&w=3840&q=100)
Turkey opposition leader Özgür Özel attacked at Istanbul event, sparking safety concerns
The leader of Turkey's main opposition party Ozgur Ozel was attacked as he left a memorial ceremony in Istanbul on Sunday. read more
Özgür Özel, leader of Turkey's main opposition Republican People's Party (CHP), was slapped by an assailant on Sunday as he was leaving an event in Istanbul. The incident, captured on camera, showed Özel holding his head in pain while the attacker was swiftly apprehended.
Authorities identified the suspect by his initials, S.T., and media reports said he is an unemployed man with a criminal record.
Televised footage showed a white-haired man approaching Ozel outside the Ataturk Cultural Center and striking him in the face with an open hand. The Istanbul Chief Public Prosecutor's Office later confirmed that the attacker had been detained.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Ozel had been attending a memorial for Sirri Sureyya Onder, a prominent pro-Kurdish politician who passed away on Saturday. Despite the shock of the incident, the CHP leader was reported to be unharmed.
The assault has drawn parallels with a 2019 attack on Ozel's predecessor, Kemal Kilicdaroglu, who was also assaulted while attending a soldier's funeral in Ankara province, further stoking concerns about the security environment for opposition politicians in Turkey.
Last month, Turkey's President Recep Tayyip Erdogan filed a criminal complaint for insulting the president against Ozgur Ozel, who said that the country was 'governed by a junta that is afraid of elections'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
7 hours ago
- Mint
Donald Trump is battling America's elite universities—and winning
Editor's note: On April 14th the Trump administration froze $2.2bn of federal funds for Harvard University after the Ivy League college became the first institution to reject policy changes it had demanded. This was not a hidden plot, but an open plan. In the eyes of the right, America's elite universities are guilty of a litany of sins: they propagate illiberal, left-wing ideas; they exclude or censor those who question woke views; they discriminate against the majority in the name of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI); they allow antisemitism to fester. Before Donald Trump's second term as president began, conservative activists had laid out in considerable detail the retribution they were preparing to exact for these misdeeds. The retribution is now under way. Mr Trump's administration has withheld hundreds of millions of dollars in federal grants from prestigious schools, mostly in the Ivy League, and threatened to yank billions more. It has rescinded visas for students who participated in pro-Palestinian protests last year, in some cases by having plainclothes officers grab them on the street and push them into unmarked cars. It has capped overhead costs for scientific research in ways that have already led to thousands of lost jobs. Other levers, over access to federal student loans, for instance, have not even been pulled yet. Every university president in America dreads the arrival of 'the letter' from the administration. The first was sent to Columbia University on March 13th, shortly after $400m of grants were withheld. To win the money back, the letter demanded that Columbia expel certain students who participated in protests, reform its admissions policies and place its Middle Eastern studies department into 'academic receivership'. The university capitulated to all the demands. Its president, herself a stand-in, resigned a week later. 'The Columbia opening salvo was incredible to me,' says Chris Rufo, a prominent culture warrior. 'It's almost unbelievable how weak, feckless, and pathetic these folks have been.' More shakedowns have followed. On March 19th Christopher Eisgruber, the president of Princeton University, wrote in the Atlantic that the Trump administration's actions presented 'the greatest threat to the American universities since the Red Scare of the 1950s'. That may be an understatement: Joseph McCarthy, who hounded suspected communists, was a mere senator, without the weight of the federal government behind him. In late March the federal government informed Princeton that it was suspending research grants worth $210m, ostensibly because of antisemitism. On April 3rd a letter from the government arrived at Harvard threatening $9bn-worth of grants unless the university scrapped its DEI programmes and reformed 'departments that fuel antisemitic harassment'. This week $1bn in funding for Cornell and $790m for Northwestern was frozen. Disdain for elite universities is not new to the American right. Ronald Reagan won the governorship of California in 1966 by pledging 'to clean up the mess at Berkeley' and clear out the 'beatniks, radicals and filthy speech advocates' who had 'brought such shame' to the flagship state university. But the long-running antagonism has gradually intensified as education has become more of a dividing line in American politics, with university graduates tending ever more strongly to vote Democratic. In the 1970s there were fewer than two academics who described themselves as liberal for every conservative. Four decades later the ratio was six to one. Humanities faculties, in particular, have championed ideas unpopular with ordinary voters: that American society is structurally racist, for example, or that everyone has a 'gender identity' unrelated to their sex. Trust in universities has dropped precipitously over the past decade. In 2015 nearly 60% of respondents told Gallup, a pollster, that they had a great deal of confidence in higher education. That has since fallen to 36%, almost the same proportion as say they have 'very little' or 'no confidence'. Republicans are especially critical; only 20% of them express faith in universities, compared with 56% of Democrats. 'The isolation of the academy writ large, from the whole of society, is at the root of a lot of these problems,' says Greg Weiner, the president of Assumption University. Loud and lengthy protests against Israel's war in Gaza over the past 18 months have further cemented the idea that campuses are out of kilter with mainstream opinion—and given the right an opportunity to attack universities for not doing enough to make Jewish students and faculty feel safe. The administration has been using supposed antisemitism as grounds to demand reforms. 'In some cases, these are not just unconstitutional demands, but there is also no statutory authority for them,' says Jameel Jaffer, a professor of law and journalism at Columbia University. Mr Jaffer points out that Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which the administration has invoked on behalf of Jewish students and faculty, does allow for sanctions—but only after a formal investigation. Even then, 'The remedial measures have to be limited to the programme found to be in violation.' The withdrawal of grants could also be challenged. Universities might argue that the conditions the administration is imposing for their restoration amount to unconstitutional coercion. In 1967 in Keyishian v Board of Regents, the Supreme Court found that academic freedom is 'a special concern of the First Amendment, which does not tolerate laws that cast a pall of orthodoxy over the classroom'. The deportation of foreign students involved in protests is of dubious legality, too. In Bridges v Wixon in 1945 the Supreme Court affirmed, 'Freedom of speech and of the press is accorded aliens residing in this country.' The Trump administration has explicitly rejected this idea. In its deportation proceedings against Mahmoud Khalil, a Palestinian graduate student at Columbia involved in protests against the war in Gaza, the administration is citing a seldom-used law allowing the secretary of state to cancel visas for migrants whose continued presence could yield 'potentially serious adverse foreign-policy consequences'. The Supreme Court has never opined on this law, but in 1996 in Massieu v Reno, a federal district judge struck it down as unconstitutional. As it happened, the judge in question was Maryanne Trump Barry, the late sister of Mr Trump. It seems unlikely that even the Supreme Court, with its conservative supermajority, would endorse all the Trump administration's attacks on universities, if asked. Yet most of the victims seem more inclined to capitulate than litigate. That may be because universities are worried that even if they prevail in one instance, the administration will simply find other ways to punish and coerce them. Moreover, judicial relief comes only slowly; there would be lots of financial difficulties during the delay. Talented faculty might decamp to other institutions with fewer government headaches. By the same token, although many of the universities affected are enormously wealthy (see chart), the federal government can impose costs in so many ways that most see no hope of simply enduring the financial pressure. Instead, universities, whether recipients of letters or not, are disavowing the policies the right so dislikes, academic freedom notwithstanding. The University of Michigan has shuttered its DEI office, on which it had lavished $250m over the past decade. The University of California, which pioneered the requirement that prospective hires provide 'diversity statements' (in effect, professions of support for DEI), recently dropped them. 'This is the Vichy moment. It's a classic collaborationist dilemma,' says Michael Roth, the president of Wesleyan University, an as-yet-untargeted institution. 'You can have preserved your school but you live in a sea of authoritarianism.' Bringing universities to heel from 'a position of savage strength', as Mr Rufo puts it, may yield only superficial results. Because Mr Trump's approach is so hostile and extreme, it may actually discourage universities from honestly assessing how they went wrong and correcting course. 'None of this will make any difference in the long run unless it is accompanied by a full accounting of what has happened for the last two decades in higher education in America,' says Anthony Kronman, a former dean of Yale Law School. There is also little logic in the government's decision to switch off funding for science in order to punish ideas that emanated from humanities departments. Another recent decision, to cap the share of research grants that can be spent on overheads, will diminish the amount of scientific research conducted at all American universities, not just the elite ones. So will the gutting of the National Institutes of Health, which dispense huge amounts of funding for medical research. The administration's general antipathy towards immigrants will presumably also take a toll. 'Our universities are the best in the world. We drain the world of human capital. It's the goose that lays the golden egg,' says Nicholas Christakis, a professor at Yale. Mr Rufo is undaunted. He hints that the campaign against woke academics is only in its infancy. Certainly, more universities will come under attack and more means of coercion will be tested. There is talk in conservative circles of demanding the sacking of particular professors. Mr Rufo gives short shrift to talk about the sanctity of academic freedom. 'Freedom is the wrong lens to analyse the problem,' he says. 'The Columbia post-colonial studies faculty are not engaged in academic research. They're engaged in political activism. They're engaged in ideological mania. And in order to have academic freedom, you have to accept academic responsibility.' But even accepting the remedies Mr Trump is dispensing does not seem to have been enough in Columbia's case, at least. Although it has complied with the administration's demands, it still has not received the $400m that had been frozen. Correction (April 11th 2025): A previous version of this piece said that Eugene McCarthy was the senator who pursued suspected communists in the 1950s. In fact it was Joseph McCarthy. Sorry.
United News of India
8 hours ago
- United News of India
Canada visit by PM will provide platform to reset ties: MEA Spokesperson
New Delhi, June 12 (UNI) Prime Minister Narendra Modi will travel to Canada to participate in G7 Summit, which is expected to provide a platform for discussing bilateral and global issues and potentially "reset" ties based on mutual respect, shared interests, and sensitivity to each other's concerns. Besides participating in the G7 Summit, Modi will have a bilateral meeting with his Canadian PM Mark Carney, which will offer an important opportunity for them to exchange views on bilateral and global issues and 'explore pathways to set or reset the relationship based on mutual respect, shared interest and sensitivity to each other's concerns'. This information was shared by External Affairs Ministry Spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal during his weekly media briefing. He said that Prime Minister Modi had received a call from Canadian Prime Minister Carney last week, during which he extended an invitation to attend the upcoming G7 summit in Kananaskis. 'India and Canada are vibrant democracies, bound by shared democratic values, a steadfast commitment to the rule of law, and strong people-to-people ties,' the spokesperson said. The forthcoming meeting is expected to provide a platform for discussing bilateral and global issues and potentially "reset" ties based on mutual respect, shared interests, and sensitivity to each other's concerns. New Delhi and Toronto have been witnessing a chill in bilateral relations over the last few years, mainly because of support provided to pro-Khalistani elements in Canada. 'Our views on some of these have already been shared publicly in considerable detail,' Jaiswal said. Replying to a question on reinstating expelled diplomats, Jaiswal emphasised that mechanisms for dialogue between Indian and Canadian law enforcement agencies are already in place and have been actively engaging on mutual security issues over time. This engagement, he said, is expected to continue. UNI RBE SSP
Time of India
10 hours ago
- Time of India
Egypt detains over 200 pro-Palestinian activists ahead of Gaza march: organisers
AP image Egyptian authorities have detained more than 200 pro-Palestinian activists in Cairo ahead of an international march with the stated aim of breaking Israel's blockade on Gaza, organisers said Thursday. As part of the Global March to Gaza, thousands of activists planned to travel to Egypt's Rafah border crossing with the Palestinian territory on Friday to demand the entry of humanitarian aid. On Thursday, the march's spokesperson Saif Abukeshek told AFP: "Over 200 participants were detained at Cairo airport or questioned at hotels across Cairo." He added that those detained included nationals from the United States, Australia, the Netherlands, France, Spain, Morocco and Algeria. Abukeshek said that plainclothes police entered hotels in Cairo on Wednesday with lists of names, questioned activists and in some cases confiscated mobile phones and searched personal belongings. "After interrogations, some were arrested and others were released," he added. At Cairo airport, some detainees were held for long hours without explanation, Abukeshek said, adding that others were deported, without specifying exact numbers. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Neuropatia? Simples aparelho domestico tem ajudado muitas pessoas. A arte do herbalismo Undo Twenty French activists who had planned to join the march were held at Cairo airport "for 18 hours", he said. "What happened was completely unexpected," Abukeshek said. Footage shared with AFP showed dozens of people with their luggage crammed inside a holding room at the airport. "We're locked up here in this room with so many people -- some 30-40 people," a German national said in one video. "I called the embassy and they told me their people are trying to figure things out," she said. The Greek contingent said in a statement that dozens of Greek nationals were among those held at Cairo airport "despite having all legal travel documents, having broken no law and followed every legal procedure in entering the country". Cairo's security chief did not respond to an AFP request for comment. Pressure After 21 months of war, Israel is facing mounting international pressure to allow more aid into Gaza, which the United Nations has dubbed "the hungriest place on Earth". Another convoy dubbed Soumoud, or steadfastness in Arabic, left the Tunisian capital on Monday, hoping to pass through divided Libya and Egypt -- which organisers say has yet to provide passage permits -- to reach Gaza. The Global March to Gaza, which is coordinating with Soumoud, said around 4,000 participants from more than 40 countries would take part in the event, with many having already arrived ahead of the Friday march. According to the plan, participants are set to travel by bus to the city of El-Arish in the heavily securitised Sinai Peninsula before walking 50 kilometres (30 miles) towards the border with Gaza. They would then camp there before returning to Cairo on June 19. Israel has called on Egyptian authorities "to prevent the arrival of jihadist protesters at the Egypt-Israel border". Such actions "would endanger the safety of (Israeli) soldiers and will not be allowed", Defence Minister Israel Katz said. In response, Egypt's foreign ministry said that while it backs efforts to put "pressure on Israel", any foreign delegations visiting the border area must receive approval through official channels. "We will continue despite what happened because the current numbers in Egypt and those expected to arrive are enough to organise this march," Abukeshek said.
