Tweet
Today's Zaman, Turkey Oct 4 2011
Why could a Christian not change his name
by ORHAN KEMAL CENGÄ°Z
If you want to change your first name or last name in Turkey, you have
to apply to court.
Favlus Ay, an Assyrian who is a citizen of the Republic of Turkey,
applied to court to change his full name to Paulus Bartuma. The case
was forwarded to the constitutional court. The constitutional court
made a decision of which every Turkish citizen should be ashamed in
its ruling that this change of name ran contrary to the legislation in
effect.
Our constitutional court concluded that citizens of the Republic of
Turkey are not allowed to take the names attributable to foreign races
or nations. This decision, made last July, is so ridiculous that it is
impossible to make a legal analysis. We can evaluate this decision
only to obtain a better understanding of the way the minds of the
members of the constitutional court work. I will try to make this
evaluation below.
However, before delving into the details to make an assessment, I
would like to write a few words about the content and substance of the
decision. Consider this: A Turk living in Germany applies to court to
take a Turkish name; the motion is rejected. If the court underlines
that German citizens may only take names attributable to the German
race and nation, and if it rules that names like Ahmet or Mehmet
cannot be taken, you could be sure that a huge campaign against this
would be launched in Turkey. The Turkish media would have accused the
judges serving in that court of fascism or exhibiting a Nazi
mentality.
However, our constitutional court does not hesitate in making such a
decision and bans Turkish citizens from taking names foreign to his or
her own ethnic identity. The constitutional court handed down this
decision by a majority vote. Eight judges challenged the stance by the
other nine who ruled that Turkish citizens are not allowed to take
foreign names. If you take a look at the professional backgrounds of
the court judges who support and oppose the decision and who appointed
them to the constitutional court, you find yourself looking at an
interesting picture.
All of the nine judges who adhered to the anti-freedom interpretation
are law school graduates and therefore trained lawyers, whereas only
two out of the eight judges who relied on a pro-freedom interpretation
and declared that the law on taking foreign names is unconstitutional
graduated from law schools. The remaining six studied at schools of
political science and economics. Borrowing from Althusser, I would
hold that the notion of `the status-quo stance of a
lawyer' fits perfectly in this picture. As a law school
graduate, I am familiar with the legal training that creates this
status-quo stance. Likewise, I cannot help but question the legal
system through which judges and prosecutors have gone and I see that
the majority of these lawyer-judges had previously served in different
courts before being appointment to this one.
You would have an interesting table if you reviewed who appointed
these constitutional court judges. Five out of the nine judges who
ruled that the name Favlus could not be changed to Paulus were
appointed by Ahmet Necdet Sezer and the remaining four by President
Abdullah Gül. The eight judges who said people can take any
name they want broken down by appointing president or institution is
as follows: one by Turgut Ã-zal, one by Süleyman Demirel,
two by Ahmet Necdet Sezer, two by Abdullah Gül and one by the
Turkish Parliament.
I think that the picture I presented above tells much about the state
of democracy and the judiciary and whether the mindset of the
government has really changed. In consideration of this picture, I
would like to finish my column by asking some questions to the
president and government who elected him: Four out of the six judges
the president appointed made a decision that violates one of the most
basic human rights. What criteria does the president consider when
appointing judges to the constitutional court? Does the president
consider the attitudes, views and decisions of the judges he appoints
based on democracy, human rights and the rule of law? Does he pay
attention to whether the appointed judges are mentally open to
universal legal norms? If not, then what criteria does the president
use in the appointment process? Maybe I should ask a question of the
government as well: Do you not think that if legal training creates
such an archaic legal understanding, it should be substantially
changed and restructured?
To better understand how much Turkey has really changed, I think we
should take a look at how much its mentality has changed. To this end,
the decisions of the higher judiciary serve as a litmus tests. As you
saw above, the judges appointed by both the nationalist President
Necdet Sezer and the current president make similarly irrational
decisions. Is it possible to argue that a Turkey in which people are
unable to exercise the simple right to change their names as they like
is becoming democratic?
http://www.todayszaman.com/columnist-258877-why-could-a-christian-not-change-his-name.html
Why could a Christian not change his name
by ORHAN KEMAL CENGÄ°Z
If you want to change your first name or last name in Turkey, you have
to apply to court.
Favlus Ay, an Assyrian who is a citizen of the Republic of Turkey,
applied to court to change his full name to Paulus Bartuma. The case
was forwarded to the constitutional court. The constitutional court
made a decision of which every Turkish citizen should be ashamed in
its ruling that this change of name ran contrary to the legislation in
effect.
Our constitutional court concluded that citizens of the Republic of
Turkey are not allowed to take the names attributable to foreign races
or nations. This decision, made last July, is so ridiculous that it is
impossible to make a legal analysis. We can evaluate this decision
only to obtain a better understanding of the way the minds of the
members of the constitutional court work. I will try to make this
evaluation below.
However, before delving into the details to make an assessment, I
would like to write a few words about the content and substance of the
decision. Consider this: A Turk living in Germany applies to court to
take a Turkish name; the motion is rejected. If the court underlines
that German citizens may only take names attributable to the German
race and nation, and if it rules that names like Ahmet or Mehmet
cannot be taken, you could be sure that a huge campaign against this
would be launched in Turkey. The Turkish media would have accused the
judges serving in that court of fascism or exhibiting a Nazi
mentality.
However, our constitutional court does not hesitate in making such a
decision and bans Turkish citizens from taking names foreign to his or
her own ethnic identity. The constitutional court handed down this
decision by a majority vote. Eight judges challenged the stance by the
other nine who ruled that Turkish citizens are not allowed to take
foreign names. If you take a look at the professional backgrounds of
the court judges who support and oppose the decision and who appointed
them to the constitutional court, you find yourself looking at an
interesting picture.
All of the nine judges who adhered to the anti-freedom interpretation
are law school graduates and therefore trained lawyers, whereas only
two out of the eight judges who relied on a pro-freedom interpretation
and declared that the law on taking foreign names is unconstitutional
graduated from law schools. The remaining six studied at schools of
political science and economics. Borrowing from Althusser, I would
hold that the notion of `the status-quo stance of a
lawyer' fits perfectly in this picture. As a law school
graduate, I am familiar with the legal training that creates this
status-quo stance. Likewise, I cannot help but question the legal
system through which judges and prosecutors have gone and I see that
the majority of these lawyer-judges had previously served in different
courts before being appointment to this one.
You would have an interesting table if you reviewed who appointed
these constitutional court judges. Five out of the nine judges who
ruled that the name Favlus could not be changed to Paulus were
appointed by Ahmet Necdet Sezer and the remaining four by President
Abdullah Gül. The eight judges who said people can take any
name they want broken down by appointing president or institution is
as follows: one by Turgut Ã-zal, one by Süleyman Demirel,
two by Ahmet Necdet Sezer, two by Abdullah Gül and one by the
Turkish Parliament.
I think that the picture I presented above tells much about the state
of democracy and the judiciary and whether the mindset of the
government has really changed. In consideration of this picture, I
would like to finish my column by asking some questions to the
president and government who elected him: Four out of the six judges
the president appointed made a decision that violates one of the most
basic human rights. What criteria does the president consider when
appointing judges to the constitutional court? Does the president
consider the attitudes, views and decisions of the judges he appoints
based on democracy, human rights and the rule of law? Does he pay
attention to whether the appointed judges are mentally open to
universal legal norms? If not, then what criteria does the president
use in the appointment process? Maybe I should ask a question of the
government as well: Do you not think that if legal training creates
such an archaic legal understanding, it should be substantially
changed and restructured?
To better understand how much Turkey has really changed, I think we
should take a look at how much its mentality has changed. To this end,
the decisions of the higher judiciary serve as a litmus tests. As you
saw above, the judges appointed by both the nationalist President
Necdet Sezer and the current president make similarly irrational
decisions. Is it possible to argue that a Turkey in which people are
unable to exercise the simple right to change their names as they like
is becoming democratic?
http://www.todayszaman.com/columnist-258877-why-could-a-christian-not-change-his-name.html