Sharia is creeping forward everywhere, but in modern, moderate, secular Turkey it is creeping even faster than it is elsewhere. "Turkey: Law Banning Alcohol, Sigarettes [sic] Comes Into Effect," from ANSAmed, May 13 (thanks to Insubria):
(ANSAmed) - ANKARA, MAY 13 - A new law to overhaul tobacco and alcoholic beverages usage drew fierce criticism from sector representatives, and is seen as another negative factor in Islamist-rooted AKP's record of conservative arrangements. Law No. 5752, which will take effect tomorrow, bans the sale of alcoholic beverages and cigarettes "by breaking its packaging or dividing them."Sector representatives say if implemented, it would mean that the sale of alcoholic beverages by the glass at establishments like restaurants and bars would not be allowed. Sector representatives say the government should make new regulations detailing the implementation of this article of the law.
The government passed the law to ban smoking in public areas and the sale of single cigarettes in small markets, a practice commonly used. The representatives of sector organizations say this law makes it virtually impossible to consume alcohol anywhere but in the home. The marketing director of Doluca Wines told Hurriyet the confusion about alcoholic beverages arises because the law described the new arrangements together with those relating to tobacco usage. "The recent shape of the law would kill the sector. Clear definitions should be made," Sibel Kutman said. She added that 35% of annual wine sales are sold by the glass.
Turkish alcohol producers have already been under pressure since the AKP government took the helm. Winemakers had complained of a heavy tax burden and a government which they feel is unsympathetic to the wine industry due to its Islamist roots, however many Turks drink alcohol. Turkey's Islamist-rooted AKP, who faces a closure case on the charge of becoming the focal point of anti-secular activities, denies the charges but has so far not taken any steps to soothe concerns caused mostly by the implementations of local administrations.
Under the law no cocktails will be made by mixing different kinds of alcohol, and giving alcoholic beverages as a gift is also banned. The chairman of the Tourism, Restaurants, Clubs Investors and Operators said he does "not want to believe" such ban will take effect. "I don't think this will be a problem as long as you have a license to sell open bottle alcohol," Baris Tansever added. (ANSAmed).
Let's hope the Europeans see this for what it indicates about the Islamic Republic of Turkey and the direction that society is going in. Do they really want the sick man of Europe inside Europe? I doubt they will see it this way though. Kumbayah
The other night I saw a couple of ads on television telling me that Turkey is a great place to vacation.
The ad didn't bother to mention this particular tourist attraction. Come to think of it, it didn't mention sharia at all. I wonder why? /sarc
By all means, let's let them join the E.U. The way things are going over there, Turkey would probably be the moderate/secular member.
I say give them as much Mohammedism as they can stand, and then give 'em more; pile it on. They deserve nothing less. When they have had enough, perhaps they will revolt and rid their country of this cancer.
I expect that if ATK is shut down, the bombings and killings will start within a month or less.
Oh, no! What will all of the muslim-owned gas stations do now? They'll have to quit selling alcohol!
Better watch it, Ahmed! Next, they'll make you quit selling hot dogs.
BTW, I've often wondered, if muslims aren't allowed to touch alcohol or pork, how do they manage to sell these products in their gas stations?
Let's think of some clever ways that they could handle alcohol and pork, without violating the tenants of islam!
How about this one: They hire a non-muslim, and let him handle the alcohol and pork. After all, the infidel is already unclean.
Carrie Nation is alive and well in Turkey...Good to see she is still living, I thought she died years ago...
Standing at nearly 6 feet tall and weighing 180 pounds, Carry Amelia Moore Nation, Carrie Nation, as she came to be known, cut an imposing figure. Wielding a hatchet, she was downright frightful. In 1900, the target of Nation's wrath was alcoholic drink. Nation, who described herself as "a bulldog running along at the feet of Jesus, barking at what he doesn't like," felt divinely ordained to forcefully promote temperance.
See any similarities?
The Turks must be drawing encouragement from the great success of our national prohibition on liquor (as reported in the newspapers during 1921).
A guy I work with was planning to take his family to vacation in Turkey. I shared some information from this site, and he decided to visit Greece instead!
The link is here - http://www.ansamed.info/en/turkey/news/ME03.@AM17150.html
It wasn't posted :)
I find the whole affair rather ironic. I think this lot would have had short sharp shift if Kemel Ataturk, had been still around, his addiction to scotch was the main cause of his death if I remember correctly. Anything that curtailed his access to booze who would have had his veto.
The Turks must be drawing encouragement from the great success of our national prohibition on liquor (as reported in the newspapers during 1921).
As well as from our anti-smoking busybodies, who even today are having great success in "ban[ning] smoking in public areas and the sale of single cigarettes in small markets."
seamus -
this is a bit offtopic, but I really must call you out on your attempt to represent anti-smoking campaigners as 'busybodies' (implying that the campaign to ban smoking in public areas is on a par with the Muslim blanket ban on alcohol).
There is a key difference between the consumption of alcohol, and the consumption of tobacco smoke.
Drinking affects only the drinker; he or she alone ingests the drink. You can drink ten glasses of wine, right next to me, and it will not damage *my* liver or my brain in the slightest. OK, a drunk can harm others by drink-driving, by giving way to violent impulses, or by spewing on the footpath, but even so, *only* the drinker gets the hangover, or (worst case) the cirrhosis of the liver. I don't object to people choosing to drink in front of me; because I'm not being compelled to match them glass for glass.
Whereas the cigarette smoker forces everyone else in the room, or in the bus, or train, or plane, bar or restaurant or office space, to breathe their secondhand smoke. Two or more smokers lighting up together and it's even worse. I do object to someone forcing their smoke into my lungs, whether I want it there or not.
Presumably you are one of those who think smokers should be 'free' to smoke wherever and whenever they please, and as much as they please?
But what if *your* smoke makes the person next to you physically ill? I grew up in a no-smoking home. I can still remember the pure hell of being trapped for ten hours in a long-distance bus on which about a third of the passengers were smoking. My throat was raw and my head was spinning when I got off that awful bus.
I would get half-way through a thesis 'consultation' interview with my pipe-smoking doctoral supervisor, and come to a halt, overcome by fits of helpless coughing induced by the smoke that filled his office.
My husband, who does not smoke, was highly relieved when the 'no smoking in the workplace' rule came into effect: he had found it most unpleasant being subjected to dense clouds of other people's smoke in meetings or just in the open-plan office floor. It made him cough and short of breath.
So, to be perfectly frank, I am delighted that Australian planes, trains, workplaces and restaurants are smoke-free zones.
I oppose the Muslim blanket ban on alcohol. In our society people are free to drink or not to drink.
But I do not think smokers should be free to smoke everywhere - because if they are, they in fact COMPEL everyone else around them to breathe in the smoke, whether those people want to do so, or not.
I hope Orhan Pamuk gets himself out of there in time.
We shall see who comes to their senses, and who not.
dumbledoresarmy: So you *support* the Turkish "law to ban smoking in public areas"?
Seamus
If the ban on public smoking were simply and solely a ban on public smoking, yes I would support it, for the public health reasons I have already discussed.
I *would* support a Turkish ban on smoking in public areas because Australia has similar restrictions - in workplaces, restaurants, waiting rooms, public transport, airports, and now in nightclubs and bars - and I greatly appreciate not being made to breathe other people's stale smoke. (It's also reduced the amount of litter, and the fire danger). There are plenty of tourists who would probably enjoy a Turkish environment with less second-hand smoke, fewer butts on the beaches, etc.
Let's think about something different. Suppose an Islamic country were to decide to borrow Australia's law which requires passengers in cars to wear seatbelts.
Would you oppose the introduction of such a life-saving law, just because a Muslim country was doing it?
Of course, the snag here is that the Turkish authorities seem to be trying to sneak in a sharia-inspired restriction on alcohol, by bundling it in with something else: a perfectly respectable and sensible, and for all we know, infidel-inspired, restriction on public smoking.
These are two issues that actually don't, logically, belong together.
To repeat.
Smokers force the non-smokers around them to smoke too, like it or not. They increase their chance of lung cancer and asthma and other ills...and increase *mine* too.
Whereas the brains and livers of non-drinkers sitting right next to someone who is imbibing alcohol, are not affected in the slightest. Public drinking - say, people having a glass of wine at a sidewalk cafe or outdoor bar, or at a picnic in a park - doesn't bother me (by the way, I'm a non-smoker, but enjoy a glass of wine very occasionally).
To my way of thinking, since their effect on the people around them is totally different, public smoking and public drinking should be dealt with separately.
The Turks who are protesting should be trying to get the law on smoking decoupled from the alcohol law. One (on smoking) makes sense in public health terms; the other (on alcohol) doesn't.
Of course, the snag here is that the Turkish authorities seem to be trying to sneak in a sharia-inspired restriction on alcohol, by bundling it in with something else: a perfectly respectable and sensible, and for all we know, infidel-inspired, restriction on public smoking.
I doubt it's infidel inspired. There's a long tradition in Islam of trying to ban or at least restrict consumption of tobacco:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_fatwa
It's simply parallel to the neo-puritan efforts to suppress tobacco (and alcohol, in case you haven't been reading up on MADD's efforts) in this country.