I don't rate Peter Hitchens very hightly as a journalist; in fact I wouldn't describe him as a journalist at all. Let us look at his evidence for his bold claims.
He visited a tailoring shop in the back streets of Istanbul. It seems he did interview anybody there but contents himself with telling us "It looked to me" and "They knew the women would wear them"? What are you Hitchens? Telepathic? How could you possibly understand what thet knew, or hoped, or guessed, or anticipated? You didn't even talk to them - you rumour-monger.
He then talks to a variety - a very small variety - of selected contacts. There is a political science professor at Bilgi (which is a relatively new private Trust University in Istanbul which has a good reputation for scholarship) who worries about the AKP trying to gag journalists (as do I). But this is the view of one academic. To "balance" this he goes to the "far side" of the Bosforus (what did you have to drive all the way across the bridge to get to deepest Anatolia?) where he finds a radical journalist who thinks the AKP must protect itself against plots. He them comes up with this gem:
"One [such] intellectual is so nervous about Erdogan's thin skin that he asks me not to name him. Some of his allegations against the government - of corruption and Judophobia - are so alarming that I can only hint at them here". Great - an unnamed source has told you something so shocking that you can't tell us what it is. Well that must prove it then - whatever it is. To complete the usual lists of suspects we then have a retired general.
This kind of chat will be familar to anyone who picks up a Turkish daily paper - only reading English I consult mostly the Turkish Daily News (I think it has a nw name now) and Zaman Today for views from opposing political directions. The only differences are that TDN and ZT journalists have much more rigorous journalistic standards, have spent some time studying the subject matter and know something about what they are talking about. Their command of English is also better than Hitchens'.
In short this article is composed, in the main part, of supposion and conjecture. Hitchens tries to cover this up by making snide and sneering remarks and some claims which are simply absurd. When Bush and Obama (an unlikely couple) support Turkey they "bleat"; Erdogan cannot simply be "Islamic" he must be "fiercely Islamic". At the height of absurdity he describes Ataturk as "almost as ruthless as Stalin"; as some of you who have a knowledge of 20th century history may remember Stalin was responsible for the death of least at 35 million - but more likely 50 million - of his fellow citizens during "peacetime". All of this is then covered with glop that certain European conservatives (who are they then Hitchens, your drinking chums?) have invented the term "Eurabia". So that's it then. Case proven. Turkey is about to become a fundamentalist Islamic society and Sharia state.
What absolute drivel. It saddens me that this kind of ignorant, loudmouth, bigotry gets published in the UK press. But this is in the Daily Mail, of course, which counts as much as a newspaper as Hitchens does as a journalist. Unfortunately, when the Mail publishes garbage about the UK quite a lot of its readers can quickly see it for what it is. Those who know little about Turkey may suppose that this charlatan has stumbled across some kind of truth.
