24.02.2025 20:11
The DEM Party's Diyarbakır MP, Sevilay Çelenk, criticized those who reacted to the opening of the 2024 Paris Olympic Games in her speech at the Parliament. Defending the LGBT movement, Çelenk stated, "They are not harassing anyone's children, they are not harming anyone."
DEM Party Diyarbakır Member of Parliament Sevilay Çelenk criticized those who reacted to the opening of the 2024 Paris Olympic Games in her speech at the Grand National Assembly of Turkey (TBMM) and defended the LGBTI movement.
In her speech at the Assembly, Çelenk stated:
"WORLD CULTURES OFTEN DO NOT SUPPORT PEACE"
''Mr. President, esteemed members of parliament; I would like to use my right to speak within the framework of a general evaluation regarding international affairs and Turkey's foreign policy. Unfortunately, we are completing the first quarter of the 21st century in a situation where a comprehensive war anxiety has seriously escalated, conflicts continue around the world, and there is no strong desire or effort for peace in any geography. Developed Western democracies see the solution in increasing security measures through international alliances and organizations. We are on the brink of disaster, from genocide in Gaza to the war in Ukraine, and the ongoing tensions in the Middle East, including Syria, Iran, and Iraq. During the pandemic, we collectively declared the end of the world we knew at a time when we did not yet know what we were facing, and there were those who believed that everything would be completely different from then on and that a very strong anti-war movement would rise. Because health systems collapsed, including those in wealthy Western countries, millions died alone in intensive care units. We hoped that it would be understood that defense is not just military defense, but the end of the world as we know it did not come. The anti-war movement did not gain strength in any way; on the contrary, hostility towards refugees, especially towards Syrian war victims, has risen in every way, and this rise is very concerning. Because peace is essentially a cultural issue, and unfortunately, world cultures often do not support this.
"GLOBAL MILITARY SPENDING AT HIGHEST LEVEL SINCE 1990"
Recently, a NATO Leaders Summit was held in Washington on July 9-11, marking the 75th anniversary of NATO's founding. As in previous meetings at the NATO Parliamentary Assembly General Assembly in Sofia or the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, the most important agenda here was Russia's invasion of Ukraine, the war in Ukraine, and supporting Ukraine. In this regard, Western allies have prioritized supporting Ukraine until victory, rather than seeking a peace perspective or ending the war. They have adopted the military support of Ukraine in the war as the only solution perspective. I had attended meetings in both parliamentary assemblies, and this perspective was very strong, defense-oriented. This may be understandable from NATO's perspective, as NATO is a security and defense organization. However, the issue of increasing security and defense budget opportunities is being emphasized more seriously than ever in international affairs and relations. A security mindset based on deterrence has surrounded everywhere. However, we see that wars continue. The emphasis on nuclear power as one of the most important sources of deterrence is very concerning. The declaration published after the NATO Leaders Summit particularly addresses the increase and strengthening of nuclear power with such alarming terminology. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, global military spending reached approximately $2 trillion and 443 billion in 2023, with military spending per capita at $306, the highest level in the world since 1990. If there is a threat to the world, it exists in these understandings. Turkey, in the changing geostrategic context, cannot decide where to position itself. Just when it seems to be turning its direction back to the West for its interests, signaling a shift towards the European Union, it participates in the summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization in Astana, but is absent from the summit of the European Political Community in the UK.
"THE IDEA THAT 'THE TURK HAS NO FRIEND OTHER THAN ANOTHER TURK' IS BEING IMPOSED"
Our Foreign Minister is attending the meeting of foreign ministers of BRICS countries in Russia. Of course, it is necessary to go to these places, but the shift of priority here is truly concerning. Amid these oscillations, there is talk of re-establishing diplomacy with Assad in Syria. We are in a context where everything, including genocides that we said would never happen again, is being experienced again. Neither our domestic policy nor our foreign policy is guided by a stable, consistent, and citizen-centered mindset that prioritizes the well-being and security of citizens. The fundamental emotions that dominate and direct Turkey's domestic and foreign policies are based on fear and intimidation: internal enemy, external enemy. It portrays a part of its citizens, especially the Kurds, as a threat, but it also does not hesitate to depict refugees, migrants, Roma, and foreigners as enemies. When we turn our face outward, the idea that the whole world is our enemy is imposed on citizens, and the thought that "the Turk has no friend other than another Turk" is kept alive at all times. Of course, there are friends. If you have the potential for friendship, why not in another? If you treat a country based on friendship, if you think you are friends, other countries and societies can also be friends with you. Why not? This simplest motto of "the Turk has no friend other than another Turk" and the ways of establishing relationships with the world developed around it prevent our people from maturing. We encounter those who have not matured, those perpetual adolescent children, even while using their right to speak under this roof of the Assembly every day. A hundred years later, there is still talk of drowning in the sea, of what we can still drown, and of "we can come unexpectedly one night" in the 21st century. Where are you going at night? Come on, you went, you flattened everything. What will you do in that flatness? These immature adolescent minds use the word "deviant" at least 5 times in a three-minute speech. I really counted today, 5 times "deviant" in three minutes. And why?
"BÜLENT ERSOY AND ZEKİ MÜREN APPEARED IN MORE FLASHY OUTFITS IN 1970s TURKEY"
By selecting snapshots from the hours-long Olympic Opening Ceremony that may not even total ten minutes - and all of these are performances. In the 1960s and 1970s Turkey, Bülent Ersoy and Zeki Müren appeared in more flashy outfits than those here - these snapshots are selected, and an Olympic opening ceremony that revealed the immense intellectual, philosophical, and artistic accumulation of the French over hours through various other performances is condemned by this. Yes, the transformation of historical figures like Marie Antoinette or religious figures within performances was criticized by conservative Christians, but what does it mean to depict the LGBT community as deviant? Since 2015, there have been at least 10 horrific attacks in France, supposedly in the name of Islam and religion.
What is the meaning of giving such messages when all the athletes of the world are there, when the world is gathered there? Do we ever think about these things?
"THE LGBT COMMUNITY IS NOT HARASSING ANYONE'S CHILDREN, THEY ARE NOT HARMING ANYONE"
Those who use these expressions about LGBT people there did not once bring up examples of "deviant" when ISIS was slaughtering Yazidi and Kurdish women right next to us, when 100 people were raping girls of child age in a single day. The issue of not allowing a headscarf-wearing athlete has been on our agenda for two days; yes, this is indeed problematic. While France grants this permission to athletes who are foreign nationals, it did not grant this permission to its own athlete within the framework of its understanding of equality; this is indeed something that should be condemned, but when there are so many women who have been killed for showing a strand of hair, like in the case of Jina Mahsa Amini, and when a murderous male mentality continuously condemns women to death for their visible hair, how fair are you when you bring these issues to the agenda without any struggle against the oppression of the headscarf in this way? All of this really needs to be thought about. As for the LGBT community... They are not harassing anyone's children, they are not harming anyone...