Blogs about Turkish Law

Turkish First lady interviewed by The Times

Turkish First lady interviewed by The Times
Hayrunnisa Gul, the wife of President Abdullah Gul, underlined in an interview with an English newspaper that it is her head she covers with the Islamic headscarf — not her brain.
Hayrunnisa Gul, the wife of Turkish President Abdullah Gul, underlined in an interview with an English newspaper that it is her head she covers with the Islamic headscarf — not her brain.

The first lady, who was interviewed by Janice Turner of UK daily The Times, said she did not believe headscarves should be forced on women.

“To me, women should not be forced to wear headscarves. It would be hard to find anyone in İstanbul who would disagree with me, at least in public,” Mrs. Gul was quoted as saying.

Gul’s interview was published yesterday in Times2, The Times’ main supplement, which features various lifestyle columns.

The headscarf issue is a topic of fierce debate in Turkey, where wearing the Islamic headscarf is banned in the public sphere.

Its use at universities was prohibited in the late 1990s through an earlier ruling by the Constitutional Court on the grounds that it would violate the nation’s secular principles, as the headscarf was seen as a political and religious symbol.

It was stressed in the Times2 article that the headscarf, worn by a considerable portion of Turkish women, means more in Turkey than in any other country.

“It has become the most potent symbol of a battle for the soul of the country that will determine its place in Europe and the Islamic world,” the article stated.

The article also recalled a closure case filed against Turkey’s ruling party.

“Despite the solid parliamentary majority that enabled her husband [Abdullah Gul] to become president, the country’s Constitutional Court is determined to press ahead with a case intended to outlaw the ruling Justice and Development Party [AK Party] and ban its leading members from politics,” it said.

A top prosecutor requested in March that Turkey’s Constitutional Court close the governing AK Party and place a ban on political party involvement for 71 of its high-level officials, including Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Gul, who was an AK Party member before becoming president and severing political ties as required by the Constitution.

It was also expressed in the article that Western governments must see this case for what it is — an attempted judicial coup.

“It has scant legal basis. If successful it would derail Turkey’s already fraught EU accession and lead many AK Party supporters to despair of the ballot box,” the article read.

Comments (1)

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

Comments

Judicial Comedy in Turkey

Judicial Comedy in Turkey
The recent closure case for the leading Ak Parti has been becoming now the most invaluable materials for comedians in Turkey. The defense document provided by the ruling AKP yesterday claims that the so-called evidences provided by the chief prosecutor of Turkey against AKP, were all collected through the search in Google. AKP provided some evidence in their defensive document to support their claims. After this interesting claim Turkish Justice system has gained a new concept called ‘Google Davası‘ which means ‘Google Case’. Sorry for the search engine users who are coming to this site after the search terms ‘Google Case’ to find out the most recent case for Google vs Microsoft, or Google vs any other parties. This is the Google Case in Turkey. In other words, Google Case is known differently now in Turkey.

For the proposed 17th July World Justice Day Logo for Google even people suggested Google to use the following Logo to be shown to Turkish Google users from google.com.tr.

You see the suggested Google Logo below for the World International Justice Day to be shown to Turkish users on 17th July if the day is officially approved. The logo carries the picture of Chief Prosecutor of Turkey with a stick in one hand to represent the letter ‘l’ in Google.

Google Logo for World Justice Day

Comments

Chief Prosecutor of Turkey: Abdurrahman Yalçınkaya

Chief Prosecutor of Turkey: Abdurrahman Yalçınkaya
Kemalists regard him as the keeper of the Grail: Abdurrahman Yalçınkaya, Turkey’s Chief Prosecutor. With his proclaimed intent of closing the ruling AK party for “anti-secularist activities”, he has recently stirred up a new political storm. Semiran Kaya introduces the uncompromising prosecutor
Chief Prosecutor Turkey
When the office of President was about to be occupied by Muslim Foreign Minister Abdullah Gül a national crisis erupted. The Chief of the General Staff threatened with a military intervention and departing President Sezer quickly appointed a new Chief Prosecutor from his party at the climax of the conflict in May 2007: Abdurrahman Yalcinkaya, a public prosecutor who has managed to provoke an even greater national crisis during his brief one-year term.

By bringing charges against the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) to the Constitutional Court of Turkey, demanding that the party be closed and its officials barred from politics, Yalcinkaya has mobilized the judicial system against the government, the president, and the parliament at the same time. Who is this man and what is driving him to launch such a judicial coup?

The nationalist Kemalist social class
Abdurrahman Yalcinkaya represents the long-antiquated Turkish state. An official of the Turkish state bureaucracy who stands for the nationalist Kemalist social class, an elite class and generation that sees itself along with the military as guarantor and protector of the secular republic and that will use every means possible to cling to its accustomed power structure and privileged position.

Thus Yalcinkaya as Chief Prosecutor embodies not only the Kemalist state ideology, but is also stepping forward as a kind of inquisitor who must protect the republic from the Islamic threat. The charge demanding that the ruling AKP party be banned from politics for five years shows how very convinced the 58-year-old career judge is of this.

Not entirely popular with the folk: Yalcinkayas proposed ban of the AKP. The AK Party won nearly 47 percent of the vote in 2007 | Of course, banning parties is nothing new in Turkey. This tradition has been practiced since 1963, and twenty-four parties have been banned to date. But for the first time the ban targets a ruling party, and one with a 47 percent majority behind it. Nonetheless the petition for a ban did not come as a surprise to many in the country.

The judge, known in the Turkish press as cold-blooded, rigorous, and hardworking, has spent the past five years collecting and analyzing everything in preparation for an AKP ban. When the headscarf ban was abolished at universities, the time had come to submit the petition to ban the AKP.

A family that turned to Kemalism
Yalcinkaya was born in 1950 as the son of a Kurdish-Turkish family in Urfa, one of Turkey’s most ancient cities located near the Syrian border with a high illiteracy rate. The family had a good reputation there. His grandfather was a well-known sheikh and belonged to the Islamic Nakshibendi order.

More formative, however, was the upbringing he received from his father. A teacher, he taught him the secular ideals of Atatürk and sent him away from the religious conservative village Kara as a boy to attend school in the capital. Thus he came from a family that turned to Kemalism.

Yalcinkaya argues that moves such as abolishing a ban on the headscarf in universities indicate a secret Islamist agenda | In Ankara he studied law and soon entered a career as a judge while left-wing and right-wing student groups were fighting each other and the military seized power for the third time on September 12, 1980. At the age of 30 Yalcinkaya had experienced with great awareness at least two of the three military putsches (1960, 1971, 1980). Thus he is not only an exemplary product of the Kemalist school but also a child of the putsches.

The fervent Kemalist, who became a judge at the highest Turkish court of appeals (Yargitay) in 1998 and was appointed deputy chief prosecutor in 2004, carefully prepared the 162-page petition. After all, many founding members of the AKP started their political careers in the banned Islamic Welfare Party (Refah, 1998) and Virtue Party (Fazilet, 2001). But even critics of the AKP do not find his charge of Islamism substantive enough and suggest he is settling a personal score with the AKP.

Incorruptible and stiff-necked
Yalcinkaya, however, had already distinguished himself in November 2007 with the petition to ban the Pro-Kurdish Party DTP with its 20 delegates in parliament, an application that is still pending in the constitutional court. He has also made a name for himself as one of the most vehement opponents of the constitutional draft passed by the AKP to reform the headscarf ban at universities. Yet party politics and party bans are not his real areas of specialty as a public prosecutor, rather fighting corruption.

Even though the graying man with strikingly serious face does not shy away from conflicts and is personally upright and incorruptible because he is convinced that he and his likeminded peers are the true champions of the republic, critics point out that on purely formalist grounds he alone had to submit the petition to ban the AKP as a representative of the shrinking nationalist Kemalist upper class. After all, today neither the military nor the Kemalist power elite have a majority in the population.

But before the Kemalists surrender their power, they are ready to fight out of desperation for “their” secularism, even if this would push the country toward political turmoil and into a very dangerous situation.

Semiran Kaya Qantara.de 2008 Based on a German Newspaper translation

Comments (2)

Constitutional Court Decision for AKP

Constitutional Court Decision for AKP

The Constitutional Court Decision for AKP came yesterday.
The Constitutional Court unanimously decided to hear the case against the AK Party on charges that the ruling party of Turkey has been involved in anti-secularist activities and has followed a fundamentalist agenda. The party risks closure and its senior members including Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan risk a five year political ban.

Some people in Turkey are trying to portray the case as a normal judicial act which may or may not result in the closure of the party. They say the legal system is now at work and we have to trust the independence of the judiciary.

We beg to differ especially after seeing the attitudes of some supreme court judges who seem to be bent on closing down the party.

These are the very same judges who last year in May decided to annul the elections of the new president claiming the parliament needed a quorum of 367 deputies to even open the sessions to elect the head of state whereas this was later regarded as a judicial scandal.

Now the same judges all appointed by the former president Ahmet Necdet Sezer on Monday decided that while the Supreme Court should hear the case against the AK Party President Abdullah Gul should also be brought to trial for his alleged anti-secular activities when he was foreign minister in the AK Party government. Four judges rejected to bring Gul to trial saying the president can only be trial for treason. But the seven judges seem determined to go put of their way and eventually vote to closedown the AK Party. So the months ahead may well be a mere formality for these judges.

He only option left for the AK Party is to change the rules at his late stage and make it impossible for the court to closedown the party. So they too have to bend and twist the rules like others are doing to closedown AK Party.

Democracy is taking a heavy beating as some people seem set to erase the ruling party of Turkey from the map and AK party trying to survive.

Comments

« Previous entries ·