Come Back, Turkish Censorship, All is Forgiven!
Turkish professor's 'rape' remark judged freedom of expression:
Turkey’s Higher Education Board, or YÖK, concluded that Selçuk University Theology Professor Orhan Çeker did not commit a crime when he said last month that women who wear revealing clothing would be partly responsible if they suffer any rape.
Pointing to Çeker’s right to free speech, the board said no further investigation was warranted in the case.
I really think that if you're in the censorship business, shutting this fellow up would be a fine place to start. Mind you, I don't think states should be in the censorship business. But teachers who say such things should be asked to resign.
It's not, in fact, a free speech issue. He is perfectly within his rights to say such a vile thing. But he isn't within his rights to say it and to expect to be employed as an educator of the young, particularly not at the taxpayer's expense.
How creepy.
- Comment (5)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
Jun '10
Re: Come Back, Turkish Censorship, All is Forgiven!
Well, at least his Islamic theology credentials are intact.
Jun '10
Re: Come Back, Turkish Censorship, All is Forgiven!
"Revealing clothing" is such a vague concept in Islamic society: would that be a lock of hair straying from a head scarf, one square inch of epidermis, or a mini-skirt? Not that any of them should be construed as an invitation to rape.
Edited on Mar 29, 2011 at 1:07pmMar '11
Re: Come Back, Turkish Censorship, All is Forgiven!
On the one hand, we insist that women can wear *anything* they like, and it is not an invitation to rape.
On the other hand, we bemoan the fact that mothers are complicit in dressing their daughters like prostitutes, advertising their sexual availability.
If both of the above statements are true, then it follows that it is entirely acceptable for a woman to walk down any street wearing virtually nothing, and doing so in a very sexually suggestive manner - as long as any resulting transaction is mutually agreed.
Is there *any* point at which the woman bears some responsibility for what might happen? Can we agree that walking into a bar wearing nothing but a long shirt that says "f--k me" is at least a stupid thing to do?
If I walk down a dark alley with a $100 bill in my hand, it is likely be taken from me by force. The thief is still guilty of a crime. But am I not, at least to some degree, asking for it?
I am not trying to be incendiary - I am just trying to see if there is a logical counterargument.
Edited on Mar 29, 2011 at 4:50pmRe: Come Back, Turkish Censorship, All is Forgiven!
In Itamar, I had a conversation with one of the families there about something that shocked me--not one of the homes, and certainly not the one that was invaded, had a burglar alarm. "We don't want to live like that!" I was told. I was appalled. I said that my mother had a burglar alarm, I had one, and that adults in the real world appreciated that there were bad people out there and took appropriate precautions. I felt awful after saying it, because I certainly didn't want to imply that I think people deserve to be murdered in their beds for not having a burglar alarm--that's not my point. But yes, I think people who walk into dangerous situations and say, "But hey, I should have the right to do this!" are fools. That's quite different from saying they share the moral responsibility for their victimization equally, or suggesting that women who don't cover themselves enough (in this case, I'm pretty sure he meant quite completely) are guilty of inviting rape.
Mar '11
Re: Come Back, Turkish Censorship, All is Forgiven!
Claire Berlinski, Ed.
People who walk into dangerous situations and say, "But hey, I should have the right to do this!" are fools. That's quite different from saying they share the moral responsibility for their victimization equally, or suggesting that women who don't cover themselves enough (in this case, I'm pretty sure he meant quite completely) are guilty of inviting rape. · Mar 29 at 6:46pm
But then the question turns from one of principle, to one of degree. If in principle we accept that one *can*, through dress and behavior invite rape (even though someone else is primarily guilty of the crime), then the only question left is "how much skin/hair/toe/eyeball" crosses the line.
I am no lover of a society that covers womens' faces - covering a face is removing a person's very identity, and I consider it evil. But if we accept that different cultures can legitimately have different standards, then did the profesor say anything wrong?
I guess the logical answer for me is to draw the line, and say: we do NOT accept every cultural definition of modesty. Cultures may expect a woman to cover - but not her face.