Turkish Citizen Research Articles

Evaluation of the career planning of athletes, who succeeded in Olympics, in the light of different variables

In this study, career planning of Turkish athletes, who won medals in olympics for the periods they played and left sport, are investigated; however, differentiation of career planning dimensions of athletes in terms of demographic and sportive variables is examined as well. This study, which aimed at determining the effectiveness of career planning of Turkish athletes, who have won medals in olympics, based on comments of athletes having olympic ranks, is done in a scanning model and has a descriptive nature. A questionnaire form was prepared by the researcher in line with the purpose of this study. Such a prepared questionnaire form was given to 37 Turkish citizen athletes, who have won medals in olympics and are still alive. The data obtained from the questionnaire were analyzed by the statistical package for social sciences (SPSS) 17.0 statistical software in an electronic medium, while Alpha index was utilized in determining the reliability of the questionnaire. Frequency and percentage statistics were used in determining the demographic and sportive profiles. Average and standard deviation statistics were utilized in determining career planning dimension of athletes in periods, when they played and left sport. However, t-test was applied for variables showing a regular distribution, and man-Whitney-u and Kruskall wallis tests were applied for variables not showing a regular distribution in determining the differentiation of career planning dimensions of athletes based on demographic and sportive profiles. As a result of this study, it is concluded that Turkish athletes, who won medals in olympics, did not carry out any effective career planning in terms of sport, and they tend to have different professions other than sport. Nonetheless, it was determined that athletes played sports to the extent that their career planning was well and they obtained feedbacks during these periods. A number of factors affected athletes adversely and as a result, they ended their sport career. It is revealed that career planning of athletes, with respect to their sex, never differed in the period when they left and played sport; though career planning level of women athletes was higher than their men counterparts. More so, the career planning level of athletes, whose educational status is a university degree and a higher degree, is higher than that of athletes whose educational status is high school and lower. Sportive feedbacks of athletes, who have higher income level, are more than those who did not in the period when they played and left sport; whereas sportive feedbacks of athletes, who began to play sport between 5 and 10 years of age, are more than those of athletes, who began to play sport between 11 and 17 years of age. Key words: Career, career planning, sport career, sport organization, olympics, olympic athlete.

The Brand New Version of Article 301 of Turkish Penal Code and the Future of Freedom of Expression Cases in Turkey

Article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code (TPC), much debated at both national and international levels, has recently been subject to an amendment aimed at clarifying its meaning and averting more distressing cases related to freedom of expression. It should be noted that the former article 301 was an amended version of article 159 of the former TPC of 1926. As Türkan Sancar rightly states in her comprehensive book on both articles 159 and 301, article 159 is an article which has been revised many times. It was amended seven times after coming into effect in 1926 (in 1936, 1938, 1946, 1961, twice in 2002, and 2003). The new TPC was introduced as a package of penal-law reform prior to the opening of negotiations for Turkish membership of the European Union, and came into effect on 1 June 2005. Article 301 stated the following:1.A person who publicly denigrates Turkishness, the Republic or the Grand National Assembly of Turkey, shall be sentenced a penalty of imprisonment for a term of six months to three years.2.A person who publicly denigrates the Government of the Republic of Turkey, the judicial bodies of the State, the military or security organizations, shall be sentenced to a penalty of imprisonment for a term of six months to two years.3.Where denigrating of Turkishness is committed by a Turkish citizen in another country, the penalty to be imposed shall be increased by one third.4.Expressions of thought intended to criticize shall not constitute a crime.

Disaggregating Turkish citizenship and immigration practices

There is a growing literature and academic interest increasingly questioning established notions of Turkish national identity and the boundaries of Turkish citizenship. The official formulation of Turkish national identity denies the existence of ethnic and cultural diversity in the country, the only exception being the religious minorities that were recognized in the Lausanne Treaty of 1923. The founders of the Turkish republic had embarked upon a modernist project that aimed to homogenize a society within the geographical area determined by the National Pact. A society that traditionally had been known as a multi-ethnic and multi-cultural one would be transformed into a uniform and homogeneous Turkish nation-state. A civic and territorially based formulation of Turkish nationalism became the ideological tool with which this was to be achieved. In 1924 following a fascinating debate concerning the definition of the term 'Turk', the parliament adopted Article 88 of the Constitution.' Accordingly, 'the people of Turkey regardless of their religion and race were, in terms of citizenship, to be Turkish' and as such would enjoy equal rights. This formulation has persisted across the 1961 and 1982 constitutions, and government officials frequently make references to it. The Turkish President, Siileyman Demirel, for example, in his end-of-the-year press conference in late December 1994 stated that the constitutions of the Turkish Republic did not specify origin, belief or language as the basis for citizenship or 'national belonging'. Membership to the Turkish nation merely entailed that one must be a Turkish citizen.2 Against such a formal definition of citizenship and national identity that emphasizes territoriality rather than ethnicity, actual state practice has been very different.3 The first signals of the gap that would evolve between the formal and substantive definitions of citizenship came as early as the mid1 920s. As the modernist project confronted growing challenges, the government increasingly resorted to policies that emphasized a preference for Turkish ethnicity and language. The initial civic or territorial conceptualization of Turkish national identity and citizenship became