
It would be much better to make it compulsory for those over 18 to vote. Compulsory voting works like a charm in Australia.
It seems bizarre to me that it is acceptable for a 16 year old who will feel the impact of decisions for the next 60+ years would not be allowed to vote and yet a 97 year old with failing cognition and a short time to live would.
16 year olds are allowed to work and drive with the rest of us but apparently writing their political thoughts on a piece of paper is beyond their capabilities?
They should increase it to 25. People under 25 no f**k all about anything. It would also slash Sinn Féins vote in half so double bonus
@kevin:
Speak for yourself, when I was 25 I had three children , had moved house three times and I knew plenty.
@kevin: What a idiotic response, a lot of under 25 year olds are perhaps more intelligent then yourself.
No surprises here. Middle aged men have always had a problem with youth in this country, nothing new.
@Anthony Halpin: maybe that’s because they were young once Anthony and therefore speak from experience??
I thought everyone was for equality particularly those who voted in favor of same sex marriage but voted for an agent policy on people under 35 becoming president. Surely if you are old enough to work you are old enough to have a say in the future of your country and the policy that will effect your future. I’m in favour of giving 16-year-olds a say if they want one.
If that happens Irish TDs are finished
Allowing 16 year old’s to vote is simply ludicrous, most adults are misinformed and downright idiotic when it comes to the democratic process without lumping another section of society on to that pile ie; voting for parties with the sole reason that their parents voted for same.
Our poll?
Once you contribute PAYE and PRSI – you should be entitled to vote.
To clarify; once you have EVER paid either; you should be eligible. If the government can put their hands in your backpocket – you should have the option to take part in the process…. for better or worse.
Yes I fully agree a huge percentage of teenagers; especially from 2000 owards; are dense and empty-headed about the ‘real world’ but there are many thousands who arent and probably better informed than many of the elected officials.
Let them have the option; they may help shift our ruling class from 50yr+ narrow minded ‘career & dynasty politicians’ to people far more in touch with what the masses struggle with
Reducing the age to vote? So more uneducated fools can vote, great idea.
But first why dont we change the rules that criminals can run for office but the Gardai that catch them and the officers that keep them locked up cant.
How about a vote recognizing fathers rights as equal parents?
How about a vote limiting government pensions?
How abouta vote that actually forces the government to treat all people equally?
Only one third ever vote,why do you think we’re still a Free state,rotten to the core,,,, think about it
have your say