Bakın kim ağlar ahval-i perişanımıza

Bakýn kim aðlar ahval-i periþanýmýza...
(22-04-2010) - Editör Taraf - Istanbul - 21.04.2010 - Son Güncelleme (27-04-2010)
1-Baþörtüsü yasaðýna çok öfkeliyim
Taraf - Istanbul - 21.04.2010 Nobel’li yazar Günter Grass Taraf’ta aç
dinle hiç alakam yok ama baþörtüsünü gericilik sayýp yasaklayanlara çok kýzýyorum. Günter Grass 7 Aralýk 1999’da
Stockholm’deki törende, Nobel Edebiyat Ödülü’nü kabul konuþmasýna bu duyuruyla baþlamýþtý: “Devamý
var.” Oradan on dokuzuncu yüzyýl edebiyatýna getirmiþti sözü. Dickens’ýn birçok romanýnýn, Tolstoy’un A
Karenina’sýnýn okuyucuyla ilk kez, dönemin gazetelerinde tefrika edilerek tanýþtýklarýný, her bölümün sonundaki
“devamý var” müjdesiyle, hiç bitmeyecekmiþ gibi sürüp gittiklerini anlatmýþtý. Aslýnda, sadece klasiklerin
deðil, bir bütün olarak edebiyatýn verdiði sonsuzluk duygusuydu söz ettiði... Hikâyelerin hiç bitmeyeceðini anlatýyordu bize. Ýnsa
yazýyý keþfinden çok önce baþlamýþtý hikâye anlatmaya ve baþladýktan sonra da hiç susmamýþtý aslýnda; devamý hep vardý,
Dün Taraf’a geldi Günter Grass. Üç buçuk saat boyunca, Ahmet Altan’la birlikte Grass’la sohbet ettik.
Seksen üçe yaklaþan yaþýna raðmen, yarý yaþýndakilerde az rastlanan bir enerjiyle konuþmasýna; hiç acele etmeksizin, aðzýnd
düþürmediði piposundan sakin nefesler alýp her cümlesinde küçük kavisler çizerek, parantezlerde oyalanarak ama yönünü de as
kaybetmeden, onca yýlýn biriktirdiði hatýralarla bugün kafasýný meþgul eden meseleler arasýnda gidip gelmesine kulak verdik.
Bizim onun yazýsýný tanýmamýzdan ve onun Taraf’ýn nasýl bir gazete olduðunu iþitmiþ olmasýndan öte bir samimiyet va
sohbetimizde. Ýlk kez deðil de, uzun aradan sonra yeniden buluþan eski arkadaþlar gibiydik. Söz bitmiyordu. Bizim onu
yormamayý, zamanýný fazla almamayý kendimize hatýrlattýðýmýz mahcup suskunluklarýmýza bile izin vermiyor;
Almanya’dan Türkiye’ye, Japonya’dan Yemen’e uzanan hikâyelerini, yazýsýnda yarattýðý “üç
zamanlý uzam” misali geçmiþi, þimdiyi ve geleceði bir tür “miþ-yor-cek” kipinde birleþtiren bir akýcýlýkla anla
bizzat sürüklüyordu.
Edebiyat, insana küçüklüðü kadar sonsuzluðunu da hatýrlatýr. Grass’la konuþmak da biraz böyleydi. Yaþadýklarýný yorgu
deðil, hâlâ taze bir öfkeyle taþýyan gerçek bir yazar o. Grass’ýn enerjisi ve öfkesi bana da bulaþtý sanýrým; sohbetimizi y
için masama oturduðumda, “devamý var” dedim kendi kendime; bir haberden ziyade, hiç bitmeyecek bir
hikâyenin bugün tefrika edilecek olan bölümünü yazacaðým hissine kapýldým...
“Taksim’de aman bir þey olmasýn”Danzig (bugünkü Gdansk) þehrinde doðan, anayurdunu Polonya sýnýrla
içinde býrakýp, anadili olan Kaþubya lehçesini de romanlarýnýn birkaç istisnai bölümü dýþýnda hafýzasýna gömdükten sonra,
Almanca’nýn en büyük edebiyatçýlarýndan ve Almanya’nýn en çok tartýþýlan yazarlarýndan biri haline gelen Günt
Grass’la sohbetimize, Ermeni meselesinden baþladýk.
Grass’ýn on yedi yaþýndayken Hitlerjugend üyesi olarak Nazilerin SS birliklerinde savaþtýðýný anlatýp, kendi geçmiþiyle,
biraz gecikerek ama büyük bir samimiyetle yüzleþtiði Soðaný Soyarken kitabýndan yola çýkan bir yazý yazmýþtým geçen hafta
Taraf’ta. Ýstanbul’a gelip, “Ben geçmiþimin gerçeðine bakabildim; gözlerimi yaþartsa da soðan gibi
soyabildim kendimi; siz de kendi tarihinizle, Ermenilerin bu topraklarda yaþadýklarýyla yüzleþebilmelisiniz” diye bizlere
seslenmesinden etkilenmiþtim.
Grass, uzatmalý Ýstanbul ziyaretinde kendisine refakat eden Osman Okkan ve Ýlker Sayýn’la birlikte gazetemize gelir
gelmez, kendisine kýsmen tercüme edilen o yazýmdan bahsedip “Ben Ermeni meselesiyle ilgili konuþuyorum çünkü
vahþetin yükünden kurtulabilmek ve bir daha tekrarlanmamasý gerektiðini haykýrabilmek için, tarihle yüzleþmenin þart olduðunu
Alman toplumundan hem bizzat kendimden biliyorum” dedi.
24 Nisan akþamý Taksim Tramvay Duraðý’nda bir grup Türkiyelinin ilk kez 1915’teki Büyük Felaket’i anma
hazýrlýðý yaptýklarýný anlattým Grass’a... “Çok önemli bir þey bu,” deyip uyardý hemen, “Aman bir þ
olmasýn, provokasyon olmasýn, iþ þiddete dönmesin.” Planlanan toplantýnýn mumlar ve siyah giysiler içinde sessiz bir
anma olduðunu söyleyince, “Böylesi en doðrusu” dedi.
“Anneannem de baþýný örterdi...”Ahmet Altan’ýn bize katýlmasýyla, Ermeni soykýrýmýndan, Grass’
“ikisini asla kýyaslamýyorum” dediði Holokost’a uzandý söz. Oradan, faþizmin güncel tezahürlerine,
milliyetçiliðin bilumum maskelerine, “ulusal gurur” denen þeyin toplumlarý nasýl da zehirleyebildiðine vardýk.
Ben kâh iki edebiyatçýnýn siyaset ve tarih konuþmasýna bunun benim için ne büyük bir ayrýcalýk olduðunu hissederek katýldým
Günter Grass’ý ve dolayýsýyla da Ahmet Altan’ý siyasetten bir nebze koparýp dilden, yazýdan, romandan
konuþmaya çekebilmek için meraklý çocuk sorularý sordum. Grass’ýn ve Altan’ýn bir gözleri Avrupa tarihine, diðer
gözleri edebiyatýn geleceðine dikilmiþ halde, birlikte ayný ufka baktýklarýný hissettiðim anlarda ise susup onlarý dinledim.
Bu konuþmanýn ayrýntýlarýný daha sonra yazmak üzere, þimdilik Günter Grass’ýn, sohbetin orta yerinde, “Belki so
olarak þunu söyleyebilirim” diye açtýðý ve açar açmaz “sonsöz” olmayacaðýný sanýrým kendisinin de kavra
parantezi aktarmak istiyorum sadece.
“Alman hesabýyla seksen iki, Türk hesabýyla seksen üç yaþýndayým” dedi Grass, “ama ihtiyar
hissetmiyorum kendimi, çünkü yaþlandýkça mülayimleþen, bilgeleþen insanlardan olamadým ben. Hâlâ öfkeli, hem de çok
öfkeliyim.”
“Yazarlar öyledir” dedi Ahmet Altan. Piposundan bir nefes çekip “mesela” diye devam etti
Grass, “Bu baþörtüsü meselesi çok ama çok öfkelendiriyor beni.”
O ana kadar hiçbirimiz dinden, örtüden, laiklikten, inanç hürriyetinden söz açmamýþtýk ama Grass’ýn lafý buraya getirme
içinde dolaþýp durduðumuz ortak hikâyenin bütününe gayet uygun düþüyordu.
“Benim dinle hiçbir alakam yok. Ateistim” dedi Grass, “ve dindarlara gerici gibi bakanlar, baþörtüsünü
gericiliðin simgesi gibi gösterenler beni öfkelendiriyor. Fransa’da, Almanya’da, Türkiye’de laiklik adýna
bunu yapanlara kýzýyorum. Benim anneannem de baþýný örterdi; belki de kendince dinsel bir inançtandý bilmiyorum. Ama ne fa
eder. Baþörtüsü yapay bir sorun; böyle yapay bir sorunla insanlarýn üzerine gitmelerine sinirleniyorum.”
Bunun üzerine Ahmet Altan, “Bu yapay soruna duyduðunuz öfke Türkiye’de çok geniþ bir kesimi derinden
etkileyecek” dedi ve oradan, sadece azýnlýklarýn deðil, çoðunluðun bile “ikinci sýnýf vatandaþ” muamelesi
görebildiði bir düzenin tuhaflýðýný konuþmaya geçtik.
http://www.kriter.org - www.kriter.org
Powered by Mambo
Generated: 13 October, 2016, 04:29
http://www.taraf.com.tr/haber/48872.htm
2- Banning the burqa is simply not British
- 24 Jan 2010
- The Sunday Times
- [email protected]
‘UKIP IS CHANNELLING
THE FEAR OF TERRORISM IN THE PURSUIT OF VOTES’
‘As I was once strolling through the inner city, I suddenly happened upon an apparition in a long caftan with black
hair locks. Is this a Jew? was my first thought . . . but the longer I stared . . . the more my first question was transformed
into a new conception: is this a German?”
That is the passage from Mein Kampf in which Adolf Hitler describes how, walking as a student through the less
salubrious streets of Vienna, he had suddenly understood the true threat that the Jews presented to the Germanic way of
life. I hadn’t read those words since I was a student, but somehow they returned to my mind last week, prompted
by the UK Independence party’s announcement that it would campaign to “ban the burqa”.
This is not to say that Lord Pearson, UKIP’s new leader, is a figure in the Hitler mould. Far from it. Having met
Pearson on more than one occasion, I know him to be a civilised and considerate person. Yet in attempting to gain
market share from the British National party in the run-up to the general election, Pearson is indulging in a lethally
dangerous form of identity politics; and in his claims to be standing up for “British values”, the UKIP leader
is in fact trashing them.
Pearson declared last week: “We are not Muslim-bashing, but this [the wearing of the burqa] is incompatible with
Britain’s values of freedom and democracy.” First of all, he absolutely is “Muslim-bashing”
— it’s of a piece with his gratuitous remarks in his first interview as party leader that “the Muslim
population is rocketing; their birth rate is much higher than ours”. (In that Vienna passage from Mein Kampf, Hitler
used the same old “they’re outnumbering us” tactic: “Especially the inner city and the areas
north of the Danube canal swarmed with a people who even externally no longer bore a similarity to Germans.”)
Second, how is it compatible with “Britain’s values of freedom and democracy” to use the force of
the state to prevent a small number of law-abiding women from wearing an item of clothing they regard as part of their
religious observance, and to arrest them on the streets if they persist in exercising their conscience in a way that harms
nobody?
On Thursday’s edition of Newsnight, confronted by a formidably articulate female Muslim student (who was not
wearing a burqa), Pearson tried a different tack. The burqa, he claimed, was “oppressive to women” and
should be banned for that reason. His interlocutor was magnificent in her incredulity: “So we should criminalise
women in order to empower them? Send them to jail to free them?” She might also have noted that UKIP’s
sudden embrace of feminism is desperately insincere: it seemed to have no problem with its MEP Godfrey Bloom when
he declared that the problem with women in this country was that they didn’t clean behind the fridge properly.
There are legitimate feminist arguments against the wearing of burqas: that it enforces the idea that women should be
ashamed of revealing themselves in public, and that it is a pseudo-religious manifestation of male prejudice against
women; but it is absurd — morally and legally — to force women to be feminist against their wishes. It may
be that there are some British women wearing the burqa not because they want to, but because they are forced to. I
suspect this would be a nugatory minority of a minority; but how would the law establish which of these women were
wearing the burqa as “an act of oppression”? Presumably their husbands or parents would have to be
arrested as well.
Does UKIP — and those who support its proposition — think that there is so little genuine crime in this
country that the police would welcome this as some way of filling up empty cells? It would be analogous to the legislative
fiasco of the banning of hunting with hounds, which occurred largely because Labour MPs regarded as deeply offensive
the sight of the English gentry dressed in red charging around on horses — exactly as offensive as Pearson and
his colleagues find the sight of women in full veil on British streets.
In effect, UKIP, which purports to be a libertarian party as far removed as possible from new Labour busybodyism, is
appealing to the same lamentable culture of offence to which this government has so shamelessly pandered. As Shami
Chakrabarti, the director of Liberty, recently pointed out, this “political and legislative culture that conflates
irritation, offence, alarm and distress has promoted a general fear of difference and dissent”.
One could see a glimpse of this effect on the national character during BBC1’s Question Time last week, when
the mooted burqa ban was discussed. A member of the audience declared that she was “intimidated” by
the sight of burqas. Cue sympathetic nods from the panellists. Since it is not done for politicians to show irritation with
any member of the studio audience, no matter how inane the remark, none of them said what needed to be said: get a
grip, woman, and if you are genuinely terrified of your neighbour because she is wearing a full veil, see a psychiatrist
about your unusual phobia.
Perhaps, however, this woman had merely been reading Pearson’s letter in The Times the previous day, in which
he warned darkly that “one of the 21/7 bombers escaped wearing the burqa: the hidden face can also hide a
terrorist”. That’s right: any of those veiled women you see on the high street — I’m not
speaking from experience, but then I live in East Sussex — may not just be buying groceries; they may instead be
casing the area to see which shops would be easiest to blow up. On the other hand, if they were not wearing the full veil,
then the neighbourhood would be safer, since we might (according to Pearson’s reasoning) be able to tell by
http://www.kriter.org - www.kriter.org
Powered by Mambo
Generated: 13 October, 2016, 04:29
staring at their uncovered face whether or not they were a terrorist. This is, again, absurd, even if you believe that the
true purpose of UKIP’s policy is to prevent Islamist terrorism; in fact, its purpose is much less constructive
— to channel the fear of it in the pursuit of votes.
Nicolas Sarkozy, so transparently a mountebank, is attempting a similar burqa ban in France; it follows the banning of all
“ostentatious” religious emblems, including the veil, from schools and public buildings. France, however,
since its bloody revolution, has had a determinedly anti-clerical political culture, regarding religion as something that has
no place whatever in the public realm. That is not the British way; we evolved — not least as a result of our own
historical experience — a much more tolerant approach to open expressions of religious difference, which can be
summarised by the phrase “live and let live”.
Christians in this country understand this well, which is why a ComRes poll last week reported that 85% of self-described
Christians agreed that, whatever your faith, the law should protect the right to wear its symbols, provided they do not
harm others. If the would-be populists of UKIP think that the average British churchgoer would be enthused by the
attempt to stamp out the visible manifestations of a minority’s adherence to Islam, in effect to criminalise religious
conscience, they are much mistaken.
In fact, they don’t even carry their own party united behind the new policy. One online UKIP forum contains the
following comment from a party member: “This call to ban the burqa is simply pandering to those who might just
vote BNP. I think in future we as frontline members will now find it a touch more difficult to convince the public that we are
not the BNP in blazers.”
Precisely so; and it would be nothing less than UKIP’s leadership deserves. Shame on you, Lord Pearson. You
have betrayed the very British principles of freedom and liberty that your party swears to defend.
http://timesonline.newspaperdirect.com/epaper/viewer.aspx
http://www.kriter.org - www.kriter.org
Powered by Mambo
Generated: 13 October, 2016, 04:29