Same-sex marriage

Ilhan Ahmed is the only Muslim member of parliament from the religious minority of Thrace who voted in favor of the bill on same-sex couples. The other three were away. Two deputies of the New Left and one of the PASOK chose the path of abstention. But for Mr. Ahmet, who represents, as he says in BIMA, the reformers of the minority, from the moment the vote was changed to a roll call, he did what he considers right as a politician first and then as a member of parliament.

Mr. Ahmed emphasizes about his career in politics and the bills he has voted for that “in my political career for 20 years I have represented and am still representing the reformers of the minority. That is, young people who think according to the western way of thinking are open minded. This was my philosophy, this was my political reason and for this reason mainly in whichever party I joined, I was always first in votes. Because of this reformist tendency of mine, ideology, expression, an Ilhan Ahmed who fights every day for the social and political liberation of the minority from various systems could not perhaps act differently. But on the other hand, it was also a leading issue that mainly concerned childbearing, which I was absolutely opposed to.”

What did he say about the Muslim MPs who voted against it?

Mr. Ahmed emphasized the fact that fellow Muslim MPs, including himself and one from PaSoK, voted against the bill, stressing that “but I would like to make a remark at this point if you want, or to say my opinion about the others other three minority MPs. First of all, the MPs of the New Left, Mr. Ozgiur and Mr. Zeibek, have been preaching for 20 years that they are leftists and defenders of human rights, let me explain why they abstained. Let them explain to the minority why they did not vote in favor of Article 9, which refers to the extension of the prohibition of discrimination to all minorities. While they had the ability to vote against certain articles, why did they choose this path? This is a reflection that enters, not only from me, but enters from the whole minority towards them. Of course, the same question is asked of my other colleague from the same party, Mr. Burhan Barak, who should also explain to us, or if he wants to, he does not need to apologize, but the minority, the local community is wondering if the possibility existed why they chose this path ;

With regard to the objections he had at the beginning of the discussion of the bill and the issue of adoption, he stated that “if the bill had been given from the beginning the possibility of a roll-call vote only on the Authority, without the possibility to vote on articles as well, perhaps my own my opinion and my vote would have been negative, would have been to abstain from this bill. Because in the bill there were provisions that I was absolutely in agreement with, but there were also provisions that I did not agree with, e.g. the article 11 adoption provision which I voted against was against me, while article 6 which was about extending non-discrimination to ethnic, racial, religious, sexual groups and minorities in terms of human rights was clearly an article which clearly and I would upvote it. This possibility of roll-call voting according to article was given by the KKE, something that also gave a way out to my own position”.

“PaSoK has proven that it is a multifunctional, polyphonic democratic party”

Regarding what happened within the Parliamentary Group and regarding the decision of the president of PASoK, Nikos Androulakis, not to impose party discipline, he pointed out that “regarding K.O. the fact that some of my colleagues chose the attitude of abstention, I clearly do not criticize them and I consider it normal, because in this way the PASOK proved that it is a multifunctional, polyphonic democratic party. Our president, Nikos Androulakis, could have imposed party discipline and thus given a way out to his MPs, assuming political responsibility himself, but he chose the highly democratic way of leaving the issue to each MP individually. Everyone personally taking responsibility whether you want to or not, I think the president’s decision was highly democratic, he put things in their place.

During the debate, Mr. Ahmet particularly focused on the distinction between a member of parliament and a politician, but also on the fact that we must all think about how we will function as a society, stressing that “every member of parliament thinks about his re-election, but the distinction of a politician and a parliamentarian I think is exactly at this point. These crucial pieces of legislation, such as the Prespa agreement, or same-sex couples, or anything that concerns society, must be acted upon by each person as a politician first and then as a member of parliament. As a member of a minority that asks to have more rights, but to have a liberated framework, not to succumb to various pressures, I could not vote against something that was in the direction of its liberation in general as a minority,” he concluded.