Fury as Turkey axes raki festival amid alcohol crackdown
Source: The Guardian
Turkish authorities have cancelled a festival celebrating the national drink, raki, because of complaints by Islamic groups, causing anger among secular Turks.
The annual World raki festival had been scheduled to take place on 12-13 December in the city of Adana. But the provincial governor axed the event after Islamic associations denounced it as a disgrace.
“It’s not possible for us to allow something like this,” Mustafa Büyük told the Hürriyet newspaper on Thursday. “We don’t want people to drink alcohol and we can not tolerate its promotion.”
The raki street festival is popular with tourists and attracts about 20,000 fans of the aniseed-flavoured liquor.
Read more: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/12/fury-as-turkey-axes-raki-festival-amid-alcohol-crackdown
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Coventina
(27,120 posts)Why not make your OWN life decisions and leave other people to make theirs!?!?!?
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)they only want to stop others from doing what they "KNOW" is wrong.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)Read the article. No one is saying banning alcohol, but the local government should NOT support a festival that encourages such drinking. It is like the government withdrawing its support to a local drunk fest. If you want to drink, no one is going to stop you, but neither will the locals tolerate you being drunk in public.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)"Opponents of President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan have long voiced fears of an Islamisation of society under his rule, which has placed a greater emphasis on religion.
In 2013, the parliament passed legislation curbing alcohol sales and advertising, as well as increasing taxes on beer, wine and spirits – the toughest such measures in the republic’s nine-decade history.
Erdoğan, a devout Muslim who does not drink or smoke, defended the law and encouraged people to drink ayran, a non-alcoholic beverage made from yoghurt, instead of raki."
Creeping fascism
happyslug
(14,779 posts)That is confirmed by Wikipedia and other sources that states the restrictions on alcohol but no outright ban.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_laws_of_Turkey
Oh my God, you can ONLY buy booze between 6:00 AM and 10:00 PM. You can NOT consume it in public, but you can take it to any private location and have a party with it. Any NEW place that sells alcohol has to be 100 meters away from any School or Mosque and you need both local and National approval for the location. With those restrictions where can I buy my booze? Where can I drink it? (The answer is you can still buy Alcohol almost anywhere ANd you can drink it almost anywhere).
Please note 83% of Turks do NOT drink,
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/may/31/turkey-alcohol-laws-istanbul-nightlife
The big complaints, are the same one I read about in the USA:
People dislike the restrictions, but Alcohol can still be legally obtained in Turkey. If you want it, you will have to pay for it and make sure you consume it in private.
salib
(2,116 posts)Yes, it is religious bigotry. It is purely a religious argument, not secular moral one, that drives this creeping prohibition.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)I have to remember that...
Furthermore, remember the "Buffer zone" from abortion clinics apply to protesters NOT to setting up abortion clinics. Thus no state prohibits someone setting up an abortion clinic right next to a grade school (Through many local governments forbid medical facilities near schools, but such bans also cover NON-abortion clinics that provide medical services). If someone wanted to protest a bar, they can protest the bar (and have in many problem bar cases, i.e. bars known for fights, drug dealing and other illegal activities, such protests are LEGAL). The law you are objecting to relate to selling alcohol within 100 meters of a School or Mosque, not people protesting such sales.
More on Buffer zones around abortion clinics:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_protection_of_access_to_abortion#.22Buffer_zone.22_laws
As to the 100 meter ban on NEW locations to sell Alcohol, such bans are common in the US.
For example, Pennsylvania (and most other states) have a 300 feet rule or about 100 meters of place selling alcohol within 300 feet of a School or Church. In the case of Pennsylvania no one can open a place that sells alcohol within 300 feet of a School or Church without special permission that includes no protest from the school or church. In theory Pennsylvanian Schools and churches can "Protest" opening of such a place within 300 feet, but in practice that right to "Protest" has been viewed as the right to veto the opening a place that sells alcohol within 300 feet of school or church.
The rule that any School or Church can "Protest" any license to a place within 300 feet of the school or church has NOT stopped bars from opening up all over the place in Pennsylvania. It is NOT that bad of a restriction. Alcohol is a drug and like any drug has to be regulated. Just because Alcohol is a LEGAL DRUG does not mean it should be free of regulations and the ban on selling alcohol within 300 feet of a School or Church has been one of those regulations that have worked since before prohibition.
The actual Pa Liquor Control Board rule:
http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/040/chapter17/s17.11.html
In the years before Prohibition, 300 feet rules were common in the US. Post Prohibition, most states switched from outright bans to regulations by state liquor control boards (which maintained the old 300 feet rules). Given 300 feet is about 100 meters, the 100 meters ban adopted by Turkey is NOT outrageous. It is NOT the 2000 feet (about 666 meters) ban from Schools that Sex offenders have to stay out of in many states:
https://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/rpt/2007-R-0380.htm
If you start to talk in terms of 1000 feet (or about 333 meters) you get into the problem of exclusion, but not at 100 meters (or about 300 feet) that is a reasonable regulation. And remember this rule is for NEW places that sell Alcohol, existing places within those limits can still sell Alcohol.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)You seem to have absorbed the end result of pro-choice arguments while completely ignoring all the logic and reason behind why abortion should be allowed.
"My body my choice" goes for booze too.
Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)salib
(2,116 posts)I am replying to my own post because it seems people misunderstood. My point was simply that methods do matter, and one can claim to not be "banning" something and yet still effectively ban it.
I believe that the goals of the religious conservatives in Turkey is to tell everyone else how to live their lives by making it prohibitive to "indulge" in anything they deem against their religion. It is also what religious conservatives are trying to do here with abortion, contraception, etc. The methods are the same and are effective.
Please do not dismiss them lightly simply as taxes and regulation. There is an agenda and it does amount to prohibition in its effectiveness.
BTW, cigarettes seem to be different. It has mostly been a public health argument, not a religious one.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)Just like how turkey technically has a "free press" despite increasing and growing crackdowns.
Turkey is on the road to growing authoritarianism, this is just one symptom of the problem. I know you apparently have some kind of problem with alcohol, but seriously this is a political issue bigger than booze, it is just one problem turkey has.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)And is similar to most other countries when it comes to Alcohol. Is Turkey BANNING Making or Selling Alcohol? NO. Are the restrictions on the selling and consumption of Alcohol more then similar restrictions in the US? The answer is again NO.
Yes, you have people complaining about these restrictions, but I have heard people complaining about fire codes and other safety laws for the same reasons, they did not want to comply with them for they saw it as a lost of income (remember the Ford Pinto? It was saving $2 a car that lead to them being fire traps, and this type of "lost of income" is what most people are complaining about when you look at the actual regulations being imposed).
As I pointed out above, we are NOT talking about regulations that in effect impose a total ban under the cover of being a regulation. This is NOT like the bans on Sex Offenders living within 1/4 mile of a church, School, playground or any place else that cater to children, when in effect the regulation bans such people from the city (For example, one city in Florida adopted a distance restriction that basically meant the only place an convicted, but released sex offender could live was on an fishing pier).
This is NOT the ban of Abortion Clinics adopted in several states in the guise of regulations. None of the regulation on the sale of Alcohol are any where near the regulations on abortion clinics:
http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_TRAP.pdf
The regulations imposed by the Turks are similar to regulations elsewhere, they are NOT an attempt at a ban by regulation as I pointed out above, such bans by regulations require greater distances then 100 meters. The regulations by the Turks are similar to regulations done elsewhere, you can easily work around them. the 100 meter distance is NOT excessive, the requirement that any such shop close by 10:00 pm is reasonable (If you want to drink after 10:00 pm you better stock up, and if someone can NOT pre plan that far ahead, do you really want him or her drinking?).
As to the restrictions on the press in Turkey, what does that have to do with Alcohol? It is like the attack on the "Islamization" of Egypt, when the Muslim Brotherhood ruled Egypt. Under Morsi no new laws were passed, old laws were enforced, but only to the degree they had been enforced under Mubarak. When Sisi overthrew Morsi, Sisi then proceeded to enforced those laws to a greater degree then under Morsi but that was NOT reported for Sisi is viewed as pro-USA. Neither Egypt or Turkey is the press considered 'Free".
https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-press/2015/turkey
Sorry, the report that started this thread was a hit piece. It pointed out the complaints but refused to put the actual regulations in context. As to Freedom of the Press, yes Turkey is NOT the USA, but the limits on the Press appears to be independent of the regulations on Alcohol.
Sidenote on "Freedom House" and their web site. Freedom House is clearly geared to an independent press system, thus under Mubarak, Egypt was considered "partially free" for while 99% of the press in Egypt was controlled by Mubarak, no one complained of censorship (You do not need to censor, if the person doing the writing knows what is permitted to be written or spoken on the air). When Mubarak was overthrown, Egypt's press became "partially free" under Freedom House guidelines do to the subsequent military government leaving things as they were in the print and media system (Thus loaded with Mubarak appointees) but became "Unfree" again under Morsi, for he tried to remove and replace those Mubarak appointees AND increase division within the New Media between pro and Anti Moslem Brotherhood media. I should point out Sisi's moves on the Press, increase control by Sisi, has kept Egypt "Unfree' under Freedom House guidelines. Just a comment on "Freedom of the Press' in countries with long history of control of the press by one group, efforts to end that control is viewed as anti-free press by Freedom house for such efforts often involved restrictions on "independent" media.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Tolerance is good. 
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)Watch all the fundies get together one of these days and start going after that too.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)Now, the parade was scheduled to start at 10:00 AM and end before 1:00 pm, alcohol was BANNED during that time period. You could have open containers only after 2:00 pm:
http://www.wpxi.com/news/news/local/pittsburgh-officials-detail-plans-st-patricks-day/nkSwJ/
In 2015 Penn State paid the Bars of located near Penn State NOT to serve Alcohol on St Patrick's day:
http://www.thecrosbylawfirm.com/state-college-bars-paid-not-to-serve-alcohol-on-st-patricks-day/
The Long Island Railroad banned Alcohol on St Patrick's day:
http://web.mta.info/supplemental/lirr/stpatricksday-15.htm
There is a growing movement to ban alcohol on St Patrick's day and it is NOT lead by fundamentalists, but people upset about all of the binge drinkers and the problems they cause.
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)I don't think binge drinking is such a good idea, but let's let people decide what is best for them.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)If you read about the push for Prohibition, the same complaints you hear today about binge drinking were being made at that time, and between those complaints and "Family law" issues (Custody, Visitation, Abuse, Support etc) were the driving force behind Prohibition.
Sidenote: During the 1920s, the courts report a decline in abuse of family members, while the divorce rate increased, the actual rate of people separating declined, and psoriasis of the liver cases declined (and a decline in GOP controlled inner cities, as the old GOP center of controls of such cites, the old Saloons, were closed) among other advances. All but the loss of most inner cities by the GOP where reversed in the 1930s with the repeal of prohibition.
MADD and other anti-Alcohol groups have learned from Prohibition, do NOT ban alcohol, but impose reasonable restrictions as to its use to minimize the harms Alcohol cause. Thus the ban on open containers in Vehicles, the ban on drinking while driving, the ban on alcohol in most public accommodations (i.e. Airports, trains, parks etc) and restrictions where you consume alcohol in public. In almost all court orders involving custody, 'Drinking to excess" is a ban entered in such orders (And if Alcohol is a real concern, the "Drinking to excess" is changed to an ban on Alcohol). Alcohol is a huge problem, much larger then any drug problem in custody cases and is addressed in most Custody and Visitation Orders for that reason.
Drinking to excess is a problem, no one cares about someone having a drink or two, but if they have more it better be at home OR some place where if any problems are seen, it is NOT seen by people other then his or her family (and in the case of Family, family members over 21).
Thus I foresee more and more restrictions as to drinking in public. It is easier to ban something then to permit it unless it causes problems. I do NOT see any restrictions on the actual sale of Alcohol, except when it comes to taxes for Legislatures loving taxing things people dislike (And such high taxes being opposed by prohibitionists, if the rate is so high as to encourage smuggling of alcohol or other illegal activities to obtain alcohol). I foresee bans in public events (and pressure to ban alcohol at "Private Events" like Football, Basketball and Baseball games, especially if such events are held in Publicly owned facilities) .
On the other hand, there is a huge profit in Alcohol, so a lot of Saloons and Bars will want to keep Alcohol legal, as long as they can sell Alcohol and shift the cost of the problems related to Alcohol onto the Public (i.e. tell problems drunks to leave, and when they leave and become problems on the street, it is the Police problem not theirs).
The Police have enough problems with drunks in such events, arriving drunk. The police do not need the additional problems of such drunks staying drunk by going to all the Alcohol stands and getting drunker. Thus the City of Pittsburgh's ban on drinking during the St Patrick's day parade, but permitting it afterward. I see more and more such regulations, for such bans, still permit drinking but NOT in relation to the public event.
An example of such ban is Ground Hog day in Punxsutawney Pa. The ban on alcohol is several years old, but the Collage students still show up and have a good time without the Alcohol being sold (I suspect some of the students arrived drunk or stoned but it is a much more behave crown since open use of either Alcohol or drugs was banned):
http://www.groundhog.org/
trof
(54,256 posts)That stuff is more deadly than ouzo.
Kali
(55,008 posts)the hangover isn't so bad. 
YOHABLO
(7,358 posts)smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)Never underestimate the tenacity of the Christian Taliban.
romanic
(2,841 posts)lol
No but being serious these Islamic groups need to get a fucking grip and focus on the fact that their radicals are making their religion look barbaric.
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)Seriously, they really need to lighten up.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)The Moslem Fundamentalists are in Saudi Arabia and they use Saudi money to expand their power to Afghanistan, Pakistan, Egypt and Syria. These radicals are NOT that strong in Turkey and have no support in Iran.
Wahhabism is the source of most radical Islam at the present time (The name the Wahhabists prefer is Salafi, these are just different names for the same thing).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salafi_movement
Now, the Moslem Brotherhood has been attacked, for it has power in Egypt and Syria (and elsewhere in the Middle East) but because the Moslem Brotherhood has long embraced NON VIOLENCE, the Moslem Brotherhood been viewed with hostility by the Salafist/Wahhabists. Morsi had support of both his own Moslem Brotherhood and the Salafists, but the later turned against him when the Egyptian Army decided to move against the Moslem Brotherhood.
http://www.ikhwanweb.com/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_Brotherhood
While both the Moslem Brotherhood and the Salafists are "Moslem Fundementalists", they differ:
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/News/502/32/Muslim%20Brothers%20and%20Salafis.aspx
Among other differences, the Moslem Brotherhood tends to want its members to conform to what the majority agrees to, but does not want to FORCE such compliance. The Salafist want to be able to FORCE such compliance.
These Salafists are the radicals in Islam and their are funded by Saudi Arabia. Al Queda is an off shoot of Salafistism (and not that far from Salafism).
More on al Queda and Salafism:
http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR600/RR637/RAND_RR637.pdf
Now, in the US, Iran is often portrayed as "Radicals" but except to overthrow the Shah, the Shiites of Iran have tended to look inward not outward. The reason the US has long opposed the Shiites is that Saudi Arabia have long seen the Shiites as a mortal threat to the House of Saud, mostly do to the fact that most and the largest oil fields in Saudi Arabia are in the Shiite Majority area along the Persian Gulf. This is also true of Iraq, the Southeast area of Iraq is where most Iraqi oil is and it is a Majority Shiite area (The Kurds control the other oil field in Iraq, but it is a small Oil Field compared to the ones in Southeast Iraq). What really ticks off the House of Saud, is the Iranian Oil fields are in the same region of the Gulf as is the oil fields of Iraq, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia and in a majority ARAB part of Iran, but the Arabs are Shiites not Sunni Moslems.
Now as to Turkey and the Moslem Brotherhood, Morsi made comments when he was President of Egypt, that he wanted Egypt to follow Turkey in its form of Government, a Civilian Government independent of military rule. Thus Turkey tended to have supported the rule by Morsi and many Moslem Brotherhood followers escaped to Turkey after the Coup:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/04/15/turkey-nurtures-egypt-s-terrorist-muslim-brothers.html
Turkey tends to support the Moslem Brotherhood as oppose to the Salafists:
http://www.todayszaman.com/op-ed_will-erdogan-end-up-destroying-the-muslim-brotherhood_381868.html
http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/turkey-and-egypts-great-game-in-the-middle-east
Yes, the Moslem Brotherhood has been viewed as Moslem Fundamentalists, but most of the Activity, even in Egypt, against non-moslems (Mostly Christians) have been tied to the Salafists NOT the Moslem Brotherhood. The worse that can be said about the Moslem Brotherhood is they wanted to reinstate the old Moslem tax on non-Moslem living under Moslem rule (and tie that tax with no military service). The Moslem Brotherhood actually believe woman have rights (The Moslem Brotherhood took their last stand a Rabaa Al-Adawiya Mosque, named after Rabia Basri, a Moslem female saint).
More on the subsequent massacre:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_2013_Rabaa_massacre
More on Rabia Basri:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabia_Basri
She is extremely popular in Turkey and Egypt, almost to the Level of the Virgin Mary in Catholic Countries (or goddess Athena in Ancient Athens).
Sorry, the present Government of Turkey is pro-Islam, but it is NOT considered Anti-anything else. The Moslem Brotherhood has a strong ally in Turkey, but the Moslem Brotherhood is traditionally NOT tied in with acts of violence. That is NOT true of the Salafist movement out of Saudi Arabia.
