The Forbidden Zone

The Turkish government via the Prime Ministry's Information Technologies Board (BTK) recently introduced a system in which websites bearing domain names carrying certain words will be automatically banned. Yesterday the government, through the Telecommunication Directorate (TIB) sent the list to Internet service providers ordering that website carrying these domain names be banned. From Hurriyet Daily News:

The affect of the decision could see the closure of many website that feature the banned words. For example, the website “donanimalemi.com” (hardwareworld.com) because the domain name has “animal” in it, a banned word and likewise “sanaldestekunitesi.com,” (virtualsupportunit.com) would not be able to operate under its current name because it has “anal” in it; also among the 138 banned words. Websites cannot have the number 31 in their domain names either because it is slang for male masturbation.

Some more banned English words are: “beat,” “escort,” “homemade,” “hot,” “nubile,” “free” and “teen.” Some others in English have different meanings: “pic,” short for picture, is banned because it means “bastard” in Turkish. The past tense of the verb “get” is also banned because “got” means “butt” in Turkish. Haydar, a very common Alevi name for men, is also banned because it means penis in slang.

“Gay” and its Turkish pronunciation “gey,” “çıplak” (naked), “itiraf” (confession), “liseli” (high school student), “nefes” (breath) and “yasak” (forbidden) are some of the other banned words.

Obviously there are problems with the list, and I do not think I have to mention that a website does not contain pornography just because an Internet domain site includes the word "gay."According to Yaman Akdeniz, who is at the lead of the fight for Internet freedom in Turkey, the government is in violation of the law. As draconian as Turkey's 2006 Internet regulation might be, there indeed seems little legal basis for what the BTK is doing.

“Hosting companies are not responsible for monitoring for illegal activities; their liability arises only if they take no action after being notified by the TİB – or any other party – and are asked to remove certain illegal content,” Akdeniz said.

The TİB cited the Internet ban law number 5651 and related legislation as the legal ground for its request. The law, however, does not authorize firms to take action related to banning websites.

“The hosting company is not responsible for controlling the content of the websites it provides domains to or researching/exploring on whether there is any illegal activity or not. They are responsible for removing illegal content when they are informed and there is the technical possibility of doing so,” according to Article 5 of the law.

On Thursday, following the heated debate surround the “forbidden” list, the TİB said the list was sent to hosting firms for informatory purposes. But the statement further confused the situation, as the body threatened companies with punishment if they did not obey its directions regarding the list in the first letter sent to service providers.

So, not only is the government violating rights to freedom of expression on a large scale, it is not even acting according to the rule of law -- at least not yet. The ban on domain names occurs at the same time the government is moving to implement a new regulation that paves the way for such infringements in the future.

As far as I can tell, the BTK is not citing recent regulation as the legal basis for its authority to demand internet service providers block access to these domain names, instead basing its authority on the 2006 Internet Law (No. 5651), which I have written about extensively. This law is draconian, but what is coming seems even worse.

The new regulations gives the government the authority to block and filter websites according to its own designs (independent of any court order), and importantly, not make its blocking and filtering practices public. Though the old regulation does give the TIB the authority to block access to websites, the authority blocking the website, whether the TIB or a specific court, is public information and the person trying to access the website encounters a message that the website is blocked. The TIB also acts on a set of criteria determined by the 2006 Internet law. For more on the old law, click here. If anyone can give me more information on the legal scheme here, I would much appreciate it.

Though Turkey has made considerable democratic progress in the past 10-15 years and in many ways improved its human record, this backsliding on media freedom raises serious questions about its democratic trajectory. Increasingly, the government seems to take the position that they can do anything they want as long as they are elected by a majority. Liberal democracy this is not. Electoral authoritarianism? Maybe.


UPDATE I (5/5) --  Bianet, a new portal from which I post regularly, is challenging the new regulations at the Council of State. Other websites are also following suit, and it might not be too much longer before the European Court of Human Rights is inundated with another round of freedom of expression cases in Turkey. Here is hoping the government repeals this insanity now and begins to work with experts on Internet law to pass a new Internet law that does not violate rights to freedom of expression and access to information, at least not on such a massive scale. For a bit of legal analysis from experts quoted in Hurriyet Daily News, click here.

More Reason Why Neighborhood Pressure Matters

Bogazici University and the Open Society Institute have released a study assessing intolerant attitudes in Turkey toward ethnic and religious minorities and LGBT people. The survey, released in report form as "The Otherization and Discrimination in Turkey
(in Turkish)" ("'Biz'lik, 'Oteki'lik, ve Ayrimcilik: Kamuoyundaki Algilar ve Egilimler"), was conducted between Feb. 15 and April 25, in 18 provinces with the participation of 1,811 interviewees. Hurriyet Daily News summarizes the results:

The most striking result of the survey concerns the question on “who deserves a restriction on their rights?” The answers given by the respondents indicated that the discriminatory tendencies and the level of tolerance have changed little in the last five years.

An astonishing 53 percent of participants strongly believed that the right to freely express a different sexual orientation should be restricted. Similarly, 37 percent of the people sampled denounced the right of believing in no religion, with 59 percent standing against atheists flaunting their lack of religion. Moreover, 28 percent denounced the right of non-Muslims to be open about their religious identity.

The results showed that 72 percent of the sample supported the idea that “those who have a different sexual orientation, like homosexuality, should be open about their sexual identities.”

According to the 2005 results of the survey, 58 percent said non-heterosexuals should not be equally free. The percentage of those who say the rights of those who have a different native language other than Turkish should be restricted is 19 percent, the same figure as the 2005 survey.

Those who say that all ethnicities, religions and sects should be secured by the Constitution make up 74 percent.

Some 36 percent of the interviewees said their primary identity was “being a citizen of Turkey,” whereas a 29 percent thought “having a Turkish national identity” was most important.

Meanwhile, 66 percent said they have no other ethnic culture and they are rooted completely in Turkish culture, while 20 percent said their ethnic culture and language were secondary to Turkish language and culture. Some 8 percent said their language or culture came before Turkish culture while 2 percent said they had absolutely no connection to Turkish culture and language.

59% of respondents in the survey said they did not feel any sort of neighborhood pressure. And, the rest?

Such surveys should boost concern about the arguments of "strong democrats," those who continue to stress democracy with little reference to rights protections and difference. See my March 26 post on the need for Turkey, and the AKP as the government in power leading up constitutional efforts, to come to a sophisticated of rights-based democracy. Until the "democrats" start talking about protecting everyone's rights, promoting difference and diversity in Turkish society, and adopt an open, articulate discourse that encompasses all of Turkish society, many Turks are likely to fear rule by the majority -- and, if the respondents in this poll hasd their say, for good reason. Leadership requires taking risks and promoting new understandings, most especially in conservative societies where difference is seen as something Other. The AKP has taken some positive steps in this direction, but how genuine, far-reaching, and reflective of an overall attitude appreciative of diversity is still very much in doubt. When combined with a general societal ambivalence toward liberalism and a lack of tolerance, many Turks' fear of rule by majority should be taken seriusly. Turkey might not end up like Iran, but it could certainly end up a more closed, oppresive society should majoritarian democracy continue to take a stronger place without attention to rights. For more on neighborhood pressure, see also Feb. 10 post.

Black Pink Triangle Saved from Court Case

Izmir's Sixth Court has refused to hear a case brought by a prosecutor against Izmir's Black Pink Triangle LGBT association. The judge declared that LGBT associations have the same right to exist as other associations, ruling that Black Pink Triangle cannot be closed for violating public morals. For background, see Feb. 14 post.

Unsafe Haven?: Standing Out in Kayseri

From Hurriyet Daily News via the Associated Press:

A trickle of gays and lesbians have made their way out of Iran — most through neighboring Turkey, which doesn't require Iranians to obtain a visa. Currently, 92 Iranian homosexuals have refugee status in the country, according to Saghi Ghahraman, director of the Toronto-based Iranian Queer Organization, which tracks homosexuals fleeing Iran.

Many are placed by the Turkish government in Kayseri and nearby towns, where they form a precarious community, overshadowed by a larger influx of thousands of Iranians fleeing the political crackdown since June's disputed presidential election. In this conservative region of Turkey, they try to lay low, fearing harassment as they wait in hopes of resettlement.

"Police here tell us to stay indoors when we report violence against us," said Roodabeh Parvaresh, a 32-year-old lesbian who has been in Turkey for over two years.

Parvaresh, a nurse, said even staff at a human rights organization that is supposed to care for refugees told her, "'Don't make a fuss, you're already enough in the public eye.' Why? Because I am lesbian."

Another lesbian, Hengameh, who refused to give her full name to avoid publicity, said she was severely beaten by two Turkish youths soon after arriving in the country a year ago.

Still, Turkey provides an escape from their lives in Iran, where homosexuals can face threats from every direction — from the state, from co-workers or security officials who harass them or try to blackmail them into sexual favors.

Though life may be better in Turkey than Iran, the choice of Kayseri for re-settlement, as I have written before, is a bit bizarre. Conspicuous in these small cities, Iranian gays and other refugees have been targeted by Iranian security forces. From my Feb. 13 post:

And, another aspect of discrimination against Iranian refugees that has come to my attention involves gay Iranian asylum seekers who the Turkish government has re-located in the conservative central Anatolian town of Kayseri, no doubt a bizarre choice. According to Hossein Alizadeh,

While in Turkey, the authorities insist that refugees can only stay in one of 30 designated small cities. These locations are assigned based on the asylum seeker’s nationality, gender, age, and reason for seeking asylum.

. . . .

In a society where job opportunities are rare and financial resources are limited, refugees usually encounter public hostility. But for LGBT refugees, the picture is particularly frightening. Gay people, especially in more conservative areas, are perceived to be moral degenerates who will destroy social cohesion and promote prostitution. In this context, many view gay refugees as the “bottom of the barrel”—the public (and unfortunately sometimes the authorities) see them as parasites who not only suck blood from their host’s body, but who will fatally damage this body if left unchecked. For this reason, some “concerned citizens,” and occasionally local law enforcement agents, take it upon themselves to continuously intimidate gay refugees to make their lives as unpleasant as possible.

For LGBT refugees in Turkey, this is the daily struggle they must contend with: away from family and friends, with painful memories of persecution and harassment in their native country, they are now unwelcome strangers, living in extreme poverty, isolation and hopelessness, waiting for what feels like an eternity to find out if any country on the planet will give them a chance to live like human beings.

Alizadeh also documents difficulties all refugees in Turkey face, and gives their total number at 18,000 (as of June 2009), and I assume this number includes only those who have filed applications with the UNHCR. I have no idea how many are Iranians, and the number has no doubt increased following this summer's unrest. See also Alizadeh's June 11, 2009 post and this story from Voice of America.

See also this report from Oram International.

Approximately 1,5000 Iranians have entered Turkey in transit to other locations since the turmoil in Iran last June. From an op/ed in Today's Zaman by Recep Korkut, a social worker with the Association for Solidarity with Asylum Seekers and Migrants (SGDD):

Some of them file petitions seeking asylum, while others try to obtain student visas in order to reach Western countries.
Iranian asylum-seekers cannot earn refugee status in Turkey due its geographical reservation to the 1951 Geneva Convention on the Status of Refugees, and therefore, they are subjected to the practice of being sent to third countries. Iranian refugees in Turkey are involved in some of the asylum and protection procedures conducted by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) in cooperation with the Turkish authorities during their stay in Turkey. They have to fulfill certain criteria required for refugees so that they can be placed in third countries. Interviews with these asylum seekers are conducted, and those who cannot satisfy the basic refugee criteria -- fearing persecution due to his/her race, language, nationality, affiliation with a particular social group or political views or being afforded no protection by the country of citizenship -- are declined, and if the appeal process does not change this, they may be sent back to Iran.

According to Korkut, Iranians make up 22 percent of refugees in Turkey. His entire piece provides a brief history of Iranian refugees in Turkey, as well as a profile of who is seeking asylum and a brief portrait of the limited protection they receive in Turkey.

Justice for Ahmet Yildiz

PHOTO from The Independent

Police continue to search for Ahmet Yildiz' father, who is suspected to have killed his son for being gay. From Bianet:

The Turkish army classifies homosexuality as a "disease" while police are notoriously harsh against transsexuals.

"Just yesterday, police raided the flat where we meet our clients, breaking down the door," Ece, a 43-year-old transsexual, said.

"They arrested everyone and beat one of the girls with a truncheon. She had to have three stitches to her head," she added.

Although the Islamist-rooted government has enacted a series of rights reforms to boost the country's EU bid since it came to power in 2002, it has turned a blind eye to homosexual rights.

In March, Family Affairs and Women's Minister Selma Aliye Kavaf declared in a newspaper interview that she believed homosexuality was a "biological disorder, a disease."

"I think it should be treated," she said, attracting a storm of anger and enhancing fears that Islam is taking a more prominent place under the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP).

According to Demir, the violence against homosexuals and her kind has its roots in a "rise in nationalism, Islamic values, poverty, and unemployment in the past seven or eight years".

"In such a climate, homosexuals and transsexuals are easy targets. Assailants think that nobody will ask questions and that they won't risk heavy penalties if they kill a transsexual," she said.

. . . .

President Judge Burhan Karaloğlu decided to launch an investigation into the whereabouts of Aymelek. The case will be continued on 30 June.

Ahmet Yıldız was shot in front of a café in Üsküdar on Istanbul's Anatolian side on 15 July 2008. After the murder, it emerged that Yıldız had complained about his family because of "threats", but authorities had not taken any action. Yıldız's family had not taken his body from the morgue for weeks. Eventually, he was buried anonymously.

For background, see July 20 post.

Transsexuals and Spaces of Appearance

PHOTO from Zaman

People are often surprised to learn that Turkey, Istanbul in particular, has a significant number of transgendered people, some of whom have become quite famous and hold an important place for some Turks as pop icons. Most famous among these icons is singer Bulent Ersoy, who appears on a Turkish television show similar in format to American Idol and its European equivalents. Reuters' Simon Akam takes a brief look at Ersoy's career, transsexuality in Turkish society, and the role of transsexuals in Turkey's LGBT movement. From Akam:

Singer Bulent Ersoy is renowned for her elaborate wardrobe, formidable décolletage, countless albums, a stint on Turkey's most popular TV talent show and a spin-off film career. She was also born a man.

The transsexual Ersoy -- and a host of other ambiguously sexed entertainers -- have achieved success despite the conservatism of Turkish society and the prejudice that faces the country's gay and transgender communities.

According to Sahika Yuksel, a psychiatrist at Istanbul University who studies sexual identity, many Turks "don't accept their neighbor's son is gay, but they accept someone who is a figure outside, in television, in newspapers."

Earlier this month Selma Aliye Kavaf, the Turkish minister responsible for women and family affairs, said in an interview with the Hurriyet newspaper that homosexuality is a disease and should be treated.

Elsewhere, violence against gays and transsexuals is a regular occurrence. According to Human Rights Watch, at least eight transgender women have been murdered in Istanbul and Ankara since November 2008.

The most recent killing was of a transgender woman called Aycan Yener on February 16, 2010, in Fatih, a conservative neighborhood of Istanbul.

Yet, tellingly, Bulent Ersoy's most recent brush with controversy had nothing to do with her transgender status. In 2008 she stirred scandal when she said that if she had a son she would not let him fight in other people's wars, a comment taken as a criticism of Turkey's military operations against PKK separatists in the south-east of the country.

Observers see a number of reasons for the co-existence of popular transgender entertainers and widespread intolerance.

For Ersoy's 2008 brush with the law, see June 1, 2008 post. For a more in-depth look MERIP took at transsexuals in Turkish society, click here.


UPDATE I (3/10) -- AFP's Nicolas Cheviron takes a look at the status of LGBT rights that gives a good basic overview of discrimination against LGBT people, as well as the targeting of transsexuals. From the piece:

A total of 45 gays and transgender people were killed over three years in "hate murders", said Demet Demir, a transsexual and leading activist from Istanbul-LGBTT, a civic body promoting homosexual rights.

"In February alone, five people were killed. In Antalya (southern Turkey), a transsexual friend was brutally murdered; her throat was slit.

"In Istanbul, another was stabbed to death. Three young men... killed her for money, but she only had 70 liras (46 dollars, 34 euros) and a gold chain," Demir said, adding that three gay men had also been killed in Anatolia.

. . . .

The Turkish army classifies homosexuality as a "disease" while police are notoriously harsh against transsexuals.

"Just yesterday, police raided the flat where we meet our clients, breaking down the door," Ece, a 43-year-old transsexual, said.

"They arrested everyone and beat one of the girls with a truncheon. She had to have three stitches to her head," she added.

Although the Islamist-rooted government has enacted a series of rights reforms to boost the country's EU bid since it came to power in 2002, it has turned a blind eye to homosexual rights.

In March, Family Affairs and Women's Minister Selma Aliye Kavaf declared in a newspaper interview that she believed homosexuality was a "biological disorder, a disease."

"I think it should be treated," she said, attracting a storm of anger and enhancing fears that Islam is taking a more prominent place under the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP).

According to Demir, the violence against homosexuals and her kind has its roots in a "rise in nationalism, Islamic values, poverty, and unemployment in the past seven or eight years".

"In such a climate, homosexuals and transsexuals are easy targets. Assailants think that nobody will ask questions and that they won't risk heavy penalties if they kill a transsexual," she said.

Bagis Talks to Der Spiegel

In an interview that has quite a lot to say about Minister for European Affairs and EU Chief Negotiator Egeman Bagis, the politician talks with a very aggressive interviewer from Der Spiegel. As expected and seen in prior interviews, Bagis affirms his country's enthusiasm for EU membership and argues Turkey's geostrategic importance for Europe (for my critique of this rhetoric, see Feb. 21 post). Yet, here Bagis is asked some questions a bit outside his protfolio, and his answers are worth a look. On the question of the United States and the recent genocide resolution passed in the U.S. House, Bagis brings up American reliance on Incirlik. He also, not coaxed, repeats Prime Minister Erdogan's statistic that 100,000 Armenians are working in Turkey illegally as a means of evidencing Turkey's benevolence in response to a question about the possibility of Armenia accepting reparations and quite candidly responds to questioning about whether what happened in the Ottoman Empire in 1915 constituted genocide. Bagis is also asked about Minister of Women and Family Selma Aliye Kavaf's recent statement that homosexuality is a disease in need of treatment (see March 9 post), telling the interviewer he disagrees with Kavaf's assessment, though he is "neither a historian nor a doctor." A good bit of the interview is par for the course, but the flow and candidness make for a good read and provide some insights into Bagis and just what he can and is willing to say.

Kavaf and Homophobia

Minister of Women and family Selma Aliye Kavaf
PHOTO from Hurriyet

Minister of Family and Women Selma Aliye Kavaf's recent interview with Hurriyet (in Turkish) will do little to counter homophonia in Turkey. In the intervew, Kavfaf said she believes "homosexuality is a biological disorder, an illness. For me, it is something to be cured/treated. Therefore, I do not have a positive stand for the same-sex relationships." In recent months, members of the LBGT community have fallen victim to an increasing number of hate crimes.




UPDATE I (3/17) -- LGBT organization Lambaistanbul has filed a criminal complaint against Kavaf accusing the minister "of insult, incitement to crime and incitement to enmity and hate — crimes that are punishable by up to two, five and three years in jail respectively." Another LGBT organization in Ankara, Pink Life, has also filed a complaint on similar grounds. Kavaf has yet to apologize or offer clarification of her statements.

Food for thought: Self-identified Islamic liberal and Hurriyet Daily News columnist Mustafa Akyol defends the right to criticize homosexual lifestyles in his column last week, though he asserts that Kavaf's position as a minister should have placed her above making such statements. However, in a climate where the number of hate crimes against LGBT people is on the rise, how should such speech -- from a minister or ordinary citizen -- be treated?

UPDATE II (3/19) -- Lambdaistanbul staged a large protest in Taksim yesterday that drew over 100 demonstrators critical of Kavaf. The organization plans to present Kavaf with its "Hormone Tomatoes Homophobia Award," and threw genetically-modified tomatoes at an effigy of the minister. According to Lambdaistanbul, if Kavaf does not apologize for her remarks, it will present her with the award in parliament.

Council of Europe Enables Homophobia

Demonstrators outside of Galatasaray Lisesi mark their concern for the safety of members of the LGBT community following the deaths of five people in the last two months. PHOTO from KaosGL

Though the AKP government has won the support of many Turkish liberals (though this support has diminished in recent years), on LGBT rights the AKP government lags far behind European standards. This is not news. However, what is news is what many liberals perceive as the Council of Europe's kow-tailing to Turkish conservatives. The Hurriyet Daily News' Kristen Stevens has an op/ed in English:

To suit the Turkish government’s intolerance for gay people, the Council of Europe has changed its declaration of children’s rights to allow state discrimination that puts lives at risk. The threats the council was trying to eliminate just grew bigger.

The text in question from the Council of Europe’s declaration of children’s rights said: “Currently, the family [is a concept] composed of different lifestyles, and children in Europe grow up in family forms that can change during the life of children.”

No, no, Turkey says, not gays; if you’re saying that gays are part of families with children, we have to ask you to change Europe’s version of children’s rights… Alas, that’s what happened this week.

The declaration now includes the phrase: “These family forms change from one country to another.” Do they? The whole point of the declaration was to support kids whose parents might be shunned by certain countries and societies.

. . . .

This unnecessary protest is not only discriminatory but also exacerbates a current climate of violence against people with sexual orientations outside the mainstream. Homophobia has led to murder in a number of cases in Turkey. Last Tuesday in Istanbul someone broke into a transgender woman’s apartment, killing her by slitting her throat and stabbing her 17 times. At least eight transgender people have been killed in Istanbul and Ankara since November 2008.

Covering the Gay Pride Parade for the Associated Press in Jerusalem a few years ago, I watched an Ultra-Orthodox Jewish man stab a father and a young woman. The Ultra-Orthodox mayor had spoken against the “immorality” of the parade, no doubt galvanizing this man and others to attack marchers throughout the day.

Turkey issued a statement this week, saying: “We do not accept gay marriages and we also do not accept the institution of homosexual family parenting.” Selma Aliye Kavaf, the minister responsible for families and women, said she informed the Council of Europe about Turkey’s “sensitivity on the different forms of families” and that they made the “necessary changes.” Was there anything necessary about this?

Shame on the council. Kids can’t reject or exchange gay parents for straight ones; they only suffer when separated from them. Children in Turkey without parents can only hope that they will be taken in by loving parents, gay or straight. By law, the state can remove them from the parents or deny them inheritance.

The Turkish Council of State has ruled that homosexuals should not have custody of children, but it is not a must under the law. It is precisely children in this gray area that the Council of Europe aimed to protect. Instead they have failed them.

Furthermore, at Turkey’s urging, the Council of Europe has undermined its very existence by adding: “The relevant articles will be evaluated under the framework of national regulations.”

For a press statement from Lambdaistanbul (in Turkish), click here. See also Lambaistanbul's Ecem Dalga and Bora Bengisu's interview on the recent murders in Milliyet (in Turkish). See also this story from the Hurriyet Daily News on the challenges faced by LGBT women, including another interview (this one in English) with Dalga.

Human Rights Discourses and the European Process

The European Stability Initative has posted a paper by Anne K. Duncker, a doctoral candidate at Phillips-University of Marburg in Germany, on the use of human rights discourses by various Turkish human rights groups competing for funding and media attention in the thick of the European process and the tremendou amount of grant monies that have come with it. The whole paper is well worth the read. Excerpted here is the abstract:

During the past two decades a diverse landscape of Turkish human rights NGOs has developed, representing all sorts of political and religious orientations. The comparison of Kemalist and Islamic NGOs in regard to freedom of religion and homosexuals’ rights illustrates the divergence between the underlying human rights concepts. Referring to these differing concepts, the paper aims at explaining the criticism Turkish civil society actors voice regarding the European process, leading to the fundamental question of whether one set of rights can claim universal validity or whether human rights must be adjusted according to national, cultural, or religious prerequisites.

Far From Safe: Yet Another LGBT Group Targeted

PHOTO from Hürriyet Daily News

The Izmir Governor's office is seeking closure of LGBT group SiyahPembe Ucgen (BlackPink Triangle) for threatening "Turkish moral values and family structure." From Hürriyet:

The case against the Black Pink Triangle Association is not the first case opened against an LGBT organization in Turkey in recent years. The Interior Ministry has repeatedly attempted the closure of such organizations on similar claims. In 2005, KAOS-GL and in 2006, Pembe Hayat (Pink Life) faced closure cases. In 2009, Lambda Istanbul won its closure case after a lengthy legal battle.

. . . .

Black Pink Triangle is the first İzmir-based LGBT organization and was established in February 2009. Following the founding of the organization, the governor’s office complained that one of the articles in the Black Pink Triangle’s constitution was violating the Turkish civil code, in particular, paragraphs protecting Turkish moral values and family structure. The office also demanded the organization amend the questioned article and submit full documentation of the change within 30 days. Black Pink Triangle claims it met the deadline, however, did not alter the constitution, regarding such demand to be a violation of the members’ freedom of association. Following that incident, the İzmir Governor’s Office brought the complaint to the prosecutor’s office in May.

The Istanbul LGBT organization Lambda faced a similar complaint from the Istanbul governor's office, winning their case at the Supreme Court of Appeals a little over a year ago following a long legal process. However, Lambdaistanbul is continuing their legal fight, claiming the reasoning of the decision still facilitates the closure of LGBT groups for "moral" reasons. From Amnesty International following the Supreme Court of Appeals' decision:

However, as we take a closer look on the fifth page of the reasoning, it is noted that the court of appeal indeed agrees to a great extend with the court of first instance with regards to its persuasions on "general morals". Without a doubt, the following sentence on the fifth page is an open threat to all LGBTT organizations in Turkey:

"Certainly, the execution of the above mentioned articles 30 and 31 and the dissolution of the defendant association could still be demanded, if it would act counter to its constitution, in the ways of encouraging or provoking gay, lesbian, bisexual, transsexual and transvestite behavior or acting with the aim of spreading such sexual orientations."

Sexual orientation or sexual identity cannot be changed through imposition. It is the fact both for LGBTT and for heterosexual people, admittedly the majority of the population.

For the last 20 years, it is not the number of gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transsexuals and transvestites increasing, rather it is their individual and organized visibility that has been pressured and silenced until today. It is thus, unfortunate, that the court of appeal considers the organized visibility and rights struggle of the ignored LGBTT's, who are subjected to pressure and othering because of their sexual identity and sexual orientation, as a risk to society.

And, here is a press release SiyahPembe Ucgen issued in January about their own case:

The closure case that has been taken against SiyahPembe Üçgen (BlackPink Triangle) Izmir begins with the first session on the 9th February...

The first trial of the closure case that has been taken to the 6th civil court of general jurisdiction of Izmir by chief public prosecutor's office after the recourse of Izmir's governorship with the claim that the 2nd article of its charter's being "against the general morality and the protection of family" is on 9 February, 2010.

The closure case against SiyahPembe Üçgen Association is an attempt to block LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transsexual) individuals' right of association, whereas, it, for the communities that faces discrimination, is an absolute must. The only possible way to resist to isolation and exclusion for lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transsexuals that are under pressure of the social structures because of their sexual orientations and identities is unity and solidarity. There is no other discovered way to struggle against hate crimes, homophobic and transphobic discourses and discriminatory practises in publicity. In a world where heterosexism is rammed down people's throat as a divine reality, closing down the LGBT associations who are the only ones that can criticise all is the sign of an authoritarian mindset.

How possibly should an association that was founded on the purpose of securing LGBT individuals' vital rights and while they try to exist economically, socially and culturally, preventing them being exposed to discrimination be closed?
The black pink badge that LGBTs were forced to wear in Nazi Genocide Camps shall no more be the symbol of destruction and discrimination but a fight for a life that is based on living together with all our differences.

As well as for heterosexuals, the constitutional rights and freedoms go for lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transsexuals!

Against all kinds of discrimination and inequality, we call for all right defenders who shout for equality and freedom to be with us and act with solidarity as long as this case continues...

SiyahPembe Üçgen cannot be closed down, must not be closed down!

As Jenny White writes, " as in Article 301 court cases accusing people of “insulting Turkishness,” the aim is often judicial harrassment, months of court appearances, legal costs, disruption of lives, and often threats in the street. You don’t need a conviction to do damage."

Iranian Refugees Face Problems in Turkey

Accusations have arisen in recent months that Iranian refugees seeking asylum in Turkey have been threatened by Iranian security agents, and that these security agents have in some cases worked with local Turkish police in a campaign of intimidation. Turkey is a popular destination for refugees thanks to its long border with Iran and its lax visa laws, though under Turkish law only Europeans can claim asylum status. It is the responsibility of the UN Refugee Agency(UNHCR), whose Turkey office is in Ankara, to re-locate asylum seekers. From the Guardian's Robert Tait, who is based in Istanbul:

The intimidation campaign comes after a senior revolutionary guard commander, Brigadier General Masoud Jazayeri, told the hardline Keyhan newspaper that foreign-based supporters of the opposition green movement would be targeted as "extensions of a soft coup".

"So far, a large number of the infantry of the enemy has been identified," he said. "The Islamic Republic will not allow the extensions of a soft coup to act on further sedition and if necessary, the government will make them face serious challenges."

Iranians do not need visa requirement to enter Turkey, meaning it would be easy in theory for Iran's state agents to operate clandestinely within Turkey's borders. Western diplomats have privately voiced concerns about the security of Iranian refugees from the election upheaval.

However, Metin Corabatir, external affairs officer with the UN's high commission for refugees, insisted they were safe in Turkey. "The Iranians are under the protection of the Turkish state and Turkey is a secure country," he said. "If there are some high profile people, extra measures are taken to ensure they are protected. But we know of no incident and there is no threat to these people."

Yet, Tait has interviewed numerous refugees whose stories belie Corabitir's assurances. In one case, two men beat a refugee on the streets of Kayseri and stole her mobile phone. Maryam Sabri, the victim, claims she was raped by Iranian authorities and fears the attack was carried out by Iranian authorities keen to prevent her from telling her story. In Sabri's case, the UNHCR in Turkey took the word of the police, who have concluded the attack to be a simple street crime. Though a local NGO, the Association for Solidarity with Asylum Seekers and Migrants (Asam), has agreed with the police, United States authorities are reported to have sped up Sabri's application. Tait documents other cases of rape victims who have been intimidated, as well as reported that some victims have alleged Turkish police have asked them to keep quiet about the rape and torture from which they purport to be escaping, in some cases even threatening to hand refugees over to the Iranian authorities. The UNHCR continues to maintain that the victims are safe in Turkey.

And, another aspect of discrimination against Iranian refugees that has come to my attention involves gay Iranian asylum seekers who the Turkish government has re-located in the conservative central Anatolian town of Kayseri, no doubt a bizarre choice. According to Hossein Alizadeh,

While in Turkey, the authorities insist that refugees can only stay in one of 30 designated small cities. These locations are assigned based on the asylum seeker’s nationality, gender, age, and reason for seeking asylum.

. . . .

In a society where job opportunities are rare and financial resources are limited, refugees usually encounter public hostility. But for LGBT refugees, the picture is particularly frightening. Gay people, especially in more conservative areas, are perceived to be moral degenerates who will destroy social cohesion and promote prostitution. In this context, many view gay refugees as the “bottom of the barrel”—the public (and unfortunately sometimes the authorities) see them as parasites who not only suck blood from their host’s body, but who will fatally damage this body if left unchecked. For this reason, some “concerned citizens,” and occasionally local law enforcement agents, take it upon themselves to continuously intimidate gay refugees to make their lives as unpleasant as possible.

For LGBT refugees in Turkey, this is the daily struggle they must contend with: away from family and friends, with painful memories of persecution and harassment in their native country, they are now unwelcome strangers, living in extreme poverty, isolation and hopelessness, waiting for what feels like an eternity to find out if any country on the planet will give them a chance to live like human beings.

Alizadeh also documents difficulties all refugees in Turkey face, and gives their total number at 18,000 (as of June 2009), and I assume this number includes only those who have filed applications with the UNHCR. I have no idea how many are Iranians, and the number has no doubt increased following this summer's unrest. See also Alizadeh's June 11, 2009 post and this story from Voice of America.

Power and Discipline?: Religion and Identity Cards

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has ruled that religion cannot be listed as a field on Turkish national identification cards, which all Turkish citizens are required by law to carry. In 2006, Turkey began allowing people the right to leave the field blank or change their religious designation by application, though the ECHR ruled that the new regulation did not go far enough. The ECHR decision also said it was not the duty of the state to collect religious information about its citizens, which the Turkish Statistical Institute collects all the same regardless of whether religion is left blank or entered on the ID card.

The case that resulted in the ECHR decision came from an Alevi man who claimed state authorities would not allow him to change the religion on his identifiation card from "Islam" to "Alevi," and that this violated Article 9 ("freedom of thought, conscience, and religion") of the European Convention of Human Rights, as well as the Turkish constitutional prohibition against anyone being coerced to disclose religious beliefs (Article 24).

At the moment, the Turkish government has only a limited number of categories citizen may declare on their identification cards: Muslim, Greek Orthodox, Christian, Jew, Hindu, Zoroastrian, Confucian, Taoist, Buddhist, Religionless, Other, or Unknown. As the U.S. Department of State's report on religious freedom in Turkey observes, some religions, such as the Baha'i, have complained about not having their religion included in the listing. As the report also documents, several non-Muslim minorities have complained of exposure to harassment and discrimination as a result of the inclusion of their religion on their identification cards, and as is the case with the Alevi petitioner, others have complained of harassment by local authorities when seeking to change their religious designation. Additionally, some groups, like Protestants and Syriac Christians, have faced particular difficulty opting out of otherwise compulsory religion classes if their identification cards did not include a religion other than "Islam." The courses teach world religions, but minorities, including Alevis, have long complained about a Hanafi Sunni Muslim slant.

There is also the question, of course, of the sheer construction of such categories by the state, in particular the consideration of "Alevi" as apart from "Muslim," the lack of specific categories for Syriac Christians (who are not Greek Orthodox or Rumeli), and as aforementioned, the fact that some religions in Turkey are simply not represented in the choices available.

Also of interest are demands from women and gender groups to remove marital status and gender from religious identification cards, as well as to change the current law governing women's surnames. Divorce can result in discrimination and other difficulties fror women that men simply do not experience, and LGBT and other gender-conscious groups have long decried the blue and pink color of the cards in terms of LGBT rights.


UPDATE I (2/11) -- Ayse Karabat of Today's Zaman has written more about the demands from women's groups. The article expounds on the Bianet article linked above, and gives some more specific examples of discrimination. In regard to surnames, several women's groups are also demanding amendment of Article 187 of the Civil Code, which restricts women's surnames. A local court has petitioned for the Constitutional Court to consider the matter, implying that the article might violate the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). According to the Turkish Constitution, and thanks to the EU-inspired reform process, treaty law supercedes the Civil Code.

LAMBDA Wins at Supreme Court of Appeals

From Amnesty International:

The Turkish lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) solidarity organization, Lambda Istanbul, has won its appeal against the closure of the association. The Supreme Court of Appeal’s decision was communicated to Lambda Istanbul’s lawyers on Tuesday.

A local court in Istanbul had ordered the closure of the association on 29 May 2008. The original ruling followed a complaint by the Istanbul Governor's Office that Lambda Istanbul's objectives were against Turkish "moral values and family structure".

The Supreme Court of Appeals rejected the local court's decision on the grounds that reference to LGBT people in the name and the statute of the association did not constitute opposition to Turkish moral values. The Court’s judgment also recognized the right of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals to form associations.

The case will now go back to the local court in Istanbul, which is expected to uphold the Supreme Court of Appeals’ decision.

According to Öner Ceylan, a long-time leader in LAMBDA with whom I spoke yesterday, the association has gained in members and organization since its beginnings in 1993. LAMBDA became an official association in 2003, and just last year, drew a crowd of over 2,000 people to one of its parades on İstanbul's famous İstiklal Cadessi. İstanbul Mayor Muammer Güler attempted to close down LAMBDA last year by challenging the legality of its charter under Turkey's law on associations. Before that, İstanbul police harassed the organization. For more on LAMBDA and LGBT rights in Turkey, see May 24 post.


UPDATE 1/27 -- LAMBDA has issued a statement in response to the Supreme Court of Appeals' reasoning. Despite the Court's reversal of the court of first instance, the ruling contains elements that should be read by activists and observers inside and outside the country as enabling future discrimination. From the press release :

We consider the reasoned decision we received as a positive step towards the continuation of the legal personality of Lambdaistanbul, proving the vital role of our movement today. However, as we take a closer look on the fifth page of the reasoning, it is noted that the court of appeal indeed agrees to a great extend with the court of first instance with regards to its persuasions on "general morals". Without a doubt, the following sentence on the fifth page is an open threat to all LGBTT organizations in Turkey:

"Certainly, the execution of the above mentioned articles 30 and 31 and the dissolution of the defendant association could still be demanded, if it would act counter to its constitution, in the ways of encouraging or provoking gay, lesbian, bisexual, transsexual and transvestite behavior or acting with the aim of spreading such sexual orientations."

Sexual orientation or sexual identity cannot be changed through imposition. It is the fact both for LGBTT and for heterosexual people, admittedly the majority of the population.

For the last 20 years, it is not the number of gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transsexuals and transvestites increasing, rather it is their individual and organized visibility that has been pressured and silenced until today. It is thus, unfortunate, that the court of appeal considers the organized visibility and rights struggle of the ignored LGBTT's, who are subjected to pressure and othering because of their sexual identity and sexual orientation, as a risk to society.

LAMBA has joined other LGBT groups in calling for an amendment to Article 10 of the Constitution, which guarantees equal protection from discrimination "irrespective of language, race, colour, sex, political opinion, philosophical belief, religion and sect." LAMBDA argues that a similar protection guarantee from discrimination premised on sexual orientation and gender identity should be included in this litany. According to the group, its addition will curtail the homophobic interpretations of morals clauses used frequently to restrict the activities of LBGT individuals and groups.

HRW Turkey Report

Human Rights Watch released its world report on the status of human rights in countries. Summarizing the state of human rights in Turkey, HRW cited the increase in police abuse it documented in detail in its December report, as well as the continued use of torture, ill-treatment, and killing by security forces. HRW writes these abuses are aggravated by the impunity of police and security forces. In addition, the report documents continued limitations on freedoms of expression, assembly, and association, the continued harrassment and persecution of human rights defenders, and the continued killing of civilians by the PKK. The report also recommends the revivification of the reform proces, and notes the important role of the EU and the ECHR in the protection of human rights. From HRW:

The European Union remains the most important international actor with the potential to foster respect for human rights in Turkey. The public hostility of some EU member states, notably France and Germany, to eventual EU membership for Turkey—even if those countries did not block Turkey-EU negotiations—lessened the EU’s leverage. The European Commission commented on the continuing lack of progress on human rights in its annual progress report published in November.

At this writing, the European Court of Human Rights has issued 210 judgments against Turkey in 2008 for torture, extrajudicial execution, unfair trial, and other violations.

For the full report, click here. See also HRW's report, "We Need a Law for Liberation," on the discrimination of and violence committed against Turkey's LGBT community. To compare this report with that of last year, click here.

Turkey's First Gay Honor Killing?

Not so sure about the quality of analysis related to "traditionalist circles wedded to an old regime," but, yes, in all the turmoil of Turkey's politics, gays no doubt have a difficult time. The military subjects gays to all kinds of embarassing treatment (see HRW's reporting of the trials gay men must endure in order to prove their "gayness," June 4 post), İstanbul's ruling AKP-governor is seeking to shut down the city's leading gay organization, LAMBDA İstanbul, and there is no political party with the least degree of power that seeks to protect homosexual minorities. The machismo typical of Turkish society makes the likelihood of more protection for homosexuals all the more unlikely.

From the Independent:

In a corner of Istanbul today, the man who might be described as Turkey's gay poster boy will be buried – a victim, his friends believe, of the country's deepening friction between an increasingly liberal society and its entrenched conservative traditions.

Ahmet Yildiz, 26, a physics student who represented his country at an international gay gathering in San Francisco last year, was shot leaving a cafe near the Bosphorus strait this week. Fatally wounded, the student tried to flee the attackers in his car, but lost control, crashed at the side of the road and died shortly afterwards in hospital. His friends believe Mr Yildiz was the victim of the country's first gay honour killing.

"He fell victim to a war between old mentalities and growing civil liberties," says Sedef Cakmak, a friend and a member of the gay rights lobby group Lambda. "I feel helpless: we are trying to raise awareness of gay rights in this country, but the more visible we become, the more we open ourselves up to this sort of attack."

Turkey was all but closed to the world until 1980 but its desire for European Union membership has imposed strains on a society formerly kept on a tight leash. As the notion of rights for minorities such as women and gays has blossomed, the country's civil society becomes more vibrant by the day. But the changes have brought a backlash from traditionalist circles wedded to the old regime.

Bungled efforts by a religious-minded government to loosen the grip of Turkey's authoritarian version of secularism have triggered a court case aimed at shutting the ruling party down, with a verdict expected within a month.

Against this backdrop, the issues of women's rights, sexuality and the place of religion in the public arena have been particularly contentious. Ahmet Yildiz's crime, his friends say, was to admit openly to his family that he was gay.

Limits to Liberalism: Gay Rights Go Unprotected

An İstanbul court ruled on Tuesday to close the gay rights organization, LAMBDA İstanbul. The organization promotes the rights of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered people and is being closed on the grounds that it violates law and morality. According to Human Rights Watch,

"The judgment referred to article 17 of the Law on Associations and article 60/2 of the Civil Code, which taken together provide for closure of associations if they do not “remedy errors and deficiencies” in their statutes. But the court’s judgment did not specify these “deficiencies.” The proceedings made no reference to these articles before this last hearing on May 29. Neither the Governor’s Office nor the judge or prosecutor raised any such deficiencies in the statutes during previous hearings."

The case resulted from a complaint filed by the İstanbul governor's office in January 2007. The mayor's office had asked prosecutors to open a case against LAMBDA, but the request was denied in July. Apparently determined to close LAMBDA, the governors's office brought the case to trial on its own. LAMBDA was further harrassed in April when police raided its facilities on the grounds that the organization was involved with prostitution.

See the full report from Human Rights Watch. According to HRW, LAMBDA is not the only gay rights organization to be harassed by Turkish authorities as there have been similar cases of harrassment in Ankara.

LAMDA plans to appeal the court's decision to the Court of Cassastion (High Court of Criminal Appeals) and, if necessary, the European Court of Human Rights. Of the ruling, LAMBA member İzlem Aybastı said, "We were not an association for several years. If this decision is approved by the Supreme Court and Lambda Istanbul is closed down we will continue to work. However, this will threaten the existence of other gay rights associations in Turkey.” LAMBDA is a recognized association in Turkey and has been governed by the state's Law on Associations.

See also HRW's May report, "'We Need a Law for Liberation': Gender, Sexual Equality, and Human Rights in a Changing Turkey."

Significant to this affair is that the İstanbul governor, Muammer Güler, was appointed by AKP in 2001 and is subject to the influence of AKP top party officials. AKP repeatedly claims that they are in support of civil liberties and possess a libertarian view that all lifestyles should be protected from government intrusion, but this incident clearly shows that there are bounds. If AKP is as committed as it says it is to protecting everyone's rights and not just those of devout Sunni Muslims, it should denounce the repression of LAMBDA and reign in Güler. By not doing so, it tacitly consents to Güler's actions and the authority of the judiciary under which the governor is currently hiding.

Of note, I searched Today's Zaman for news of this story that might have appeared while I was in Diyarbakır and found nothing—more evidence to suggest that the liberal proclamations of religious conservatives have limits. This also reinforces my earlier argument that it is incumbent on AKP and other religiously conservative public actors to define boundaries as to what spheres of life the government should be able to intervene (see May 14 post). The expansion of rights simply does not seem to extend to members of LAMBDA.

Amnesty International Reports a Difficult Year

Amnesty International released its 2008 report on the status of human rights in Turkey last year. The report observes the persistence of numerous human rights violations committed in the context of increased political instability and rising nationalist sentiment. Documented is a lack of fairness in judicial proceedings, cases of illegal torture and detention, police impunity, prison conditions, repressive acts committed against human rights workers, and continued restrictions on freedom of speech and expression. The report's dismal findings parallel conclusions made by Human Rights Watch when it issued its assessment in February (see Feb. 2 post).

In an interview with Today's Zaman, AI Turkey researcher Andrew Gardner called for the total abolition of Article 301 and other articles restricting free speech. In particular, the report called for abolition of Article 216 of the Turkish penal code, used to prosecute individuals for "inciting enmity or hatred among the population." AI concurred with the prevailing opinion of human rights activists that articles restricting free of expression are used in an arbitrary and often very political manner. Gardner also noted that AI is carefully monitoring the closure cases of AKP and DTP.

AI was harrassed by Turkish authorities in early 2007 when its bank accounts were frozen in January and an administrative fine imposed on its chairperson in May.

The report is quite disturbing and is posted in full below:

AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL 2007 REPORT

In the wake of increased political uncertainty and army interventions, nationalist sentiment and violence increased. Freedom of expression continued to be restricted. Allegations of torture and other ill-treatment and the use of excessive force by law enforcement officials persisted. Prosecutions for violations of human rights were ineffective and insufficient, and fair trial concerns persisted. The rights of refugees and asylum-seekers were violated. There was little progress in providing shelters for victims of domestic violence.

Background
An atmosphere of intolerance prevailed following the shooting in January of Turkish-Armenian journalist Hrant Dink. From May onwards a marked escalation in armed clashes between the Turkish armed forces and the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) led to human rights abuses. The military declared temporary security zones in three districts bordering Iraq in June and a further three districts in December.

The inability of parliament to elect a new president resulted in early parliamentary elections in July. The government was re-elected and in August parliament elected Abdullah Gül as President. In September, the government appointed a commission to draft major constitutional amendments. In November, the Constitutional Court began proceedings to ban the pro-Kurdish Democratic Society Party (DTP).

Bomb attacks by unknown individuals or groups on civilian targets killed and injured dozens of people. In May and October, bombs exploded in İzmir, killing two people and injuring many others. In May, a bomb in the Ulus district of Ankara killed nine people and injured more than 100. In September, an attack on a minibus in the province of Şırnak caused multiple casualties.

In December, Turkish armed forces launched military interventions in the predominantly Kurdish northern Iraq, targeting PKK bases.

Freedom of expression

The peaceful expression of opinion continued to be restricted in law and practice. Lawyers, journalists, human rights defenders and others were harassed, threatened, unjustly prosecuted and physically attacked. An increased number of cases were brought under Article 301 of the Penal Code, which criminalizes “denigration of Turkishness”, despite national and international opposition to the Article.

On 19 January, journalist and human rights defender Hrant Dink was shot dead. He had previously been prosecuted under Article 301. The suspected gunman allegedly stated that he shot Hrant Dink because he “denigrated Turkishness”. An estimated 100,000 people attended Hrant Dink’s funeral in an unprecedented display of solidarity. While a police investigation into the murder resulted in a number of suspects being brought to trial, the full culpability of the security services was not examined. In October, Hrant Dink’s son, Arat Dink, and Sarkis Seropyan, respectively assistant editor and owner of the Turkish-Armenian weekly Agos, were convicted under Article 301 and each received a one-year suspended sentence.

In April, two Turkish nationals and a German citizen who all worked for a Christian publishing house in Malatya were killed. The three reportedly had their hands and feet bound together and their throats cut. The trial of people charged in connection with the murders began in November.

Article 216 of the Penal Code, which criminalizes “inciting enmity or hatred among the population”, was applied in an arbitrary and overly restrictive manner.

In November, lawyer Eren Keskin received a one-year prison sentence for her use of the word “Kurdistan”. The sentence was later commuted to a fine of 3,300 liras (approximately US$2,800).

Prosecutions were also brought under Article 7(2) of the anti-terrorism law that criminalizes “making propaganda for a terrorist organization or for its aims”.

In November, Gülcihan Şimşek, a DTP member and mayor of the city of Van, received a one-year prison sentence for referring to PKK leader Abdullah Öcalan as “Mr”.

Human rights defenders

Human rights defenders were prosecuted for their peaceful activities.

In January, the bank accounts of Amnesty International Turkey were frozen on the demand of Istanbul Governor’s office on the grounds of alleged “illegal fundraising” and in May an administrative fine was imposed on the organization’s chairperson for the same offence. Amnesty International Turkey appealed, but both issues remained unresolved at the end of the year.

In June, three people associated with the Human Rights Association (İHD) were each sentenced to two years and eight months in prison for criticizing the “return to life” prison operation by state authorities in 2000.

Serpil Köksal, Murat Dünsen and İbrahim Kizartıcı were prosecuted for taking part in a campaign against compulsory military service. They were acquitted in December.
Istanbul Governor’s office applied to the courts for the closure of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people’s organization Lambda Istanbul on the grounds that the name and objectives of the group were against “law and morals”.

Impunity

Investigations into human rights violations perpetrated by law enforcement officials remained flawed and there were insufficient prosecutions. Official human rights mechanisms remained ineffective. In June, parliament amended the Law on the Powers and Duties of the Police, giving police further powers to use lethal force by allowing them to shoot escaping suspects if they ignore a warning to stop.

In April, all four police officers tried for killing Ahmet Kaymaz and his 12-year-old son Uğur outside their home were acquitted. The officers said that the deaths were the result of an armed clash, but forensic reports showed that both victims had been shot at close range several times.

The conviction was overturned of two military police officers and an informer found guilty of the 2005 bombing of a bookshop in the south-east town of Şemdinli in which one person was killed and others were injured. The retrial was heard by a military court. At the first hearing in December, the two military police officers were released to resume their duties.

In November, 10 police officers were found not guilty of the torture of two women in Istanbul police custody in 2002. The two women, “Y” and “C”, reportedly suffered torture including beatings, being stripped naked and then sprayed with cold water from a high pressure hose, and attempted rape. The verdicts followed a new medical report requested by the defendants that did not show “definite evidence that the crime of torture had been committed”.

Unfair trials

Fair trial concerns persisted, especially for those prosecuted under anti-terrorism laws. In protracted trials, statements allegedly extracted under torture were used as evidence.

In June, Mehmet Desde was imprisoned after being convicted with seven others of supporting or membership of an “illegal organization” because of links to the Bolshevik Party (North Kurdistan/Turkey). The Bolshevik Party has not used or advocated violence and the connection between it and those convicted was not proven. The conviction of Mehmet Desde was based largely on statements allegedly extracted under torture.

Selahattin Ökten spent the whole of 2007 in pre-trial detention after his arrest on suspicion of taking part in PKK activities. The charge was based on a single witness statement that was allegedly extracted under torture and was subsequently retracted.
Killings in disputed circumstances

Fatal shootings by the security forces continued to be reported, with failure to obey a warning to stop usually given as justification. However, incidents often involved a disproportionate use of force by security forces and some killings may have been extrajudicial executions. In a number of instances, investigations were compromised when evidence was lost by law enforcement officials.

In August, Nigerian asylum-seeker Festus Okey died after being shot in police custody in Istanbul. A crucial piece of evidence, the shirt he wore on the day of the shooting, was apparently lost by the police. A police officer was charged with intentional killing.

In September, Bülent Karataş was shot dead by military police in the Hozat province of Tunceli. According to Rıza Çiçek, who was also seriously injured in the incident, military police forced the pair to remove their clothes before shots were fired. An investigation was being conducted in secret.

Torture and other ill-treatment

Allegations of torture and other ill-treatment continued, especially outside official places of detention.

In June, Mustafa Kükçe died after being detained in several different police stations in Istanbul. Relatives who identified his body said that it was apparent that he had been tortured before his death. No case was brought against police officers.

Lawyer Muammer Öz was allegedly beaten by police officers while drinking tea with family members in the Moda district of Istanbul. An official medical report failed to show that his nose had been broken in the attack. Muammer Öz told Amnesty International that police beat him with batons and their fists and told him that they would never be punished. Two police officers were prosecuted and were awaiting trial.

Members of the security forces continued to use excessive force when policing demonstrations.

In some of the Labour Day demonstrations on 1 May in various parts of the country, police used batons and tear gas against peaceful demonstrators. More than 800 people were detained in Istanbul alone, although the total number of arrests was not known.

Prison conditions

Harsh and arbitrary punishments continued to be reported in “F-type” prisons. A circular published in January granting greater rights to prisoners to associate with one another remained largely unimplemented. Some prisoners were held in solitary confinement and small-group isolation. Widespread protests called for an end to the solitary confinement of PKK leader Abdullah Öcalan, and for an investigation into his treatment.

In May, the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) visited the prison island of Imralı where Abdullah Öcalan remained imprisoned to examine the conditions of his detention and his state of health. The CPT findings had not been made public by the end of the year.

Conscientious objectors

Conscientious objection to military service was not recognized and no civilian alternative was available.

Persistent conscientious objector Osman Murat Ülke was again summoned to serve the remainder of his prison sentence for failing to perform military service. In seeking to punish him, Turkey remained in defiance of the 2006 judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Ülke case, which required Turkey to implement legislation to prevent the continuous prosecution of conscientious objectors.

Refugees and asylum-seekers

Refugees continued to be denied access to a fair and effective national asylum system. The Turkish authorities forcibly returned recognized refugees and asylum-seekers to countries where they were at risk of serious human rights violations, in violation of international law.

In October, Ayoub Parniyani, recognized as a refugee by UNHCR, his wife Aysha Khaeirzade and their son Komas Parniyani, all Iranian nationals, were forcibly returned to northern Iraq. The action followed the forcible return to Iraq in July of 135 Iraqis who were denied the right to seek asylum.

Violence against women

Laws and regulations to protect women victims of domestic violence were inadequately implemented. The number of shelters remained far below the amount stipulated under the 2004 Law on Municipalities, which required a shelter in all settlements with a population of more than 50,000.

A telephone hotline for victims of domestic violence ordered by the Prime Minister in July 2006 had not been set up by the end of the year.

Gay Rights Are Human Rights

Human Rights Watch released a disturbing report today concerning the systematic discrimination faced by Turkish gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered people. Much of the discrimination documented is deeply institutionalized within organizations like the police, the judiciary, and the military.

Many lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people in Turkey lead lives of fear, paralyzed by stigma. When singled out for harassment, violence, or other abuse—still an everyday occurrence for many—they also fear going to the authorities for assistance, and often for good reason: they have long experienced harassment and sadistic treatment by police and dismissive attitudes among judges and prosecutors. Despite reforms, new cases of such mistreatment continue to emerge, as this report demonstrates.

While the predicament faced by LGBT people in Turkey is similar to that faced by this community in many other countries, stringent norms for “masculinity” and “femininity” are particularly ingrained in both Turkish society and the state itself. The endurance of such norms, reflected in this report, perpetuate inequality and promote violence in many of the cases we document.

Every transgender person and many of the gay men Human Rights Watch spoke to report having been a victim of a violent crime—sometimes multiple crimes—based on their sexual orientation or gender identity. Beatings in cruising areas, robberies by men or gangs who arranged to meet their victims over the internet, and attempted murder were among the documented abuses.

The lesbian or bisexual women Human Rights Watch spoke with reported pressure, often extreme, from their families. Some were constrained to undergo psychological or psychiatric “help” to “change” their sexual orientation. Many faced physical violence.

The report also includes a section devoted to homosexuality and the military. Although military service is regarded as a basic right and duty for every male citizen, Turkey does not allow homosexual men to serve in the military. According to the report,

. . . it is the only member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to do so, other than the United States, and its ban persists nine years after the European Court of Human Rights ruled against a similar ban in the UK. Specifically, the Turkish Armed Forces Health Requirement Regulation bars people with “high level psychological disorders (homosexuality, transsexuality, transvestism).”178 The commentary to the regulation reads, “It must be proved with documentary evidence that the defects in sexual behavior are obvious, and that when revealed in a military context would create problems.” What constitutes an “obvious defect” or one that would “create problems” is not spelled out.

As a result of the regulation and commentary, gay men seeking exemptions are compelled to undergo psychological and, sometimes, humiliating anal, examinations based on mythologies about homosexuality. Sometimes they are also forced to produce photographs showing them as passive partners in anal intercourse.

A discharge on the basis of “psychosocial illness” also cuts off the possibility of future state employment. Private employers who seek information about potential hires will usually only be informed that the man was “unable for military service,” but even that classification can create a suspicion of homosexuality (or “psychosocial illness”), making employment difficult.

With no right to conscientious objection, claiming to be gay is one of the few ways to escape military service. However, as the report documents, even if one is gay, oftentimes military authorities demand bizarre evidence and medical/psychological examinations that no doubt intrude on a person's right to privacy.

The Turkish ban on homosexuals serving in its armed forces – labeling homosexuality a “psychological disorder” – and the intrusive and humiliating questioning it enables are clear violations of the ECHR. Indeed, Turkey is the only European NATO member to persist with such practices, nine years after the European Court of Human Rights found the UK’s ban on homosexuals serving in the armed forces—and the questioning its armed forces carried out—to violate Article 8 (right to a private life) of the Convention.197 In a strong opinion, the Court found that the UK could not justify its ban, and indeed should adapt similar methods to combat homophobic bullying in the army as it had already done to tackle racial and gender bullying.198 The Court also found the intrusive questioning of the applicants into their private lives to breach the Convention, stating in effect that there was no justification for any questioning to continue once the persons had stated that they were homosexual.

Some Turkish military officials' perverse intrusion into individuals' private lives go much further than the intrusion of the British military into the personal lives of UK citizens.

Also of concern in the report are restrictions on the rights of gay associations to assemble. A court case brought by İstanbul governor Muammer Güler against the gay rights organization, LAMBDA İstanbul, seeks to ban the organization on such legal grounds. LAMBDA has been harassed in recent months as a result of these restrictions.

. . . on April 7, police in the largest Turkish city, Istanbul, raided the premises of LGBT organization Lambda Istanbul's Cultural Center, seizing the group's membership list and other documents. The warrant for the raid cited suspicions that Lambda "facilitates prostitution, acts as a go-between [and] provides a place for [prostitution]."

Lambda Istanbul, founded in 1993, is Turkey's oldest LGBT organization, and has organized small Gay Pride marches every year since 2003.

The organization has been under attack from Istanbul's governor, Muammer Güler, since 2007, when his office brought a legal action to close the organization, claiming that Lambda violates both the Penal Code, as an association in violation of "law and morals," and Article 41 of the Turkish Constitution, which is concerned with "the peace and welfare of the family."

Güler rose to the governor's office á la appointment by AKP party officials and his recent discrimination of LGBT persons raises serious questions about the legitimacy of AKP's claims that it aims to secure human rights for all Turkish citizens. Do these rights extend to homosexuals? Are gay rights not also human rights, too? Most interestingly, HRW affirms arguments I have made earlier that the EU accession process is critical to human rights promotion in Turkey, in particular the human rights of minority constituencies with limited political power. From the report,

The picture is not unremittingly bleak; there have been positive developments in recent years. Turkey today is full of mixed signals. The situation was illustrated most pointedly by the process leading to the adoption of a revised version of the Criminal Code in mid-2005. A year before the new code was adopted, the Justice Commission of Turkey’s Parliament voted to include new language in the provision barring discrimination in a wide range of areas of public life: it would have included “sexual orientation” as a protected status. The move almost certainly came in response to Turkey’s pending application for admission to the European Union (EU).

The move galvanized Turkey’s small lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender movement, which rallied in support of including “sexual orientation” in the new law. Lambda Istanbul and the Ankara-based KAOS-GL, its two largest LGBT organizations, joined women’s groups in a 500-strong march on the Parliament on September 15, 2004—demanding the provision be kept, and that other articles used to harass minorities and restrict rights be changed.

Ultimately, the language mentioning sexual orientation was dropped and replaced with that found in Article 10 of Turkey’s Constitution—promising equality “irrespective of language, race, color, sex, political opinion, philosophical belief, religion, and sect, or any other reasons.” This defeat was perhaps predictable—since in late 2003, the prime minister’s spokesman said, “homosexuals cannot be members” of the ruling party: “They can establish their own.”1 However, activists were hopeful because Turkey had seen many positive legislative changes in preceding years, many in order to comply with the EU accession criteria.

HRW Releases Human Rights Report

Human Rights Watch (HRW) has released its annual report on the status of human rights throughout the world and its assessment of human rights in Turkey is quite grim. From the report:

Recent trends in human rights protection in Turkey have been retrograde. 2007 saw an intensification of speech-related prosecutions and convictions, controversial rulings by the judiciary in defiance of international human rights law, harassment of pro-Kurdish Democratic Society Party (DTP) officials and deputies, and a rise in reports of police brutality. The state authorities’ intolerance of difference or dissenting opinion has created an environment in which there have been instances of violence against minority groups. In January 2007 Turkish-Armenian journalist and human rights defender Hrant Dink was murdered. Armed clashes between the military and the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) rose in the lead-up to elections in July and intensified yet further in the second half of the year, with heavy loss of life; some attacks—such as a suspected PKK bombing in Ankara in May—have targeted civilians.

Although the report notes the success of Turkish citizens in staving off a military coup last July, Kenneth Roth notes in the broader report's introduction that the effort was owed much more to the actions taken by Turkish citizens than to denuniciation by the EU. HRW joins many others in expressing concern that the leverage the EU once had in protecting human rights in Turkey is waning thanks to the rhetoric of some EU politicians who have made the Turkish public much more skeptical about the eventuality of ever being accepted as a full member.

The report cites the significant increase in speech code prosecutions, including their possible use to reduce the political power of DTP in the face of upcoming elections; the continuing occurrence of police brutality and extrajudicial killings, including concern about the new "stop and search" law; the impunity of security forces, in particular in the Şemdinli case, the acquittal of four police officers accused of murdering two people in Kızıltepe in 2004, the killing of 10 protesters in Diyarbakır in 2006; and the continued harrassment of civil society organizations, such as the gay rights organization, Lambdaistanbul.