Click to read the article in Turkish
Dr. Lecturer Yonca Demir from İstanbul Bilgi University is one of the academics who have been charged with "propagandizing for a terrorist organization" for having signed the declaration entitled "We will not be a party to this crime" prepared by the Academics for Peace.
In her fourth and last hearing on January 24, 2019, Yonca Demir has been sentenced to 3 years in prison on charge of "propagandizing for a terrorist organization" as per the Article 7/2 of the Anti-Terror Law (TMK). Neither the announcement of the verdict nor the prison sentence has been deferred.
We are publishing the statement* of Dr. Lecturer Yonca Demir.
***
To the Istanbul 28th Criminal Court,
There is a disturbing aspect to having to explain yourself. Nevertheless, since this rostrum has been provided to me, I will use it to express my thoughts. Let's get right to the point. The real problem is what has been happening in South-eastern Anatolia.
What has been going on there is heart-breaking. I would have liked so much to be able to roll back time and undo all that has been done. All the shooting and burning and all the other things that have happened.
I do not wish to remember everything in detail. Even in a declared state of war, it is a war crime to confront civilians with heavy arms. As I said: I do not want to remember all that happened. Call it whatever you wish, whether "low intensity conflict" or "operations" or "security measures," certain things happened. The public prosecutor issuing the indictment does not deny that these events took place either.
But what he does is act as if to say, "Well, certain things did happen, but ask me why they happened," and goes on to list certain reasons and unconditionally defends these acts carried out by the government. And indeed, it is those deeds that need to be defended, those acts that were carried out in accordance with the existing policies of the government, not me saying "Do not do this, solve the problems without resorting to violence." Because my words are very clear, very simple and perfectly understandable.
The public prosecutor's reasons cited in the indictment cannot be used to try people like us - people who have never touched a weapon - at a criminal court. I guess everyone, and especially those who have studied law, should know this.
When we turn our gaze to the rest of the world, we observe that in the history of many developed countries, there have been problems very similar to the "Kurdish question." These countries have solved these problems.
They have understood that a military approach does not solve the problem and they have made a deal, reached a consensus. Then we also see that other countries, who still grapple with such problems, insist on solving them with the aid of arms, and have not been able to overcome internal conflicts cannot develop, and have become perfect markets for arms dealers.
This problem cannot be solved by the use of arms. It can be solved by talking.
For instance, in the example of Britain and Ireland, the solution/agreement was reached with the participation of many sides, with the supervision of international observers and the public was regularly informed about the progress of negotiations on the basis of the principle of transparency.
In Spain, under a similar situation, Prime Minister Zapatero started talks with ETA, putting his political career at risk. During the talks, he regularly informed the public of the entire process of negotiations and kept the other parties in the parliament abreast of all the developments, despite their objections. He was able to convince the public that what was being done was not a form of compromise or a bargain, but a process necessary to achieve peace, and in the best interests of the country.
When an agreement was reached between the FARC guerrillas and the government, one of the negotiators joyfully exclaimed, "There is no room for winners or losers when you achieve peace through negotiations. Columbia wins, death loses!"
There is an element shared by all these examples: The state/government/ruling power has displayed a will towards negotiation. I share the same view: the side who leads the process, extends a hand to its opponents and insists on peace has to be the state, the government. Historically, this is how it has happened.
In order to reach a deal, one needs to be persevering and determined; one should not give up the moment the smallest difficulty arises.
What I mean is this: In the indictment, the prosecutor mentions the Ceylanpınar incident [where two police officers were murdered; the culprits were never found] as the reason for the cessation of the peace process. It is possible that this incident was meant to derail the peace process. One or the other side may have done it; it is also possible that a third actor or actors may have done it because they did not want peace.
Unfortunately, in the history of our country there are many incidents whose perpetrators were revealed only many years later; in some cases, the public found out much later that the real culprits were the political actors of the time, or some groups huddled within the state machinery itself.
Whoever the perpetrator was, is an incident like Ceylanpınar sufficient to end the peace process? For me, the answer is no. The culprits should be found and sentenced, but the entire peace process cannot be sacrificed. If you want peace, you have to persevere. One day, success will be achieved. This is so in every situation. Those who do not give up, who insist, will get results.
Political scientist Aysuda Kölemen, one of the academics on trial at the 33rd Criminal Court, made this astute observation: "Peace is more than just a ceasefire... it cannot be achieved by terminating a conflict by force. A lasting peace is only possible by repudiating violence, by setting up a system which prevents conflicts from arising, discovering new solutions which avoid violence and by implementing such solutions.
This is only possible in a country where power is shared between the state and the society within a democratic system, where differences are recognized."
Yes, I, too, agree that peace is not just a ceasefire, and it is only possible by finding nonviolent solutions, by recognizing differences and by sharing power between the state and society.
Let us say that you have a liver problem and as a result you develop acne on your face. If you try to fight only the acne you will not be successful. You first need to get to the real cause and cure your liver first. The PKK is a symptom, an outcome of the problem, but not the cause of it. The cause of the problem is the past and present policies of the state and the failure to democratize.
I would like to return to a previous point, namely how, in those countries which have had problems similar to the Kurdish question but have overcome them, the public is informed in a transparent way.
Since a long time now the public has been polarized around the Kurdish question and the matter has turned into a kind of taboo. For example, even I -I say "even I", because as a person who signed the statement "We shall not be party to this crime," I was not that afraid of approaching this subject- first heard the name of Bese Hozat in this indictment.
Not even knowing the relatively famous actors of this huge problem, indicates how it has become a source of fear even to read about and to keep up with different developments in this area, and how we remain in the dark. Such an environment of darkness and fear is not healthy and not conducive to the establishment of peace.
After Hrant Dink's assassination, at the speech she made during his funeral ceremony, his wife Rakel Dink drew our attention to those who lurked in the shadows behind the triggerman. She said that we could "achieve nothing without questioning the darkness which creates a murderer from a baby..." – these words are enough to explain the situation in our country. It is this darkness that we have to shed light upon.
Unfortunately, in Turkey, day by day, we are drifting further and further away from being a democratic society.
It is obvious that there are many people who desist from speaking their minds, fearing for their own safety, upon seeing us spending our days at the Çağlayan Court House, being tried under this indictment; seeing the journalists, lawyers, human rights defenders, spending time in jail for having written or voiced their opinions; and seeing the hundreds of people who are prosecuted for their social media posts. Perhaps the whole purpose of these court cases and arrests is precisely this. Whether this is the intent or not, the atmosphere that is created is one that is very far from an environment where members of our society can express their thoughts and demands.
We have reached a point where the boundary between engaging in politics in Turkey and being branded as a "terrorist" has become very much blurred. Most Honourable Judges, I object to this. I recently attended the hearing of a fellow citizen on trial for his social media posts. The defendant said, "We've gotten rid of our mobile phones completely, and we talk silently, even at home."
Reyda Ergün, a lecturer in the philosophy and sociology of law, on trial at the 36th Criminal Court, said "... freedom of expression (...) allows different opinions to meet (...) and thus prevents social conflicts from spiralling into processes that render coexistence impossible (...) freedom of expression is indispensable in a democratic society. A democratic society is the only means of creating the conditions and mechanisms for preventing social conflicts from becoming violent, the only way to make possible a pluralistic way of life, where all voices can be heard. The sphere of politics is where members of a society meet, are able to express their opinions, are able to touch each other, to transform each other, to relate to others who are different from themselves, and are able to build the norms of a society which excludes violence. Depriving members of a society from a space where they can voice their demands, leads to the deepening of social conflicts, to the deterioration of conditions for coexistence; it leads to social ills that are very difficult to heal, and to traumas which are transmitted from generation to generation. A democratic society, aware of such consequences, safeguards its political space and the accessibility of this space for each and every one of its citizens, in the widest sense possible."
Texts and opinions, may be debated but they cannot be put on trial. Even if the ["We shall not be party to this crime"] statement was found objectionable or contrary to the opinions or beliefs of a certain section of society, this can be discussed on talk shows, at conferences, in newspaper articles or at workshops. But a court is not the place for such a discussion, or for the expression of opinions. Instead of trying the opinions of people, the courts should be trying those who commit real crimes against human beings, animals, plants, the earth, arts, water, nature and history.
I may not share the same opinions with those in power, this does not give them the right to denigrate me, or a court the right to put me on trial. I am a citizen of this country and I do not consent to what was done during that period. I repeat: I will not be party to this crime.
To criticize, to express criticism in writing and to demand a change in the policy that is being criticized constitute the use of a citizen's democratic rights.
I believe that the fact that criticism is aimed at the state or the government does not make the state appear weak. But a defensive reflex displayed by the government in power, in trying to silence and punish those people who have voiced a criticism, indeed reveals a weakness of the state.
The conduct of the panels of judges at hearings I have observed so far have led me to think that the verdicts have been decided from the very beginning. The defence is heard in a hurry, the prosecutor immediately delivers an opinion and the verdict is announced right away. Any demand to collect further evidence is turned down. Due process is brazenly ignored. The courts act according to their own system of values, rather than judicial criteria. Some of them make this quite evident. For example, some panels of judges have turned opinions expressed in the hearings, or documents presented to them, into additional criminal accusations. Others have asked questions implying that we are not saddened by the deaths of security force personnel or other officials.
Neither I nor any one of us have any reason to wish that soldiers keep dying while civilians are not harmed. Of course we mourn all deaths. An environment of peace will stop all deaths, civilian deaths, the deaths of official personnel, or otherwise.
Aslı Takanay, a dear friend of mine, who is being tried at the 36th Criminal Court, also expressed my thoughts when she said, "My demand is for social peace, not just in this country, but for all people on this world, all living beings, to live a happy, joyful, equal and just life, free of violence, wars and exploitation. I still uphold this demand."
I would like to emphasize once more: in order to establish peace, the state has to extend a hand, manage the process and inform society, impartially, in a truthful and transparent way. (YD/ND/AE/SD)
-
Sources:
1) Özkul, B. "Kuzey İrlanda Çözüm Süreci" [The Peace Process in Northern Ireland] Birikim Dergisi, Mart [March] 2015 .
2) Doucet, L. "ETA'nın 58 Yıllık Silahlı Mücadelesi Nasıl Bitti?",[How did ETA's 58-Year-Long Armed Struggle End?] BBC Türkçe, Nisan [April] 2017.
3) Öğüt, Ö. "Bask Sorunu ve Eta'nın Silahsızlanma Süreci" [The Basque question and the process of demilitarization of ETA], Uluslararası Politika Akademisi, Temmuz [July] 2017.
4) BBC Türkçe "Kolombiya'da Tarihi Barış Anlaşması İmzalandı" [A Historical Peace Treaty Signed in Columbia], Ağustos [August] 2016.
5) Aysuda Kölemen, 33.ACM
6) Reyda Ergün, 36.ACM
7) Aslı Takanay, 36.ACM
-
* This statement has been translated into English by academics Ayşe Erzan and Nazım Dikbaş.
