Coalition cuts are making our streets less safe

Coalition cuts are making our streets less safe

A properly funded police force is vital to keeping our streets safe but the Government is taking the wrong approach to law and order. Instead of cutting of crime, they are cutting the police. There are already 4,000 fewer police officers on our streets than there were in 2010 and half of London's police stations are set to close by by 2016. Many of these cuts will be counter productive, leading to more crime and higher costs for the police.

Cutting the number of police on our streets is not the only damage that the Government is doing, they have also taken money away from community projects. As a former community worker myself I know the importance giving young people a place to go and something to do can be, in preventing them from falling in with the wrong crowd.

When I was head of the Halkevi community centre I worked to establish sporting and youth projects projects for teenagers, keeping them out of criminal gangs and helping them to stay in school. Cuts to the Communities and Local Government budgets mean that councils don't have the funding to support projects like these anymore, meaning vulnerable young people are at risk.

Happy Birthday NHS

Happy Birthday NHS

A few weeks ago the NHS celebrated a significant milestone – it's 65^th Birthday. It's a fantastic achievement and made me prouder than ever to be a member of the party which created our health service.

Our health service has a special significance for me. During my time as a community worker in London I was shot during  a violent attack by local criminal gang members. Fortunately, thanks to the fast response of the ambulance service and the excellent treatment by surgeons, I made a full recovery. Like so many people in our country I know the importance of the NHS because it has quite literally saved my life. It's because of this experience that I'm a passionate defender of a healthcare service for all, free at the point of delivery.

That's I'm proud of what the last Labour Government did. We invested record amounts of funding, recruiting 89,000 new nurses, 44,000 new doctors and opening 118 new hospitals. The results of this were clear: the shortest waiting times in history and patient satisfaction levels at an all time high - a high quality health service  provided on the basis of need, not ability to pay.

These achievements are even more remarkable when you think about the NHS we inherited from the Tories in 1997. Back then the system was close to collapse, with crumbling hospitals and hundreds of thousands of people forced to wait over six months for treatment.        

Unfortunately right now it looks as if history is repeating itself. David Cameron has broken his promise to protect our health service. Instead since the election there has been £3bn wasted on a needless top down reorganisation, 4,000 nurses have been cut and A&E is in crisis.

That's why to mark the NHS' 65^th I helped to organise a street stall here in Enfield Southgate, collecting signatures for a petition against what the Government is doing to our NHS. Unlike the Tories who want to dismantle the NHS Labour wants to create a joined up health service, with the needs of patients at the heart of it. You can find out more about our plans for whole person care and take part in our policy review here.   

Meeting with Shadow Secretary of State, Caroline Flint

Meeting with Shadow Secretary of State, Caroline Flint

Earlier this year I met with Shadow Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, Caroline Flint MP to discuss rising energy bills.

The average household duel fuel bill now costs £1,400, up more than £300 since the last election and many people are struggling to meet the cost of keeping their home warm in winter. Many of the big energy companies are making huge profits, while at the same time raising prices for their customers. Yet despite this injustice the current government has done nothing to stand up to them and to fight for hard pressed consumers.  

I spoke to Caroline about my fears for all those struggling to cope with the rising cost of living in Enfield Southgate and my disappointment at the lack of action from the Tory-led coalition. She shared my concerns and she told me that the next Labour government would act to secure fairer energy bills for the public.

She told me that if elected the Labour would get tough with the big energy companies, by creating a new watchdog with the power to force them to pass on price cuts to their customers. We would also require energy companies to put all their customers aged over 75 onto the cheapest tariff, which could save as many as four million pensioners up to £200 a year from their annual energy bills. 

You can find out more about Labour's plans for a fairer energy market and how you can get involved with the party's policy review at the Your Britain website.

ECE TEMELKURAN BRITANYA PARLEMENTOSUNDA KONUSTU

Başbakan üslübu ile kutuplaştırıyor

Türkiye'nin en tanınmış gazeteci ve yazarlarından Ece Temelkuran İngiliz Parlamentosu'nda düzenlenen bir toplantıda AK Parti hükümeti ve Başbakan Tayyip Erdoğan’a sert eleştiriler yöneltti. Konuşmasına Gezi Parkı olayları nedeni ile sokağa dökülen eylemcileri selamlayarak başlayan Ece Temelkuran çoğunluğunu gençlerin oluşturduğu göstericilerin Erdoğan’ın süreklilik kazanan aşağılayıcı üslübu ve polis şiddetine karşı isyan ettiklerini ifade etti. Göstericilerin ‘bir avuç yağmacı’ olarak nitelendirilmesinin doğru olmadığını savunan Temelkuran, “Türkiye’nin 81 vilayetinden sadece 4’ünde insanlar sokaklara dökülmedi. Protestolar, askeri darbelerin apolitize hale getirdiği gençlerin, güçlerinin farkına varmalarını, korkuları ile yüzleşecek gücü kendilerinde bulmalarını ve birbirlerini sevmelerini sağladı” dedi. Temelkuran izleyicilere bu alışılmadık ve her türlü ideolojik etiketten uzak, kendiliğinden gelişen ve lideri olmayan hareketi yaşayabilmek için Taksim’e gitmeleri çağrısında da bulundu.

ERDOĞAN TOPLUMUN BİR KESİMİNİ YOK SAYIYOR

İstanbul’da başlayan olayların Gezi Parkı’nda eylem yapan çevrecilere orantısız polis şiddetinin uygulanması ile kıvılcım aldığını hatırlatan Ece Temelkuran, protestoların ülke geneline yayılmasında Başbakan Erdoğan’ın üslubu ve söylemlerinin etkili olduğunu savundu. Erdoğan’ın tavrının son bir kaç haftalık bir durum gibi değerlendirilmemesi gerektiğini söyleyen Temelkuran sözlerini şöyle sürdürdü “Başbakan bu söylemlerini 10 yıldır sürdürüyor. Sokaklara dökülen insanların, iktidara karşı muhalefet yaptıkları için cezaevlerine konulan öğrencilerin, gazetecilerin, sendikacıların ve politikacılara da destekleri var. Başbakan her zaman yaptığı gibi Gezi parkı olaylarından sonra da toplumu kutuplaştıran  konuşmalar yapmaya devam ediyor. Konuşmalarında doğru olmayan argümanlar kullanıyor. Özellikle Taksim olaylarının başlamasının ardından çıktığı Afrika gezisinden dönüşte kışkırtıcı konuşmalar yapıyor. Örneğin bir camiye ayakkabılarla girildiği ve içerde alkol içildiği gibi iddiaları, söz konusu caminin imamımın yalanlamasına rağmen, her fırsatta dile getiriyor. Ayrıca göstericileri kovalarken düştüğü için yaşamını kaybettiği ifade edilen polis memurunun da şehit edildiği ileri sürüyor. Bu söylemler provokatif ve toplumu bölüyor.”

TÜRK BAHARI DEĞİL!

Ünlü yazar Ece Temelkuran, İşçi Partisi milletvekili Seema Malhotra’nın ev sahipliği yaptığı ve Middlesex Üniversitesi Uluslararası İlişkiler Bölümü Öğretim Üyesi Dr. Tunç Aybak’ın yönettiği toplantıda, Türkiye’deki olayların batı medyasında aktarılış biçimini de eleştirdi.  Gösterilerin laik-Müslüman çatışması gibi sunulmasının doğru olmadığını vurgulayan Temelkuran, eylemlerde Kürtlerden anti-kapitalist Müslümanlara kadar her kesimden insanın yer aldığına dikkat çekti.  “ Protestoları ‘Türk baharı’ olarak adlandırmak sadece doğru değerlendirme yapmak için tembellik değil aynı zamanda emperyalist bir yaklaşıma da işaret ediyor” diyen ünlü gazeteci, batı medyasının protestoculara Hollywood filmi oyuncuları gibi yaklaştığını, kendileri açısından beğendikleri bir filmi adlandırmaya kalkışan yapımcılara benzediklerini söyledi. Ece Temelkuran, Türk medyasının olaylar karşısında izlediği tutumun utanç verici olduğunu da sözlerine ekledi. 

Çok sayıda akademisyen, öğrenci ve profesyonelin katıldığı toplantıda, İşçi Partisi milletvekili Ann Clywd ile Lordlar Kamarası üyesi Lord Hylton da hazır bulundu.

‘SYRIA AND TURKEY’S FOREIGN POLICY’

CENTRE FOR TURKEY STUDIES

WESTMINSTER DEBATE

‘SYRIA AND TURKEY’S FOREIGN POLICY’

Committee Room 11, House of Commons

Chair: Siobhain McDonagh Labour MP for Mitcham and Morden

Keynote speakers: Mike Gapes Labour MP for Ilford South, Columnist Kadri Gursel of Turkish daily Milliyet and Dr Bill Park of King’s College

Mike Gapes is a Labour MP for Ilford South and a member of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee. His political interests include defence, international affairs, European Union, economic policy, education and mental health.

Kadri Gursel is a columnist for Turkish daily Milliyet since 2007. His main focuses are Turkish foreign policy, international affairs, Turkey’s Kurdish question, as well as Turkey’s evolving political Islam and its national and regional impacts.

Dr Bill Park is a Senior Lecturer in the Defence Studies Department at King’s College London. His research interests are Turkish foreign and security policy, Iraq and European security.

3 / 5

Summary

Turkey as a geographically and politically strategic country faces a number of challenges in a politically instable region – especially since the beginning of the Arab Spring in early 2010. And it is for this reason that Turkey’s foreign policy towards Syria and the uprising is of great importance. The Syrian uprising against the Bashar al Assad regime started in 2011 and transformed rapidly into a brutal conflict and an outright civil war. The fight against the regime and the President Assad’s perseverance have resulted in thousands of deaths, around 2,5 millions of internally displaced people and more than 100.000 refugees in the neighbouring countries. Turkey, in particular, is supporting the opposition against Assad and has become a host of thousands of Syrian refugees.  Also, Turkey was exposed to some cross-border attacks. Turkey’s foreign policy pursued a humanitarian and military approach to respond to the Syrian conflict.

The Centre for Turkey Studies hosted a panel with eminent speakers who examined the tension in the region and Turkey’s foreign policy regarding Syria.

Our first speaker Mike Gapes MP analysed the Syrian uprising and its implications for the region. He argued that the UN Security Council resolution has been slowed down by the Russian and Chinese vetoes, but Britain and France’s recent decision of supporting the newly formed Syrian National Coalition of Opposition Forces projects a potential improvement. Gapes stated that Turkey has been left alone by the UN and NATO in its efforts in handling the conflict; however the conflict is now also influenced by external involvement by Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iran.

More Video

Kadri Gursel examined the reasons and the results of Ankara’s foreign policy regarding Syria. Gursel claimed that Turkey made poor predictions about how the Syrian uprising would unfold. Turkey expected that the Assad regime would fall within months and that the U.S. and the UN would engage militarily in the conflict. Therefore, Turkey publicly supported the Syrian rebellion and the opposition group the Syrian National Council to be formed in Istanbul. Gursel also argued that Turkey did not take into account the divisions amongst the Syrian opposition. Turkey also needs to take into consideration the presence of the Syrian Kurds who are in close relations with the Iraqi Kurds. According to Gursel, Turkey approached Syria with interventionist aims rather than democratic values.

Dr Bill Park agreed with Kadri Gursel’s observations and focused on the question of Kurdish minorities in the region. Park stated that Turkey’s policy regarding the Kurds has been contradictory as Turkey objected a military action in Iraq in 2003 for fear of worsening the Kurdish problem and causing instability in the region. However, Turkey has called for military intervention on the Syrian conflict despite the existence of the Syrian Kurdish factor. Turkey now signals a move towards backing opposition against the Syrian Kurds as well in addition to the Assad regime. According to Park, the Syrian conflict will get worse even if  Assad leaves and the question that should be asked now is who will be ruling Syria in the aftermath of Assad’s removal.

The speakers’ observations were followed by an engaging question and answer session. Some guests in the packed committee room queried on the possibility and the benefit of a military intervention by the western countries, and asked about the future of Turkey’s relations with Russia. Some questions followed up on the ramifications of the Kurdish issue in the region.

‘Religion, Society and Politics in a Changing Turkey and the Hate Crime Legislation Campaign in Turkey’

CENTRE FOR TURKEY STUDIES

WESTMINSTER DEBATE

‘Religion, Society and Politics in a Changing Turkey and the Hate Crime Legislation Campaign in Turkey’

Committee Room 15, House of Commons

Keynote Speakers:

Binnaz Toprak CHP MP for Istanbul

Dr Aykan Erdemir CHP MP for Bursa

Chair: Alison McGovern Labour MP for Wirral South

Binnaz Toprak is an MP for Istanbul and a member of the Republican People’s Party (CHP). She was born in Sivas in 1942. Toprak received her BA degree from the Hunter College of the City University of New York and her PhD degree from the Graduate Center of the CUNY. In 1976, she joined the Department of Political Science and International Relations at Boğaziçi University Istanbul where she taught and served as department chair until 2008. She is currently the Chair of Department of Political Science and International Relations at Bahçeşehir University in Istanbul. She has published extensively in English on secularism and political Islam in Turkey. Her publications in Turkish include Türkiye’de Din, Toplum ve Siyaset (Religion, Society and Politics in Turkey, with Ali Çarkoğlu, TESEV, 2000), Değişen Türkiye’de Din, Toplum ve  Siyaset (Religion, Society and Politics in a Changing Turkey, with Ali Çarkoğlu, TESEV, 2006) and İş Yaşamı, Üst  Yönetim ve Siyasette Kadın (Women in Business, High Management and Politics, with Ersin Kalaycıoğlu, TESEV,2004).

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Aykan Erdemir was born in 1974 in Bursa, Turkey. He is an MP for Bursa since July 2011 and a member of the Republican People’s Party (CHP). He is also a member of the EU Harmonization Committee and the Turkey-EU Joint Parliamentary Committee. Erdemir holds a BA in International Relations from Bilkent University (Ankara, 1996), MA (1998) and PhD (2004) in Middle Eastern Studies and in Anthropology from Harvard University (US, 2004). Erdemir’s academic research covers faith-based collective action of Turkish and European Alawi communities, work and remittance strategies of Turkish immigrants in Europe, and discrimination and hate crimes in Turkey. Erdemir is a professional member of the American Anthropological Association, European Association of Social Anthropologists, Middle East Studies Association of North America, International Sociological Association, International Association for Southeast European Anthropology, European Society for Central Asian Studies, Anthropological Association of Turkey, and Sociological Association of Turkey.

Summary

The Centre for Turkey Studies hosted a Westminster Debate focusing on two interconnected key issues in Turkey. Binnaz Toprak MP for Istanbul evaluated the findings of her co-authored report called ‘Religion, Society and Politics in a Changing Turkey’ and Assoc. Prof. Dr. Aykan Erdemir MP for Bursa analysed the Hate Crime Legislation Campaign in Turkey.

Religion, Society and Politics in a Changing Turkey

Turkey has been transformed rapidly and drastically in the last decade thanks to the stability of one governing party instead of the coalition governments of the previous decades. The governing AK Party supported by the majority of the public has implemented a great number of new policies and legislations regarding social, political and religious life in Turkey. The rapid transformation that Turkey is going through has been both praised and criticised by different interest groups in Turkey. On one hand, it has been suggested that the positive economic development of the country has had fruitful implications for the social and political advancements for the people of Turkey. On the other hand, it has been argued that the society has been deeply polarised due to the governing party’s policies on secularism.

Our first keynote speaker, Binnaz Toprak MP of the Republican People’s Party (CHP) which is the main opposition party in Turkey, analysed Turkey’s changing face in the context of religion, society and politics. Toprak referred to her co-authored report with Ali Carkoglu published by TESEV in 2006. One of the key findings of the extensive report, she stated, is that Turkey has been so polarised that there are two Turkeys in Turkey. One identifies itself with secularism and the other with Islamism. Secularists equate modernisation with westernisation and are more republican in Turkey’s context. Toprak suggested the understanding of modernisation by the governing AK Party which has Islamist roots, however, differs. She stated that the governing party associates the concept of modernity purely with economic development. The cities of Turkey have been modernised with financial developments such as building new roads and bridges, however Toprak argued that the people and the political system have become more conservative. She added that people who do not tend to have such understanding of modernism and belong to certain religious groups are less likely to find employment, particularly in Anatolia. Toprak acknowledged the achievements of the current Prime Minister Erdogan and his government in the last decade. Nevertheless, she argued that the PM’s style of governance which has become quite interfering in almost every issue and the restrictions on the freedom of speech are worrying. She finally argued that the judiciary is not independent anymore as the controversial Ergenekon Case does not follow the rule of law.

The Hate Crime Legislation Campaign in Turkey

Hate speech is a form of expression that spreads and promotes hatred based on intolerance and animosity towards individuals or groups. Hate speech not only inflicts psychological damage on the victim but also tends to incite hate crime, which can be defined as a criminal offense motivated by prejudice or hostility based on somebody’s ethnicity, national identity, religious beliefs, social status, sexual orientation or disability.

The Hate Crime Legislation Campaign Platform (in Turkey) website defines hate crimes as ‘message crimes’ which reach beyond the victim and make the victim’s group feel unwelcomed in the community. This message carries its psychological consequences, such as fear, depression and anxiety. The platform says that as a result of this message the members of the group can feel marginalized, suffer from psychological trauma and may even commit suicide. Turkish-Armenian journalist Hrant Dink, who was fatally shot in front of the headquarters of the bilingual Armenian weekly Agos in 2007, was one of the most publicized victims of hate crime in Turkey, as he was killed because of his ‘Armenian’ identity. As there is currently no legislation on hate crimes in Turkish law, criminal cases issues are often left unresolved and criminals generally go unpunished.

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Aykan Erdemir examined the Hate Crime Legislation Campaign in Turkey following Toprak’s speech. Erdemir stated that the ‘hate crime’ topic is new to the Turkish public as it has not been discussed as an issue in Turkish politics yet. However, he said that the Socialism for Social Change Organisation (Sosyal Degisim Dernegi) brought together 70 NGOs for the Hate Crime Legislation Campaign. This non-partisan organisation aims to create an awareness of the issue in the Turkish Parliament, identify the grounds of hate crimes and pass legislation for all vulnerable groups. Erdemir expressed that only CHP, BDP (Peace and Democracy Party) and some right-wing MHP (Nationalist Movement Party) MPs supported the campaign at the parliament. Erdemir argued that the Hate Crime Initiative includes two challenging issues. One of which is in relation to sexual orientation and LGBT people. The other one is the distinction between hate crimes and hate speech. According to Erdemir, the incumbent governing party has no interest in the former issue and only supports the hate crime legislation against Islamphobia. Erdemir suggested the Prime Minister has argued for a more authoritarian law against Islamphobia which is almost a blasphemy law. Therefore, he added, such legislation by this government could have dangerous implications for the non-Muslim and non-religious groups.

Following the speakers’ insightful speeches, the guests in the packed committee room joined in the discussion with comments and questions. One of the guests commented that Turkey has improved in the last decade and it cannot be suggested that Turkey was much better before the AKP government as Turkish politics turned a blind eye to the Kurdish issue and the Armenian issue. Another guest asked the speakers their interpretation of the consecutive success of the AKP government in the last decade. Toprak argued that CHP has suffered animosity as it is the founding party of the Republic and added that AKP’s major success is de-strengthening the Turkish military and working on the Kurdish issue. However, she suggested, the government discriminates against the Alawis with local policies. Erdemir expressed that CHP is associated with the religious ‘other’ and is accused of being ‘elitist’. Nevertheless, CHP is a progressive party with new implementations against the AKP movement.

LONDON’S KURDISH AND TURKISH COMMUNITIES: HOW DO THEY RELATE TO BRITAIN AND TO TURKEY?’

CENTRE FOR TURKEY STUDIES

WESTMINSTER DEBATE

‘LONDON’S KURDISH AND TURKISH COMMUNITIES: HOW DO THEY RELATE TO BRITAIN AND TO TURKEY?’

4 June 2013

Committee Room 9, House of Commons

Keynote Speakers:

Dr Ipek Demir of University of Leicester

Dr Dogus Simsek of Regents University London

Chair: Andy Love, the Labour and Co-operative Party Member of Parliament for Edmonton

Dr Ipek Demir is Lecturer in Sociology at the University of Leicester. Before joining Leicester she taught social sciences at the Universities of Sussex, Cambridge, and Open University. Dr Demir received her BA from Siyasal Bilgiler Fakultesi, University of Ankara. After the completion of her PhD from the University of Sussex, she won an ESRC Postdoctoral Fellowship and held it at the University of Cambridge. Her work is focused on the translation of ideas, practices, cultures, ethno-political identity, transnationalism and diaspora studies. Currently she is on an Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) fellowship, examining how ethno-political identity is represented and translated by Kurds (of Turkey) in London. She has given numerous invited talks and has over ten peer-reviewed international publications. They include ‘Humbling Turkishness: Undoing the Strategies of Exclusion and Inclusion of Turkish Modernity’,Journal of Historical Sociology (forthcoming 2014); ‘Battling with Memleket in London: the Kurdish Diaspora’s Engagement with Turkey’, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies (2012); ‘Lost in Translation? Try Second Language Learning: Understanding Movements of Ideas and Practices across Time and Space’, Journal of Historical Sociology (2011); ‘On the Representation of ‘Others’ at Europe’s Borders: The Case of Iraqi Kurds’, Journal of Contemporary European Studies (2010) (with Welat Zeydanlioglu); 1968 in Retrospect: History, Theory, Alterity, Palgrave Macmillan (2009)(with Gurminder K. Bhambra).

Dr Dogus Simsek works at Regent’s University London and carries out research on transnational migration at the Regent’s Centre for Transnational Studies. She received her BA in Media and Communication Systems from Istanbul Bilgi University, an MA in Cultural Studies from Goldsmiths College, University of London, and a PhD in Sociology from City University London in 2012. Before coming to Regent’s University London, she lectured in Sociology at City University London and also carried out research on Turkish and Kurdish migrants in London. Her research interests broadly cover transnationalism, diaspora, racism, ethnicity and identity. She has published research papers and presented her research at over 20 international and national conferences. Her publications include ‘Transnational Communities & Conflict Policies’ (2010, with H. Miall and A. Orrnert); The Challenge of Transnationalism to Government Policy in Britain: The Positive Outcomes of Generating Bonding Social Capital’ (2008, with D. Hadjigeorgiou); ‘The Creative Lives of Kurdish, Turkish and Turkish- Cypriot Youth in London’ (2012); “Inclusion’ and ‘Exclusion’: Transnational Experiences of Turkish and Kurdish Youth in London” (forthcoming 2013). She has also published a piece in the Guardian on the 2011 London Riots.

Summary

The Centre for Turkey Studies hosted a Westminster Debate on London’s Kurdish and Turkish Communities. Our keynote speakers Dr Ipek Demir and Dr Dogus Simsek analysed how these communities relate to Turkey and Britain.

Dr Ipek Demir shared some findings of her academic work called ‘Battling with Memleket in London: The Kurdish Diaspora’s Engagement with Turkey’. She began her speech with some facts on the ‘Turkish-speaking’ communities from Turkey and their history of migration to the UK. She stated that majority of the ‘Turkish-speaking’ communities is Kurdish people who migrated from Sivas, Kahramanmaras and the region. However, she pointed out that, the number of Kurdish people living in the UK is generally estimation as census asks participants their country of origin, not their ethnicity. According to Demir, majority of the 61 thousand London-based people who said that they were born in Turkey in the 2011 Census for England and Wales must be of Kurdish ethnicity. Additionally, she argued, debates over Muslim minorities, ethnic groups and public policies regarding diasporas do not seem to acknowledge the large proportion of Turkish and Kurdish communities in London. Hence, these communities are left ‘invisible’ in regards to public policies over migration and integration.

Demir stated that most Kurds come from areas in Turkey where conflict persisted. Hence, she indicated, it would be fair to state that Kurds sought asylum in the UK due to ethnic conflict and consequent economic deprivation. The distinction that is usually applied to political asylum seekers and ‘bogus’ economic asylum seekers fails as Kurds tend to suffer from both of these two factors. Demir analysing Kurds in the UK in relation to Turkey argued that many migrants from Turkey began identifying themselves more as Kurdish instead of British in time. She suggested that this increasing tendency of political identification with Kurdish-ness is due to state policies in Turkey. Hence, second and third generation of Kurds find themselves more in a battle with Turkey especially since the 1990s. And ‘us’ and ‘them’ dichotomy that Kurds experience in Britain and Turkey is more cultural and political than ethnicity oriented.

Dr Dogus Simsek, who has carried out an ethnographic research on second generation Turkish and Kurdish migrants in London since 2009, presented some of the findings from her research. Simsek stated that she analysed how/why these migrants connect with the homeland and the host country, and their relations to North London, London in general and Turkey. She indicated that second generation Turkish and Kurdish migrants feel more connected to homeland culture rather than British culture. However, she said, their connection with the homeland is through their parents who had settled in North London. Therefore, the second generation migrants consider particularly North London as home. Simsek speaking about the migrants’ relation to London in general said that they feel good about the diversity of London although they realise internationality of London when they attend university outside North London.

Dr Dogus Simsek argued that the second generation migrants do not have a direct link with Turkey where they generally go for summer holidays at their parents’ hometowns. She added that they do not feel included in Turkey not only due to being unable to speak mother-tongue well, but also some of them feel that they are perceived as the problematic outsiders whose parents sought asylum abroad. Simsek concluding her talk stated that second generation migrants identify North London and London as home, not Turkey.

Andy Love MP who chaired the event contributed in the discussion with his observations from his constituency, Edmonton where majority of Turks, Kurds and Turkish Cypriots live. Love emphasized the value of finding common grounds in order to create integrated communities in London and in the UK.