Turkey withdraws from the Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

Meanwhile in reality, not in rightwing-populist parallel universe version of Turkey:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Turkish President Erdogan justified his decision to withdraw from the Istanbul Convention by saying it has been 'hijacked by a group attempting to normalize homosexuality.' Lawyers say the withdrawal is unconstitutional.

Turkish lawyers, meanwhile, say it's very difficult to just pull out of an international accord and describe President Erdogan's unilateral move as extremely unusual. Serap Yazici, an expert on constitutional law, points out that withdrawal from such agreements must follow specific rules: Turkey's parliament must first pass a law announcing Ankara's exit from the convention before President Erdogan can act on the law.
Women, she said, should fight the president's move in court. "I invite all women to launch invalidity proceedings to stop this,” she said.

Women's rights groups go to court

Her appeal was heard. An organization fighting for the rights of women and children in Turkey has already filed a suit against the government. The group is arguing that the president does not have the power to invalidate an international agreement that was passed by parliament, simply by decree.

https://www.dw.com/en/bizarre-reason...nal/a-56964581

It has nothing to do with incompability of islam with western values, in fact the public in Turkey is tired of femicide and violence against women:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Yet another murder of a woman has shocked the Turkish public and caused a wave of outrage on social media. Late on Tuesday evening last week, the 20-year-old art student Ceren Ozdemir from the Black Sea province of Ordu set out for home after a ballet class. A man followed her to the door of her house, unnoticed. There, he pulled out a knife and stabbed her several times. The student succumbed to her injuries in hospital.

The suspected murderer had already been convicted 12 times for offenses such as infanticide and robbery. Before he killed the young woman, he had escaped from prison. A day later, the man was arrested at a bus stop; state prosecutors are investigating the case.
It has not been just the Turkish public that has been stunned by this crime: High-ranking politicians have also expressed their condolences and announced that there will be consequences. Among other things, many Turks are horrified that a murderer could escape from prison.
...

But the internet community and women's rights groups have put government and judiciary under increasing pressure. In the past few months, several acts of extreme violence have made headlines and vividly shown that often, not enough action is taken when women are victims of violence.

The murder of 23-year-old Sule Cet from Ankara — and the way this crime was depicted by investigators — also caused widespread outrage. The young woman was raped in the office by two drunk men, one of them her boss, and then thrown out of the window. The men told the police afterward that Cet had taken her own life.
The coroner found that the victim had suffered a broken neck and tears in the anal region and that she had narcotic substances in her blood. The medical examiner and the defense lawyer nonetheless described the case as "consensual sex" — after all, Cet had "decided to drink alcohol with a man in an isolated place."

The trial went on for half a year and was accompanied by demonstrations and statements of solidarity from women, along with much response on social media. On Tuesday last week, the court in Ankara announced that one perpetrator was receiving a life sentence and his accomplice an almost 19-year prison term.

"We will never forget that the bureau of investigation tried to hush up the case. We women resisted and showed solidarity,” said Hulya Gulbahar, spokeswoman of the women's rights organization "Platform for Equality Mechanisms," after the sentences were announced.

https://www.dw.com/en/femicides-in-t...red/a-51587652

Erdogan is drowning. He can't get the inflation under control, he fired the third central bank chief a few days ago.

He's pandering to some ulltraconservatives of his ruling party to stabilize his rule.

Thats not islamistic zealotism, thats desparation of an autocrat.

[Cope]

You know your objection is factitious when you approach someone's choice of words and arguments as if they raped someone. You are basically trying to make your position appear more sound by sheer projection. It's a bad way to argue a position. You're not presenting a rebuttal, but a mere rant with a few sophisticated sounding terms.

Gainsaying isn't an argument.

Maybe you should remember another word: hypocrisy. Then you should recall all instances this word accompanies the word 'religious'. Plainly said: arguing that the actions of a government is a representation of a particular religion is just a dubious over-generalization.

Turkey has a long secular tradition and is Islamic. Erdogan is just a far-right nationalist who wants to "make Turkey great again"; perhaps his popularity is more based on the fact he presents a strong Turkey abroad, constructs monumental public buildings, trumps up the Ottoman past and allows religious expression in previously forbidden parts of public life rather than the suppression of women.

These attempts to decouple Islam from Turkish nationalism/conservatism (even as you openly admit to Erdogan’s glorification of the Ottoman Sultanate) only show inconsistency. Contrast this the with the immediate and unapologetic effort to decry Christianity (which has nothing to do with this thread and was introduced as a distraction) as the real obstacle.

It's becoming clear you can't cope with the nuances of political theory. See above.

There are few things more obnoxious than the presentation of ideological sophistry as "nuance" or intellectualism.

[Kritias]

These attempts to decouple Islam from Turkish nationalism/conservatism (even as you openly admit to Erdogan’s glorification of the Ottoman Sultanate) only show inconsistency. Contrast this the with the immediate and unapologetic effort to decry Christianity (which has nothing to do with this thread and was introduced as a distraction) as the real obstacle.

Apparently you fail to understand that Turkish nationalists are best motivated by the Ottoman Empire because it spanned three continents, and a was superpower in Europe for about 400 years. Whereas now Turkey has been relegated to a minor regional power at best. Past glory and importance trumps religion. Every time.

You also fail to grasp the fact that even conservative Turks are supporting Kemalism, the movement that secularized and modernized the country. But then again you failed to read the post right before you posted this one, which actually disproves the imaginary country you write against.

Basically you fail to understand that people are diverse and extremely complicated beings - and don't adhere to stuff because "Muslims". But that's just how it goes with you. At this point, I wouldn't be surprised if you have flashbacks of the Midnight Express every time someone writes 'Turkey".

Again, my point is specific interpretations of any religion will lead to suppression of women. Just take a look in violence against women indexes in Christian cults. Or, read the Bible.

There are few things more obnoxious than the presentation of ideological sophistry as "nuance" or intellectualism.

You mean something like... Being turned into a strawman?

[alhoon]

Posting your physical reaction to a poster's opinions has nothing to do with the topic and is disruptive. If you disagree with said opinions, explain why in an impersonal and respectful manner. Please remember the rules of the mudpit

[AnthoniusII]

Maybe you should remember another word: hypocrisy. Then you should recall all instances this word accompanies the word 'religious'. Plainly said: arguing that the actions of a government is a representation of a particular religion is just a dubious over-generalization.

Turkey has a long secular tradition and is Islamic. Erdogan is just a far-right nationalist who wants to "make Turkey great again"; perhaps his popularity is more based on the fact he presents a strong Turkey abroad, constructs monumental public buildings, trumps up the Ottoman past and allows religious expression in previously forbidden parts of public life rather than the suppression of women.
.

2 things. Islam as Prophet Muhamad left it and nit the kind of people made it these days RESPECTS WOMEN. That is the 2nd fontamental sin on Islam by Erdogan (ignoring Prophet Muhamad's Achtiname about the protecting Churches, Momasteries, Synagogs etc).
The 2nd mistake Erdogan makes is that in his mind he imagines him self and Mohamad the Conqueror .Few months , speaking to his infantry (because Air Force is cropled after the percecutions) he mentioned Apr Aslan as the father of his nation.
But he "forgot" the epigraph that was grave one Arp Aslan's tomp after his murder:

'All those that have seen the glory of Arp Aslan reaching heaven, watch it now turning to dust.'

Erdogan's half knowlege of history and religion will lead his own people to sufair.
Thnk tanks in US bring in to surface the old scenario of breaking Turkey in to two countries , Turkey and Kurdistan.

[ioannis76]

If anyone wanted to describe Turkey's attitude to women, I think one would be hard pressed to do so more eloquently than this video:

https://twitter.com/SLagodinsky/stat...83767161622535

Ursula Von Den Laien standing because a seat was not provided for her.

[PointOfViewGun]

If anyone wanted to describe Turkey's attitude to women, I think one would be hard pressed to do so more eloquently than this video:
https://twitter.com/SLagodinsky/stat...83767161622535
Ursula Von Den Laien standing because a seat was not provided for her.

You merely show the desperation in finding something negative about Turkey which is funny in this case. There are many issues to raise against Turkey, yet, that is not one of them. President of the European Council Charles Michel and Turkish President Erdoğan sit on chairs while President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen and Turkish Foreign Minister Çavuşoğlu sit on couches. In the video you can clearly see the couch she's sitting on...

[Odenat]

Exactly. If i know correctly, the president of European council (Charles Michel) is a more important position than the president of European Commission and that is why he is sitting with Erdoğan. On the other hand, Ursula von der Leyen is sitting at the couch just like Turkish foreign minister. Strange that he is cut from the photos published at Western media. I'm sure that is nothing to do with anti-Turkish propaganda, it must be a honest mistake (!)

https://twitter.com/w7AHdBfLum0h3ew/...566465/photo/1

[PointOfViewGun]

Charles Michel represents the heads of state within EU while von der Leyen represents the parliament.

[Nebaki]

You merely show the desperation in finding something negative about Turkey which is funny in this case. There are many issues to raise against Turkey, yet, that is not one of them. President of the European Council Charles Michel and Turkish President Erdoğan sit on chairs while President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen and Turkish Foreign Minister Çavuşoğlu sit on couches. In the video you can clearly see the couch she's sitting on...

You can really want to see an insult in everything, but that the turkish government adheres to the order of the EU hierarchy correctly in terms of protocol and that the council president - who is in charge of the commission president - is placed next to the state president is absolutely flawless. If the Federal Chancellor and The Federal President visited the Turkish President together, the seating arrangements would probably look similar. I deliberately do not use the names of the people, as this is a purely formal matter that has nothing to do with the people. You can think what you want about this or that person, there are protocol rules for formal handling, and regardless of the published opinion, it is gratifying that all states still adhere to civilian manners.

That known "User" just opened another Topic which already was been discussed even Years before, but more related of course to "Turkey" then really a Topic about the Issue which is not just being related to Turkey.

In my Opinion the Posts of this Topic just belongs to this Thread: https://www.twcenter.net/forums/show...Thread/page292

Anything else especially related to Turkey from that User that trys always to keep up Threads about Turkey up-to-date with just some garbage twitter Posts belong to this Thread:

https://www.twcenter.net/forums/show...blicity-here)!

It is really Disgusting that this behaviour is still labelled as "Freedom of Speech" while it is clearly something really different in my Opinion.

[Belisarius]

To be fair the criticism is warranted but before I continue, as a general rule of thumb one must distinguish between Turkey and the Turkish Government, I see a lot of references here to Turkey, this is unfair as states don't operate as hive minds. Now, the Turkish Government has been engaging with the European Union for decades and has diplomats situated in every Member State. Turkey is a neighboring state and the Turkish Government would be well versed in European Protocol. Turkey has centuries of history in diplomacy that the current government can look on. There is no way in hell that none of the persons in the Turkish delegation did not know that the President of the Commission and the President of the Parliament hold office with equal seniority. Furthermore, it is also not the first meeting they had, when Jean-Claude Juncker was President of the Commission he was given a chair.

Every nuance of these meetings contains some meaning and leaving the President of the Commission standing, a person who is a champion of the Istanbul Convention, the same week they pull out is rather coincidental. I don't believe in coincidences in politics.

[Pontifex Maximus]

I don't believe in coincidences in politics.

And just like that, you're banned from twitter.

[PointOfViewGun]

To be fair the criticism is warranted but before I continue, as a general rule of thumb one must distinguish between Turkey and the Turkish Government, I see a lot of references here to Turkey, this is unfair as states don't operate as hive minds. Now, the Turkish Government has been engaging with the European Union for decades and has diplomats situated in every Member State. Turkey is a neighboring state and the Turkish Government would be well versed in European Protocol. Turkey has centuries of history in diplomacy that the current government can look on. There is no way in hell that none of the persons in the Turkish delegation did not know that the President of the Commission and the President of the Parliament hold office with equal seniority. Furthermore, it is also not the first meeting they had, when Jean-Claude Juncker was President of the Commission he was given a chair.

Every nuance of these meetings contains some meaning and leaving the President of the Commission standing, a person who is a champion of the Istanbul Convention, the same week they pull out is rather coincidental. I don't believe in coincidences in politics.

According to Charles Michel that's not the case. He came out and said that Turkish side was strictly following the protocol. EU's team would likely have approved the seating arrangement. No, they do not have equal seniority in EU protocol. Parliament comes first, then the Council, and then the Commission. The parliament represents the will of the people. The council represents the heads of state within EU. The commission represents the legislative body.

Also, Turkey withdrew from the Istanbul Convention on March 20th, over 2 weeks earlier.

Incidentally, many publications focus on showing photos the instance Ursula von der Leyen was standing as if he was not given anything to sit on.

The NYT's title "Two Presidents Visited Turkey. Only the Man Was Offered a Chair." would not have the same impact if they used the following picture as cover.





In the end, this is nothing but a petty anti-Turkish media campaign. I'd normally refrain from making such a suggestion but the falsehood here is just blatantly obvious. It undermines all the concerns about Turkey and its withdrawal from the convention. It shows how media companies do not believe real issues make people read the news but that sensationalized falsehoods make a better story. In the end, it merely contributes to polluting the well...

[Belisarius]

According to Charles Michel that's not the case. He came out and said that Turkish side was strictly following the protocol. EU's team would likely have approved the seating arrangement. No, they do not have equal seniority in EU protocol. Parliament comes first, then the Council, and then the Commission. The parliament represents the will of the people. The council represents the heads of state within EU. The commission represents the legislative body. .

The statement by Charles Michel is also not suggesting they adhered to protocol, he says – “And despite a clear desire to do the right thing, the strict interpretation of the protocol rules by the Turkish authorities gave rise to a distressing situation: the differentiated – even inferior – treatment accorded to the President of the European Commission. He does not say, protocol, he says their interpretation of protocol, he is being diplomatic. He also goes on to say, “I am therefore saddened on two counts. Firstly, by any suggestion that I may have been indifferent to the protocol misstep with respect to Ursula, especially considering how honored I am to be a part of the European project, two of whose four main institutions are headed by women, Ursula von der Leyen and Christine Lagarde. And how proud I am that a woman, the first in history to hold the office, succeeded me as Prime Minister of Belgium.”

I’d have to disagree with your assessment based on that link. Protocol does not always equate to seniority, as an example in Council protocol dictates Member States are seated and listed within legislation in a set order which, as far as I remember is done within the order of sitting Council Presidencies. So for example while Portugal is sitting at the head of Council - Portugal as a Member State has no seniority over other heads of state.. sort of. It would be link linking this https://publications.europa.eu/code/pdf/370000en.htm and saying Belgium should be on a chair near the Turkish President and then piling the others on a sofa.

The issue of seniority is complex and has been a source of tension politically and yes, Parliament has had an increase in powers conferred to it but taking that to the point where a third country seats our Commission President In front of a Minister of the State is not established procedure.

Competencies of the EU are too complex for this. The TFEU 2 (2) “The Union shall have competence, in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty on European Union, to define and implement a common foreign and security policy, including the progressive framing of a common defence policy.” 3 (2) “The Union shall also have exclusive competence for the conclusion of an international agreement when its conclusion is provided for in a legislative act of the Union or is necessary to enable the Union to exercise its internal competence, or in so far as its conclusion may affect common rules or alter their scope.” Article 13 (2) “

Each institution shall act within the limits of the powers conferred on it in the Treaties, and in conformity with the procedures, conditions and objectives set out in them. The institutions shall practice mutual sincere cooperation.

” According to Article 17, the Commission “

shall exercise coordinating, executive and management functions, as laid down in the Treaties. With the exception of the common foreign and security policy, and other cases provided for in the Treaties, it shall ensure the Union's external representation.”

The European Parliament cannot operate unilaterally, it operates with Co-decision with the Commission serving as the executive working with the Council, Parliament and European Council.

That said there are people with PHD’s trying to decipher the EU’s treaties looking at the division of power. You only need to look at the Commission Presidents other meetings to see who she meets. Example – 12th December 2020 Meeting with President Macron, a head of state not Minister of Foreign Affairs. Meeting with Mr Mark Rutte, Dutch Prime Minister 23rd October, not a Minister of Foreign Affairs. March 2020 the EU institutions meet in Greece to discuss border issues, https://newsroom.consilium.europa.eu...s-visit-greece standing together. EU China Summit held 22nd June 2020. President of the European Council, Charles Michel, and President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, accompanied by High Representative Josep Borrell, hold the Summit meeting with Chinese Prime Minister Li Keqiang followed by exchanges with Chinese President Xi Jinping.

Also, Turkey withdrew from the Istanbul Convention on March 20th, over 2 weeks earlier.

I have not been following the news as intently as i should

Incidentally, many publications focus on showing photos the instance Ursula von der Leyen was standing as if he was not given anything to sit on.

The NYT's title "Two Presidents Visited Turkey. Only the Man Was Offered a Chair." would not have the same impact if they used the following picture as cover.

What the media chooses to focus on is what generates clicks, without turning this into a rant on the media I'll just point out that my opinion is not based on the media but my rudimentary understanding of the EU.

In the end, this is nothing but a petty anti-Turkish media campaign. I'd normally refrain from making such a suggestion but the falsehood here is just blatantly obvious. It undermines all the concerns about Turkey and its withdrawal from the convention. It shows how media companies do not believe real issues make people read the news but that sensationalized falsehoods make a better story. In the end, it merely contributes to polluting the well...

I opened my post making it clear that criticism towards the Turkish Government does not equate to criticism towards Turkey. Its the same sort of interpretation where opposition movements in a country are labelled as "against the Country" and not "against the Government, Minister or President." Looking at this meeting, for me, gives the impression that either the Government went into the talk not knowing how the EU operates or were trying to make some point domestically. Do I know what it was? no but I can theorize.

But you do have a point when you say "undermines all the concerns about Turkey and its withdrawal from the convention. It shows how media companies do not believe real issues make people read the news but that sensationalized falsehoods make a better story. In the end, it merely contributes to polluting the well..." I really cant argue about that, which is why I did not read the article and watched the video without commentary.

I mean whatever their coverage I just pointed out it was wrong to carry out the meeting like that.

Engaging in a debate on the Istanbul Convention is not something I'd do in the Mudpit because I might need some IV sedatives to cope.

[Gromovnik]

OMG, Ursula von der Lederhosen had to sit on a couch! NevAr foget! F.

[PointOfViewGun]

The statement by Charles Michel is also not suggesting they adhered to protocol, he says – “And despite a clear desire to do the right thing, the strict interpretation of the protocol rules by the Turkish authorities gave rise to a distressing situation: the differentiated – even inferior – treatment accorded to the President of the European Commission. He does not say, protocol, he says their interpretation of protocol, he is being diplomatic. He also goes on to say, “I am therefore saddened on two counts. Firstly, by any suggestion that I may have been indifferent to the protocol misstep with respect to Ursula, especially considering how honored I am to be a part of the European project, two of whose four main institutions are headed by women, Ursula von der Leyen and Christine Lagarde. And how proud I am that a woman, the first in history to hold the office, succeeded me as Prime Minister of Belgium.”

I’d have to disagree with your assessment based on that link. Protocol does not always equate to seniority, as an example in Council protocol dictates Member States are seated and listed within legislation in a set order which, as far as I remember is done within the order of sitting Council Presidencies. So for example while Portugal is sitting at the head of Council - Portugal as a Member State has no seniority over other heads of state.. sort of. It would be link linking this https://publications.europa.eu/code/pdf/370000en.htm and saying Belgium should be on a chair near the Turkish President and then piling the others on a sofa.

The issue of seniority is complex and has been a source of tension politically and yes, Parliament has had an increase in powers conferred to it but taking that to the point where a third country seats our Commission President In front of a Minister of the State is not established procedure.

Competencies of the EU are too complex for this. The TFEU 2 (2) “The Union shall have competence, in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty on European Union, to define and implement a common foreign and security policy, including the progressive framing of a common defence policy.” 3 (2) “The Union shall also have exclusive competence for the conclusion of an international agreement when its conclusion is provided for in a legislative act of the Union or is necessary to enable the Union to exercise its internal competence, or in so far as its conclusion may affect common rules or alter their scope.” Article 13 (2) “” According to Article 17, the Commission “The European Parliament cannot operate unilaterally, it operates with Co-decision with the Commission serving as the executive working with the Council, Parliament and European Council.

That said there are people with PHD’s trying to decipher the EU’s treaties looking at the division of power. You only need to look at the Commission Presidents other meetings to see who she meets. Example – 12th December 2020 Meeting with President Macron, a head of state not Minister of Foreign Affairs. Meeting with Mr Mark Rutte, Dutch Prime Minister 23rd October, not a Minister of Foreign Affairs. March 2020 the EU institutions meet in Greece to discuss border issues, https://newsroom.consilium.europa.eu...s-visit-greece standing together. EU China Summit held 22nd June 2020. President of the European Council, Charles Michel, and President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, accompanied by High Representative Josep Borrell, hold the Summit meeting with Chinese Prime Minister Li Keqiang followed by exchanges with Chinese President Xi Jinping.

I opened my post making it clear that criticism towards the Turkish Government does not equate to criticism towards Turkey. Its the same sort of interpretation where opposition movements in a country are labelled as "against the Country" and not "against the Government, Minister or President." Looking at this meeting, for me, gives the impression that either the Government went into the talk not knowing how the EU operates or were trying to make some point domestically. Do I know what it was? no but I can theorize.

But you do have a point when you say "undermines all the concerns about Turkey and its withdrawal from the convention. It shows how media companies do not believe real issues make people read the news but that sensationalized falsehoods make a better story. In the end, it merely contributes to polluting the well..." I really cant argue about that, which is why I did not read the article and watched the video without commentary.

I mean whatever their coverage I just pointed out it was wrong to carry out the meeting like that.

Engaging in a debate on the Istanbul Convention is not something I'd do in the Mudpit because I might need some IV sedatives to cope.

Him only saying "protocol" instead of "interpretation of protocol" would make no sense linguistically. It was EU's protocols. Other parties can only interpret them. It's not a distinction one can make. His description of it as a "protocol misstep" is misguided as he, nor anyone who makes the claim that protocol was violated, provides no explanation to how protocol was sidestepped.

From last year in Brussels:



OMG! How dare she sits in front of the foreign minister? ...

The link I provided explicitly puts the European Council on top of the European Commission: "The following list indicates the official title, following protocol order since 1 December 2009 (entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon)." This is not open for debate. It's explicit. If the same information was provided to the Turkish side they acted accordingly which is likely what Michel points at. The EU side approved of this sitting arrangement too. It's not Turkey's first hosting of the EU delegate.

Van der Leyen met with Erdoğan before. That's not the issue. Yet, in the case where there are 2 people from EU someone will sit next to him and someone will not. This was not a story in Turkey till the foreign media chose to make it one. There was no move to make a point by the Turkish side for the domestic audience.



If the Council and the Commission president are equal in seniority what do you do? Cut Erdoğan in half? This entire discussion is trivial to the real issues.

[Belisarius]

Him only saying "protocol" instead of "interpretation of protocol" would make no sense linguistically. It was EU's protocols. Other parties can only interpret them. It's not a distinction one can make. His description of it as a "protocol misstep" is misguided as he, nor anyone who makes the claim that protocol was violated, provides no explanation to how protocol was sidestepped.

But you said "According to Charles Michel that's not the case." Thats not what he said. Whether it makes sense linguistically or not its what he said, when do politicians make total sense linguistically?

OMG! How dare she sits in front of the foreign minister? ...

That meeting is of a different format, it is being held on the 5th floor of the EB Building. The EB is the Council Building and the room they are using is for ministerial bi-laterals and more, how you say, intimate talks. I know because you can see the metalwork of the outside the window.

The link I provided explicitly puts the European Council on top of the European Commission: "The following list indicates the official title, following protocol order since 1 December 2009 (entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon)." This is not open for debate. It's explicit. If the same information was provided to the Turkish side they acted accordingly which is likely what Michel points at. It's not Turkey's first hosting of the EU delegate.

The link for protocol which I already went into cites the TFEU, I went into the TFEU and quoted the bases of competencies and seniority. The Presidents of the Parliament, Commission and Council cannot act as sole representatives of the Union and can only act and are thus recognized as outlined in the TFEU.

Van der Leyen met with Erdoğan before. That's not the issue. Yet, in the case where there are 2 people from EU someone will sit next to him and someone will not. This was not a story in Turkey till the foreign media chose to make it one. There was no move to make a point by the Turkish side for the domestic audience.

If the Council and the Commission president are equal in seniority what do you do? Cut Erdoğan in half?

He could do this:




Interesting how they had more chairs and didn't have to cut him in half when Jean-Claude Juncker was Commissioner.

This entire discussion is trivial to the real issues.

Nah its been nice! But relevance makes an unsettling bedfellow with circumstance. The attention given to the diplomatic incident increased in magnitude because of the withdrawal from the IC. I didn't disagree with you on the majority of your points related to media coverage and manipulation and go as far as distancing the terms "Turkey" and "the Turkish Government" I would not even think of citing Islam as a cause for the removal from the IC, like there are no European Member States currently not implementing homophobic stickers in their towns who are, guess what? Christian.

But moving on, what would be your opinion on the withdrawal from the IC?

[PointOfViewGun]

But you said "According to Charles Michel that's not the case." Thats not what he said. Whether it makes sense linguistically or not its what he said, when do politicians make total sense linguistically?

Yes, according to Charles Michel it was a case of the Turkish side strictly following the protocols. The distinction you tried to create was trivial.

That meeting is of a different format, it is being held on the 5th floor of the EB Building. The EB is the Council Building and the room they are using is for ministerial bi-laterals and more, how you say, intimate talks. I know because you can see the metalwork of the outside the window.

You're using that explanation to dismiss the picture I used yet the same room is used in the picture you posted saying that he could do that. Not consistent at all. The room they are in in Ankara had 2 chairs and 2 sofas. They made use of that. If somehow the nature of the room makes it OK then it should do just that in Ankara too.

The link for protocol which I already went into cites the TFEU, I went into the TFEU and quoted the bases of competencies and seniority. The Presidents of the Parliament, Commission and Council cannot act as sole representatives of the Union and can only act and are thus recognized as outlined in the TFEU.

The quotations you provided before did not tell us that they were equal in protocol. The link specifically outlines an order of protocol. I'm not sure why this is being contested when we have it in writing from an official primary source.

He could do this:
Interesting how they had more chairs and didn't have to cut him in half when Jean-Claude Juncker was Commissioner.

They could not as they could not sit that close. They'd have to stay further apart and if there were other kind of seating tools, such as a sofa, they'd make use of that too.

Nah its been nice! But relevance makes an unsettling bedfellow with circumstance. The attention given to the diplomatic incident increased in magnitude because of the withdrawal from the IC. I didn't disagree with you on the majority of your points related to media coverage and manipulation and go as far as distancing the terms "Turkey" and "the Turkish Government" I would not even think of citing Islam as a cause for the removal from the IC, like there are no European Member States currently not implementing homophobic stickers in their towns who are, guess what? Christian.

But moving on, what would be your opinion on the withdrawal from the IC?

Istanbul Convention has little to do with this. It's not like before the withdrawal they applauded Turkey's record. The withdrawal would serve nothing more than an excuse factor to mention it in connection with this. Yet, we have the New York Times making it look she was made to stand while men sat down. There wasn't even an uproar like this when Turkey withdrew from the convention.

[Belisarius]

Yes, according to Charles Michel it was a case of the Turkish side strictly following the protocols.

I guess we would have to agree to disagree

The distinction you tried to create was trivial.

No need for that is there, we're all friends here.

You're using that explanation to dismiss the picture I used yet the same room is used in the picture you posted

Not really, I'm just noob at inserting pictures and didnt bother to crop.

saying that he could do that. Not consistent at all. The room they are in in Ankara had 2 chairs and 2 sofas. They made use of that. If somehow the nature of the room makes it OK then it should do just that in Ankara too.

Having personally stood in these rooms during similar meetings I can safely say that isn't the case.

The quotations you provided before did not tell us that they were equal in protocol. The link specifically outlines an order of protocol. I'm not sure why this is being contested when we have it in writing from an official primary source.

Why do you hold a talk with a third country? to negotiate, to discuss and to take nice pictures. The president of the Parliament does not have seniority to discuss the entirety of the EU sphere of competence. Representation at EU level does not depend on that link but the TFEU.

They could not as they could not sit that close. They'd have to stay further apart and if there were other kind of seating tools, such as a sofa, they'd make use of that too.

My memory is foggy but when I used to have guests over for dinner my dining room didnt have enough chairs, one day I have a breakthrough idea, I moved the table a little to right and brought in a chair from the living room. Its why I still have friends.

Istanbul Convention has little to do with this.

Could be, but the reason you avoid the aforementioned diplomatic gaffes is to prevent such perceptions.

It's not like before the withdrawal they applauded Turkey's record.

True

The withdrawal would serve nothing more than an excuse factor to mention it in connection with this. Yet, we have the New York Times making it look she was made to stand while men sat down.

Without even going into the gender issue, because it could have been politically motivated and have nothing to do with gender, she occupies an office within the EU which requires a degree of respect. Agree or disagree with her or the office it still exists and should be shown respect.

When a third country asks for market access, regionalisation recognition, agreements on certain trade procedures, approvals, audits to name but a few, its the Commission they deal with. (you can google search and find many instances where they dont but the EU is complicated and a nightmare to comprehend)

[PointOfViewGun]

Having personally stood in these rooms during similar meetings I can safely say that isn't the case.
Why do you hold a talk with a third country? to negotiate, to discuss and to take nice pictures. The president of the Parliament does not have seniority to discuss the entirety of the EU sphere of competence. Representation at EU level does not depend on that link but the TFEU.
My memory is foggy but when I used to have guests over for dinner my dining room didnt have enough chairs, one day I have a breakthrough idea, I moved the table a little to right and brought in a chair from the living room. Its why I still have friends.
Could be, but the reason you avoid the aforementioned diplomatic gaffes is to prevent such perceptions.
Without even going into the gender issue, because it could have been politically motivated and have nothing to do with gender, she occupies an office within the EU which requires a degree of respect. Agree or disagree with her or the office it still exists and should be shown respect.
When a third country asks for market access, regionalisation recognition, agreements on certain trade procedures, approvals, audits to name but a few, its the Commission they deal with. (you can google search and find many instances where they dont but the EU is complicated and a nightmare to comprehend)

Your own take on whose senior to who doesn't really factor in as long as we have clear guidelines on protocol. We do. It's EU guidelines that put his position over her position. It's EU delegation team that agreed to the siting arrangement. This entire issue is artificial.