Tag Archives: Erdogan

‘Holy Wars Will Soon Begin in Europe’ | Mar 17, 2017

Turkish Foreign Minister Çavuşoğlu: ‘Holy Wars Will Soon Begin in Europe’

|  theGatewayPundit

“In one of the first reactions from Ankara to the Dutch election result, Turkish Foreign Minister, Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu, warned that Europe was heading towards the abyss and that ‘holy wars’ would soon begin on the continent – this coming despite the fact that nationalist Geert Wilders, a vocal critic of Islam, was pushed into second place by the center right Prime Minister, Mark Rutte.

 

Çavuşoğlu, who has been addressing Turkish crowds across Europe ahead of a constitutional referendum in Turkey next month, was refused permission to land in Holland for a campaign rally on Saturday, sparking a heated diplomatic row and street protests which dominated the final days of the Dutch election campaign.

The dramatic war of words, which saw Ankara accuse the Dutch government of ‘fascism’ and of being a ‘Nazi remnant’, has grown in recent days to include other Western European nations which have restricted Turkish political rallies on their soil, most notably Austria and Germany, but also Denmark and Switzerland.

Recent months have seen mass demonstrations and rallies, with seas of red ‘star and crescent’ flags greeting Turkish ministers campaigning in Europe on behalf of their government’s referendum proposal. The sheer size of some rallies has caused unease, highlighting the scale of Europe’s burgeoning foreign populations and offering a glimpse of the continent’s demographic future.

Of the millions of Turks living in Europe, some five million – many of them dual citizens – are eligible to vote in the referendum, set for April 16th, which seeks to significantly increase the powers of authoritarian Turkish President, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.

Speaking at a rally east of Istanbul just hours after his foreign minister’s controversial comments, Erdoğan accused the EU of launching an anti-Islamic ‘crusade’ between the Christian cross and the Muslim crescent, referring to Tuesday’s ruling by the EU Court of Justice which would allow employers to prohibit political and religious symbols in the workplace, including the wearing of the Islamic veil.

‘They have commenced a struggle between the cross and crescent. There is no other explanation than this. I am saying this clearly – Europe is heading toward the days just before World War II,’ Erdoğan stated in combative tone.

Following on from comments by his foreign minister earlier this week, Erdoğan again threatened to end the year-old migrant deal signed between the EU and Turkey, which could see millions of migrants flood into Europe from Turkey via Greece and Bulgaria.

Of some six million migrants seeking to enter Europe from countries surrounding the Mediterranean, an estimated three million are currently waiting in Turkey, according to a leaked German intelligence report published last month, a figure Erdoğan is fond of raising in negotiations with the EU.”

….Continue reading @ theGatewayPundit

 

Law |

Campaign Pledges Haunt Trump in Court

| New York Times

Outside the context of Mr. Trump’s two travel bans, few judicial rulings have addressed how much weight courts may put on statements from political candidates. Even informal remarks from sitting government officials are often ignored by courts, which can be reluctant to conduct what the Supreme Court has called “judicial psychoanalysis.”

“In quick succession on Wednesday night, federal judges in Hawaii and Maryland blocked President Trump’s revised travel ban. They said statements Mr. Trump had made as a presidential candidate, including his call for “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States,” helped doom the executive order.

The judges said Mr. Trump’s promises to impose a “Muslim ban” were too telling and categorical to be ignored. “Simply because a decision maker made the statements during a campaign does not wipe them” from judicial memory, wrote Judge Theodore D. Chuang of Federal District Court in Maryland.

Outside the context of Mr. Trump’s two travel bans, few judicial rulings have addressed how much weight courts may put on statements from political candidates. Even informal remarks from sitting government officials are often ignored by courts, which can be reluctant to conduct what the Supreme Court has called “judicial psychoanalysis.”

But decisions about religious discrimination allow courts to consider government officials’ real purposes, even if their stated ones are neutral.

The Supreme Court has said judges may not turn a blind eye to the context in which government policies on religion arose. “Reasonable observers have reasonable memories,” Justice David H. Souter wrote in a leading religion case.

Justice Department lawyers had urged the judges to ignore Mr. Trump’s speeches on the campaign trail. “Candidates are not government actors, and statements of what they might attempt to achieve if elected, which are often simplified and imprecise, are not official acts,” the government said in a brief in the Maryland case. “They generally are made without the benefit of advice from an as-yet-unformed administration, and cannot bind elected officials who later conclude that a different course is warranted.”

The courts had to navigate two bodies of precedents, pointing in different directions. In cases concerning immigration and national security, most decisions suggest that courts should not look behind the stated government rationale.

Courts have only rarely used statements from candidates to judge the constitutionality of government actions. In 2003, the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, in Atlanta, took account of campaign materials from Chief Justice Roy S. Moore of the Alabama Supreme Court to judge his actions concerning a Ten Commandments monument in his courthouse.

In the context of immigration and efforts to combat terror, the Supreme Court has been reluctant to look behind official actions to root out authentic motives. In 2006, in a case concerning detainees at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, Justice John Paul Stevens criticized a dissenting justice for relying on “press statements” from sitting Defense Department officials. “We have not heretofore, in evaluating the legality of executive action, deferred to comments made by such officials to the media,” Justice Stevens wrote. If even statements from government officials are out of bounds, it would follow that statement from political candidates should carry no weight.

In a 1972 immigration case concerning a Marxist scholar denied a visa, the Supreme Court similarly said it would not “look behind” the government’s “facially legitimate and bona fide reason.”

….Continue reading more @ NY Times