Academic Mahmut Çınar (Photo: Today’s Zaman)

This week’s guest for Monday Talk says the state would be the first convict if Turkey had a hate crimes law because it is the biggest producer of hate speech.

“If we had a well-rounded hate crimes law in Turkey, first, the politicians who hold power would be put on trial. Therefore, it is hard to believe that a well-rounded hate crimes law will be drafted and implemented in Turkey,” said Mahmut Çınar, an instructor at Bahçeşehir University’s New Media Department who is the editor of a recent book, “Medya ve Nefret Söylemi” (Media and Hate Speech).

The government had a proposal in its latest democracy package in September last year to work on a law to curb hate crimes in Turkey. Çınar points out that civil society is concerned about how a hate crimes law would be implemented in Turkey.

“In countries where the judiciary’s independence is established, implementation of hate crime laws would not be problematic. But in such countries as Turkey where the judiciary is used by the executive power to assert the executive’s desires, hate crime laws will not be implemented well,” he said, adding: “If there is such a draft law, many people who study hate crimes and hate speech in Turkey believe that such a law will reflect only the worries of the government regarding Islamophobia. People who are concerned about this issue in Turkey think that just like insulting Turkishness has been a crime in the country, insulting Islam would be a crime, too. There are growing concerns that the government will impose its own ideology and belief system on the society.”

Çınar answers our questions as commemorative events by the civil society are being held in various towns in Turkey on the seventh anniversary of the murder of Hrant Dink, late editor of the Turkish-Armenian weekly Agos.

The European Court of Human Rights ruled in 2010 that Turkey had failed to protect Dink, despite being warned that ultra-nationalists were plotting to kill him. The court also criticized Turkish authorities over the investigation of his murder.

The book’s title is “Media and Hate Speech.” Hate speech is in everyday language, especially in politics, in Turkey; how did you decide to choose examples in the media in regards to hate speech?

There are two reasons; one is that in 2012, together with the Hrant Dink Foundation’s project to watch the media in regards to hate speech usage, we had a class on the topic at the university. That’s why we focused on the media. And we started to think about the media encompassing different mediums, such as, news media, cinema and new media. Previous works on hate speech in media focused only on the news media.

The second reason is that media plays a crucial role in producing, disseminating and legitimizing such statements and expressions. Yes, hate speech is mostly produced by the people who have authority and power, and they use media as a tool to spread this language. Therefore, media is quite effective in the reproduction of hate speech.

When I was in the school of communication in Turkey, hate speech in relation to its place in the media was not really a topic of discussion, and certainly, it was not in our textbooks, not in the curriculum. What was the situation when you were at the school of communication? Was the topic debated?

Not really; only certain professors who are known to be politically sensitive to such issues would talk about this concept in their lectures. It was not such a “popular” topic at the time.

When did it start to become popular?

It has become popular especially in the past 10 years. We can even say that Hrant Dink’s murder was a turning point in this regard because the role of the media was great in Dink’s killing.

What happened with Dink’s murder? Would you elaborate?

We’ve clearly seen that using hate speech can play a big role in the murder of somebody, and how hate speech can lead to murder. There have been great efforts by civil society organizations in showing how this is possible; how the media played this role and how the media was responsible. And also with the efforts of the academia, the concept of hate speech has entered the agenda of the Turkish society.

‘Real murderers of Hrant not behind bars’

What else has happened when Hrant Dink was murdered, considering that he was an Armenian?

This is something we are trying to tell students in our lectures: Hate speech is different from a basic insult; it is a type of speech disparaging a racial, sexual, or ethnic group or a member of such a group. In other words, this kind of speech is bigoted speech attacking a social or ethnic group or a member of such a group. People who use hate speech think that such people deserve this kind of speech. And when hate speech leads to hate crimes, its punishment should be more severe. If somebody kills a person just because this person is, for example, a Kurd or Armenian, then all Kurds or Armenians are attacked because people who belong to the identity of Kurdish or Armenian would feel threatened. That’s why there should be more severe punishments given to people who commit hate crimes; they hurt a whole group of people’s right to have safe and peaceful lives.

Many observers of the Hrant Dink case state that after seven years of his murder, Dink’s “real” murderers have still not been punished. What happened to Hrant Dink’s murderers? Are they getting the punishment they deserve?

I don’t think that those people who were accused and punished were the real murderers of Hrant. At this point, I neither find the penalties given were sufficient nor think that all the criminals were punished. When it comes to the role of the media on Dink’s murder, it definitely had a role; it was given a certain role and media fulfilled this role in the most aggressive form. Ogün Samast’s and Yasin Hayal’s [triggerman Samast was convicted of premeditated murder and sentenced to 22 years and 10 months of prison after a two year-trial] statements about the media’s role were aimed at preventing the revelation of real criminals and trying to show the murderers as if they were victims of a media campaign.

It should be pointed out that the punishments were given as if this was a usual, individual murder case, not punishments given as the result of a hate crime. It was obvious that the real target was not just Hrant Dink but the whole Armenian society. Therefore, the punishment of a hate crime should have involved more severe penalties than in a usual murder case because when you murder a member of a certain group because this person belongs to that group, then you target all the people who belong to the same group to the level that they all feel threatened and targeted.

‘Hate crimes seen often in Turkey’

Turkey does not have a law on hate crimes even though there are some articles of the Turkish Penal Code that can be used in cases in relation to hate crimes. Do you think Dink’s murderers could have been punished more fairly if Turkey had a hate crimes law?

My personal view is that laws produce only temporary solutions, and they produce political correctness. But we are looking for mere correctness, not political correctness. If there is no consensus on a concept in the society, people would not respect it just because there are laws saying it’s a crime. Therefore, laws sometimes do not mean much. However, in such countries as Turkey where hate crimes are seen often, there should be laws to punish hate crimes because laws would have a deterrent effect. Still, deterrence would not prevent the use of hate speech. This is because there is a broad background behind the use of hateful language — political and ideological — in regards to how hate speech is produced in the society. Without dealing with this, neither hate speech nor hate crimes would be eliminated.

At the beginning of our talk, you mentioned how power holders in a state produce hate speech and use the media as a tool to disseminate it. How is this done in Turkey?

The biggest producer of hate speech in Turkey is the state. The state produces “others” all the time in order to secure continuation of its authority, which is based on some pillars such as being Sunni, Turk and male. This identity is untouchable in Turkey. You would see court cases against people who are claimed to insult “Turkishness,” but you’d never see cases against people who insult “Kurdishness” or “Armenianness.” According to the state, identities except Sunni and Turk need “protection” and “tolerance” of the state. And if this is why the state is going to have a law on hate crimes, I am against it. But if the state is really concerned with the fact that people with identities other than Turk and Sunni are intimidated, harassed and targeted, then a study to design laws intending to curb hate crimes would be very valuable. It is also important to see how such a law would be implemented.

‘Judiciary not independent, used by executive’

Are there countries that implement hate crime laws properly?

We do not see the hate crimes laws well implemented in the world. The main reason for this is that such judicial actions demand very good interpretation. In many cases, such laws are seen as obstacles in front of freedom of speech. Hate speech and crimes should be well understood before there are laws intending to curb hate crimes. In countries where the judiciary’s independence is established, implementation of hate crime laws would not be problematic. But in such countries as Turkey where the judiciary is used by the executive power to assert the executive’s desires, hate crime laws will not be implemented well.

Well, the Turkish government has been recently asserting its power on the judiciary; it has a proposal to restructure the judicial body and the speaker of Parliament, Cemil Çiçek, said that independence of the judiciary is now dead. What can we expect under the circumstances?

In Turkey, the judiciary has been used by the power holders, currently the executive, as a tool to punish the “other.” It is the power holder that determines what is good and acceptable for the society, and the rest is the “other,” which may even deserve to be discriminated against. If we had a well-rounded hate crimes law in Turkey, first, the politicians who hold power would be put on trial. Therefore, it is hard to believe that a well-rounded hate crimes law will be drafted and implemented in Turkey.

‘Civil society concerned about gov’t interpretation of hate crimes law’

PM Tayyip Erdoğan mentioned a proposal in its latest democratic reform package last year in September that there is work being done to write laws against hate crimes in Turkey. Why do you think it has come about at the time?

There are now serious civil society pressures on the government in regards to the subject that has entered the agenda of the society in Turkey. If there is such a draft law, many people who study hate crimes and hate speech in Turkey believe that such a law will reflect only the worries of the government regarding Islamophobia. People who are concerned about this issue in Turkey think that just like insulting Turkishness has been a crime in the country, insulting Islam would be a crime, too. There are growing concerns that the government will impose its own ideology and belief system on the society. Again, there is a concern where the lines will be between freedom of expression and hate speech.

In the your book there is a section on hate speech and hate crimes; the examples of hate crimes in Turkey start in the year 2005. Why is that?

This must be because hate crimes intensified starting that year in Turkey. Previously, I mentioned the example of Dink’s murder, but prior to his murder, we saw an increase in hate crimes against non-Muslims in Turkey. This of course does not mean that there have not been hate crimes committed in Turkey before. There were many hate crimes committed, and among them were the Thrace pogroms [1934], Sept. 6-7 events [1955], Maraş events [1978], Çorum events [1980], Sivas events [1993] and so on. All of these are attacks against people who remain outside of the state hegemony’s definition of “ideal” citizens, defined as Sunni Turks. With the foundation of the Turkish Republic, this has been the new identity blessed by the state. In order to make this new identity “esteemed” or “valued” or “cherished,” other identities have been scorned. Apart from Sunni Turks, others have not been honored or held dear.

‘We need to change established discriminatory language’

Observers are concerned that Turkey is in a period in which one man rules at the top restricting civil society freedoms. Are you still hopeful that some people sensitive to such topics as hate speech and hate crimes will be able to rise up and voice their demands to obtain higher standards for citizens in this kind of an environment?

Transformation and change in society have never been easy. And change does not come from the top all the time. It is difficult to trust rulers in Turkey; each ruler is in search of masses that will be obedient. This is true for absolute power holders everywhere in the world. Absolute power holders leave old hate speech rhetoric behind and instead produce their own. The civil society has a big role to change this. Sensitivities in regards to the use of language should not remain in academic circles but should be prevalent in the society. We should think about how we can teach our children about these sensitive issues. We should review how we speak in everyday Turkish and how we can change the established discriminatory language. How can we achieve this through education? How can we change our textbooks?

I emphasize the role of education here because we learned about all this discriminatory and hateful language through education — how a Turk is worth a world of people, how our country has been surrounded by enemies, how each of us is a soldier, how strong males are, how women should take care of their homes, etc. And the media is even more important than education to reverse this tide. Once we learn to change the language we use in a non-discriminatory way, then we will indeed discover more and much better ways to express ourselves in daily language, in cinema, in photography, in novels, etc. Because we will see that the discriminatory language produces only hatred, animosity, insult, slender and clichés; and all you can do with it is turn it into comedy so people can laugh at it.

PROFILE 

Mahmut Çınar

He is an instructor at Bahçeşehir University, New Media Department. Çınar’s academic research comprises of media and nationalism; emergence of modern Turkey and Turkish national identity; minority media; and discrimination. He has been involved in several national and international projects about fighting discrimination and hate speech, including the Council of Europe’s “Speak out against discrimination” project. He is one of the members of the advisers’ board of the Hrant Dink Foundation’s “Hate Speech Course” initiative. Çınar writes for several media publications about Turkey’s political situation, and media in Turkey.