Anti-war demonstrators had planned to disrupt the reception on Wednesday evening and a group of celebrated artists including Tracey Emin and Vivienne Westwood had called on the gallery to cancel the “disgraceful” event.

Blair has also been forced to cancel a signing session for “A Journey” at a bookstore in central London.

“It has been postponed for the same reason as the book signing,” a spokesman for Blair said.

“We don’t want to put our guests through the unpleasant consequences of the actions of demonstrators.”

At the weekend, protestors hurled eggs and shoes at the former prime minister during a promotional event in Dublin.

Blair, prime minister for Labour between 1997 and 2007, led Britain into wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In particular, the occupation of Iraq by Western coalition forces was widely opposed and contributed to a dive in Blair’s popularity.

Emin, Westwood and musician Brian Eno, were among figures from the arts world who wrote a letter to the Guardian newspaper on Wednesday to voice their concern about the Tate Modern event.

“It is disgraceful that the Tate is being used for this purpose,” they said.

(Reporting by Matt Falloon; Editing by Steve Addison)

The Reuters

(AINA) — A number of Melbourne’s Assyrian and Hellenic organizations
issued a joint statement today condemning recent acts of vandalism
against two Sydney memorials dedicated to the Assyrian Genocide and
the Assyrian Levies (AINA 8-30-2010). The six signatories included two
Greek federations and a number of Assyrian political, social and
cultural organizations. The six signatories to the letter affirmed
their opposition to all acts of vandalism and voiced a call for
worldwide recognition of the Assyrian, Armenian and Pontian-Greek
Genocide.

The statement follows:

We the undersigned Melbourne-based Assyrian and Greek organizations
express our deep concern at recent events which have seen two Assyrian
memorial sites vandalised. Sydney’s Assyrian Genocide Monument
(recently dedicated by the Assyrian Universal Alliance) and the
Assyrian Levies Plaque (dedicated by the Assyrian Levies Association)
were both vandalised with physical damage and the painting of
anti-Assyrian profanities in the preceding week.

Both the mentioned monuments stand in tribute to millions of
Assyrians, Armenians and Pontian-Greeks who were ruthlessly murdered
in a calculated campaign of extermination by the Ottoman Empire.
Historians have termed this the first genocide of the twentieth
century. The Assyrian-Australian community, like other communities
residing in Australia, is entitled to remember these victims of
genocide with dignity and without hindrance from vandals. We
explicitly condemn the vandalism of the monument and memorial plaque
and call upon the relevant authorities to investigate the matter
hastily.

While the perpetrators of both these incidents are as yet unknown, and
police investigations are continuing, it is clear from the content of
the vandalism, on the Assyrian Genocide Monument in particular, that
those involved hold a strong level of enmity towards the Assyrian
people.

The struggle for the recognition of the Assyrian, Armenian and
Pontian-Greek Genocide is a continuing one. The historical truth of
the genocide is not in question, as suggested by the forces of
genocide denial. The school of scholarly evidence is overwhelming. In
fact, the world’s leading group of genocide scholars, the
International Association of Genocide Scholars has affirmed that the
Assyrian, Armenian and Pontian-Greek was indeed perpetrated by the
Ottoman Empire during its dying days. This recognition is in addition
to dozens of federal, state and local governments around the world who
have also recognized the Assyrian, Armenian and Pontian- Greek
genocide.

We renew our call for worldwide recognition of the Assyrian, Armenian
and Pontian-Greek Genocide. In particular, we call upon the Australian
federal government, in addition to state governments, to join their
counterparts around the world and add their voice to truth and justice
by recognising the genocide.

We the undersigned organisations extend our support to all
organizations that have contributed to the Assyrian Genocide
recognition movement, affirm our rejection of acts designed to insult
the memories of those who were murdered and condemn any attempt to
distort the truth of the Assyrian, Armenian and Pontian Greek
Genocide.

Australian Assyrian Arts and Literature Foundation
Federation of Pontian Associations of Australia
Panepirotic Federation of Australia
Assyrian Democratic Movement
The Popular Chaldean Syriac Assyrian Council
Beth-Nahrin Cultural Club

By Joseph Haweil

Sgt Mark Andrews was filmed dragging Pamela Somerville, 59, across the floor of the police station in Wiltshire before shoving her into the cell.

CCTV footage captured her lying on the floor for a minute before struggling to get up with blood pouring from a head wound.

Former soldier Sgt Andrews, 37, was convicted of assault causing actual bodily harm after a trial at Oxford Magistrates Court earlier this summer. He will be sentenced on Tuesday and is expected to lose his job. The case was brought after another officer at Melksham station reported his behaviour to a supervisor.

It happened in July 2008, when Ms Somerville was arrested after being found asleep in her car. She was detained for failing to provide a sample for a breath test. Then aged 57, she was thrown in the cell at Melksham police station after being grabbed in the station lobby by custody sergeant Andrews.

CCTV footage shows Andrews coming back into the cell after she gets to her feet and calls for help before another person comes to check her and paramedics are called. She was taken to Royal United Hospital in Bath and needed stitches in a gash above her eye.

ITN

Doctor Rainer Peters justified his discriminatory policy by alleging he had always what he called difficulties with Muslims.

He also initiated a series of other rules in his office deemed insulting and discriminatory to Muslims migrants, according to the report.

Germany has been gripped by a major wave of Islamophobia following the
release of a controversial book by German central banker Thilo Sarrazin who claimed Muslim migrants posed a threat to German society.

IRNA

Turkish newspaper: IDF using eq uipment sold to Turkey in 2007 to listen in on Turkish citizens, including political activists, members of opposition parties and academics.

By Zvi Bar’el

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/israel-uses-wiretapping-equipment-it-sold-to-turkey-on-turkish-citizens-1.311626

A claim that Israel is using wiretapping equipment it sold Ankara to listen in on Turkish citizens is making headlines in that country.

According to the pro-government newspaper Taraf, the Turkish army’s deputy chief of staff, Aslan Guner, purchased sophisticated wiretapping equipment in Israel in 2007 to aid Turkey in fighting the Kurdish PKK, which is considered a terror group by Turkey.

However, the newspaper claims the Israel Defense Forces communications branch has allegedly used the equipment to listen in on 2,000 Turkish citizens, including political activists, members of opposition parties and academics.

According to information Taraf received from a senior army officer, Turkey gave Israel technical details of the GSM, or Global System for Mobile Communications, used in Turkish cell phones, so it could conform the equipment to it. This information, according to the officer, allows Israel to listen in on the cell phone conversations of any Turkish citizen.

In response to the allegations, Guner, who at the time was also head of military intelligence, said that the equipment purchase had been authorized by the Turkish Defense Ministry and that Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan had also signed it.

	A banner featuring a picture of Turkey PM A banner featuring a picture of Turkey PM Recep Tayyip Erdogan outside a souvenir shop in Gaza City outside a souvenir shop in Gaza City, June 6, 2010.
	Photo by: AP

“The equipment was purchased to fight terror but if someone listened to other people it should be exposed,” Guner said.

The Turkish army said in a statement that it has launched an investigation into whether the system was used illegally.

Political activists allegedly targeted by the wiretaps are planning to sue those responsible, as Turkish law prohibits the military’s electronic communications command from installing wiretapping equipment. Only Turkey’s national intelligence organization, the police and the gendarmerie, a branch of the military responsible for maintaining public order, may install such equipment, after receiving permission from the court and the Communications Ministry.

Though Israel supplies Turkey with aerial drones and electronics used to fight terror, Ankara has also accused Israel of being behind PKK attacks. PKK actions increased immediately after the flotilla to Gaza, and critics allege that Israel wants to use them to show that it can strike at Turkey’s soft underbelly.

Report: U.S. to cancel drills

The anti-government newspaper Hurriyet reported yesterday that the United States planned to cancel its participation in military exercises with Turkey in October, ostensibly to force Turkey to invite Israel, which has taken part in the exercises since 2001.

However, a spokesman for the U.S. Embassy in Ankara said the U.S. had already participated in two such exercises this year and traditionally did not take part in more than two per year.

The spokesman made no reference to Israel’s exclusion. But last year, after Turkey excluded Israel from a joint exercise, both the United States and Italy canceled their participation.

A special constable has been jailed for three years after being convicted of a vicious assault on a drunken off-duty soldier while trying to arrest him.

Peter Lightfoot attacked Lance Corporal Mark Aspinall outside a bar in Wigan, Greater Manchester, in the early hours of July 27, 2008.

The attack, which was captured on CCTV, was described as “violent, excessive and unjustified” by the police watchdog.

Lightfoot, 40, was filmed pushing the soldier’s head into the ground and hitting him with a police helmet.

He was found guilty of the assault on the soldier, who had served in Afghanistan and Iraq, by a jury at Manchester Minshull Street Crown Court last month.

Two other officers involved in the incident, Sergeant Stephen Russell, 34, and Pc Richard Kelsall, 29, were cleared of assaulting the soldier.

L/Cpl Aspinall was himself initially charged and convicted of two counts of attacking the police officers by Wigan Magistrates, who did not view the CCTV.

He later won an appeal to have the verdict quashed at Liverpool Crown Court, where the judge cited concerns about the actions of the officers.

Haulage driver Lightfoot was also convicted of one count of perjury, in relation to the evidence he gave during the soldier’s trial.

He was jailed for one year for perjury, and two years for assault, to run consecutively.

Lightfoot, a twice-divorced father of two, had been given a warning about using excessive force during an arrest in 2007, the court heard.

However, he was nominated for a bravery award for confronting a robber who was wielding an imitation handgun and won a Special Constable of the Year award in 2003.

Police were called to the Walkabout bar in Wigan town centre after L/Cpl Aspinall was thrown out for causing trouble and allegedly shouting racial abuse at door staff.

Lightfoot used “unacceptable” force when making the arrest, Judge Lewis said, and it was lucky the soldier had not suffered a head injury.

“However badly he behaved, he did not deserve to be treated as you treated him during this short-lived bout of violence,” the judge added.

The judge rejected a claim for compensation for L/Cpl Aspinall.

Lightfoot’s father Jim said his son did nothing wrong: “I don’t think the video tells the story,” he said.

“I did 24 years as a Special Constable. I’ve been in the same position. You didn’t get a true picture from the video.”

Greater Manchester Police Assistant Chief Constable Garry Shewan said: “The judge’s sentence is a reflection of how serious this abuse of trust was.

“The conduct of Peter Lightfoot that day fell well below the standard we expect.

“His actions in no way reflect the committed and professional attitude shown by the vast majority of our Special Constables, who are highly trained in the best ways to safely detain prisoners.”

However badly he behaved, he did not deserve to be treated as you treated him
during this short-lived bout of violence.

Judge speaking to Lightfoot in court

The Sky

40-year-old Peter Lightfoot attacked Lance Corporal Mark Aspinall outside a bar in Wigan, Greater Manchester, in the early hours of July 27, 2008.

The incident was caught on CCTV, which showed Lightfoot pushing the soldier’s head into the ground and striking him with a police helmet.

He was found guilty of the assault on the soldier, who served in Afghanistan and Iraq, by a jury at Manchester Minshull Street Crown Court last month.

Lightfoot has now been jailed for one year for perjury, in relation to evidence he gave in court, and two years for assault, to run consecutively.

Two other officers involved in the incident, Sergeant Stephen Russell, 34, and Pc Richard Kelsall, 29, were cleared of assaulting the soldier.

ITN

The Ottoman-era Sultan Ahmed or Blue Mosque in Istanbul.

The controversy over a proposed mosque in lower Manhattan has spurred a wider debate about the nature of Islam. We asked six leading thinkers—Anwar Ibrahim, Bernard Lewis, Ed Husain, Reuel Marc Gerecht, Tawfik Hamid and Akbar Ahmed—to weigh in.

Editor’s Note: The controversy over a proposed mosque in lower Manhattan has spurred a wider debate about the nature of Islam. We asked six leading thinkers to answer the question: What is moderate Islam?

•Anwar Ibrahim: The Ball Is in Our Court

•Bernard Lewis: A History of Tolerance

•Ed Husain: Don’t Call Me Moderate, Call Me Normal

•Reuel Marc Gerecht: Putting Up With Infidels Like Me

•Tawfik Hamid: Don’t Gloss Over The Violent Texts

•Akbar Ahmed: Mystics, Modernists and Literalists

The Ball Is in Our Court

By Anwar Ibrahim

Skeptics and cynics alike have said that the quest for the moderate Muslim in the 21st century is akin to the search for the Holy Grail. It’s not hard to understand why. Terrorist attacks, suicide bombings and the jihadist call for Muslims “to rise up against the oppression of the West” are widespread.

The radical fringe carrying out such actions has sought to dominate the discourse between Islam and the West. In order to do so, they’ve set out to foment anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism. They’ve also advocated indiscriminate violence as a political strategy. To cap their victory, this abysmal lot uses the cataclysm of 9/11 as a lesson for the so-called enemies of Islam.

These dastardly acts have not only been tragedies of untold proportions for those who have suffered or perished. They have also delivered a calamitous blow to followers of the Muslim faith.

These are the Muslims who go about their lives like ordinary people—earning their livings, raising their families, celebrating reunions and praying for security and peace. These are the Muslims who have never carried a pocketknife, let alone explosives intended to destroy buildings. These Muslims are there for us to see, if only we can lift the veil cast on them by the shadowy figures in bomb-laden jackets hell-bent on destruction.

These are mainstream Muslims—no different from the moderate Christians, Jews and those of other faiths—whose identities have been drowned by events beyond their control. The upshot is a composite picture of Muslims as inherently intolerant, antidemocratic, inward-looking and simply unable to coexist with other communities in the modern world. Some say there is only one solution: Discard your beliefs and your tradition, and embrace pluralism and modernity.

This prescription is deeply flawed. The vast majority of Muslims already see themselves as part of a civilization that is heir to a noble tradition of science, philosophy and spirituality that places paramount importance on the sanctity of human life. Holding fast to the principles of democracy, freedom and human rights, these hundreds of millions of Muslims fervently reject fanaticism in all its varied guises.

Yet Muslims must do more than just talk about their great intellectual and cultural heritage. We must be at the forefront of those who reject violence and terrorism. And our activism must not end there. The tyrants and oppressive regimes that have been the real impediment to peace and progress in the Muslim world must hear our unanimous condemnation. The ball is in our court.

Mr. Ibrahim is Malaysia’s opposition leader.

A History of Tolerance

By Bernard Lewis

A form of moderation has been a central part of Islam from the very beginning. True, Muslims are nowhere commanded to love their neighbors, as in the Old Testament, still less their enemies, as in the New Testament. But they are commanded to accept diversity, and this commandment was usually obeyed. The Prophet Muhammad’s statement that “difference within my community is part of God’s mercy” expressed one of Islam’s central ideas, and it is enshrined both in law and usage from the earliest times.

This principle created a level of tolerance among Muslims and coexistence between Muslims and others that was unknown in Christendom until after the triumph of secularism. Diversity was legitimate and accepted. Different juristic schools coexisted, often with significant divergences.

Sectarian differences arose, and sometimes led to conflicts, but these were minor compared with the ferocious wars and persecutions of Christendom. Some events that were commonplace in medieval Europe— like the massacre and expulsion of Jews—were almost unknown in the Muslim world. That is, until modern times.

Occasionally more radical, more violent versions of Islam arose, but their impact was mostly limited. They did not become really important until the modern period when, thanks to a combination of circumstances, such versions of Islamic teachings obtained a massive following among both governments and peoples.

From the start, Muslims have always had a strong sense of their identity and history. Thanks to modern communication, they have become painfully aware of their present state. Some speak of defeat, some of failure. It is the latter who offer the best hope for change.

For the moment, there does not seem to be much prospect of a moderate Islam in the Muslim world. This is partly because in the prevailing atmosphere the expression of moderate ideas can be dangerous—even life-threatening. Radical groups like al Qaeda and the Taliban, the likes of which in earlier times were at most minor and marginal, have acquired a powerful and even a dominant position.

But for Muslims who seek it, the roots are there, both in the theory and practice of their faith and in their early sacred history.

Mr. Lewis, professor emeritus at Princeton, is the author of “From Babel to Dragomans: Interpreting the Middle East” (Oxford University Press, 2004).

Don’t Call Me Moderate, Call Me Normal

By Ed Husain

I am a moderate Muslim, yet I don’t like being termed a “moderate”—it somehow implies that I am less of a Muslim.

We use the designation “moderate Islam” to differentiate it from “radical Islam.” But in so doing, we insinuate that while Islam in moderation is tolerable, real Islam—often perceived as radical Islam—is intolerable. This simplistic, flawed thinking hands our extremist enemies a propaganda victory: They are genuine Muslims. In this rubric, the majority, non-radical Muslim populace has somehow compromised Islam to become moderate.

What is moderate Christianity? Or moderate Judaism? Is Pastor Terry Jones’s commitment to burning the Quran authentic Christianity, by virtue of the fanaticism of his action? Or, is Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, the spiritual head of the Shas Party in Israel, more Jewish because he calls on Jews to rain missiles on the Arabs and “annihilate them”?

The pastor and the rabbi can, no doubt, find abstruse scriptural justifications for their angry actions. And so it is with Islam’s fringe: Our radicals find religious excuses for their political anger. But Muslim fanatics cannot be allowed to define Islam.

The Prophet Muhammad warned us against ghuluw, or extremism, in religion. The Quran reinforces the need for qist, or balance. For me, Islam at its essence is the middle way in all matters. This is normative Islam, adhered to by a billion normal Muslims across the globe.

Normative Islam is inherently pluralist. It is supported by 1,000 years of Muslim history in which religious freedom was cherished. The claim, made today by the governments of Iran and Saudi Arabia, that they represent God’s will expressed through their version of oppressive Shariah law is a modern innovation.

The classical thinking within Islam was to let a thousand flowers bloom. Ours is not a centralized tradition, and Islam’s rich diversity is a legacy of our pluralist past.

Normative Islam, from its early history to the present, is defined by its commitment to protecting religion, life, progeny, wealth and the human mind. In the religious language of Muslim scholars, this is known as maqasid, or aims. This is the heart of Islam.

I am fully Muslim and fully Western. Don’t call me moderate—call me a normal Muslim.

Mr. Husain is author of “The Islamist” (Penguin, 2007) and co-founder of the Quilliam Foundation, a counterextremist think tank.

Putting Up With Infidels Like Me

By Reuel Marc Gerecht

Moderate Islam is the faith practiced by the parents of my Pakistani British roommate at the University of Edinburgh—and, no doubt, by the great majority of Muslim immigrants to Europe and the United States.

Khalid’s mother and father were devout Muslims. His dad prayed five times a day and his mom, who hadn’t yet learned decent English after almost 20 years in the industrial towns of West Yorkshire, gladly gave me the impression that the only book she’d ever read was the Quran.

I was always welcome in their home. Khalid’s mother regularly stuffed me with curry, peppering me with questions about how a non-Muslim who’d crossed the Atlantic to study Islam could resist the pull of the one true faith.

Determined to keep their children Muslim in a sea of aggressive, alcohol-laden, sex-soaked disbelief, they happily practiced and preached peaceful coexistence—even with an infidel who was obviously leading their son down an unrighteous path.

That is the essence of moderation in any faith: the willingness to exist peacefully, if not exuberantly, alongside nonbelievers who hold repellant views on many sacred subjects.

It is a dispensation that comes fairly easily to ordinary Muslims who have left their homelands to live among nonbelievers in Western democracies. It is harder for Muslims surrounded by their own kind, unaccustomed by politics and culture to giving up too much ground.

Tolerance among traditional Muslims is defined as Christian Europe first defined the idea: A superior creed agrees not to harass an inferior creed, so long as the practitioners of the latter don’t become too uppity. Tolerance emphatically does not mean equality of belief, as it now does in the West.

Even in Turkey, where authoritarian secularism has changed the Muslim identity more profoundly than anywhere else in the Old World, a totally secularized Muslim would never call a non-Muslim citizen of the state a Turk. There is a certain pride of place that cannot be shared with a nonbeliever. Wounded pride also does the Devil’s work on ecumenicalism. Adjusting to modernity, with its intellectually open borders and inevitable moral chaos, is brutally hard for monotheisms, especially for those accustomed to rule. But it happens.

When I told Khalid’s father that his children—especially his daughters—would not worship the faith as he and his wife had done, he told me: “They are living a better life than we have lived. That is enough.”

Mr. Gerecht, a former CIA operative, is a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

Don’t Gloss Over The Violent Texts

By Tawfik Hamid

In regards to Islam, the words “moderate’” and “radical” are relative terms. Without defining them it is virtually impossible to defeat the latter or support the former.

Radical Islam is not limited to the act of terrorism; it also includes the embrace of teachings within the religion that promote hatred and ultimately breed terrorism. Those who limit the definition of radical Islam to terrorism are ignoring—and indirectly approving of—the Shariah teachings that permit killing apostates, violence against women and gays, and anti-Semitism.

Moderate Islam should be defined as a form of Islam that rejects these violent and discriminatory edicts. Furthermore, it must provide a strong theological refutation for the mainstream Islamic teaching that the Muslim umma (nation) must declare wars against non-Muslim nations, spreading the religion and giving non-Muslims the following options: convert, pay a humiliating tax, or be killed. This violent concept fuels jihadists, who take the teaching literally and accept responsibility for applying it to the modern world.

Moderate Islam must not be passive. It needs to actively reinterpret the violent parts of the religious text rather than simply cherry-picking the peaceful ones. Ignoring, rather than confronting or contextualizing, the violent texts leaves young Muslims vulnerable to such teachings at a later stage in their lives.

Finally, moderate Islam must powerfully reject the barbaric practices of jihadists. Ideally, this would mean Muslims demonstrating en masse all over the world against the violence carried out in the name of their religion.

Moderate Islam must be honest enough to admit that Islam has been used in a violent manner at several stages in history to seek domination over others. Insisting that all acts in Islamic history and all current Shariah teachings are peaceful is a form of deception that makes things worse by failing to acknowledge the existence of the problem.

Mr. Hamid, a former member of the Islamic radical group Jamma Islamiya, is an Islamic reformer and a senior fellow at the Potomac Institute for Policy Studies.

Mystics, Modernists and Literalists

By Akbar Ahmed

In the intense discussion about Muslims today, non-Muslims often say to me: “You are a moderate, but are there others like you?”

Clearly, the use of the term moderate here is meant as a compliment. But the application of the term creates more problems than it solves. The term is heavy with value judgment, smacking of “good guy” versus “bad guy” categories. And it implies that while a minority of Muslims are moderate, the rest are not.

Having studied the practices of Muslims around the world today, I’ve come up with three broad categories: mystic, modernist and literalist. Of course, I must add the caveat that these are analytic models and aren’t watertight.

Muslims in the mystic category reflect universal humanism, believing in “peace with all.” The 13th-century Sufi poet Rumi exemplifies this category. In his verses, he glorifies worshipping the same God in the synagogue, the church and the mosque.

The second category is the modernist Muslim who believes in trying to balance tradition and modernity. The modernist is proud of Islam and yet able to live comfortably in, and contribute to, Western society.

Most Muslim leaders who led nationalist movements in the first half of the 20th century were modernists—from Sultan Mohammed V, the first king of independent Morocco, to M.A. Jinnah, who founded Pakistan in 1947. But as modernists failed over time, becoming increasingly incompetent and corrupt, the literalists stepped into the breach.

The literalists believe that Muslim behavior must approximate that of the Prophet in seventh-century Arabia. Their belief that Islam is under attack forces many of them to adopt a defensive posture. And while not all literalists advocate violence, many do. Movements like the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, and the Taliban belong to this category.

In the Muslim world the divisions between the three categories I have delineated are real. The outcome of their struggle will define Islam’s fate.

The West can help by understanding Muslim society in a more nuanced and sophisticated way in order to interact with it wisely and for mutual benefit. The first step is to categorize Muslims accurately.

Mr. Ahmed, the former Pakistani ambassador to Britain, is the chair of Islamic studies at American University and author of “Journey into America: The Challenge of Islam” (Brookings, 2010).

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703369704575461503431290986.html?mod=googlenews_wsj, SEPTEMBER 1, 2010

He also noted that in the course of recent diplomatic contacts Russia and Turkey discussed situation in the Caucasus, in particular “occupied territories of Azerbaijan.”

According to him, Turkey wants to restore relations with Armenia and between Armenia and Azerbaijan, Today’s Zaman reported.

“We want a solution through peaceful, diplomatic means, not military,” the Turkish daily quotes Davutoglu. The Turkish FM stressed that the occupied territories do not bring wealth to Armenia, adding that citizens are leaving the country. Unlike Azerbaijan, Armenia is going poorer day-by-day. “I am proud of Azerbaijan. There is a rapid growth in Azerbaijan, it is getting richer,” he stated.

He also touched upon Azerbaijani-Turkish strategic partnership agreement, stressing that it “is not directed against any country.”

As to possible opening of the Armenian-Turkish border, Davutoglu reassured Azerbaijan that there is no ground for concern. The opening is not on the agenda, he concluded.

http://news.am/eng/news/29106.html, August 28, 2010

Kolat called on the government to act to remove Sarrazin

A leader of Germany’s Turkish community has urged Chancellor Angela Merkel to fire the Bundesbank’s controversial board member Thilo Sarrazin over comments that Muslims are undermining German society.

Chairman of Germany’s Turkish Federation, Kenan Kolat, called for central bank board member Thilo Sarrazin to be removed from his post after fresh comments criticizing Muslims in Germany.

“I am calling upon the government to begin a procedure to remove Thilo Sarrazin from the board of the central bank,” Kolat told the German daily newspaper Frankfurter Rundschau on Saturday, August 28.

In his book “Deutschland schafft sich ab” (“Germany does away with itself”), Sarrazin claims that members of Germany’s Muslim community pose a danger to German society.

Sarrazin, a member of the Social Democrats (SPD) and Berlin’s former finance chief, was reported in June as saying that members of the Turkish and Arab community were making Germany “more stupid.” With his book, Kolat said, Sarrazin had overstepped a boundary.

“It is the climax of a new intellectual racism and it damages Germany’s reputation abroad,” Kolat said.

High birth-rates

Sarrazin says that his book is addressing cultural division

In a serialization of the forthcoming book in the German popular daily newspaper Bild, Sarrazin said that Germany’s Muslim community had profited from social welfare payments far more than they contributed, and that higher birth-rates among immigrants could lead to the Muslim population overtaking the “indigenous” one in terms of numbers.

Merkel’s chief spokesman Steffen Seibert said on Wednesday that many people would find the remarks “offensive” and “defamatory,” adding that the chancellor was concerned.

Members of the SPD have distanced themselves from Sarrazin’s comments, while Germany’s Green and Left parties have called for his removal from the central bank’s board.

A Bundesbank spokesman said that Sarrazin’s latest remarks were personal opinions, unconnected with his role on the board.

Blanket generalizations

Germany's first female Muslim minister said the comments lacked respect

Lower Saxony’s minister of social affairs, Ayguel Oezkan, Germany’s first-ever female Muslim minister, accused Sarrazin of doing damage to the Muslim community with blanket generalizations.

“There are a vast number of hard-working immigrants,” she told the weekly German newspaper Bild am Sonntag ahead of its publication on Sunday. “They deserve respect, not malice.”

“All of those who are involved in society, those who encourage their children, who learn German, who work and pay taxes and those who, as entrepreneurs, provide jobs – all of them deserve respect.”

In June, 65-year-old Sarrazin was reported as saying that Germany was “becoming on average more stupid” because immigrants were poorly educated.

‘Distorted image, half-truths’

Maria Boehmer, the government’s commissioner for integration, accused Sarrazin of giving “a distorted image of integration in Germany” that did not bear up to academic scrutiny.

“In his comments, he states only half truths,” she told Bild am Sonntag. “It is indisputable that, in education, there are currently a lot of immigrants with a lot of catching up to do. It does not take Sarrazin’s comments to establish that.”

In a lengthy interview with weekly newspaper Die Zeit, Sarrazin defended himself against the charge he was encouraging racism.

“I am not a racist,” he told the newspaper. “The book addresses cultural divisions, not ethnic ones.”

Last year, Sarrazin caused a storm by claiming that most of Berlin’s Arab and Turkish immigrants had no useful function “apart from fruit and vegetable trading.” As a result, the central bank stripped Sarrazin of some of his duties.

Author: Richard Connor (Reuters/dpa/AFP)
Editor: Toma Tasovac

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,5951829,00.html, 28.08.2010