Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

F18News: Turkey - Religious freedom survey, January 2014

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

  • F18News: Turkey - Religious freedom survey, January 2014

    FORUM 18 NEWS SERVICE, Oslo, Norway
    http://www.forum18.org/

    The right to believe, to worship and witness
    The right to change one's belief or religion
    The right to join together and express one's belief

    ===============================================
    Thursday 16 January 2014
    TURKEY: RELIGIOUS FREEDOM SURVEY, JANUARY 2014

    Turkey continues long-standing interferences in the right to freedom of
    religion or belief, Forum 18 News Service notes in its religious freedom
    survey. Issues include: the ban on any religious or belief community having
    legal personality (stopping them owning places of worship); some aspects of
    the Diyanet's activities obstruct the exercise of freedom of religion or
    belief by some Muslim and non-Muslim individuals and groups; barriers to
    using and acquiring places of worship; serious restrictions on
    conscientious objection to military service; discrimination related to
    public service posts and activities; the right to teach a religion or
    belief including to train clergy being severely restricted; compulsory
    school instruction in Islam with limited exemption possibilities; being
    forced to declare a religion or belief on identity cards; atheists being
    prosecuted for exercising the linked rights of freedom of religion or
    belief and of expression; and interference in some religious communities'
    choice of leaders. Piecemeal and selective changes have proved inadequate
    to protect freedom of religion or belief effectively.

    TURKEY: RELIGIOUS FREEDOM SURVEY, JANUARY 2014
    http://www.forum18.org/archive.php?article_id=1916
    By Mine Yildirim, Norwegian Helsinki Ctte


    The Turkish government continues long-standing practices incompatible with
    its international obligations on freedom of religion or belief, despite
    opportunities for positive change, Forum 18 News Service notes in its
    religious freedom survey. For example, a long-standing crucial issue is
    that Turkey permits no religious or belief community to exist in its own
    right with full legal status - such as the right to own places of worship
    and the legal protection religious communities normally have in states
    under the rule of law. Turkish human rights defenders have expressed
    disappointment at the government's failure to fully implement its
    international obligations to defend freedom of religion and belief, as well
    as related human rights such as freedom of expression.

    Political background

    Demands for an effective legislative and practical framework for the
    protection of freedom of religion or belief for all remain unmet. Missed
    opportunities to achieve this have included the new Constitution-making
    process and the government's various democratisation initiatives. Turkish
    civil society initiatives on human rights issues, as well as statements and
    judgments by international human rights monitoring bodies such as the
    European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in Strasbourg, have all provided
    further opportunities for positive change. But the ruling Justice and
    Development Party (AKP) has not used these opportunities.

    The AKP may have reached its limits in implementing effective protection of
    the right to freedom of religion or belief. This has been demonstrated in
    its failure to observe "the State's duty of neutrality and impartiality",
    as the ECtHR phrases it in judgments under the European Convention for the
    Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) in a number of
    cases. The AKP's approach has also prevented the state from protecting the
    pluralism that exists in Turkish society. The unrest following the
    government's dismissal of 2013's Gezi Park protests in Istanbul (which
    demanded among other things greater protection of human rights), as well as
    claims of corruption in the state administration, have led to instability.
    This offers little hope that further democratisation reforms will follow in
    the near future, including in the field of freedom of religion or belief.

    Constitution drafting

    The Constitution drafting process, which started in 2011, failed to produce
    a text that could be submitted to the Grand National Assembly for the
    adoption of a new and democratic constitution. This process was supposed to
    see the various political parties seek consensus. But the Constitutional
    Reconciliation Commission (AUK), which was tasked with the drafting,
    stopped functioning following the statements of AUK head Cemil Cicek in
    November 2013 that he had no hopes that the AUK would be able to draft the
    new Constitution.

    Under the proposed new Constitution's section entitled Fundamental Rights
    and Freedoms, key issues the various political parties have strongly
    disagreed about have included: the definition of citizenship, the right to
    freedom of religion or belief, equality, and education in a person's mother
    tongue.

    All parties have agreed on the protection of the right to have, not to
    have, and to change one's religion or belief. Some proposals from various
    parties would have taken the new Constitution closer to Article 9 ("Freedom
    of thought, conscience and religion") of the ECHR in allowing the right to
    manifest a religion or belief in worship, teaching, practice and
    observance.

    But the main opposition Republican People's Party (CHP) did not change its
    historic position restricting the right to manifest a religion or belief in
    teaching, and requiring the state to provide religious instruction.
    However, the CHP and the Peace and Democracy Party (BDP) proposed the
    inclusion of a statement that the state will maintain equal distance to
    beliefs and take into account the religious pluralism in society in its
    dealings concerning religion or belief. But the AKP and the Nationalist
    Movement Party (MHP) opposed this.

    The controversial compulsory secondary school Religious Culture and
    Knowledge of Ethics (RCKE) courses (which instruct pupils in Sunni Islam
    and which the ECtHR has required Turkey to change and provide real
    exemptions from) were opposed by the CHP and BDP. But the AKP and MHP
    wanted to keep RCKE lessons. The right to conscientious objection to
    compulsory military service was proposed by the BDP. But no other party
    accepted this.

    The BDP also proposed abolishing the Diyanet, or Presidency of Religious
    Affairs (which reports to the Prime Minister and is funded by the state).
    But no other parties backed this proposal. The CHP argued that the Diyanet
    should serve the population while taking into account religious pluralism.

    Despite the BDP putting forward proposals to bring the Constitution into
    line with international human rights standards, freedom of religion or
    belief in the new Constitution is unlikely to include a provision that is
    in line with international law.

    Indeed, in April 2012 the Constitutional Court (AYM) established a new
    jurisprudence on "Turkish secularism" (laiklik), which ignored
    international human rights obligations. The AYM did this by attributing to
    the state a positive obligation to provide Islamic religious teaching, and
    so in practice to continue to restrict the rights of others to teach their
    religion or belief. This has wide and possibly unforeseeable implications,
    not least as the AYM's perception of Turkish society is strikingly at odds
    with the reality of today's diverse society. But the AYM decision does
    match the observable AKP approach to freedom of religion or belief.

    Legal personality

    No religious or belief community has legal personality - whether Muslim,
    Jewish, Armenian Apostolic, Greek Orthodox, Syriac Orthodox, Catholic,
    Protestant, Baha'i, Jehovah's Witness, atheist, or any other. This is
    directly contrary to Turkey's international human rights obligations.

    Religious or belief communities' representative bodies - such as the Greek
    Orthodox and Armenian Apostolic Patriarchates or the Jewish Chief Rabbinate
    - also have no legal personality. The communities are therefore deprived of
    rights, such as the right to own or hire property (for example as a place
    of worship), to establish charitable organisations, to open a bank account,
    or to sign contracts.

    Other kinds of legal vehicles - whether associations or foundations - are
    not suitable to the nature of belief communities and do not correspond to
    independent legal personality. Both associations and foundations also face
    sometimes formidable bureaucratic obstacles.

    It is possible for members of religious communities to gain legal status as
    associations, a route followed by some Protestants and Jehovah's Witnesses.
    In theory such associations have legal personality and can own property in
    their own name, though this does not mean that religious communities as
    such own the property. Nevertheless, at the absence of a proper legal
    entity status for belief communities, the association model has breathed
    life into the functioning of religious communities vis a vis the state-
    public authorities.

    The other legal entity status available is the foundation, but Civil Code
    Article 102 prevents such entities being designated to support a particular
    religious community. The only exceptions are the community foundations of
    the non-Muslim religious communities protected under the 1923 Lausanne
    Treaty (such as the Armenian Apostolic, Greek Orthodox, and Jews). They
    cannot establish new community foundations and are restricted to
    institutions founded under the Ottoman Empire. The 2008 Foundations Law
    enables these foundations to undertake activities such as selling property,
    which they could not do before. Yet all these foundations are run by
    individuals, who may not be clergy, and the foundations cannot be run by a
    church or synagogue community as such.

    Alevi and other Sunni Islamic groups cannot have legal personality under
    the 1925 Law No. 677 ("Closure of Dervish Convents and Tombs, the Abolition
    of the Office of Keeper of Tombs and the Abolition and Prohibition of
    Certain Titles"). This Law also, among other things, closed Alevi places of
    worship and prevents their leaders from using their religious titles. This
    Law is protected under the Constitution and cannot be amended. It is
    unlikely that the issue of legal personality can be resolved without
    addressing this very sensitive issue for the modern Republic's relationship
    with religious communities.

    Belief communities- since they do not have legal personality - cannot as
    themselves seek legal remedies. This denies them the chance to as
    themselves take legal action to defend their freedom of religion or belief.
    This is a fundamental problem which, if rectified, would offer the
    possibility of addressing the many other problems affecting freedom of
    religion or belief in Turkey.

    Achieving legal status for all would not solve all problems, but the
    changes in official and social attitudes necessary would help resolve the
    other problems.

    Legal personality, property, and places of worship

    The right to establish, own, and maintain places of worship is an integral
    part of the right to manifest religion or belief set out in the
    international human rights standards Turkey is a party to. Yet religious
    communities face serious obstacles - both formal and informal - preventing
    this right being effectively protected.

    The right to acquire legal personality and the right to property are
    closely connected. For example, the Catholic Church continues to lose
    property as a result of lack of legal personality. The land and property of
    Santa Maria church in Izmir was transferred to the State Treasury in June
    2013, as noted in the Norwegian Helsinki Committee: Turkey Freedom of
    Belief Initiative's (NHC:IÖG) January - June 2013 monitoring report. As it
    is not allowed by the state to have legal personality, the Church could not
    legally establish its ownership of the property.

    An adequate form of legal personality for religious communities themselves
    is a requirement under Turkey's international human rights obligations. Its
    absence leads to situations such as the many Armenian church buildings in
    Anatolia being owned by individuals, not the community itself, as
    Istanbul-based Armenian weekly Agos noted in August 2013. Many of these
    individuals want to transfer or sell these buildings (which are often in
    serious need of restoration) to the Armenian Patriarchate. Yet this is not
    possible, as the Patriarchate has no legal personality and therefore cannot
    own property. The future of these buildings is thus uncertain.

    The other option available is to transfer them to the Culture and Tourism
    Ministry, which could restore them. The Ministry does not open the church
    buildings for worship, however, but turns them into museums. This has been
    the case with the Cathedral of the Holy Cross on Akhtamar Island near Van,
    where Armenian church services have been permitted only once a year.

    Some steps have been taken to return some of the property confiscated from
    some non-Muslim communities during the Republic's existence since 1924. But
    no steps have been taken to return property confiscated from, for example,
    Alevis and Catholics. The August 2011 Legislative Decree on the return of
    property to non-Muslim community foundations, and the 7 October 2013
    decision to return land wrongfully confiscated by the state to the Syriac
    Orthodox Mor Gabriel Monastery (which predates by centuries the arrival of
    the Turks in Turkey) were positive. But legal cases continue against the
    Monastery and its employees.

    An opening for Alevis?

    The AKP government's "Alevi opening", which started in 2010, has failed to
    produce any concrete result to protect the freedom of religion or belief of
    Turkey's Alevi community - which may be as large as one third of the
    population. The Alevis' basic demands have remained the same for decades.
    They include: recognition of Alevi cem houses (cemevi) as place of worship;
    abolishing compulsory school RCKE courses (also required by the ECtHR in
    Strasbourg); and elimination of discrimination and freedom of religion or
    belief violations caused by the Diyanet. This is a community whose freedom
    of religion or belief problems the government has repeatedly claimed it
    will resolve.

    Provincial governors justify the rejection of applications for place of
    worship status for cem houses by reference to the 2004 Diyanet
    Communication that the places of worship of Muslims are mosques. A request
    to the Grand National Assembly, by Alevi CHP parliamentary deputy Hüseyin
    Aygün, for a cem house to be established in the Grand National Assembly
    building was denied in July 2012 by the Head of the Assembly, due to the
    same non-legally binding Diyanet Communication.

    According to March 2013 official figures from the Interior Ministry, 937
    cem houses exist, but none has place of worship status.

    The lack of any solution to the Alevis' problems in the Government's
    October 2013 Democratisation Package disappointed both Alevis and those who
    want to see the right to freedom of religion or belief for all protected.
    Following criticism, the government claimed that it is working on a
    separate "Alevi package". But the content of this package is unknown, and
    there has been no dialogue on it with Alevi representatives.

    The Diyanet

    The Diyanet or Presidency of Religious Affairs, which reports to the Prime
    Minister, exerts a large influence on the extent to which freedom of
    religion or belief can be enjoyed in Turkey. Only the Diyanet can
    administer mosques (which must all be Sunni), and like all other religious
    communities the Islamic community and groups within it do not have
    independent legal personality. Massive state financial and institutional
    support for the Diyanet along with its activities - including its biases
    against some Muslim and non-Muslim groups - make it difficult for
    individuals or belief communities outside the Diyanet's structures to
    exercise freedom of religion or belief.

    For example, non-recognition of Alevi cem houses (cemevi) as places of
    worship is based on an opinion by the Diyanet - which does not in Turkish
    law have binding legal force. A Communication (No. 1773), sent by the
    Diyanet to the Interior Ministry on 17 December 2004, states that: "It is
    not possible to consider cemevi and other places as places of worship
    because Alevism, which is a sub-group within Islam, cannot have a place of
    worship other than mosques or mescit that are common places of worship
    within Islam".

    In a case relating to the establishment of an Alevi association which
    referred to cemevi as a place of worship in its statute, the Associations
    Directorate of the Ministry of Interior on 30 March 2005 sent a letter (No.
    1277) to the Ankara Governorship, referring to this Diyanet opinion. The
    Interior Ministry asked an Alevi association, the Cankaya Cemevi Building
    Association (CCBA), to remove references to cemevi as a place of worship
    from its statute. The CCBA refused to do this when the Ankara Governorship
    wrote to them requesting this, stating that for all Alevis cemevi are
    accepted as places of worship. The Governorship then initiated a court case
    via the Ankara Prosecutor's Office to close the CCBA down.

    The Alevis have protested strongly against this, not least as the Diyanet
    opinion has no legal force and they object to their religious community
    being made subject to the opinions of another religious community. The
    state's interference in Alevi internal religious affairs by attempting to
    dictate whether or not cemevi are places of worship, as well as its
    subjugation of one religious community to the dictates of a public
    religious institution, seems indeed incompatible with international law.
    Were a case to reach the ECtHR in Strasbourg, Turkey would very likely
    lose.

    The AKP has increased the Diyanet's influence, without addressing its
    current incompatibility with Turkey's human rights obligations. Despite the
    need for change in the Diyanet-state relationship, the government has
    dismissed civil society proposals for change as "unjust" and "too assertive
    for such a sensitive issue".

    Problems faced by de facto places of worship

    It is in fact, if not in law, possible for Alevis and other communities,
    such as Protestants, to worship in a building not having legal place of
    worship status. But there are legal, financial and social consequences.

    Legally, gathering for worship in a building that is not legally
    recognised, or calling it a cem house (cemevi), church or similar name may
    - albeit seldom - result in prosecution. In Istanbul a Protestant was
    prosecuted on 25 May 2010 for calling his association (established for
    running seminars on Christianity) a church. He was acquitted when he stated
    that his poor Turkish as a foreigner led him to wrongly describe his legal
    association as a church. On occasion, local police have formally warned a
    number of self-described churches without legal place of worship status,
    but with a link to legal status as associations, that worship in their
    buildings is unlawful. The reason given is that the buildings are
    association buildings and not appropriate for worship purposes.

    Financially, legally recognised places of worship enjoy certain exemptions
    from a number of taxes, for instance, property tax, and electricity and
    water charges. Belief communities whose buildings do not have legal place
    of worship status cannot enjoy these benefits.

    Having a legally-recognised place of worship gives a religious community a
    high social standing. This helps its followers not to be seen by state
    officials and the general public as being on the margins of society and
    public life. This is important in Turkish society - not least for those
    communities whose followers may be at risk of violent attack (see below).

    Planning regulations

    Local planning regulations, prepared by municipalities, have detailed
    Implementation Guidelines for what are referred to as "religious
    facilities". These guidelines also contain detailed structural and
    construction requirements. For example, the Greater Izmir Municipality's
    Guidelines require a place of worship to have an at least 2,500 square
    metre [27,000 square foot] plot of land in newly developing areas. This is
    beyond the means of small religious communities, and they normally do not
    want such large buildings.

    Religious communities have also found that municipalities allocate no space
    for places of worship other than mosques. For example, Protestants and
    Jehovah's Witnesses are normally unsuccessful in securing the designation
    of land they acquire as being for places of worship. When they ask local
    municipalities for suitable plots to build new places of worship they are
    normally refused, as it is claimed that no suitable plot exists.

    In Ankara the Association of Kurtulus Churches (a Turkish Protestant
    denomination) in 2010 told Forum 18 that it had for a long time been
    applying to the municipality for a plot or building to use for a place of
    worship. They were repeatedly told until 2013 that no land or building was
    available. Then the local Cankaya Municipality offered the Association a
    number of suitable places. Yet the Association's first choice was allocated
    for the construction of a mosque. The Association made a second choice, and
    the municipality is now waiting for a response from the state National
    Property Institution which owns the land.

    None of the applications of Jehovah's Witnesses for their Kingdom Halls
    have been successful. In 2013 they have filed a case to the ECtHR on this,
    and no admissibility decision has been made. If accepted, this will be the
    first such ECtHR case on places of worship in Turkey and so is important
    for all religious and belief communities.

    Conscientious objection

    The right to conscientious objection to military service is part of the
    freedom of religion or belief, but this right is not protected in Turkey.
    This has led to numerous judgments against Turkey following the ECtHR's
    July 2011 Bayatyan v. Armenia decision (Application no. 23459/03). In
    addition, in June 2012 the United Nations Human Rights Committee (UN HRC)
    ruled against Turkey in the cases of Jehovah's Witnesses Cenk Atasoy and
    Arda Sarkut (CCPR/C/104/D/1853-1854/2008). The UN HRC found that Turkey
    violates Article 18 ("Freedom of thought, conscience and religion") of the
    International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights by not recognising the
    right to conscientious objection.

    The recognition in 2012 by two Turkish military courts of the right to
    conscientious objection under Article 9 ("Freedom of thought, conscience
    and religion") of the ECHR was important - although the judgments were both
    flawed and limited. The request of Barıs Görmez, a Jehovah's Witness,
    for conscientious objection was accepted and he was acquitted of any
    criminal offence because his religious community is committed to
    conscientious objection. But that of Muhammed Serdar Delice, a Muslim, was
    rejected as the state-run Diyanet claimed that conscientious objection has
    no place in Islam.

    In violation of the ECHR's Article 9, the judgments only recognised
    objectors who are members of groups that object to military service on
    intellectual, religious or political grounds. Also in violation of Article
    9, they used selective theological arguments from the state-run Diyanet to
    exclude other objectors. As Muslim conscientious objector Delice commented,
    "regardless of one's religion, conscientious objection is everyone's
    right".

    Turkey has not established a domestic legal framework to recognise this
    right in line with international human rights standards. ECtHR judgments
    require this, for example asking Turkey to establish an "effective and
    accessible procedure" to establish entitlement to conscientious objector
    status (Savda v. Turkey - Application no. 42730/05, June 2012). In
    addition, the UN HRCttee in the Atasoy and Sarkut communication asked
    Turkey to "suspend all proceedings against conscientious objectors and
    suspend all sentences already imposed". This has not happened to date
    [January 2014].

    Equality in relation to the public sector?

    In recent years restrictions on women wearing a headscarf have been lifted.
    A 2011 instruction from the Higher Education Council lifted the headscarf
    ban for university students. In November 2012 the Council of State
    suspended Bar rules restricting the use of the headscarf by lawyer interns.
    And in October 2013 the AKP's Democratisation Package lifted the ban on the
    headscarf for civil servants, except for those working in the judiciary,
    the military and police- as they wear uniforms it was explained.

    Some AKP spokespeople justified this on equality grounds, and women's
    rights organisations were divided on the issue. Relatively little attention
    was paid to the contradiction of men wanting women to be able to wear the
    headscarf, and the same men also not taking steps to further women's
    participation in society and the public service as well as political
    processes. For example, the BDP and the main opposition CHP put forward a
    provision for the new Constitution that "in the formation of administrative
    organs the principle of gender equality will be observed". But the AKP and
    the opposition MHP opposed this.

    Other areas of discrimination related to the public service have also not
    been addressed. The rights of those whom public servants - in education and
    the judiciary for example - are supposed to serve were barely discussed.

    Non-Muslims continue to be under-represented in all areas of public
    service, and are unknown in senior positions in the military, judiciary,
    police and bureaucracy. Followers of non-Muslim beliefs would like to see
    members of their communities working in all parts and levels of the public
    sector. For them the accomplishment of this will mean real equality.
    Although no formal obstacles to the employment of non-Muslims in the public
    sector exist, the current situation indicates that informal obstacles
    persist.

    Education

    The right to teach a religion or belief is not protected in the
    Constitution, and is by far the most restricted part of freedom of religion
    or belief in Turkey. Instead, the Constitution regulates religious
    instruction and education saying that "Education and instruction in
    religion and ethics shall be conducted under state supervision and
    control." The state has the monopoly on both opening religious schools and
    determining obligatory or optional courses regarding religious education.

    Private institutions cannot open Institutions to provide religious
    education. Under Article 3 of Law No. 5580 on Private Educational
    Institutions, "education institutions identical or similar to ones which
    provide religious education cannot be opened".

    Despite declarations by senior officials and AKP members that the Greek
    Orthodox theological seminary on the island of Heybeliada (Halki) - closed
    by the state in 1971 - should be re-opened, the government has failed to
    enable this. The similar 1969 closure of the Armenian Apostolic Church's
    theological college in Üsküdar has been far less publicised, but its
    continued closure highlights the long-denied right of all religious or
    belief communities to run their own training establishments.

    The compulsory Religious Culture and Knowledge of Ethics (RCKE) school
    course continues, including Sunni Islamic religious instruction, even
    though the ECtHR in Strasbourg and Turkey's Court of Cassation have held
    that RCKE lessons are incompatible with the country's human rights
    obligations. In the October 2007 ruling on the Hasan and Eylem Zengin v.
    Turkey case (Application no. 1448/04), the ECtHR ruled that Turkey should
    either change the course curriculum or introduce a real possibility of
    exemptions for all who wanted this.

    In 2010 the Education Ministry introduced some changes to the RCKE
    curriculum and textbooks. But in June 2012 the Reform in Education
    Initiative found in a report that it is still incompatible with Turkey's
    human rights obligation to allow parents or legal guardians to raise their
    children in line with their religious or philosophical views.

    Exemptions from the RCKE course are available only for those who can prove
    - by showing a copy of their identity card - that they are Christian or
    Jewish. No exemptions are allowed for atheists, agnostics, Islamic
    minorities, or followers of other faiths such as the Baha'is, Yezidis or
    Alevis. Choosing exemption from RCKE classes can be difficult even for
    those who are formally entitled to this, as in practice some children who
    do gain exemption have experienced ostracism and bullying from other
    children and discrimination from teachers - particularly in small towns and
    cities.

    In the 2012-13 school year, the AKP introduced additional optional religion
    courses on the Koran, Basic Religious Knowledge (Islam), and the life of
    the Muslim Prophet Mohammed. In this first year of these courses some
    school administrations made them effectively compulsory by not offering
    other optional lessons due to a lack of teaching staff. Many parents did
    not feel that they could publicly protest at this, as they did not want
    their children to be discriminated against. The Education Ministry has
    taken some action to correct this, but whether these formally optional
    lessons will become truly optional nationwide remains to be seen.

    But the inclusion of the possibility to establish schools to teach in a
    child's mother tongue in the October 2013 Democratisation Package was a
    positive step. Before 2013 only the so-called Lausanne minorities
    (recognised in the 1923 Lausanne Treaty) could open such schools. This
    development was particularly welcomed by the Syriac Orthodox community
    which has long suffered from being unable to teach its language to younger
    generations in school. The language is important for the continuation of
    their religious practices, as ancient Aramaic is used in this community's
    worship.

    Discrimination and violence

    The long-running trial in Malatya of those accused of murdering three
    Protestants from the local Zirve Publishing House in April 2007 continues
    to draw attention to the question of what causes such intolerance and
    violence. The length of this trial, and of the trials of those accused of
    murdering Armenian journalist Hrant Dink in January 2007, has cast doubt on
    their fairness and the determination of the state to see justice done.

    During both trials, information has been uncovered linking the murders to
    elements within the military and civil bureaucracy. Such information has
    also been uncovered in the Ergenekon and Balyoz investigations of alleged
    "deep state" coup plotters. These elements of the "deep state" appear to
    have been involved in the planning and facilitation of the murders.

    Whether the judiciary and other state officials are willing to bring such
    "deep state" elements to justice, and ensure all parts of the state obey
    the law remains to be seen. A number of state officials could not be
    investigated because their superiors did not give permission for
    investigations to be initiated related to the Dink case. Currently,
    following the mutual recriminations involving the AKP, the movement of the
    Muslim cleric Fethullah Gülen, and police corruption investigations, the
    retrial of earlier cases tried by specialised security courts is being
    discussed. If this happens, the Ergenekon, Balyoz and Zirve trials will
    also be retried - further delaying the possibility of justice for the
    victims, their families and their communities.

    Unless all elements of the state are, when necessary, brought to legal
    responsibility, guaranteeing the safe and free existence of diverse belief
    groups in Turkey, including atheists and agnostics, will be impossible.

    Sporadic violence against members of religious communities continues.
    According to the NHC:IÖG monitoring report, in 2013 attacks targeting
    places of worship took place against the New Hope Protestant Church in
    Atasehir, Ayois Ionis Orthodox Church in Burgazada, and the Gedikpaşa
    Surp Hovhannes Armenian Church in Istanbul. This caused apprehension among
    smaller belief communities, including those not directly targeted.

    An assassination plot against the Izmit Protestant Church's Pastor was
    foiled when police arrested the 20 people involved in the plot in January
    2013. (Attacks by others, including an also-failed assassination plot, have
    also taken place.) But the Pastor has not been provided with police
    protection, church lawyers have not been given access to case files, and
    the church has been left to put security measures in place.

    Media hostility against various religious groups is still a problem and
    limits their followers' ability to effectively enjoy the right to freedom
    of religion or belief. The Hrant Dink Foundation's Media Watch on Hate
    Speech report, covering the period May-August 2013, found that as has been
    the case previously, ethnic Armenians, Jews and Christians were in that
    order the subject of most religious hate discourse.

    Fear of discrimination based on religious affiliation is widespread, the
    January 2014 NHC: IÖG monitoring report notes. But religious believers,
    atheists and agnostics are highly reluctant to use the existing weak legal
    remedies. To avoid discrimination, many people keep their religious
    affiliation secret and do not change the designation of "Islam" on their
    identity cards. Those of non-Turkish ethnic background use ethnic Turkish
    names, and many choose employment or social relations where their non-Sunni
    Muslim background would not be a problem.

    Religion on identity cards

    On identity cards citizens must either declare themselves as following one
    of a limited number of religions - atheism is not a possible choice - or
    leave the religion part of identity cards and the corresponding part of the
    Public Registry blank. This is despite a February 2010 ECtHR decision
    urging Turkish authorities to eliminate this section entirely (Sinan Isik
    v. Turkey - Application No. 21924/05).

    Such a public declaration of religious identity makes people vulnerable to
    discrimination. This is because of the very many situations in daily life
    requiring identification to be shown, including: entry into certain
    buildings; dealings with the police; enrolling at school and university;
    voting in elections; applying for a mobile phone line; enlisting for
    compulsory military service; getting married; starting a new job; and
    withdrawing money in person from a bank. This means that many people can
    access this information, and in the Turkish context it therefore risks
    coercing people into declaring a religion or belief. There is an absolute
    prohibition on such coercion in international human rights law.

    Although individuals may leave the religion section in their identity cards
    blank, this does not solve the problem as the overwhelming majority of
    Turkish people do not do this. This leads to people who are not Muslim
    thinking that they must declare themselves as Muslim to avoid
    discrimination based on their religious or non-religious beliefs. For
    example, this is happening in the families of ethnic Armenians in eastern
    Turkey who were during and after 1915 forced to become Muslims. Many of
    their descendants have now converted back to Christianity, yet prefer to
    leave the designation of Islam in their identity cards for fear of
    experiencing social exclusion and ostracism.

    Atheists

    Article 216 (3) of the Criminal Code criminalises "the denigration of the
    religious values of a certain group of the society where this act is
    conducive to disrupt public peace". This vague terminology is left to the
    judiciary to interpret and apply.

    So far, Article 216 (3) has only been used against Turkish atheist critics
    of Islam. In 2013 Nisan Sevanyan (who criticised the Islamic prophet
    Mohammed) and Fazil Say (who announced on Twitter that he is an atheist)
    were sentenced to 10 month and 13 and a half month jail terms respectively.
    Both sentences were suspended. Trials of the Metis Publishing House for in
    2010 publishing the Illallah Diary and of cartoonist Bahadir Baruter have
    been postponed. But in January 2014, 27 contributors (out of 40 who are
    being prosecuted) to the EksiSözlük (Sour Dictionary) were brought to trial
    under Article 216 (3) for denigrating Islam. The outcome of the legal
    process remains to be seen, but such prosecutions strongly encourage people
    to censor themselves. These proceedings send a message that atheists
    exercising the linked rights of freedom of religion or belief and freedom
    of expression are liable to prosecution and punishment.

    Interference in some communities' choice of leaders

    Turkey continues to interfere in the choices made by the Jewish, Greek
    Orthodox and Armenian Apostolic communities when they elect new leaders.
    These are, in the government's interpretation of the 1923 Lausanne Treaty,
    the only three recognised ethnic/religious communities. The election
    process is to a great extent outside of the control of the religious
    communities themselves, and is subject to arbitrary state decisions. As one
    person who has a leading role in one of the three communities told Forum 18
    in 2010, "the procedure is defined throughout the process, with changes in
    criteria as well as reciprocal negotiations [with the state]". Commenting
    on the uncertainties within the process, they noted that "each election is
    different".

    The future?

    Contrary to Turkey's international human rights obligations, the country
    does not fully protect freedom of religion or belief. This would require
    drastic changes to both domestic law and official actions. Piecemeal and
    selective changes have proved inadequate as a way of protecting freedom of
    religion or belief.

    With local elections due at the end of March and a presidential election
    due in August in an unstable political context, it appears unlikely that
    the AKP will prioritise advancing human rights including freedom of
    religion or belief. So it remains crucial that civil society initiatives to
    advance human rights are supported, in particular those advancing freedom
    of religion or belief. (END)

    The Norwegian Helsinki Committee: Turkey Freedom of Belief Initiative's
    (NHC:IÖG) January - June 2013 monitoring report can be found at
    .

    More analyses and commentaries on freedom of thought, conscience and belief
    in Turkey can be found at
    .

    Forum 18's previous November 2009 Forum 18 Turkey religious freedom survey
    can be found at .

    A compilation of Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe
    (OSCE) freedom of religion or belief commitments can be found at
    .

    A printer-friendly map of Turkey is available at
    .

    All Forum 18 News Service material may be referred to, quoted from, or
    republished in full, if Forum 18 is credited as the
    source.

    © Forum 18 News Service. All rights reserved. ISSN 1504-2855.

Working...
X