Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ankara: Blacklisting By State Forbidden, Legal Protection Lacking

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Ankara: Blacklisting By State Forbidden, Legal Protection Lacking

    BLACKLISTING BY STATE FORBIDDEN, LEGAL PROTECTION LACKING

    Today's Zaman
    13 August 2008, Wednesday
    Turkey

    A list found at the house of Ergenekon suspect Fikret Emek shows
    that the TSK Special Forces blacklisted 914 individuals in Ä°stanbul
    between 1999 and 2000.

    Evidence acquired through a probe into the Ergenekon terrorist
    organization, a crime network accused of plotting to overthrow the
    government, has revealed that the state is once again blacklisting
    citizens based on personal information it has gathered even though
    laws exist to prevent this.

    The European Union accession process prompted Turkey to introduce
    measures to prevent the blacklisting of individuals by the state or
    other establishments, but more needs to be done. However, despite all
    these shortcomings, blacklisted citizens do have some rights and can
    fight any charges brought against them.

    The evidence in question shows that the Turkish Armed Forces (TSK)
    Special Forces blacklisted 914 individuals in Ä°stanbul between 1999
    and 2000. The list classifies the individuals according to alleged
    political links or leanings and religious identity. It also indicates
    that some of the individuals are linked to the outlawed Kurdistan
    Workers' Party (PKK), various religious groups or the extreme left
    or right.

    The list was found at the house of Ergenekon suspect Fikret Emek,
    who said blacklisting is "routine business" for the TSK Special
    Forces. He compiled the list just before retiring.

    The list brings to mind the events of Sept. 6-7, 1955. Following
    rumors that the house in which Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the founder of
    the Turkish Republic, was born was bombed in Thessaloniki, Greece,
    riots erupted in Ä°stanbul. The mob targeted the Greek minority,
    the Jewish population and the Armenians, all noted on a list whose
    owner is unknown.

    The first laws making gathering information on private citizens more
    difficult came into effect as part of the new Turkish Penal Code
    (TCK), which was implemented on June 1, 2005. "The new TCK prohibits
    gathering personal data and enshrines the protection of life in a
    principle. Laws regulating this were for the first time introduced
    with the new TCK, which also indicates that if a civil servant is
    involved in the said information gathering, the penalty is greater,"
    Fikret Ä°lkiz, a lawyer, says.

    Ä°lkiz also notes that another law, known as the "right to acquire
    information," enables citizens to ask the Interior Ministry and the
    TSK if a record has been kept on him or her. If such a record exists,
    the citizen in question has the right to seek reparations.

    This may be the case in theory, but when Ahmet Aydın, the deputy
    governor of Diyarbakır, filed a case against the gendarmerie,
    claiming he was blacklisted, the court ruled against him. The
    gendarmerie forces in Diyarbakır denied blacklisting Aydın.

    Aydın claimed that personal information kept about him was sent to
    him in letters by anonymous senders. He used these documents to prove
    his case in court and in July demanded YTL 100,000 in compensation.

    "We as citizens have more rights to protect us against blacklisting
    today than we did in the past," Ä°lkiz points out, but adds that
    further regulations are needed to protect personal data, noting
    that this has been a requirement of the EU accession process since
    2003. The draft bill for this is ready but has not yet been discussed
    by Parliament. According to Ä°lkiz, apart from being an economic and
    trade arrangement, this bill defines what constitutes personal data
    and is something new in Turkish law.

    Under the bill, no agency will have the authority to gather information
    about an individual's race, political opinions, philosophical beliefs,
    religion, denomination or other types of convictions, membership in
    an association, foundation or a union, health condition or private
    affairs. It also introduces tough restrictions on the handling of
    police and criminal records. The bill allows the gathering of personal
    information only when the interest of the public good necessitates
    such information gathering -- and only as long as there is legislation
    in place ensuring the confidentiality of such data. The bill entails
    citizens' right to know whether at any point personal information
    about them has been recorded, the right to review any such data
    and demand correction in cases of erroneous, mistaken or inadequate
    data. Data collection shall not take place without the permission
    of the relevant individual, with the exception of cases where legal
    obligations might be involved, the bill proposes.

    Yusuf AlataÅ~_, a lawyer and the former chairman of the Human
    Rights Association (Ä°HD), points out that this bill introduces some
    regulations but gives the impression that it was prepared to please
    the EU.

    "When you read the draft carefully, you can see that the main idea is
    to protect the state but to also give some rights to citizens. In a
    country like ours, where the human rights record is poor, the mentality
    should be to expand the rights of citizens. 'Public interests' and
    'state security' should be strictly defined," he says.

    Ä°lkiz and AlataÅ~_ also note that the Code on Criminal Procedure (CMK)
    and the Law on Police Powers regulate data gathering, too. For example,
    the CMK regulates under which conditions surveillance is allowed. Under
    the Law on Police Powers, the state may gather information on
    individuals who commit offenses that carry long prison terms, offenses
    against public security and property, smuggling or vagrancy, those
    who work in brothels, as prostitutes and their procurers and those
    who prosecutors or courts of law ask to be investigated.

    AlataÅ~_ says when the Ergenekon evidence brought to light the
    blacklisting of citizens, some comments suggested that the state had
    the right to collect data on its citizens for its interests but that
    the data gathering in Ä°stanbul overstepped the limits.

    "The real danger is this mentality. To say that the judiciary is
    taking care of this crime is not enough. The government has to devise
    and implement strict measures to regulate this matter," he says.

    --Boundary_(ID_BIMqsNquivzu/ki+J0l94g)--
Working...
X