Book: Ak Party’s Response to the Indictment
Book: Ak Party’s Response to the Indictment
Ak Party has made the official defense against the Constitutional Court yesterday for the closure case. Ak party has published the “Ak Party’s Response to the Indictment” as a book in English. Ak party had recently announced the recent case as ‘Google Case’. You can find the the claim Google Case in formal manner in related chapters of the book ‘Ak Party’s Response to the Indictment’.
You can get the copy of book from here. The book contains the following chapters.
BOOK: Ak Party’s Response to the Indictment
I. THIS CASE IS POLITICAL, NOT LEGAL
1. In General
2. The Political/Ideological Language of the Indictment
II. FREEDOM OF POLITICAL PARTIES AND ITS LIMITS IN DEMOCRACIES
1. Democracy and Political Parties
2. Universal Standards in the Banning of Political Parties
3. The Banning of Political Parties in Turkey
III. THE CASE LACKS A LEGAL BASIS
1. In This Case the Conditions for Becoming a “Center” do not Exist
2. Our Party Has Committed No Acts Nor Used any Rhetoric Against
Secularism
2.1 The AK Party’s Understanding of Secularism
2.2 Secularism, the Headscarf and Freedom of Expression
2.2.1 Freedom to Wear Headscarves in Universities is Required by the Right to
Individual Autonomy and Freedom
2.2.2 Remarks Regarding Freedom of Dress are Within the Context of Freedom of
Expression
2.2.3 Constitutional Amendments That Are Legislative Activities Cannot Be
Claimed to Be Anti-Secular
3 The AK Party President’s Statements Are Within the Framework of Freedom of
Expression
4 Similar Remarks to the Ones Noted in the Indictment or Even Stronger Ones
Were Made by Various Other Political Leaders
Statements of CHP President Deniz Baykal
Statements of Former Prime Minister Bulent Ecevit
Statements of former Prime Minister Mesut Yılmaz: (Annex-9)
MHP President Devlet BAHÇELİ: (Annex-11)
Former Prime Minister and President Süleyman Demirel’s Statements
5 Defending Children’s Freedom of Religious Education Is Not Against
Secularism
6 Defending a Change in University Entry Eligibility Status for Vocational
Schools is not Against Secularism
7 The State Initiative to Educate Poor Students in Private Schools is Not Against
Secularism
8 Votes and Remarks Made Within the Scope of Legislative Immunity cannot be
Used as Evidence
9 Remarks Made Before the Establishment of the Party Would not Bind It
10 It is not Possible to Attribute to the Party Statements and Actions of Public
Employees Who are Non-members
11 The Neutral President Cannot be Included in a Political Party Case
12 Statements of the TGNA Speaker cannot be Used as Evidence
13 The “Possibility of Violence” Claim in the Indictment is totally a Product of
Imagination.
14 The Foreign Policy of the AK Party Government is Not Unconstitutional
IV. THE INDICTMENT IS COMPOSED OF WRONG INFORMATION, DISTORTIONS AND FICTION
1. The Prime Minister’s New Straits Times Interview Has Been Distorted
2. The Unverified News Reports Have Been Used
3. The Language of the Constitution Has Been Altered
4. For Procedural Reasons The Main Opposition Party Cannot Have
Demanded Review of the Constitutional Amendments
5. The Concept of “Religious Community” is not New to the Legal System
6. The Clause of “Reserving Space for Prayer for Patients” Has been in Effect
for Ten Years
7. Only Repetitive Provisions Have Been Deleted from the Council of
Educational Policy Council Regulation
8. Personnel Assigned to the Educational Policy Council Are Not Members of a
Single Labor Union
9. The Allegation of Partisan Staffing is Groundless
10 Inclusion of Statements of Party Members Subjected to Disciplinary
Investigation in the Indictment is Not Acceptable
11. Statements Later Corrected or Found to Be Totally Baseless Are Included
as Evidence
12. Remarks and Activities Disavowed by Party Officials Are Being Used to
Serve as Evidence For the Claim of Being a ‘Center’.
SUMMARY AND REQUEST
