Say during a performance at the 2009 World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland (Photograph: Virginia Mayo/AP)
An Istanbul Court found Fazıl Say (pronounced as Sai), an internationally-renowned Turkish pianist and composer, guilty over “insulting religious values” over messages Say posted in his Twitter last year. Condemned by European Union, Amnesty International, PEN and others, Say’s case came to a rather disturbing finale with the court sentencing him to a ten-month suspended sentence. Say won’t be jailed unless he is convicted of the same crime of insulting “religious values” within the five year period.
To give the reader a better idea on why Say received 10-month sentence, we must look into the tweets he posted back in April 2012. Say mocked the Muslim call to prayer by retweeting “the imam has recited the evening ezan in 20 seconds. What’s the rush? Lover? Raki?” and then cited (actually, retweeted someone else’s tweet) a poem that read, “Since you are promised drinks and beautiful women for doing good deeds, heaven sounds like a pub or a brothel.” The indictment against Say cited other retweeted messages such as “I am not sure if you have also realized it, but if there’s a louse, a lowlife, a thief or a fool, it’s always an Allahist. Is this a paradox?”
Although what Say’s messages are clear to the common reader, conservative twitter users found his tweets offensive. What followed was Say receiving death threats and hate messages – among the furious twitter users was Şamil Tayyar, a member of the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP), who tweeted “which brothel were you born Say?”
In a statement after the court’s ruling, Say said “I am sorry for the decision of the Court on behalf of both myself and my country. I am extremely disappointed with the restrictions on freedom of thought and expression. The fact that I have been charged with punishment despite being totally innocent is alarming not only on a personal level but in terms of freedom of expression and beliefs in Turkey”
Given the absurdity of the sentence Say received, there was immediate reaction against the court’s ruling. Turkish intellectuals including Elif Şafak, Ece Temelkuran and Atilla Dorsay (a veteran liberal arts activist and an acclaimed film critic, who got his share of Turkey’s democracy cocktail last week) as well as the main opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP) tweeted messages in support of Say. There was also international reaction: European Union, PEN, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and Amnesty International issued statements voicing their concern over freedom of expression and thought in Turkey.
And, here is what the AKP had to say:
The first one to speak about the court’s ruling was the Culture and Tourism Minister Ömer Çelik, who said that although he does not want to see anyone to be involved with legal probes over what he or she has said, it was “a judicial decision here” and that “everyone is equal before the law.” Bekir Bozdağ, AKP’s current spokesperson, said “they don’t wish anyone to be punished over what they say, but nobody should have the freedom to insult the believers.” But it was Prime Minister Tayyip Erdoğan’s statement which summarizes how the AKP sees the Say case: “Don’t bother us with such issues,” the prime minister replied when asked about the Court’s decision.
Say’s case represents a rather disturbing trend in Turkey. In the last few years, a number of artists, columnists and activists have been prosecuted in similar cases, which has raised concerns about freedom of expression and thought in the country. Legal probes are not the only reason why fundamental freedoms in the country are under threat. Since it came to power, the AKP has made fundamental changes to the laws and regulations that define the functions of key government institutions and agencies. This has created a state apparatus that favors Sunni Islam. This new machinery seeks to protect (and often propagate for) the so-called Turkish-Muslim values, which is just another vague term invented by the conservatives. This redefinition of the relationship between the state and Islam is not only unconstitutional given that laïcité is ingrained in Turkey’s constitution; but has led to some very absurd practices. Last year, Turkey’s “Supreme Board of Radio and Television (RTUK),” has fined Turkish broadcaster CNBC-e for airing an episode of The Simpsons (yes, The Simpsons) on the grounds that the cartoon was “making fun of God, encouraging the young people to exercise violence by showing murder as God’s orders and encouraging them to consume alcohol on New Year’s Eve night.” As its name suggests, RTUK is a Cold War-era TV and radio watchdog which the AKP cleverly redesigned to use it in its own discretion to intervene in the content shown on TV.
A closer look into Say’s case reveal that the court’s ruling lies in the Section Five of Turkish Criminal Code, which deals with “offenses against Public Peace”; a very vaguely defined section of the criminal law. Article 216 states that “any person who openly provokes a group of people belonging to different social class, religion, race, sect, or coming from another origin, to be rancorous or hostile against another group, is punished with imprisonment from one year to three years in case of such act causes risk from the aspect of public safety,” in addition to two other clauses which detail what constitutes an offense against public peace. As the Amnesty International’s reaction to the Say case underlines, Say’s case “highlights both the overly broad language of Turkey’s criminal law” and Turkey’s inclination to use the penal code to “to prosecute criticism of dominant beliefs and power structures.”
Furthermore, while Say received a 10-month suspended sentence over his tweets, others seem to fully enjoy the freedom of expressing hate and defamatory content. Pro-AKP dailies such as Yeni Akit, Star and Milat regularly publish content with hate speech and defamation against the government’s critics or any group that is not Sunni Muslim. Ironically, on the same day of the court’s ruling on the Say case, a pro-AKP Internet news website, habervaktim (one of many unofficial news websites associated with Yeni Akit), made a story on the “blood drinking, Quran-insulting, evil-worshiping conspirator freemasons,” in a text book case of insult, defamation and hate speech. Interested readers can click here to see how some in Turkey’s media enjoy freedom of defamation and hate speech while the government’s critics receive 10-month suspended prison sentences over retweeted messages.
It is clear what and who Say is criticizing in his messages – political Islam and Turkey’s new conservative ruling elite, which the public commonly calls as Allahists. Obviously, Say did not intend to criticize Islam or Muslims (which he should be free to do so if he wants); rather, his messages targeted the political movement that has come to dominate Turkey’s political and government life since early 2000s. This movement has an explicit dislike of liberal arts (and of critical intellectuals like Fazil Say), and it favors Sunni Islam to play a bigger role in social life and public affairs in Turkey. Therefore, in his tweets, Say has actually voiced common concerns of a growing minority in Turkey – people who identify themselves as secular citizens, rather than Sunni Muslims, who are very dissatisfied with the way the AKP is attempting to redefine the essence of the country and is telling them how they should live their lives.
The Say case will further complicate the relationship between the state and Islam. While the AKP does not seem to be concerned with this at the moment, the Case will definitely put more pressure on the AKP to address the growing concerns of secular people. It will surely strengthen the critics’ argument that the AKP is undermining Turkey’s secularism by favoring Sunni Islam to play a leading role in Turkey’s social and government life. Ironically, the Court’s ruling on Say’s tweets is in complete contradiction with what the AKP has been saying about democracy, freedom of expression and secularism abroad. Obviously, in an environment of government-run favoritism toward Islam at the expense of others, freedom of expression and thought will face serious limitations. In such an environment, it is kind of foolish to talk about whether secularism is undermined or not, or to expect the judiciary to function as an independent entity. There is enough historical evidence on how things can go wrong when a certain ideology or religion attempt to dominate cultural, social and government life in a country. Turkey’s development (both economic and human) depends solely on its ability to establish a functioning democracy and a tolerant government that does not favor any faith or religion which respects the rights and freedoms of all citizens.
