Turkish government backed AmbassadorTurkish government backed Ambassador
The Turkish Foreign Ministry fully supported the Turkish ambassador to Denmark when he, together with 9 other ambassadors, asked the Prime Minister to intervene in a case involving the media. A daily Danish newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, had published a number of cartoons depicting the prophet Mohammed. The letter urged Prime Minister, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, to call the newspaper to account for "abusing Islam in the name of democracy, human rights and freedom of expression." Liberal party foreign spokesperson, Troels Lund Poulsen, says EU candidate country Turkey's approval of the letter underlines how important it is for Turkey to live up to freedom of expression demands.
Turkish PM: "Anti-Islamism is crime against humanity"
Turkish Premier Recep Tayyip Erdogan stressed that anti-Islamism must be treated as a crime against humanity just like anti-Semitism, the Turkish daily Zaman reported on Tuesday, September 6. Addressing the sixth meeting of the Eurasian Islamic Council meeting in Istanbul Monday, September 5, Erdogan said his government has added an article to the declaration in the European Council regarding Islamophobia stipulating that anti-Islamism be accepted as a crime against humanity.
"The Fall of Europe" by Ali Sina
Anti-Islamism as well as anti-Semitism will be dealt with within the framework of legal proceedings. The Council reports will include anti-Islamist movements. The European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) will closely monitor these movements.
The European Court of Human Rights Kneels to Islam
The applicant was prosecuted under Article 175 §§ 33 and 4 of the Criminal Code for publishing insults against “God, the Religion, the Prophet and the Holy Book”. The applicant alleged that his conviction and sentence had infringed his right to freedom of expression. he issue for the Court to determine was whether the interference had been “necessary in a democratic society”. However, the present case concerned not only comments that were disturbing or shocking or a “provocative” opinion but an abusive attack on the Prophet of Islam. Believers could legitimately feel that certain passages of the book in question constituted an unwarranted and offensive attack on them. In those circumstances, the Court considered that the measure in question had been intended to provide protection against offensive attacks on matters regarded as sacred by Muslims and had therefore met a “pressing social need”.