Tweet
Sunday's Zaman, Turkey
April 18 2010
Janus-faced Hürriyet daily (news)
IHSAN YILMAZ
Not only are the laws Janus-faced in this country, but several
institutions that are affiliated with the bureaucratic oligarchy are
as well. This accusation of being Janus-faced is not in any way
similar to the bureaucratic oligarchy's century-old habit of accusing
of every single one of their economic, political, ideological and
social opponents of hiding their true intentions or of actually being
traitors or secret obscurantist reactionaries. While the bureaucratic
oligarchy has never been able to substantiate their accusations, we
have enough evidence to prove clearly that they have Janus faces.
I remember mentioning here a few times that laws are Janus-faced in
the country. This fact manifests itself in two shapes. Firstly, there
is always a secret interpretation of a law, and while an ordinary
citizen cannot see it, the bureaucratic oligarchy's prosecutors and
judges apply this interpretation simply to suppress their ideological
enemies. The disaster at the 2007 presidential elections is a very
recent case in point. The second manifestation is related to the
judicial process rather than the black-letter law. The same law
applies differently to different people. When Turkish-Armenian
journalist Hrant Dink wrote a piece and mentioned that the Armenian
diaspora should throw poisonous Turkish blood out of their veins, the
judges at the Supreme Court of Appeals (a castle of bureaucratic
oligarchy) decided that it was an insult to Turkishness, a punishable
offense under the notorious Article 301, which even the Justice and
Development Party (AK Party) did not bother to repeal. Hürriyet
executed Dink metaphorically in its headlines daily, as they did
Kurdish singer Ahmet Kaya based on a faked picture, paving the way for
his exile and eventual death in France. The headline of the Hürriyet
daily read, `Ooo, You're Dishonorable' (Vay Å?erefsiz). No prosecutor
considered this an insult, as it was uttered against a Kurd. If you
use this word regarding any judge, you will spend several years in
jail, but it can be used for non-bureaucratic oligarchy members.
Anyway. Thanks to Hürriyet and her sister media outlets, and
columnists such as ErtuÄ?rul Ã-zkök, Dink -- like Kaya -- was made into
a hate figure. The ground was ready for an assassination, and when the
boy who assassinated the innocent Dink was caught, he claimed that he
was influenced by what he read in the newspapers. Every honorable
person in Turkey understood what Dink meant: He was not insulting
Turks in anyway but was warning against the danger of hatred in the
hearts of the Armenian diaspora against the Turks. But the
bureaucratic oligarchy needed to show to the outside world that, with
the rise of the AK Party to power, non-Muslims' lives were in danger
in Turkey. While Dink was accused of insulting Turkishness, Hürriyet
columnist Bekir CoÅ?kun -- an ultranationalist -- could comfortably
insult the 47 percent of the Turkish people who voted for the AK Party
as `belly scratchers' and his fellow Hürriyet columnist Yılmaz Ã-zdil
could label these people as `container-headed,' meaning that they had
empty heads without brains. The bureaucratic oligarchy's lawyers did
not bother to prosecute this at all. Both Ã-zdil and CoÅ?kun, on
separate occasions, made fun of the accent of Kurdish politician Ahmet
Türk, and nobody cared.
That is Janus-faced law in Turkey. What about Janus-faced Hürriyet? As
I indicated above and as also confessed by its owner, Aydın DoÄ?an, to
Nuriye Akman in a recorded interview, the Hürriyet daily secretly
belongs to the deep state or bureaucratic oligarchy. As DoÄ?an said,
you cannot simply buy the ownership of the trademark. The bureaucratic
oligarchy needs it for propaganda purposes. The daily is full of
ultranationalist, ultrasecularist columnists who abhor democratic
processes, the European Union process and liberalization of the
country. The headlines are decided by a politburo almost full of these
people. There are only a few liberal democrat names, such as giant
Hadi Uluengin.
Anyway, what about the Janus face? Well, the Turkish Hürriyet has also
an English version. DoÄ?an bought it from Ä°lnur Ã?evik, who published a
liberal democratic paper under the name `Turkish Daily News.' DoÄ?an
first changed the content slightly and then changed the name to
Hürriyet Daily News and Economic Review. But unlike its Turkish
version, Hürriyet Daily News and Economic Review tries to present
itself as a liberal democratic paper and generally publishes liberal
democratic pieces of Hürriyet columnists. For instance, they would not
have Hürriyet's headlines regarding Kaya. They would not publish the
racist or inflammatory pieces of Ã-zdil. A few days ago, Kurdish
politician Türk was beaten up by a cowardly ultranationalist while the
police simply watched. The next day, Ã-zdil, with some language games,
congratulated the cowardly attacker. The day after, his mentor Ã-zkök
-- former editor-in-chief of Hürriyet -- was lauding Ã-zdil on the
basis of his almost-racist piece. On Friday, Hürriyet published a
not-very-honorable ad hominem attack against social democrat lawyer
Osman Can, who the bureaucratic oligarchy hates the most nowadays
after he shattered the image of Sabih KanadoÄ?lu -- the bureaucratic
oligarchy's `law-faker'-- on a TV program.
I wonder why Hürriyet Daily News and Economic Review does not publish
these pieces and columns in English if they think that they are bright
and intelligent pieces. Non-Turkish readers in Turkey also need to
benefit from these insights. They would not publish them, as Hürriyet
needs a Western audience that would support DoÄ?an, the (fake)
democrat, against the so-called `dictatorial' AK Party government.
Alas. They forget that many Westerners follow the events in Turkey in
Turkish as well. So, no need for a mask or a Janus face.
18.04.2010
http://www.sundayszaman.com/sund ay/yazarDetay.do?haberno7711
April 18 2010
Janus-faced Hürriyet daily (news)
IHSAN YILMAZ
Not only are the laws Janus-faced in this country, but several
institutions that are affiliated with the bureaucratic oligarchy are
as well. This accusation of being Janus-faced is not in any way
similar to the bureaucratic oligarchy's century-old habit of accusing
of every single one of their economic, political, ideological and
social opponents of hiding their true intentions or of actually being
traitors or secret obscurantist reactionaries. While the bureaucratic
oligarchy has never been able to substantiate their accusations, we
have enough evidence to prove clearly that they have Janus faces.
I remember mentioning here a few times that laws are Janus-faced in
the country. This fact manifests itself in two shapes. Firstly, there
is always a secret interpretation of a law, and while an ordinary
citizen cannot see it, the bureaucratic oligarchy's prosecutors and
judges apply this interpretation simply to suppress their ideological
enemies. The disaster at the 2007 presidential elections is a very
recent case in point. The second manifestation is related to the
judicial process rather than the black-letter law. The same law
applies differently to different people. When Turkish-Armenian
journalist Hrant Dink wrote a piece and mentioned that the Armenian
diaspora should throw poisonous Turkish blood out of their veins, the
judges at the Supreme Court of Appeals (a castle of bureaucratic
oligarchy) decided that it was an insult to Turkishness, a punishable
offense under the notorious Article 301, which even the Justice and
Development Party (AK Party) did not bother to repeal. Hürriyet
executed Dink metaphorically in its headlines daily, as they did
Kurdish singer Ahmet Kaya based on a faked picture, paving the way for
his exile and eventual death in France. The headline of the Hürriyet
daily read, `Ooo, You're Dishonorable' (Vay Å?erefsiz). No prosecutor
considered this an insult, as it was uttered against a Kurd. If you
use this word regarding any judge, you will spend several years in
jail, but it can be used for non-bureaucratic oligarchy members.
Anyway. Thanks to Hürriyet and her sister media outlets, and
columnists such as ErtuÄ?rul Ã-zkök, Dink -- like Kaya -- was made into
a hate figure. The ground was ready for an assassination, and when the
boy who assassinated the innocent Dink was caught, he claimed that he
was influenced by what he read in the newspapers. Every honorable
person in Turkey understood what Dink meant: He was not insulting
Turks in anyway but was warning against the danger of hatred in the
hearts of the Armenian diaspora against the Turks. But the
bureaucratic oligarchy needed to show to the outside world that, with
the rise of the AK Party to power, non-Muslims' lives were in danger
in Turkey. While Dink was accused of insulting Turkishness, Hürriyet
columnist Bekir CoÅ?kun -- an ultranationalist -- could comfortably
insult the 47 percent of the Turkish people who voted for the AK Party
as `belly scratchers' and his fellow Hürriyet columnist Yılmaz Ã-zdil
could label these people as `container-headed,' meaning that they had
empty heads without brains. The bureaucratic oligarchy's lawyers did
not bother to prosecute this at all. Both Ã-zdil and CoÅ?kun, on
separate occasions, made fun of the accent of Kurdish politician Ahmet
Türk, and nobody cared.
That is Janus-faced law in Turkey. What about Janus-faced Hürriyet? As
I indicated above and as also confessed by its owner, Aydın DoÄ?an, to
Nuriye Akman in a recorded interview, the Hürriyet daily secretly
belongs to the deep state or bureaucratic oligarchy. As DoÄ?an said,
you cannot simply buy the ownership of the trademark. The bureaucratic
oligarchy needs it for propaganda purposes. The daily is full of
ultranationalist, ultrasecularist columnists who abhor democratic
processes, the European Union process and liberalization of the
country. The headlines are decided by a politburo almost full of these
people. There are only a few liberal democrat names, such as giant
Hadi Uluengin.
Anyway, what about the Janus face? Well, the Turkish Hürriyet has also
an English version. DoÄ?an bought it from Ä°lnur Ã?evik, who published a
liberal democratic paper under the name `Turkish Daily News.' DoÄ?an
first changed the content slightly and then changed the name to
Hürriyet Daily News and Economic Review. But unlike its Turkish
version, Hürriyet Daily News and Economic Review tries to present
itself as a liberal democratic paper and generally publishes liberal
democratic pieces of Hürriyet columnists. For instance, they would not
have Hürriyet's headlines regarding Kaya. They would not publish the
racist or inflammatory pieces of Ã-zdil. A few days ago, Kurdish
politician Türk was beaten up by a cowardly ultranationalist while the
police simply watched. The next day, Ã-zdil, with some language games,
congratulated the cowardly attacker. The day after, his mentor Ã-zkök
-- former editor-in-chief of Hürriyet -- was lauding Ã-zdil on the
basis of his almost-racist piece. On Friday, Hürriyet published a
not-very-honorable ad hominem attack against social democrat lawyer
Osman Can, who the bureaucratic oligarchy hates the most nowadays
after he shattered the image of Sabih KanadoÄ?lu -- the bureaucratic
oligarchy's `law-faker'-- on a TV program.
I wonder why Hürriyet Daily News and Economic Review does not publish
these pieces and columns in English if they think that they are bright
and intelligent pieces. Non-Turkish readers in Turkey also need to
benefit from these insights. They would not publish them, as Hürriyet
needs a Western audience that would support DoÄ?an, the (fake)
democrat, against the so-called `dictatorial' AK Party government.
Alas. They forget that many Westerners follow the events in Turkey in
Turkish as well. So, no need for a mask or a Janus face.
18.04.2010
http://www.sundayszaman.com/sund ay/yazarDetay.do?haberno7711