Google Case in Turkey
AK Party Closure Case in Turkey has been described recently as Google Case. The following is the excerpt from Turkish press regarding Google Case. The term Google Case became very popular in Turkey very recently after the ruling party described the case as Google Case.
Closure case built on evidence found through Google, says AK party
Turkey’s ruling party on Monday rejected the charges against it in a court case seeking its closure for alleged anti-secular activity, arguing that its closure would be rejected by the European Court of Human Rights.
A defense statement submitted on Monday by the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) to the Constitutional Court, where the ruling party currently faces closure on charges of anti-secularism, criticized the indictment against it, saying the evidence had been put together through Internet searches.
The defense statement argued that the indictment showed that its author had obviously decided to start a lawsuit first, and only then began gathering evidence. “The prosecutor has found most of the news clips and commentaries used as evidence in the indictment through keyword searches on Google,” the statement said.
The Constitutional Court announced yesterday that it has scheduled July 1 as the date on which it will hear the prosecution’s oral testimony. The AK Party will testify on July 3.
Supreme Court of Appeals Chief Prosecutor Abdurrahman Yalçınkaya has accused the AK Party of violating secularism, which is protected by the Turkish Constitution, and has demanded that the party be closed down. His indictment was filed in March.
Yalçınkaya also asked that President Abdullah Gül, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and 70 other current and former AK Party officials be barred from politics for five years.
The defense statement, written in the form of a rebuttal to the indictment, bears the signature of Erdoğan. The statement emphasized that the chief protector was acting ideologically and that he was biased.
“We are faced with a conspiracy-theory view of diversity, multi-party politics, civil society, intellectuals, clergy and international organizations that we are part of. It is impossible for a mentality that is irritated even by the concept of ‘democratic secularism’ to protect democracy or secularism,” the defense statement argued.
The AK Party submitted its defense statement 13 days before the deadline, hoping to speed up the process to avoid further political ambiguity, which has been taking its toll on the country. The defense statement is hundreds of pages long, with 92 pages set aside to answer accusations directed at Prime Minister Erdoğan. The accusations leveled at the other 70 people are being dealt with in another file.
“The indictment defends not the principle of secularism, but a totalitarian ideology, a philosophical conviction in the guise of secularism and, most perilously, a set of beliefs in competition with other religious beliefs. Secularism is not a lifestyle; it is the name of the principle that allows different lifestyles to live side-by-side in peace. Exalting a certain prototype of a person seen in totalitarian states is the end of freedoms. The experience of the Soviet Union has shown that secularism can be made into a way of life only under a totalitarian ideology, and that different lifestyles have to be destroyed for that to happen.”
‘The prosecutor is biased and acting ideologically’
“As we iterated earlier in our preliminary defense, the indictment is arbitrary and subjective. The prosecution has unfortunately persisted with its ideological and biased attitude seen in the preliminary indictment. Just like in the first opinion, the second statement based on the merit of the case is filled with concepts that are impossible to define but charged with a certain political/ideological meaning, such as “imperialism,” “betrayal,” “fundamentalism,” “fundamentalist,” “religion mongers,” “conspiring,” “colonialist,” “pro-mandate” [i.e. those who support the idea of the European tutelage of Turkey after WWI], “accomplices,” “reactionary,” “domestic and foreign centers” and “ a project of political hegemony.” Interpreting history, or judging history, can never be the subject matter of a closure case. The prosecution has tried to make up for its despondency caused by lack of evidence for its claims by making subjective historical references. The establishment date of the AK Party is Aug. 14, 2001. The law openly rejects a logic that retroactively accuses a political party [of alleged crimes committed] before it gained its legal personality,” the statement said
‘YARSAV contributed to indictment’
Among the 17 binders of documents that Chief Prosecutor Yalçınkaya included in his indictment was a news clip cropped from the Cumhuriyet daily. The document was photocopied onto the reverse of another document, a communiqué from the Judges and Prosecutors Association (YARSAV), a professional organization of the judicial bureaucracy. The AK Party criticized this in its indictment: “The fact that one of the documents used as evidence against us is on the back page of a YARSAV statement gives the impression that this evidence was put together at YARSAV. … We are curious to see how the prosecution explains this situation before the Constitutional Court.”
‘Prosecution’s understanding of society horrifying’
The statement also criticized the prosecution’s understanding of an ideal society. “It is impossible not to be horrified after reading the indictment about the model society the prosecution has in mind. … The Interpretations of and comments about the definition of secularism in the indictment are very problematic throughout the document. None of these definitions are academic. They are contradictory, subjective and not up to legal standards and, most importantly, they involve elements that are hazardous to the principle of secularism, which they claim to protect. The indictment defends not the principle of secularism but a totalitarian ideology, a philosophical conviction in the guise of secularism and, most perilously, a set of beliefs that stands in competition with other religious beliefs.”
The statement also argued: “Defining secularism as a way of life is also against our Constitution. The Constitution offers protection for different lifestyles, and it also forces the state to be impartial in this regard. … According to this mentality [exhibited by the indictment] declaring special religious days as holidays, for example, is also against secularism. The concrete ideological approach that says religion should remain a matter of emotions, thoughts and consciousness only and should never be made part of worldly affairs cannot be found in any Western democratic secular system.”
“There are significant differences between the Constitutional Court’s history of party closure cases and the prior rulings of the European Court of Human Rights. For this reason, the Constitutional Court should change its interpretation according to the court’s rulings,” the AK Party statement said, recalling that a constitutional amendment enacted in 2004 made this a rule for Turkish courts.
“When one looks thorough the prosecution’s positivistic and militant window, the concept of ‘democratic secularism’ might appear to be a new political expression. In fact, the problem stems from this anachronistic understanding of the meaning of secularism and its necessities,” the statement argued.
The statement also asserted that the prosecution has failed to prove its case. “None of the evidence presented in this case has value as legal evidence. Not a single piece of convincing evidence proving that our party has become a focal point for anti-secularist activity has been presented and the prosecution has failed to prove its case.”
Lawsuit first, evidence collection later
“When one looks at the date of the evidence gathered in this court, a majority of the material presented as proof of the prosecutor’s case appears to have been collected after the prosecution decided to launch the case,” the statement said, asserting that a majority of the material, such as news stories and commentaries from columnists accessed on the Internet, were from dates very close to the date the prosecutor filed the initial complaint.
Feb. 28 mentality
The AK Party statement said the indictment was written with an attitude strongly reminiscent of the Feb. 28, 1997 unarmed military intervention that overthrew a coalition government led by an Islamist party. “The indictment at one point refers to Beşir Atalay, saying, ‘Beşir Atalay, who was dismissed from office as the rector of Kırıkkale University in 1997.’ Beşir Atalay, who was dismissed from office illegally and arbitrarily in the Feb. 28 process, has never committed an act against secularism, not then and not since,” the statement said, adding, “To include such an accusation in the indictment is the extension of the logic of the Feb. 28 process.
Prosecutor using ‘divine inspiration’
“All the data in this case against us has been interpreted by the Chief Prosecutor’s Office at the expense of freedom. However, the fundamental principle of universal human rights is ‘interpretation in favor of freedoms.’ … The Chief Prosecutor’s Office has literally used the method of ‘divination’ in assessing the AK Party’s alleged goals and has shown things not likely to happen as likely,” the statement said.
It continued: “There is not a single reason in this case that necessitates sanctions against our party. In fact, the AK Party has become the focal point not of actions against the law, but of serving the nation, human rights, democracy, peace, brotherhood, tolerance and the love of Turkey. The actions of the AK Party in its six years in power have testified to it being the guarantor of the preservation of the democratic, secular and social state of law.”
Violation of human rights convention
The indictment also noted that closing the AK Party would be a violation of the freedom of expression, the right to organize and the right to free elections, all protected under the European Convention on Human Rights.
Meanwhile, the court has also scheduled a date to hear the defense of the pro-Kurdish Democratic Society Party (DTP), which is facing closure on charges of promoting ethnic separatism.
Zaman/Turkish Newspaper/18th June 2008
The Case regarding ruling AK Party in Turkey has been decided 10 minutes ago. The Supreme Constitutional Court of Turkey rejected the demand to ban Ruling AK Party.
