1 Aug 2016 | Europe and Central Asia, Mapping Media Freedom, mobile, News and features, Turkey, Turkey Uncensored
Turkish journalist Lale Kemal
It was a long Saturday night for all of us, at home and abroad, monitoring the worrisome developments around media freedom in Turkey. As if to confirm our fears, the night ended with the detention of six more journalists.
Defence lawyers expected the cases to be handled first thing Monday 1 August. But in a hasty move, journalists who wrote for the opinion section of Zaman — which stands at the epicentre of accusations of being part of the so-called “media leg of FETO terror organisation” — were taken to the Istanbul courthouse. After a long process, all were sent to jail.
The ruling, written under the extraordinary circumstances of emergency rule, reads like a severe restriction of the free word in particular and journalism in general.
The motivation for detention went, in a nutshell, that the six “prevented the investigation on the armed structure in their columns and via social media, and continued to write their columns even after the chief editor of Zaman daily, Ekrem Dumanlı, had fled the country”. Sigh.
There was no other mention than their expressed views — without going into any specifics in their content — and it was seen as sufficient by the judge to rule for jailing. Theirs will add to the pile of complaints from Turkey at the European Court of Human Rights.
It was the case of Şahin Alpay in particular which raised concerns among his colleagues in media and academia. One of the top liberal voices in Turkey, and known with respect among others in German social democrat, liberal and green political circles, Alpay is utterly frail with several health issues. The hopes of a release — albeit conditional — were high but crashed.
Yesterday, his family tried to contact him in prison, uncertain of any success.
All the six are from Turkish media’s liberal end of the spectrum. Among them are two female reporters that require attention. Lale Kemal, who was a commentator with Zaman, is an expert journalist on defence issues, with a long career. Her CV begins with Anatolian Agency, going on with Cumhuriyet daily, Hürriyet Daily News, Taraf and Today’s Zaman. She has been a stringer for Jane’s Defence Weekly for a long time.
The other, Nuriye Akman, has been a professional for 25 years. She worked with “mainstream” dailies in the 1990s and marked her reputation with long, Oriana Fallaci-style interviews both in print and TV. She is also the author of three novels.
Both women have been known to earn their keep only through journalism, like the others in this group of detainees.
Ali Bulaç, with a background as a theologue, is an independent voice within the conservative segments, often with disagreements and polemics with some others in the group. Ahmet Turan Alkan is regarded as a senior voice as part of the centre-right liberal flank in Turkey, popular for his ironic style. And Mustafa Ünal, who was Ankara Bureau Chief of Zaman, was for long active in Ankara, covering major political issues with a minimalist, simple writing style.
According to the regular monitoring done in daily basis by Platform for Independent Journalism (P24), these latest detentions mean that since the bloody coup attempt on July 15, 29 journalists are detained. In a total, there are now 62 journalists in jail in Turkey.
During the long, dark hours on Sunday, there was another message that added to the fears. A colleague, Ali Aslan, based in Washington DC, tweeted that the police had detained the wife of a journalist Bülent Korucu, former editor in chief of the weekly news magazine Aksiyon, now under arrest warrant but on the run. The police, Aslan claimed, threatened to keep her locked until her husband surrenders. Korucu’s son also confirmed this claim.
Dark Sunday indeed.
What fuels the concerns is that there is so far no assurance from the government about the respect for media freedom and whether or not the witch hunt will end anytime soon.
A version of this article originally appeared at Suddeutsche Zeitung. It is posted here with the permission of the author.
Turkey Uncensored is an Index on Censorship project to publish a series of articles from censored Turkish writers, artists and translators.
29 Jul 2016 | mobile, News and features, Turkey, Turkey Uncensored
Arda Akin (Hürriyet)
The latest journalist arrested in Turkey is Arda Akın, a young reporter with the Hürriyet daily, part of the “mainstream” Doğan Media Group. Arda was in the “first” arrest list, issued on Monday, which mainly consisted of investigative reporters. In May, he was among those who won the European Union Investigative Journalism Award 2016, a prestigious prize delivered every year in six Balkan countries and Turkey. In his award-winning article, Akın told of corruption related to ruling Justice and Development Party figures.
Akın now joins 40 journalists taken into custody since the night of the bloody 15 July coup attempt. The arrests, in particular well-known veteran journalists such as Nazlı Ilıcak and Prof Şahin Alpay, adds to the profound concerns for press freedom in Turkey, where emergency rule gives the authorities power to extend arrest periods up to 30 days.
Former Swedish foreign minister Carl Bildt, who has known Alpay for many years, tweeted on Wednesday:
Meanwhile, a series of sanctions launched by the government ratchets up the worries to new levels. In an emergency decree, a large number of media outlets were shut down; their assets are to be expropriated by the government.
It’s a long list, encompassing 45 newspapers, 16 TV channels, 15 radio stations, three news agencies, 15 periodicals and 29 publishing houses. Some of these outlets were raided and allowed to continue under a trusteeship regime, but it seems apparent that they will be discontinued, with a large number of journalists joining the unemployed. In this context, we are witnessing the ruin of the Turkish media. Emergency rule means massive self-censorship within the existing conglomerate media with a block on critical reporting.
The mass closure targets those outlets allegedly affiliated with the Gülenists. But two questions arise immediately …
Why does the government not completely focus on the culprits who were part of the coup attempt and instead give priority to targeting journalists? We all know that, as long as it is not preaching violence or becoming part of it, journalism is not a crime. If there are journalists who are actively involved in plotting and execution of a coup — a very serious crime — they should, of course, be put on trial. Silencing a large bulk of the media simply places a frosted glass on this aspect, awakening fears that the other segments of the media — for example the Kurdish press — could be next.
Second, with less room for reporting and analysis, it will be more and more difficult to inform the public about the truth behind the coup attempt and the delicate situation Turkey is in. As expected, everything is now open to disinformation and the manipulation of facts.
In general terms, the decree curbing the media, as well as dismissing almost half of the top military brass, has very restrictive aspects. It is about the enhanced authority given to judges and prosecutors. It gives them powers to execute searches in houses and offices. The most serious part is that even defence lawyers’ offices will not be immune from raids and searches. For wiretapping, a ruling from the judge will not be necessary; it will all be up to the jurisdiction of the prosecutors.
With the decrees coming in, Turkey now enters an even more precarious period. Much will depend on whether or not the democratically elected opposition will act in unison, and manage to push for a return to normalisation. Tough times are ahead.
Turkey Uncensored is an Index on Censorship project to publish a series of articles from censored Turkish writers, artists and translators.
22 Jul 2016 | Academic Freedom, Academic Freedom Statements, Campaigns, Campaigns -- Featured, Statements
Index on Censorship is appalled by the decision by the University of Cape Town to rescind an invitation to Danish editor Flemming Rose to deliver the annual TB Davie lecture on academic freedom – especially at a time when academic freedom is under threat around the world – and considering recent events in Turkey.
Rose, the editor responsible for publishing controversial cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten in 2005, was invited last year to give the August 2016 lecture, which UCT describes as a “flagship lecture to promote academic freedom and freedom of speech” and which is organised by the university’s academic freedom committee.
However, in a letter sent by UCT Vice-Chancellor Max Price on 12 July, Price tells the committee that the university executive had decided “it would be extremely unwise to proceed with the address.”
What follows in the letter is an attempt by Price to justify a decision that makes a mockery of the university’s supposed defence of free speech and academic freedom.
Price – who signed an Index on Censorship letter defending academic freedom last year – begins by pointing out that no freedoms are unlimited, and highlights the limitations on free speech imposed by the South African constitution in which the right to free speech does not extend to propaganda for war, incitement of violence or advocacy of hatred. The implication of this reference is that Rose’s speech might amount in some way to one of these three. This is a dangerous and damaging route for an academic institution to take.
The letter then goes on to say that Rose’s appearance might provoke conflict on campus, pose security risks and might “retard rather than advance academic freedom on campus.” Although the letter acknowledges that the university considered holding the event as a debate with some representatives of the Muslim community – and acknowledges these representatives had been open to the idea – the letter goes on to say: “However, Mr Rose is seen by many as persona non grata and while most would protest peacefully against him, we believe there is a real danger that among those offended by the cartoons, an element may resort to violence.”
The academic freedom committee responded to Price, saying in a statement: “Academic freedom is severely compromised when security and other pragmatic considerations preclude inviting speakers who – while controversial – in no way violate our Constitutional limitations on free speech… We regret the Executive’s decision and what it reveals about the limited scope of academic freedom at UCT. Ours should be a campus on which people are free to express and contest ideas, even unpopular ones.”
The decision taken by the administration of UCT is a clear example of a type of “assassin’s veto” in which those who argue they are offended by the speech of others can use the threat of violence to silence those with whom they disagree.
Jodie Ginsberg, Index on Censorship chief executive said: “This a huge blow to free expression and academic freedom and UCT’s attempts to dress this up as otherwise are to be condemned in the strongest terms.”
Also read:
Flemming Rose responds to the University of Cape Town
Dr Max Price, Vice-Chancellor of UCT, letter to the academic freedom committee
UCT Academic freedom committee response to Dr. Max Price
UCT statement: Withdrawal of invitation to speaker of TB Davie Academic Freedom Lecture
Kenan Malik: Academic freedom and academic cowardice
22 Jul 2016 | Academic Freedom, Academic Freedom Letters, Campaigns, Campaigns -- Featured, mobile
The University of Cape Town rescinded an invitation to journalist and editor Flemming Rose, who had been scheduled to deliver the annual TB Davie lecture on academic freedom in August. In 2005 Rose commissioned the cartoons of the prophet Mohammed that sparked protests and riots across the world.
Regarding my thoughts on the matter and the arguments put forward as motivation for taking back the invitation I find three things important:
1. I find it disgraceful that the Vice-Chancellor Mr. Max Price puts the blame on me instead of taking responsibility for his decision. He is afraid that some people might react in certain ways to my presence. That’s not my responsibility. If they choose to act in a way that concerns the VC, it’s their decision, not mine. The VC has to hold them responsible for their actions, not me. It’s the heckler’s veto. Mr. Price talks about “the harm that unlimited freedom of expression could cause.” I don’t know any person including myself who is in favor of unlimited free speech, that’s a caricature of free speech activists. What I oppose is the kind of “I am in favor of free speech, but”-position that Mr. Price provides a classic example of. His approach to free speech would make it possible to ban any speech.
2. Mr. Price is misrepresenting my position. He writes: “Mr. Rose is regarded by many around the world as right wing, Islamophobic, someone whose statements have been deliberatively provocative, insulting and possibly amount to hate speech, and an editor of a publication that many believe took a bigoted view of freedom of expression.” He adds that I am defender of “selective blasphemy”. What are the sources for these accusations? An article from 2006 at the height of the cartoon crisis, when a lot of unchecked information and rumors were making the rounds, among them that I was working for Mossad, the KGB’s successor in Russia and the CIA. My guilt seems to be that I have met and interviewed Daniel Pipes. The other source is a review of my book The Tyranny of Silence: How One Cartoon Ignited a Global Debate on the Future of Free Speech by a Danish professor who has been biased against me and Jyllands-Posten from the outset.
I find it strange that the VC uses Peter Hervik’s review as a source of authority. Hervik labels me a “radical rightwing activist” without defining what he means by that and even worse without quoting anything from what I have said and written. I am a classical liberal. I do not defend selective blasphemy, I defend the right to blasphemy as such. To provide you with an impression of his approach let me quote from the review. He writes about me:
“Not least his enormous urge to gather any news coverage from around the world in order to show that ‘I was right and that others were wrong’.”
Sounds a bit like a fanatic, or at least that’s the impression he wants to convey.
This is what I actually wrote:
“At first I wanted to document that I was right and others were wrong. But along the way, I found out that I needed to look inward, to reflect on my own story and background. Why was this debate so important to me? Why was I from the outset, almost, instinctively, able to identify the core issue… I am fully aware that other versions exist that are no less true than my own; in some cases they may be even more complete.”
“I do have strong opinions when it comes to certain things. But I am not a person who takes an instant stand on just anything. I am a natural skeptic. I ponder at length and lose myself in layers of meaning and the many sides of an issue, I don’t see that trait as a flaw: It is the condition of modern man and indeed the core strength of secular democracies, which are founded on the idea that there is no monopoly on truth. Doubt is the germ of curiosity and critical questioning, and its prerequisite is a strong sense of self, a courage that leaves room for debate.”
A bit different than Hervik’s version, right?
To me this looks like a deliberate distortion of I was trying to say in that paragraph. Disagreement is necessary and fine but we have to present the point of view of our opponents in a more or less fair way. Anyone who needs to misrepresent the point of view of his opponent usually has a bad case.
It’s really a sign of poor judgement and bad academic standards to disinvite me on the basis of what other people say about me, when I have published a book that covers my own story, which tells how my views on politics were formed and analyses the history of tolerance and free speech. The book is not only focusing on Islam. I write about the Russian Orthodox’ Church silencing of criticism, Hindu-nationalists attacks on an Indian Muslim artist and so on and so forth. Why use second-hand sources when you can read the primary source in English and make up your mind?
This doesn’t mean that I would favour banning a “radical right wing” speaker, whatever that means. I would defend such a speaker’s right to make his case. After all, that’s the way we learn to argue against points of views that we don’t like.
3. Mr. Price is also getting the facts wrong about Jyllands-Posten and its position. The newspaper published several cartoons ridiculing Jesus, even by Kurt Westergaard, the artist that did the cartoon of the Mohammad with a bomb in his turban. The Jesus cartoons that were refused were submitted by a freelancer not a staffer, so it was like refusing any other article or cartoon by a freelancer.
In my book (the Danish version) I have included some of those and other images. Apart from Westergaard’s I have added Serrano’s Piss Christ and an image by Jens Jørgen Thorsen, a Danish artist who in 1984 painted Jesus with an erection on a public building and cartoons from the Nazi Magazine Der Stürmer, George Grosz’ drawings of a Christ-like figure equipped with a gas mask on the cross next to a canon (World War I) and Manet’s Lunch on the Green Grass. All this to show examples of images that throughout history have caused controversy.
Contrary to what Mr. Price writes, Jyllands-Posten published antisemitic cartoons and cartoons mocking the Holocaust (a full page on 4 February, 2006 at the height of the cartoon crisis) that previously had been published in Arab newspapers. We, like most other Danish newspapers, published submissions to the Iranian Holocaust cartoon contest as well. We did it, not because we support the views expressed in the cartoons (the same point goes for the Mohammed-cartoons) – publication does not mean endorsement. We did it in order for our readers to see what makes people laugh in the countries where many were so upset by the Mohammed cartoons.
Recently I have defended radical imams’ right to hate speech, and I have (in Danish) written favorably about a book by a socially conservative Norwegian Muslim (title: Is it possible to love the Koran and Norway at the same time?).
Also read:
Index on Censorship condemns decision to axe Flemming Rose as speaker on academic freedom
Dr Max Price, Vice-Chancellor of UCT, letter to the academic freedom committee
UCT Academic freedom committee response to Dr. Max Price
UCT statement: Withdrawal of invitation to speaker of TB Davie Academic Freedom Lecture
Kenan Malik: Academic freedom and academic cowardice
