.jpg)
Click to read the article in Turkish
The broadcast of the TV Series "Cranberry Sorbet" which depicts the conflict between conservative and secular factions in Turkey over the relations between the children of two families was blocked for five weeks by the men in the Radio and Television Supreme Council (RTÜK) (if you do not believe, the council has eight men and one woman member). This move marked a first for Turkey, with the council citing "scenes of violence against women" as the reason for the interruption.
In the episode in question, the "esteemed" son from the conservative household violently throws his bride, Nursema, who comes from a comparable economic and social background, out of the window.
The members of the council, who argued that "there is no male violence in the country, so why should it be depicted in the show," subsequently punished the TV series.
It is always the women who drink the "cranberry sorbet"
Whichever way you look at it; there is consistency that initially seems inconsistent and there is stupidity.
Let us first start with the inconsistent consistencies.
What precisely troubled the council members regarding Cranberry Sorbet? Was it the portrayal of Muslim men engaging in violence against women, which they deemed as false?
If so, the data proves otherwise.
Male violence is not exclusive to either conservatives or seculars. Where there is masculinity there is possible violence. May it be economic, psychological or physical.
Let us first be clear here. There is male violence in this country. The TV series shows this. However, most male violence within conservative families remains hidden, with perpetrators often declaring, "Don't let it out of this room."
Even if there are varying degrees of victimization in all "families," for some reason it is always the women who have to drink the "cranberry sorbet."
And this TV series, does not, as in many other ones, show violence against women in detail, for long, trying to get more ratings with the "attractiveness" of the violence. There is no agitation. There is no pornography of violence.
So what were you disturbed by?
Although it is not very sensible to direct this question to those disturbed by the "İstanbul Convention," we are trying to understand the logic behind banning the TV series.
You blocked the broadcast of the series, and the "Islamaphobia" documentary that you made the channel broadcast instead reveals very clearly why you were disturbed. Very much indeed!
You are not disturbed by the violence, not a bit. If that were the case you would also be disturbed by the violence shown in other series also (I have not written the names of the series on purpose).
You are disturbed by the religious women expressing themselves. You are disturbed by the social, economic, and belief-related contradictions to be shown.
And you are most disturbed by the women to transform and to tell to your face, not mincing their words, what they think.
You are disturbed by the women getting in and existing in society as an individual.
As described in Halen Sarıgül's interview with the scriptwriter Zehra Çelen in bianet, "Nursema turned into a political figure."
And you are disturbed by this. You are not disturbed by violence, not a bit!
We of course defend freedom of belief for all people, besides freedom of disbelief.
Nobody should be hostile towards the other, yes. However, it is something else to show something that really exists in society. There is no "phobia" in this series, so why are you broadcasting this "Islamaphobia" documentary?
When you ban the "Cranberry Sorbet," and when you broadcast this documentary, you are not protecting the religion, you are covering up violence using religious motives.
What seems "inconsistent" is, in the end," consistency" on the part of those who rule this country, and who want to continue to rule the country, disregarding women's and children's rights.
Again the blocking of the series is like the teaser of what is deemed proper for women after the elections.
The upcoming May 14 elections will be a contest between two opposing forces: those who oppose women having equal rights in the workplace, schools, and public spaces, who advocate for women to remain silent when subjected to violence, discourage them from claiming their rights, and view women solely to have "a baby in the womb and a stick on the back." On the other hand, there are those who seek to establish a society where women can live with equal rights and under civil law.
If those who want to design the society over women's bodies, labor, and over women in general, who do not see women as equal citizens, who deem it proper for women the economic and social positions in Afghanistan and Iran win the elections, we will not be only watching this short trailer, but we will be experiencing something much worse first hand.
To find more information about the series, I entered the term "Cranberry Sorbet" into a search engine. On the second line, this came up:
"The story of the Cranberry Sorbet series turned out to be true..."
Yes, the story is true. I am not differentiating between individuals based on their religious or non-religious beliefs; it is accurate for thousands of women.
We have never heard a man saying, "I have drunk blood, but I told that I have drunk cranberry sorbet."
Let us now look at the "stupidity" part...
I met Fatma Bostan Ünsal, one of the founders of the Justice and Development Party (AKP) in a meeting last week. I asked her "When founding the AKP, would you think that the party would reach this point where it is so oppressive?" You may remember, those were the times when there were EU negotiations in place when harmonization packages were being discussed, and when there were promises made for democracy.
Ünsal told me, "We never thought of the party as such when founding it. At that time, I saw that the worst injustices were made to Muslim women there. Back then, there was an AKP that was trying to convince its supporters of democracy, of peace. We have put the first signature to the İstanbul Convention and trying to convince the other countries to sign."
"AKP is now trying to return to its ideology and build its supporters as a hard-line group. They are trying to do this always calling some others "marginal" or "minority."
It is impossible not to think that the banning of the series is also part of this effort.
I also asked Ünsal "What do you think, will the anti-women cooperations, and discourses help them win elections?" Her answer was a single word: "No."
Let it be a week without violence, without bans, and when the fight for equality gains speed. (EMK/PE)
