Tweet
Today's Zaman, Turkey
Jan 19 2014
Academic Çınar: State biggest producer of hate speech in Turkey
Academic Mahmut Çınar (Photo: Today's Zaman)
19 January 2014 /YONCA POYRAZ DOĞAN, İSTANBUL
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.
http://www.todayszaman.com/news-337046-academic-cinar-state-biggest-producer-of-hate-speech-in-turkey.html
Jan 19 2014
Academic Çınar: State biggest producer of hate speech in Turkey
Academic Mahmut Çınar (Photo: Today's Zaman)
19 January 2014 /YONCA POYRAZ DOĞAN, İSTANBUL
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.
http://www.todayszaman.com/news-337046-academic-cinar-state-biggest-producer-of-hate-speech-in-turkey.html