Court Shuts Down Istanbul’s Gay Rights Association
Another step backwards.
From a news article (click here): A court decided to shut down Istanbul’s only gay rights association on the grounds that it violates the law for the protection of family and public morality, the Anatolia news agency reported yesterday. Although members of Lambda Istanbul said they were surprised by the court’s decision, they plan to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeals and seek to annul the decision using all available legal channels.
“We are surprised by the decision, but that does not mean that Lambda Istanbul is closed down,” said Izlem Aybasti, a member of Lambda. She said the organization will apply to the Supreme Court of Appeals and that the organization is hopeful about its decision. “If the Supreme Court gives a closure decision as well, we will apply to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR),” she said.
The Istanbul Governor’s Office has demanded the closure of Lambda Istanbul, an organization dedicated to defending the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people (LGBT) in Turkey, claiming that the name and objectives of the group are “against the law and immoral.”
Lambda Istanbul was founded in 1993 and became an association in 2006. Aybasti said the decision will not influence the association’s passion for its work, noting, We were not an association for several years. If this decision is approved by the Supreme Court and Lambda Istanbul is closed down we will continue to work. However, this will threaten the existence of other gay rights associations in Turkey. Emma Sinclair-Webb, a representative of Human Rights Watch, also followed the case yesterday.
The governor’s office claimed that the name of the association, which includes words like gay, lesbian, transsexual and bisexual, violates family and public morality, and that the aims of Lambda violate the law governing associations.
JW: I didn’t see any mention of this news in the Islam-leaning Zaman newspaper that day (either the English or Turkish versions). Perhaps they don’t think it’s important. I reminds me of my surprise earlier this year when I saw no covered women in the huge crowd commemorating the assassination of the Turkish-Armenian journalist Hrant Dink. Are even rights and rights abuses divided by ‘us’ and ‘them’? The AKP and the pious community would be much more convincing in their argument that they represent liberal rights if they came out equally for EVERYONE’S rights.
I reminds me of my surprise earlier this year when I saw no covered women in the huge crowd commemorating the assassination of the Turkish-Armenian journalist Hrant Dink.
Were you genuinely surprised? Have you not noticed that many the same people who insist that headscarves are ordered by God (BTW that is controversial) also tell us how women ought not be that assertive? Besides, that crowd was likely to be left-leaning (not the CHP kind of ‘left’) and perhaps women with headscarves would not have been welcome. I don’t think showing up at a demonstration really indicates anything though. I’d sooner have people stay in and try to think straight on their own than take to the streets with the sole purpose of adding to the headcount supporting a cause.
Are even rights and rights abuses divided by ‘us’ and ‘them’?
Of course. There is no widespread principled adoption of the approach that holds certain rights inalienable. Funny, really, considering one possible historic source of the concept. On the other hand, its best if people remain honest about what they wish and why.
The shift to the present ‘rights’ rhetoric is mostly a result of the blow political Islam got from the post-modern coup of ‘98. Some adherents truly changed their positions but I suspect many are just parroting some gobbledigook that merely sounds sane and liberal. This is just like the free-market capitalism talk that’s used to justify and suger coat the unholy alliance of big finance, big capital and big government. Some crucial words appear to be there, but the observable facts of the actual situation don’t match the propaganda. Once again my preference would be that people remain honest rather than being pushed to advocate things they neither want nor understand.