Letters: Turkey's values

Turkey's values and ideology have no place in Europe

Sir: Turkey's application for EU membership should be judged solely on the basis of its geography and culture, the two elements which give Europe its identity. It should not be judged on economics, religion, ethnicity, or past and present politics (leading article, 13 December). These are irrelevant, and can only give rise to questions about limits and discrimination.

Indeed, where are the limits? Turkey is 95 per cent within Asia. Approximately half of its biggest city lies in Europe, but the vast majority of the people living there have come in from Asian Anatolia over the past two or three generations.

Anatolia and its people are undeniably Middle Eastern. Their culture is Asian. They are a direct and honest people who place far greater emphasis on family values than on education and profession. They will not understand the deceptions and trivial power plays that are so integral in European social interaction.

By the same token, Europe must ask itself if it is truly ready for a potentially massive influx of Turks; of scarved women whose man will stab you in the back if he feels you have looked at her in the wrong way. And, yes, that knife will come from behind, because even the Turk's idea of courage is in stark contrast to the European's.

I am not concerned with what the Turks or Ottomans may or may not have done throughout history. They could not have been any worse than the major European powers, and certainly these issues can be discussed and speculated upon with as much freedom in Istanbul as they can in Paris, Madrid, Berlin or London.

What concerns me is that the Turks and Europeans are at opposite poles in terms of their values and ideology, and that there is an underlying current of mutual suspicion and contempt. Byzantium disappeared over half a millennium ago. Today Turkey is unmistakably Middle Eastern.

PETER HAMILTON

ISTANBUL

Ideas to protect sex workers ignored

Sir: In the policy analysis that will inevitably follow the deaths of sex workers in Suffolk, a number of questions have to be asked. Among them:

Why did the government strategy reject safety (tolerance) zones?

Why did the strategy reject proposals that would have made sex workers safer? These include alternatives from Germany and New Zealand, which were ignored by the Home Office.

Why did the Government ignore legal theory that shows clearly how prohibitionist policies result in wholesale evasion?

Why did the Government misread and uncritically accept the Swedish model of intolerance, which has been shown to increase danger to sex workers?

What led the Home Office to believe that greater police power to disrupt sex markets was a sensible or safe option when evidence from research shows the reverse?

Most importantly, why did the Home Office ignore a vast body of research on clients and the reasons why they buy sex that shows that the Government strategy's stated attempt to "challenge the view that street prostitution is inevitable" was based on hope alone.

The errors in the consultation were pointed out in Criminal Law Review in June 2005 and briefly on this page (5 January 2006) before the strategy was published. Why did the Government ignore these critiques?

The problems with the strategy were published in books this year. As I and other researchers have sadly and wearily predicted, the government strategy on prostitution was intolerant, naïve, and likely to result in further danger to sex workers. The recent deaths, irrespective of how the women died, or who killed them, are a tragic but direct consequence of government strategy.

DR BELINDA BROOKS-GORDON

LECTURER IN PSYCHOLOGY, BIRKBECK, UNIVERSITY OF LONDON

Sir: Do others share my intense despair at our current attitude to drug use? Is it going to take the appalling murders of five young women in Ipswich to get the Government to change legislation on drugs?

It appears that these women were putting themselves at risk through prostitution in order to support their heroin habits. Johann Hari has highlighted regularly in your columns that it is the illegality of heroin use that has caused so much suffering for the victims of crime carried out to support drug use, and that illegal drug use itself causes high levels of morbidity and mortality as a result of unsafe use.

If heroin had been available for these young women under safe, sterile and controlled conditions, maybe they would not have had to resort to prostitution, the poverty of their lives could have been improved and they could have contributed to the life of our society rather than landing up dead in a stream.

The sooner the law is changed and heroin becomes available to users under controlled conditions the less likely that the ghastly tragedy will be repeated.

DR NICK MAURICE

MARLBOROUGH, WILTSHIRE

Sir: Year in, year out the argument rages about sex-workers' choices and men's right to abuse them. I am still waiting for a mental health professional to admit that when a woman "chooses" prostitution (other than to feed a drug habit, which is tragic enough) it is a form of self-abuse and the result of not only low self-esteem but self-loathing.

It is apparently legitimate for men to use and abuse these women for no other reason than "this is what men do".

Why is the Government's "zero tolerance" policy directed at the victims, the women? When is this civilised country going to direct a "zero-tolerance" attitude towards men who use their vulnerable, hopeless, fellow human beings to satisfy their seedy, uncontrolled urges and discard them like so much trash? If this abuse were happening to any other vulnerable group, there would be outrage. But hey, it's only prostitutes, so why bother?

We care more for primates in laboratories and dancing bears abroad. Shame on us.

SHEILA KINSELLA

BATH

Left, right and the history of Israel

Sir: Benny Morris (letter, 11 December) is right to protest at Johann Hari's assertion that he has moved to the right. The difference between right and left in Zionism is in no way analogous to that in any other sphere of politics. Moreover, this distinction within Zionism is wasted on its victims.

In Zionism the right was always unequivocal in regarding the removal of the Palestinians as the sine qua non of the Zionist project. Morris is unusual on the Zionist left in having come to openly acknowledge this.

However, in one respect he has not moved far from the self-deluding Zionists left. He seems to imply that the Palestinians were simply wrong to resist. Moshe Dayan, for example, never blamed the Palestinians for resisting. He well understood that, given the nature of Zionism, they had no alternative.

It should be recalled that Zionism had implemented an active programme of ethnic separatism before the First World War, long before the emergence of militant resistance among Palestinian Arabs. After all, the appeal of Zionism to Jews in anti-Semitic Europe was that they would not have to suffer the proximity of non-Jews. The eventual "removal" of Arabs by one means or another was assumed - the appeal to Jews to emigrate to Palestine made no sense otherwise.

That the expulsions of 1948 were not planned, as Morris insists, is seriously disputed. However, it should be pointed out that the necessity of expulsion from a Zionist perspective was so widely understood in 1948 that planning was hardly necessary. Morris's view that the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in 1948 was "a supremely moral act", planned or not, should stand as an indictment of Zionism.

STEVE COX

YORK

Sir: Benny Morris has only reaffirmed my view that he is a hawk in dove's clothing. He continues to flog the myth surrounding the Camp David talks in 2000. All that was offered to the Palestinians was a caricature of a state. Overall control of land, sea, and airspace rested with Israel. Prior to this "generous" offer, the Palestinians had watched helplessly as Israeli settlements continued to increase at an astonishing rate despite pleas from its closest ally, the United States, to freeze their expansion.

Contrary to his theories, the Palestinian people do not wish for Israel's destruction. All they are asking for is a viable state in which they could finally exercise their right to self-determination. Unfortunately, the likes of Avigdor Lieberman (who pledges to turn Palestinian lands into a Chechnya) don't exactly instil a sense of confidence, and can be counted on to make an already grave situation even worse.

NU'MAN EL-BAKRI

EXETER

Living under the flight paths

Sir: Hamish McRae, in his article about airports (13 December), says that he has no sympathy for people living close to Heathrow as they must have known before they moved there that the airport would expand.

Strange as it may seem to him there are people who lived here before the airport was built. He also overlooks the fact that at every single inquiry into the expansion of Heathrow BAA has stated categorically that it had no further plans for expansion. Before the 5th Terminal inquiry Mike Roberts, the then managing director of Heathrow, wrote to all local residents to reassure them that T5 "would not (his emphasis) require another runway or an increase in night flights".

McRae also seems to be in favour of off-setting his carbon emissions by subscribing to a tree-planting scheme. This has been likened to giving money to the RSPCA so that he can continue to kick his dog. In any case the trees will eventually die and return the carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. It serves only to delay the release of the carbon dioxide.

P T SHERWOOD

HARLINGTON, MIDDLESEX

Diana doubters will never be silenced

Sir: Whether the conspiracy theories about the death of Diana are true or entirely false, one basic factor remains. MI6 and those involved in intelligence would cover every conceivable doubt for one very simple reason: even the slightest hint that they were in any way involved would destroy the whole edifice of British security and the establishment. That is exactly why, despite the Lord Stevens verdict, the conspiracy theorists will never be silenced.

Exactly the same applies where the Russian establishment is concerned in the investigation of the murder of Litvinenko. Establishments do not connive in their own demise.

ROGER PAYNE

LONDON NW3

Sir: Well, who would have guessed it? It is revealed that Tony Blair has been questioned by police in the "cash for peerages" investigation on the same day as a headlining-hogging report on the three-year investigation into the death of Diana, Princess of Wales is published. He might be on the way out but it seems he's spinning and burying bad news right to the bitter end.

KURT CALDER

NEWBURY BERKSHIRE

Sir: Perhaps the Al Fayed Institute of the Parallel Universe could now look into the obvious MI6 plot to keep Monty Panesar out of the first two Test matches in Australia. This otherwise puzzling decision can only be explained by a bid to remove the main rival to Zara Philips - a Royal - becoming BBC Sports Personality of the Year.

PAUL BURALL

KING'S LYNN, NORFOLK

Can this really be Christmas?

Sir: So, Giorgio Locatelli doesn't cook sprouts (does he eat them raw?); recommends mackerel with brown rice to a Christmas Day home-aloner (before or after calling Samaritans?); nominates falafel as his most memorable Christmas meal (what's falafel?); and doesn't think there is any big secret to roast potatoes (all together now: Oh yes there is!). Was he really the right person for your Christmas Food special (13 December)?

RODNEY BURBECK

LONDON SW14

Sir: I notice from our local refuse collection schedule that there will be no collection on "Bank Holiday", 25 December. Is this what we used to call Christmas day?

J SAUNDERS

ST ALBANS, HERTFORDSHIRE

Sir: I have received the first e-mail in lieu of a card which has been sent to preserve the environment. How should I reply?

LAWRENCE CROSS

DUNSTABLE, BEDFORDSHIRE

Heard it all before

Sir: Iran is a "major strategic threat" shouts Blair. Who believes him after Iraq? The Iranians are "interfering" in Iraq, he protests. I suspect they're following his own lead.

TARIQ RASHID

LONDON NW2

Street 'democracy'

Sir: I was astonished to read your correspondents Anjum Anwar and Canon Chris Chivers (12 December) complain that the "democratic process" of millions people marching on the streets against the Iraq war was ignored. It's millions of votes in the ballot box, not masses on the streets which, thankfully, effect democratic change in this country. If those people marching had sufficient numbers to impose their will on the majority why didn't that come out in the May 2005 election?

SILAS SUTCLIFFE

LONDON NW3

Biofuel or food?

Sir: Further to Anthony Day's letter (14 December), it should be noted that the net energy derived from one acre of a biofuel crop is a fraction of the net energy derived from one acre of food crop. In a world with starving millions it should be asked if this really is the right direction to follow for carbon abatement.

NIGEL CLARKE

YORK

Good citizens

Sir: Simon Carr's humorous piece (12 December) suggests citizenship education is about "How to be British". It is actually concerned with educating young people about how to be effective in our democracy and in their communities, skills that Simon implies are wanting in our politicians. This may be harsh on our leaders, but certainly it is the body of knowledge and skills that our young people need and from which all of us would benefit.

TONY BRESLIN

CHIEF EXECUTIVE, CITIZENSHIP FOUNDATION, LONDON EC1

Propaganda labels

Sir: I can assure Dr Hetherington (letter, 14 December) that Sainsbury's have not eliminated England but have expanded it. The label of Sainsbury's West Country cider shows a map of England and Wales with the word "England" across the two countries. Geographical ignorance or imperialist delusion?

ANDREW BELSEY

CARDIFF

Interesting? Click here to explore further