Turkey's case shows why Japan could not be a EU member (if it were in Europe)

[Maciamo]

In addition to my previous rant about Japan's backward legal system, this article shows how Japan is indeed far away from Europe regarding the modernity of its legislation.

BBC News : EU demands new Turkish penal code

The European Commission says it will advise EU leaders that accession talks with Turkey should not begin unless Ankara adopts a new penal code.
...
A move to criminalise adultery in the penal code has caused much controversy.

In Japan, adultery is still punishable as a crime (although it probably won't result in a jail sentence, but a more or less heavy fine).

Turkey, generally considered less "advanced" or developed than Japan, does not yet consider adultery a crime, but its planning to do so has already brought pressure from the EU not to do it if it wants to be eligible to join the EU. Turkey has been refused entry to the EU mostly because of its poor human rights record and legislation not matching the criteria of the EU.

But would Japan be accepted into the EU (if it were in Europe) with its current legislation, protecting child's abductors, not recognising genetic parents of children born of a surrogate mother, criminalising adultery, allowing pornography of young teenagers, or allowing discrimination and even having top politicians or police forces freely inciting people to racism ? I sincerely doubt so (even with its economic development in the balance).

[Duo]

I was talkin about this yesterday with a friend of mine, and both of us were saying just how really ridicoulous this is. However, this is only because the present government is formed by a party that relies on muslim beleifs, a little like the European christian-democrats, but a lil more influenced by religion i would say. Anyways, the law isn't going to pass.

Turkey has been refused entry to the EU mostly because of its poor human rights record and legislation not matching the criteria of the EU.

And pigs fly

Ok, there is truth to this, but let's not forget the 60 million muslim population of Turkey, which, is a big unspoken cause why Turkey isn't advancing in partnership. And let's not forget that little amendment that many EUropean countries were supporting to be added to the constitution, the one that said that the Europan civilization is based on christo-Judaic roots. Greece has just as bad treatment of minorities and human rights, yet the EU says nothing to them. Also, the EU claims that corruption is one of the primary things that applicant nations, yet they give more aid to Romania, more corrupt, than to Bulgaria, which has less corruption. The latin European countires seem very strong advocates to have Romania enter, primarily because they are "related", although Romania is not quite like france or italy, since it has been heavily influenced by the slavic neighbours sorrounding it. So, my point is that the EU is not really this 100% virtous organization, there is still a lot of prejudice and unspoken reasons that drive it and it's choice for applicant nations.

[bossel]

So, my point is that the EU is not really this 100% virtous organization, there is still a lot of prejudice and unspoken reasons that drive it and it's choice for applicant nations.

I agree, the EU doesn't really follow a straight course when it comes to membership (remember Cyprus?). Therefore I think that Japan would become a member just for being wealthy enough to support the EU budget. The EU would have some requests for legal changes (esp. some of Maciamo's points), but that wouldn't be a great hinderance. I would expect some curtain fire from the Christian right, but not too much.

As a side note: I've seen some commentaries from Christian right journalist who criticized the planned adultery law because that would go against enlightened western thought. In the same comments you often find that they cite as another point of Turkish backwardness that they still allow polygamy. I would expect an enlightened society to actually allow people to live together as it suits them (as long as they don't hurt anyone else) & not to rely on out-dated moral rules.

[BeNippon]

I didn’t know that the Japanese legal system was that backwards (well, from a European perspective…).
Even without the European Constitution the provisions mentioned by Maciamo would be a hindrance for Japan to join the EU, just think of the fundamental rights developed by the ECJ (European Court of Justice) and the constitutional changes in Germany, or the controversy on Irish abortions (still, by virtue of the Irish Constitution, abortion is prohibited!).

However, on the other Hand, I think it could also be a chance for Turkey to develop, if she would join the EU. As far as I remember, In Germany, too, adultery as well as homosexual relation were punishable until the mid 60`s. Greece, Portugal and Spain also had really poor records when it came to their legal system. And what about the new east European states? I wouldn’t like to go to court in Bulgaria or Poland, not to mention the prisons. Same goes for Japan.

So, assuming that Japan would be a European Country, I think Japan could not join the EU. But I think she SHOULD join, since she would submit herself to the jurisdiction of the ECJ and that means that all those provisions mentioned by Maciamo would not apply any more.

[Fantt]

In many states in the US, it is still illegal for non-married partners to have sex. It is also illegal is many states to have sex in any position other than missionary (all the other ones are considered sodomy or unnatural). Oral sex is illegal in many US states as are sex toys. Homosexual sex is illegal in many states as well.

Few of these laws are enforced because if taken to the Supreme Court, they may be struck down. I think, though, that some federal courts have ruled that sex toy bans are ok - which just boggles the mind. Death and killing, A-OK. Orgasms? No way!

Adultery may not be illegal in the US, but an awful lot of stuff that goes on in the bedroom is. Japan doesn't have a monopoly on being a civilized backwards country.

[raccoon]

In Japan, adultary is still punishable as a crime (although it probably won't result in a jail sentence, but a more or less heavy fine).

No. Adultery is not punishable as a crime in Japan.

Criminal conversation was removed from the criminal law in 1947, in accordance with the enforcement of the new constitution. Since then, adultary has been treated totally as civil affairs.

Didn't you say that just by guess?

[Fantt]

Is it possible to be fined for adultery in Japan? I know of at least one case here in the US where a guy succesfully sued his wife for cheating on him - though that's probably only possible in some states...

[raccoon]

Is it possible to be fined for adultery in Japan? I know of at least one case here in the US where a guy succesfully sued his wife for cheating on him - though that's probably only possible in some states...

No. You can only bring a civil suit to get compensation for adultery against your partner.

Only prosecutors can file criminal charges in Japan.

[bossel]

Just came to think of it: one major obstacle to Japanese membership would be the death penalty. The EU rejects it.

[Maciamo]

No. Adultery is not punishable as a crime in Japan.

Criminal conversation was removed from the criminal law in 1947, in accordance with the enforcement of the new constitution. Since then, adultary has been treated totally as civil affairs.

Didn't you say that just by guess?

I said it because several (married) Japanese people told me. I was so surprised at the time, that I had to explain that it wasn't the case in Europe for about 50 years, but they insisted that adultery could still get someone to court, was enough to get immediate divorce with monetary compensation.In Europe, courts won't even treat such cases. That's just considered as personal problems for which the government has nothing to say. If I exaggerated a bit, I'd say it equates to suing a family member because they don't let you watch TV or because they have been hiding your clothes ! I mean, married people should be mature enough to solve these kinds of problems by themselves.

But I guess the main difference is that so many Europeans live together (and have children) in civil unions or just as partners, without being married. As adultery is only for married couples, that hardly makes sense. In Japan, almost all people living together or having children are married. I few Japanese couples live together before marriage or before being engaged (yes, even among younger Tokyoites). In Contrast, I personally don't know any European couples who haven;t lived at least a few months, but often a few years together before getting married. This is because of the recent rise in divorce, and people want to make sure they [can live together, which is quite another thing as meeting even everyday.

These huge difference regarding marriage and lifestyle (although Europe was like Japan 50 years ago), explains why adultery is regarded differently.

[bossel]

But I guess the main difference is that so many Europeans live together (and have children) in civil unions or just as partners, without being married. As adultery is only for married couples, that hardly makes sense.

Actually, it kind of makes sense. Marriage is a contract, breach of contract can be penalised (depending on the contract & gravity of offence).

Still I can't really see criminal justice involved, but if you have a contract you expect your partner to adhere to it. If there were no penalties in case of breaching it, the contract itself wouldn't make much sense.

[BeNippon]

Actually, it kind of makes sense. Marriage is a contract, breach of contract can be penalised (depending on the contract & gravity of offence).

Well that really depends on the legal system... although I am not an expert on Japanese Civil Law, I can hardly believe that having sex outside of marriage is part of the marriage contract itself. If that is true, than it cannot be penalised as breach of contract.
In all other western legal systems, adultery is covered by separate provisions and not via breach of contract.

Still I can't really see criminal justice involved, but if you have a contract you expect your partner to adhere to it. If there were no penalties in case of breaching it, the contract itself wouldn't make much sense.

That’s sounds rather like 17th century opinion on marriage. For the very reason that personal relations are very difficult to cover by law, marriage contracts usually regulate financial matters, sometimes custody issues (but here freedom of contract is very restricted). So even without including ones partners sexual feelings, a marriage contract makes good sense.

[Maciamo]

Actually, it kind of makes sense. Marriage is a contract, breach of contract can be penalised (depending on the contract & gravity of offence).

But ordinary marriage contract do not stipulate adultery. Actually, many Japanese believe that the main purpose of marriage is to make and raise children and share property in this aim. There are still many arranged marriage (as opposed to love marriage) in Japan- if not arranged by the family then at least by the interested via o-miai or go-betweens. That is why it doesn't make sense in Japanese society (esp. traditional) to make adultery illegal by simple contract of marriage.

I thought that in Europe the only case in which it could go to court is when there is a pre-nuptial agreement (i.e. a separate contract) specifically mentioning it and the penanlty (eg. divorce, monetary penalty, etc.)

[bossel]

In all other western legal systems, adultery is covered by separate provisions and not via breach of contract.

As I said it depends on the contract itself.

That’s sounds rather like 17th century opinion on marriage. For the very reason that personal relations are very difficult to cover by law, marriage contracts usually regulate financial matters, sometimes custody issues (but here freedom of contract is very restricted).

17th century? That also depends on where you look, eg. in England there was still the institution of „comraon law marriages", which was essentially "married by mutual agreement".

I was not talking of prenups but of marriage itself. I don't really know about civil marriage, but when you get married you usually promise each other fidelity. That's what I would call parol contract. The penalties then are of course not clearly regulated (if at all).

I thought that in Europe the only case in which it could go to court is when there is a pre-nuptial agreement (i.e. a separate contract) specifically mentioning it and the penanlty (eg. divorce, monetary penalty, etc.)

Most of what I said was of course theoretical, but for what I know it's possible that eg. husbands who committed adultery in a severe case might lose all rights to visit their children as a result (although this is not as common anymore as it once was).
Here in Germany adultery isn't a crime anymore since 1969. The penalties I thought of are not part of criminal justice, anyway. Yet, in a divorce suit the judge has a wide range of penalising ill-behaviour.

You are right regarding prenups, but as I said that's not really what I talked about. When you have a written contract which deals with all possible issues, matters are a whole lot easier.

Edit: Just found the German law regarding adultery, it's § 1353 Abs. 1 S. 2 BGB (civil law). Which says that adultery is forbidden, but it is not penalised by criminal justice.

[lolife]

Last I checked, the actual ruling party in Turkey was the military, which had the last say in everything governmental (heh, is that a word?). Maybe that has changed recently, but, as an EU citizen I can say, a country with that kind of governing I would rather not see enter the EU. Ever.

[Kyt]

In many states in the US, it is still illegal for non-married partners to have sex. It is also illegal is many states to have sex in any position other than missionary (all the other ones are considered sodomy or unnatural). Oral sex is illegal in many US states as are sex toys. Homosexual sex is illegal in many states as well.

Few of these laws are enforced because if taken to the Supreme Court, they may be struck down.

They actually have been struck down. Homosexual sex has been legal over the whole territory of the United States since a Supreme Court ruling in June 2003 : http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/26/sc...omy/index.html

[Miss_apollo7]

The ruling party in Turkey is not the military, but an Islamic party, which took office as governing party and won the majority of seats in the Parliament by a landslide election in 2002 I think, but I am no expert...

The road to the European Union for Turkey is very long in my opinion, but it seems that history has shown that Turkey has always aimed to become a member of the European family, although Turkey is VERY different culturally from the European nations:
For example, with the fall of the Osman Empire after WW1, Kemal Ataturk with the foundation of the Turkish Republic in 1923 introduced Roman letters, made it forbidden for women to cover their hair and introducing a secular state.

Turkey is culturally very different from many European countries, especially ideologically still.
In Turkey, there is a (state-)ideology which is about putting the interests of the Turkish state before anything else, including human rights.
For generations, many police-officers and other people with authority to torture people, have been educated that collective security is the highest priority.
The AKP-government denies that torture is going on, but according to Amnesty International and the Turkish Human Rights Association (HRA), it still is a reality for many people in Turkey, to be exact, 700 people in 2004 so far. http://www.ihd.org.tr/eindex.html
I have read that the government is already re-educating police etc in the” right” conduct without torture. But in my opinion, it will be a great and difficult challenge, as it is difficult in practice to make sure the (new) law (we don’t know if it will be enacted yet) is enforced and “obeyed”….

The new penal code in Turkey not only has one controversial point about criminalising adultery.
Other points:
-Torture (heavier punishment, up to 12 years in jail.)
-Crimes against humanity. (first time in Turkish history)
-Now, “honour-killing” can be justified in Turkish court, but with the new penal law, it will be homicide as other killings.
-Now, rapists can avoid punishment if he marries the victim. With the new penal law, it won’t be possible to reduce sentence with a wedding after raping.

[Miss_apollo7]

The penal law can be enacted WITHOUT the law on adultery, it has been decided today between Erdogan and Verheugen.
The law on adultery has been abolished, which might please the EU.

Whether Turkey can be a candidate will be decided in December this year....it is going to be interesting, however, Turkey still has to meet the political demands.

Turkey still has a very long road towards EU.

[Fantt]

Once a country is in the EU, can it be expelled easily?

[Kyt]

Once a country is in the EU, can it be expelled easily?

Once a state is in the United States, can it be expelled easily?

As far as I know there is no provision in the European treaties that enable the Union to expell a member. During the crisis over the nomination of far right extremists in the Austrian government in 2000, Austria was boycotted at high rank meetings by other EU leaders in order to protest against the Austrian government, but throughout the crisis the prospect of expelling Austria alltogether remained very far from the European political agenda.

[Fantt]

How would Austrian far right politicians compare to far right politicians in the US? Think of Frist, Hastert, etc... or are there further right politicians in the US? Are the ones in Austria just right-leaning socialists? I have no idea...

[bossel]

Turkey still has a very long road towards EU.

That's true. Even if they are accepted as candidate, the whole process may take 15 years.

Once a country is in the EU, can it be expelled easily?

Good question! For what I know the treaty can only be cancelled in mutual agreement. If a country wants to leave, all members have to agree. No country can be expelled, only their membership in the council can be suspended. According to the new constitution countries have the right to leave, though.

[Duo]

The ruling party in Turkey is not the military, but an Islamic party, which took office as governing party and won the majority of seats in the Parliament by a landslide election in 2002 I think, but I am no expert...

Well the Turkish Military is the strongest branch of the Turkish state. They are a secular group well organized and discplined that keeps the country in chek and on track from destabilizing factors such as the influence of Islam on the State, and the separatist movements fromt he Kurdish minority. So basically, the Turkish military, has before come in and thrown out of power a gov. that they have believed to be damaging to the Country, and have installed another party as the ruling gov. This though only on rare occasions. The Turkish military is basically the main organization that keeps the country in track with the vision of Ataturk, the founder of the modern Turkish state.

The road to the European Union for Turkey is very long in my opinion, but it seems that history has shown that Turkey has always aimed to become a member of the European family, although Turkey is VERY different culturally from the European nations:

I don't really think that is so. I don't beleive that Turkey is very different culturally from other European nations. The ottoman empire was a formidable power for quite some time in the the Balkan area of Europe, therefore all those countries that were once part of the Ottoman Empire heave been heavily influenced by Turkey and vice versa. Many of the new applicant countries are very similar culturally to Turkey, and even Greece, a member of the EU, is very very similar culturally to Turkey. Not only because they were a part of the Ottoman Empire, but also because through out all their past interactions in history, be it war or traade, Greece and Turkey have exchanged about 50% of their genes with each other.

For example, with the fall of the Osman Empire after WW1, Kemal Ataturk with the foundation of the Turkish Republic in 1923 introduced Roman letters, made it forbidden for women to cover their hair and introducing a secular state

Yes, Ataturk was quite a remarkable individual. He made a the Turkish State in a time where the Western Powers were ripping it and the area apart.

Turkey is culturally very different from many European countries, especially ideologically still.

As I said above, culturally not so, but Ideoligally perhaps. The biggest difference between Turkey and the other European countries that I see, is that they are the only one with such a large majority that is muslim.

In Turkey, there is a (state-)ideology which is about putting the interests of the Turkish state before anything else, including human rights.
For generations, many police-officers and other people with authority to torture people, have been educated that collective security is the highest priority.
The AKP-government denies that torture is going on, but according to Amnesty International and the Turkish Human Rights Association (HRA), it still is a reality for many people in Turkey, to be exact, 700 people in 2004 so far. http://www.ihd.org.tr/eindex.html
I have read that the government is already re-educating police etc in the” right” conduct without torture. But in my opinion, it will be a great and difficult challenge, as it is difficult in practice to make sure the (new) law (we don’t know if it will be enacted yet) is enforced and “obeyed”….

The EU is great at pointing Human Rights abuses left and right, where they want to that is. Sometimes I really love the hypocracy of the Western European countries. After the fall of the Berlin wall, most of the Western European goverments, have dealt with former communits in the Eastern Block countries, at times have even supported their governments just because they were doing what would be advantagous to the West. The West kept in power in the East the social class and many many individuals for for 40 years opprossed their nations with brute force, and with human rights abuses which don't even compare to the present day allegations to the Turkish state. Also, Greece, member of the EU is also a vialtor of human and minority rights, yet I don't see the EU preaching to them. Even worse, the EU is now begining to recycycle Libya as an acceptable country and now Khadafi has even come to some European capitals and meet European leaders just because he is now doing what again is good to the West. I am a realist and I realize that sometime contradicting actions are necessary and may be the only way, but to preach one thing to someone and to turn the blind eye to the others is not very, well, morally acceptable.

[lolife]

Yes, there is some truth in what you say, of course. But still, present day, if Turkey wishes to join the EU, some criterias have to be fulfilled, as decided long ago. But as I see it, they are already there, or very close. And about being hypocritical, there are countries having a far worse track record when it comes to that. At least we're moving in the right direction, me thinks.

Also, I think Turkey would be a great link between Mid East and Europe, which it in some ways already is.

Oh, and about Libya.. Giving up nuclear arms is definietly a great step in the right direction. Not only for "the west", but for the whole world. IMHO.

[Maciamo]

In Turkey, there is a (state-)ideology which is about putting the interests of the Turkish state before anything else, including human rights.

Mmh, I'd say yet another similarity with Japan. Japan's human rights abuses are now more directed to prison treatments, police abuse (21-day secluded detention and interrogation without evidence) human trafficking (of sex slaves), teenage or children prostitution and refusal to give political asylum to some people. But in the first part of the 20th century (even during the US occupation), it was usual for the government to conduct witch hunts against communists, socialists, anarchists and even liberals, devious religious cults (such as the Omotokyo Shinto sect) or anti-monarchists. The pre-WWII Japanese police has a particularily bad record for fighting against trade unions for the count of the company directors (resulting in the death of workers several times), cracking down on leftists or even murdering hundreds of innocent Koreans after the 1923 Kanto Earthquake.

Everything was done for the good of the state, regardless of human rights.