TÜRK DELEGASYONU ÜYELERİNİN GENEL KURUL TOPLANTILARINDA YAPTIĞI KONUŞMALAR
AVRUPA KONSEYİ PARLAMENTER MECLİSİ
YAZ OTURUMU (26-30 HAZİRAN 2006) STRAZBURG
TÜRK DELEGASYONU ÜYELERİ TARAFINDAN YAPILAN KONUŞMALAR
26 Haziran 2006
Implementation of Resolution 1480 (2006) on credentials of the
parliamentary delegation of Azerbaijan
Mr
MERCAN (Turkey). – Thank you, Mr President.
Dear
colleagues, I would like to thank the co-rapporteurs Mr Gross and Mr Herkel for
their detailed report on the implementation of Resolution 1480 on the challenge
of the credentials of the parliamentary delegation of Azerbaijan. As the report
states, the co-operation between the Council of Europe and Azerbaijan remains
essential for the development of democracy, the rule of law and the respect for
human rights in that country. The progress achieved so far has to be
consolidated, and the Azerbaijani authorities should be encouraged further to
reform the relevant legislation and practice. This Assembly should continue to
follow the developments in that country closely and to provide guidance to this
fledgling democracy on its long haul.
According
to the report, most of the requirements mentioned in Resolution 1480 have not
been fully met. However, I believe that the Azerbaijani authorities have the
political will and ability to do that. Even though investigations into
electoral fraud have resulted in only a limited number of prosecutions,
electoral fraud and violations of the electoral code have to some extent been
prosecuted and punished according to law for the first time in the history of
the country. The Azerbaijani authorities should continue their efforts to give
full disclosure to the public and to the international community regarding the
handling of appeals and the process of investigations.
It
is a welcome development that the Azerbaijani authorities have requested the
assistance of the Venice Commission with the reform of the electoral code. I
believe that provisions regarding the composition of the electoral commissions
will be amended at the earliest opportunity, and that the procedure for the
efficient handling of election-related complaints and appeals will be further
developed with the assistance of the Venice Commission.
I
also welcome the fact that, in the request for assistance addressed to the
Venice Commission, reference is made explicitly to the law on freedom of
assembly. It is also worth mentioning that there have been no incidents of
violence and only a few impediments to the exercise of the freedom of assembly,
in contrast to what happened during the November 2005 elections.
Media
pluralism seems to be the only area in which no significant changes have been
observed. A free press is vital in a democracy, and problems such as limited
coverage, biased broadcasting or incidents of violence against journalists
should be eliminated from the political agenda before the next presidential
elections in 2008.
I
would also like to comment on paragraph 23 of the explanatory memorandum, on
page
In
the report, we were also told that the co-rapporteurs were not able to meet key
figures in Baku. That does not fit in with traditional Turkish hospitality. Why
were those co-rapporteurs not received by the Azerbaijani authorities when
frequent contact has been taking place between Azerbaijan and Council of Europe
authorities at different levels in Baku and Strasbourg? I do not think that any
of us would have any difficulty in meeting President Ilham Aliyev if we wished
to do so.
I
believe that the Parliamentary Assembly should continue to co-operate closely
with Azerbaijan to ensure that she honours her obligations and commitments to
the Council of Europe. The Assembly should therefore continue to monitor
developments in the country and not reconsider at this stage the credentials of
the parliamentary delegation of Azerbaijan, because the glass is half full.
Mr
ÇAVUŞOĞLU (Turkey). – I thank the co-rapporteurs for the report. I
remember quite well the lengthy discussions we had here during the January 2006
part-session. I was one of those who strongly advocated ratifying the
credentials of the Azerbaijani delegation and continuing to monitor progress in
five specific areas as stated in Resolution 1480. Our decision to observe the
partial re-run of the elections on 13 May was an important component of that
resolution. I took part in the pre-electoral mission to Azerbaijan on 27 and 28
April, as well as in the ad hoc committee to observe the partial re-run of the
parliamentary elections on 13 May.
During
those missions, we observed that progress had been achieved in the conduct of
voting, although some irregularities were reported to us by other observer
missions. I am confident that the Azerbaijani authorities will fully
investigate the complaints and the appeals that have been made and that they
will then make public the full results of the investigations. That will not
only meet the requirements of Resolution 1480, but regain public confidence, which
is an integral part of a well functioning democratic system. If there is a
strong political will, I believe that control over, and interference in, the
electoral process by third parties could be eliminated.
I
welcome the decision of the Azerbaijani administration to request the
assistance of the Venice Commission with reform of the electoral code. I look
forward to the implementation of the commission’s recommendations in this
respect. Priority should be given to the amendment of the provision of the electoral
code regarding the composition of the election commission. Removing that point
of concern has been long awaited.
In
our report, we also drew attention to the need to amend the law on freedom of
assembly. This law continues to give a disproportionate amount of discretion to
local executive authorities in agreeing to accept requests for campaign
activities and the venues at which they will be held.
No
democratic society on earth is flawless, but we should all work vigorously to
that end. I have full confidence that the Azerbaijani authorities will spare no
efforts to ensure the development of a genuinely democratic society in
Azerbaijan, based on the rule of law. In that context, the Council of Europe in
general and the Parliamentary Assembly in particular should extend full support
to Azerbaijan and co-operate with it closely.
I
agree with the co-rapporteurs that, at this stage, we should continue to
monitor developments in the country and encourage progress in relevant fields
rather than becoming involved in a debate about the credentials of the Azeri
delegation.
27 Haziran 2006
Human rights of irregular migrants
Mr
GÜLÇIÇEK (Turkey) thanked Mr van Thijn for his comprehensive report,
which had touched on a sore point. Migration had been on the increase for some
time. There had been some tension and violence in some of the larger cities, in
which migrants had been disproportionately affected. While it was difficult to
establish the precise numbers, possibly millions of migrants sought entry to
Europe. Some succeeded, some failed, and some died in the process. The Council
of Europe was all about promoting people’s rights. There was a responsibility
towards these people. Those in contact with irregular migrants were often
enlightened on hearing about their individual circumstances. Human rights must
apply to all, and all must enjoy the same treatment. Member states should sign
up to the various instruments for guaranteeing human rights as soon as
possible. Turkey was a source of, and transit country for, migrants. The
Turkish government was committed at the very least to putting a stop to human
trafficking. While rights should apply to all migrants, it was correct to focus
on stopping human trafficking, as this represented the ultimate expression of
the loss of human rights.
28 Haziran 2006
Freedom of expression and respect for religious beliefs
Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Başbakanı
Sayın Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’ın Parlamenter Asamble’de yaptıkları konuşma
Mr
ERDOĞAN (Prime Minister of Turkey) said that he was pleased that those
topics he dealt with in the framework of the Alliance of Civilisations were
also discussed by the Council of Europe. An action plan had been submitted to
the United Nations and concrete steps, on such topics as education and the
integration of immigrants, could be expected. The Council of Europe was also
taking practical measures which would reinforce the work of the Alliance of
Civilisations.
An
important phrase was “unity in diversity” or perhaps “plurality within unity”.
Multiculturalism was important for maintaining peace within Europe and in the
wider world, and there was a need to take steps to reinforce it. Muslim
populations had been increasing in Europe. In several large European cities,
such as London, Paris and Rotterdam, the Moslem population was between 10% and
25% of the total. The problem of immigration was not a problem of Islam; there
was a need to be more tolerant generally. Countries needed to integrate new
communities and not respond with hatred or fear, nor seek to isolate or assimilate
such people, but instead to communicate and engage with new communities to
develop shared understandings for mutual benefit. This was the key challenge,
and would require efforts on behalf of both the host country and the immigrant
communities. It was also necessary to teach the young about tolerance as a
virtue. The Alliance of Civilisations could help to achieve this goal, and to
create a peaceful world for future generations.
Historically,
Turkey was very diverse, with a rich socio-cultural mix. Turkey was ready to
co-operate with the European institutions including the Council of Europe, of
which the Parliamentary Assembly was the pillar. The Assembly had a
responsibility in that it was pursuing a freer, richer world. This could only
be based on fundamental rights. He valued the work of the Council of Europe and
appreciated the opportunity to speak today. He thanked Mrs Hurskainen for the
report and looked forward to the debate. He would not give his detailed views
at this stage but would express them later. However, he agreed with some, but
not all, of the report.
Freedom
of expression lay at the core of modern life and was the foundation of
democracy. Freedom of expression applied not only to opinions not shared by
all, but also to those opinions that shock and disturb. A commitment to freedom
of expression was essential, but there had to be some exceptions; some limits.
The recent cartoon crisis, and the international reaction to it, was a prime
example of that. Freedom of speech and respect for minority communities were
not mutually exclusive and could co-exist in full harmony but action guided by
the law and common sense would make the world a more peaceful place.
The
cartoon crisis had done more than draw attention to the lack of respect for
other cultures and minority communities. It had highlighted the increasing
polarisation of the international community along cultural lines and showed a
fault line emerging between the western world and the Islamic world. Extremism
was emerging in both communities. Extremism could only cause us all harm, so it
was essential to find the middle ground. Terrorism perpetrated in the name of
religion and Islamophobia were both extremist tendencies that could lead the
world into crisis. In observing and reacting to these movements, we should
remain calm and rational.
He
said that every society had “sacred” values, whether religious, cultural or
traditional, and nobody had the right to assault those values. Never in history
had there been unlimited freedom. The violation of the freedoms of others would
lead to conflict, and indirectly to terrorism. This would endanger global
peace. We were entering a dark alley with no end, so it was therefore
imperative that we mobilised our hopes, not our fears.
To
avoid this clash of civilisations, we should make respect for the differences
between people the starting point. It was imperative to respect each other when
exercising the freedom of expression. It was necessary to disregard some of the
values of the past and start afresh in protecting the freedom of others. It was
vital that we did not evoke the syndrome of fear or hatred of the “other” –
those who are not like us. Perhaps also freedom of expression was not the same
as a freedom to insult. Part of the new challenge was that in an
inter-connected digital world, geography was no barrier to the interaction of
peoples, cultures and faiths.
It
was important to embrace past achievements, but we now faced new challenges.
Countries needed to unite around a common definition of democracy. Free
societies must be culturally pluralist, and democracy should be seen as an
alliance of freedoms, but we were at a crossroads, faced with the danger of a
clash of freedoms. The origins of this clash come from within free societies.
It was essential to develop a culture of freedom that did not lead to violence.
Anti-Semitism
had long been accepted as a crime against humanity. Islamaphobia should be seen
in exactly the same way, as a crime against humanity. The historical evolution
of societies was different. Some societies had developed a strong emphasis on
the liberation of the individual, whereas others had taken different paths, but
no society should impose its own values on others. There was no hierarchy of
civilisations. All cultures had interacted and influenced each other in the
course of their development, but no one culture was superior to others. The
differences should be seen as riches.
He
and his Spanish colleague were co-chairing a group of 20 “wise men” who had
prepared an action plan. At their last meeting, in Dakar in Senegal, they had
developed a plan, which contained practical proposals. One crucial element was
a focus on the education system, because young minds have more potential to be freed
from prejudices. This was particularly important in minority communities. They
hoped that the action plan would be adopted next November at a meeting in
Turkey.
The
high level group had not ignored the political context feeding radicalism. The
group was looking at issues in the Middle East and Iraq, and at economic
differences across the globe. As yet, there were no concrete plans, but the
group was concerned not just with the identification of problems. It intended
to make moves towards establishing initiatives and taking positive steps. It
was important to make common values visible to enable countries and peoples to
exercise their rights. This would be the most important contribution that the
group could make.
If
the world was determined to create world peace, then the formation of a global
alliance would be required, but if terrorism were to persist, then there would
be a continuation of the clash of civilisations. The Alliance of Civilisations
could be an important means of achieving the global co-operation required. He
hoped that the Council of Europe would assist in this process and he thanked
the Parliamentary Assembly for listening.
Mr
ERDOĞAN (Prime Minister of Turkey) thanked the previous speakers for
their contributions and said that they all agreed on the value of freedom of
expression and the need to continue fighting for it, but the key question was
whether freedom of expression should be unlimited. All societies had some
limits to freedom of expression, due to historical and cultural reasons. The
central concept was respect. If respect and love for others were promoted, then
we would enhance rights.
On
freedom of religion and belief, this was essential, but it was important to
distinguish between criticism and insult. Mr Lund had suggested that we needed
the right to insult, and referred to the Armenian genocide. Was that based on
fact? It was necessary to distinguish between the Ottoman Empire and the
Turkish Republic. The Turkish position was that such matters should be left to
historians and to academic analysis. Politicians could then benefit from this.
Concerning
the crisis in Denmark, Turkey had reacted differently to every other country.
Without Turkey’s approach, the situation could have been worse. On the question
of whether a God would allow the Holocaust, Muslims believed that their God
would not allow it. Muslims loved all the created because of the creator.
THE
PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I now call Mr Özal.
Mr
Özal (Turkey). – First of all, I do not wish to get into an argument over
Mr Geghamyan’s allegations, as I have more important things to discuss. As
Prime Minister Erdoğan kindly put it, these allegations should be discussed by
an international platform of historians, as asked for in a letter written by
Prime Minister Erdoğan to the President of Armenia.
I
would like to thank our rapporteur, Mrs Hurskainen, for her sincere work on the
difficult issue of freedom of expression and respect for religious beliefs.
Although I would like to believe that the study of such complex issues would
generate discussions through which common ground may be reached, if I am
honest, I would have to say that, unfortunately, that seems quite difficult.
In
democratic societies, certain freedoms require a sensitive balance that history
unfortunately shows us to be very fragile. With this report, we are discussing
the balance between the freedom of expression and the freedom of thought,
conscience and religion. Both are clearly requirements for a democratic
society. Can such a balance be struck?
As
the report rightly puts it, “There cannot be a democratic society without the
fundamental right to freedom of expression” and “the progress of society and
the development of every individual depend on the possibility of receiving and
imparting information and ideas.” We argue, however, that the exercise of the
freedom of expression comes with a responsibility. Freedom of expression should
not be used to incite hatred or repression. Article 10 of the European
Convention on Human Rights and the case law of the European Court of Human
Rights indicate that there are indeed limits to the freedom of expression, as
made clear in several judgments.
The
report correctly points out that, “religions have contributed to the spiritual
and moral values, ideas and principles that form the common heritage of
Europe.” I therefore cannot agree with another argument in the report that says
that laws against the criticism of religious practices have a negative impact
on scientific impact and social progress. There is no direct correlation. On
the contrary, we can argue that the super-powers of today and the past –
super-powers in every aspect – have been, with a few exceptions, those states
that not only implement freedom of expression, but have placed great emphasis
on respect for religious beliefs.
A
correct approach to religion will always create a conducive environment for
scientific and social progress. If there is a need for criticism, constructive
and respectful criticism will help more than destructive and disrespectful
criticism. Incitement to hatred will not enhance social progress but will
hinder it and take a country and a people backwards.
Freedom
of expression and respect for religious beliefs are not contradictory, but
complementary values of democracy. Intercultural and inter-religious dialogue
should be encouraged and based on universal human rights, equality and mutual
respect with a view to promoting the tolerance, trust and mutual understanding
that are vital to building coherent societies and strengthening international
peace and security.
Mr
Tekelioğlu (Turkey) – I thank the rapporteur for putting this topical
and important subject on to our agenda. The concepts of freedom of expression
and media freedom, as well as respect for religious beliefs, became the focus
of the international debate surrounding the so-called “cartoon crises” after
the publication of the caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed in some newspapers.
I
have studied the report in detail and must say at the outset that one can see
that it was prepared somewhat hastily and under a time constraint. That is why
I believe that the report lacks a broader perspective. The opinions and
legitimate concerns of a major proportion of the citizens of Europe are not
adequately reflected.
Unfortunately,
the report has concentrated on only one aspect of this very important issue and
has failed to see the broader picture. Although the title of the report is
“Freedom of expression and respect for religious beliefs”, it concentrates only
on freedom of expression and sadly overlooks the second part of the equation.
The outcome is an unbalanced report that risks sending a wrong and dangerous
message to the citizens of Europe and the outside world.
It
is true that there is an increase in the sensitivity of certain religious groups,
and, my dear colleagues, these certain religious groups are indeed among the
Muslim communities. However, when talking about the increasing sensitivities of
Muslims, we cannot avoid looking into the reasons behind this development. In
order to find out and understand the reasons for this sensitivity, we need not
go too far. We just need to look at the reports of the Council of Europe’s
independent and prestigious body, the European Commission against Racism and
Intolerance – ECRI. I would like to read short extracts from ECRI’s 2005 annual
report, and its recently adopted report on Denmark.
Paragraph
3 of the 2005 annual report reads as follows: “ECRI is concerned by the
increase in the climate of hostility towards persons who are Muslim, or who are
believed to be Muslim. It deplores the fact that Islamophobia continues to
manifest itself in different guides within European societies. Muslim
communities and their members are more and more often the targets of persisting
prejudice, negative attitudes, discrimination and sometimes violence.”
I
believe that ECRI’s report on Denmark is directly relevant to our topic and
requires no further explanation. I shall read a short part of paragraph 104:
“The police’s reluctance to bring charges against those who incite racial
hatred and the fact that freedom of expression is placed above all else have
contributed to giving free rein to some politicians to make derogatory
statements in the media about minority groups.”
Dear
colleagues, the European Convention on Human Rights and the case law of the
European Court of Human Rights established that there are indeed limits to
freedom of expression, such as incitement that could generate violence and
incitement to hatred. Inciting hatred against any religious community disregards
respect for fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed by international law and
the European Convention on Human Rights. We should make this point crystal
clear in the report. Thank you very much.
Mr
COŞKUNOĞLU (Turkey). – Thank you, Mr President. Dear colleagues, one of
the key concepts of our times that is mentioned in the report, on which I would
like to congratulate the rapporteur, is diversity. I will not be exaggerating
if I state that diversity is perhaps one of the most important concepts of our
times. Diversity should not be understood in a restrictive sense and perhaps
taken to mean tolerance only. Diversity means much more than just being
tolerant of different views. We should recognise that diversity is a source of
mutual enrichment, so managing diversity is obviously very difficult.
Again,
it would not be an exaggeration to claim that one of the most difficult
challenges that we face at this juncture in our civilisation is to manage
diversity for the sake of mutual enrichment. In order to overcome this
difficulty, and to take up this challenge, we should understand the source of
the difficulty. On the one hand, diversity is a source of mutual enrichment; on
the other hand, it has always been, and is, a source of tension. We all know
that from history.
How
do we resolve this problem? How do we overcome this tension? Can we overcome it
by being restrictive? Can we overcome it by suppressing freedom of expression?
I think not, and this report thinks not as well. A fine line has to be drawn
and we have to maintain a balance, and that balance has been maintained in this
report. Having said that, I would also like to stress that the overwhelming
danger looming over the western hemisphere is that prejudices are increasing.
In Europe and the United States, especially after what came to be called the
9/11 terrorist attack, there is increasing prejudice and stereotyping.
Stereotyping
Muslims as terrorists is not only wrong, but a very dangerous thing. It is
wrong for obvious reasons. We cannot stereotype any ethnic group or national
group as terrorists. It is simply wrong, but it is also dangerous because
stereotyping any group as terrorists will surely push that group towards
terrorism.
Dear
colleagues, please ask yourselves and those in your respective countries some
questions. Who do you think would like or enjoy it if Europeans alienated
Muslims? Who do you think would enjoy the consequences of pushing an ethnic or
religious group towards terrorism? In fact, let me be more specific. Whose face
do you think had the broadest smile following the much-talked-about Danish
caricature? My answer to that is al-Qaeda.
Mr
CEBECİ (Turkey). – The report deserves both appreciation and criticism.
Perhaps the most striking thing about it is its use of discriminatory
adjectives to describe the rights to freedom of expression and to freedom of
religion. Freedom of expression is accepted as a “fundamental right” in the
report, whereas freedom of thought, conscience and religion is described simply
as “a necessary requirement for a democratic society”. There cannot be a
hierarchy of rights, because both are accepted as fundamental freedoms in the
European Convention on Human Rights. The rapporteur should have avoided using
such misleading terms that might suggest that freedom of expression is a
superior right.
We
are not talking black and white; we are talking about delicate lines and grey
areas. Every thought or religion could be and should be criticised, but in the
heterogeneous society in which we live, the critical threshold at which
religious insults become vigorous efforts to incite hatred lies in a grey area.
We cannot ignore that. We cannot ignore the fact that incitement to hatred
encourages attacks on individuals or groups which cannot and should not be
committed on the grounds of freedom of expression – or the fact that my
8-year-old daughter comes home from her third grade class saying that she no
longer wants to be a Muslim, and all because in our predominantly Christian
society a Danish journalist wants to test the limit of expression. The critical
line lies where freedom of expression begins to threaten freedom of religion,
identifying somebody by his or her religion.
The
caricatures published in Denmark were not merely a matter of putting a funny
moustache on the Prophet. They sent a clear message about the personality of
the Prophet, saying that all Muslims are potential terrorists. If somebody is
incited by that and enters a Muslim restaurant and starts shooting, who pays the
price?
The
rapporteur says in her conclusion that the ability to criticise and even to
ridicule from both within and without religious traditions is a healthy
phenomenon, and I agree – but only if one holds to high ideals. In that
context, “ethical considerations” are of ultimate importance. The rapporteur
says at that point that education and dialogue are needed. If education is the
answer, why cannot we ask those educated people to implement ethical
considerations or norms such as tolerance and respect for others when
disseminating information to a broad range of people with the aim of shaping
their minds? If dialogue is the answer, how can a common understanding be
reached when indulging in speeches of hatred in the name of freedom of
expression?
Mrs
INCEKARA (Turkey) thanked Mrs Hurskainen for her excellent report on
this very sensitive subject, and said that it had taken a long time to win
those freedoms, and they should not be let go easily. They should be used
responsibly. One person’s freedom should not hinder that of another. Insults or
provocation should not be part of discourse under the auspices of freedom of
expression. Different races and communities had different perceptions of what
was considered acceptable, funny and so on. The key question was where the
Council of Europe and other supporters of freedom should draw the line. The
“freedom” to incite violence, hatred or hostility could not be defended, and in
this respect the report was perfectly balanced.
Mr ILICALI (Turkey).- As you
all know, freedom of expression is the fundamental right and freedom guaranteed
under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 10 of
the ECHR, and it has an exceptional status among all other rights and freedoms,
because all other freedoms are shaped within the freedom of expression.
It
is quite obvious that one cannot talk about democracy without freedom of
expression. During the term of our government, we have carried out significant
progress in this respect within the framework of Harmonisation Laws. In my
opinion, these steps have been of great contribution in terms of making our
citizens benefit from the contemporary democracy.
I
would also like to underline that freedom of expression existed even in the 13th
century via Mevlana, Ynus Emre and Sheikh Edebali. These great philosophers
expressed the view that humans were the most precious of all values, and
announced it to humanity. Today, the systematisation of these values and
acceptance of them as universal values mean, for a person coming from my own
culture, returning to the roots and re-embracing the values.
The
importance and value of the freedom of expression is obvious. It is of no doubt
that these values are considered indispensable within the system of values
establishing the EU. However, certain questions must be answered when freedoms
are discussed. This is also valid for freedom of expression. The first question
in mind is whether any restriction should be brought against freedom of
expression. The second question is “If there is a need for such restriction,
then which criteria should be taken into account?”.
The
replies to these questions have occupied the philosophers, politicians and
writers, and no common and sharp reply has come out. The first reply coming to
our mind, which also sounds pleasant to the ear, is the view: no limitations to
the thought. However, even in the best-advanced democracies, we see that
freedom of expression is subject to some limitations. For example, in Austria,
“incitement to hostile actions due to membership of church, religious groups or
membership of certain groups” is punished with two years imprisonment. We can
see similar examples in France, Poland, Denmark and Greece.
In
fact all freedoms ascribe responsibility to their owners. This responsibility
could be formulated as not being misused. Some may think that expression may be
found relative and may be the beginning of a new discussion, but it is obvious
that no expression even with its basic understanding has the right to insult
what is sacred to another. To name incitement to hatred, leading to hostilities
that may last for years among societies, as freedom means not being able to
grasp the meaning of freedom.
What
is welcome is that leading thinkers of the world are in consensus regarding
respect of what is sacred to other people and societies. It was obvious in the
attitude towards the recent cartoon crisis.
In
this process, spiritual leaders have also expressed their sensitivity in this
respect. Cardinal Achille Silvestrini, President of the Eastern Churches
Council in the Vatican, has interpreted making humour out of religious symbols
as abuse of freedoms and said, “The Western culture should determine a
limitation for the claim that freedom should be considered as an absolute
value. There should be a revolt both against the habit and thought of touching
religious symbols,” also, “freedom is a great value but it should not be shared
unilaterally”. Such a “freedom of humour hurting the feelings of people falls
within the category of abuse”.
Again,
during this cartoon crisis, the Armenian and Greek Patriarch and the Chief
Rabbi in Istanbul jointly made a declaration criticising expressions which they
considered as almost an insult.
I
would like to mention the Amnesty International Declaration dated 6 February
2006, some sentences of which I quote, “freedom of expression is never
unlimited. This is valid for the critic and the content of the criticism. This
freedom requires responsibility and could be restricted to defend the rights of
others”. In particular, expressions inciting hatred, discrimination, hostility
and violence cannot be considered as legitimate. Such expressions should be
banned via laws within the framework of international standards.
I
would like to conclude by wishing a widespread dominance of expressions leading
to love, brotherhood, friendship and terminating wars.
Parliaments united in combating domestic violence against women
Mrs
İNCEKARA (Turkey) said that this was one report that everybody could
sign up to and she thanked the rapporteur. She said that, in reply to Mr Mendes
Bota, it was necessary to look at the consequences of education in these
issues. Academic studies were promising, but it was necessary to start
education on these matters at a very early age so that young people were
prepared for the future. Those about to marry should know the consequences of
what they were about to do.
Violence
was the action of the weak. It was necessary to empower women within the
family. How was this to be achieved? Many women were deterred by obstacles to
education, and sometimes legal impediments. If those were removed, women would
be more powerful and there would be a chance of success. There should be no
legal or cultural prohibition on women’s education. The Council of Europe’s proposals
would be useful in pursuing this honourable campaign
29 Haziran 2006
Constitutional reform in Bosnia and Herzegovina
Mr
ÇAVUŞOĞLU (Turkey). – I thank my colleague, Mr Sasi, who has summarised
well the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Even though, as he said, steady
progress has been achieved, there are many concerns. One of the main concerns
is the continuing weakness of the state and the constitutional necessity to
ensure full equality at every level between the three constituent peoples.
Roughly 60% of GDP is still spent on maintaining state and entity apparatus,
and that cannot continue for ever. As Mr Sasi said, the money should be spent
on health care, education and in other areas, where the country really needs
it.
There
are three rotating presidents at state level, two presidents at entity level,
13 prime ministers and over 180 ministers and numerous legislative bodies on
which 760 members serve, and that further complicates the situation. Bosnia and
Herzegovina is a country in which much needs to be done, but the maintenance of
so many levels of bureaucracy makes it impossible to achieve concrete results.
Parallel institutions are not helping either. Bosnia and Herzegovina not only
missed an opportunity by not adopting the constitutional reform but failed to
meet its commitments to the Council of Europe.
Mr
AÇIKGÖZ (Turkey). – Mr President, dear colleagues, after the tragic war,
the present state of Bosnia and Herzegovina emerged as a result of the Dayton
Agreement of 1995, which, among other things, contained the state constitution.
Seven years after the agreement, Bosnia and Herzegovina joined the Council of
Europe and undertook its obligations and commitments.
Since
its accession to the Council of Europe, Bosnia and Herzegovina has taken
important steps towards building a stable and functional state and achieved
positive developments in human rights and the rule of law. With those
developments, Bosnia and Herzegovina is in a necessary and inevitable process
of constitutional reform. The process is inevitable because the present
constitution has an adverse effect on the efficient functioning of the state
and in parallel on the introduction of necessary reforms and their
implementation.
Although
six main political parties in Bosnia and Herzegovina had reached political
agreement on the first phase of this vital constitutional reform, the failure
of this first important step in the House of Representatives of Bosnia and
Herzegovina on 26 April 2006 caused disappointment. The negative effect of this
failure has become deeper in light of the next general elections in the country
due to be held on 1 October 2006, because now it will not be possible to reform
the electoral system with the aim of preventing discriminatory provisions.
Politics
in any democracy is based on compromise, and progress may sometimes seem slow.
This is particularly the case in a multi-ethnic country that has gone through
such a tragic conflict. The recent failure of the constitutional reform process
may have important consequences. As well as being vital for its practical
consequences, constitutional reform would serve as a signal from Bosnia and
Herzegovina to Europe that the country is resolved to take the steps required
for European integration. With this in mind, the importance of recent
developments becomes clearer. Accordingly, I call on all the actors in Bosnia
and Herzegovina to take the necessary steps immediately, with the aim of
showing that Bosnia and Herzegovina is capable of overcoming old divisions in
the interests of European integration.
On
behalf of the European Democratic Group, I emphasise that the Council of
Europe, and in particular our Assembly, is determined to assist the Bosnian
authorities in this direction, while continuing to follow closely developments
in this respect.