In 2010 I resigned my military commission as a Rear Admiral and left my profession. I was driven to resign by the false conspiracies against many in the military that are today often mentioned and condoned by President Erdogan, despite his support and backing of those same conspiracies at that time.
The main conspiracy was an orchestration of actions and events to discredit, predominantly, the Naval Forces and its main source for officers, the Naval Academy. This was done by incarcerating and thereby eliminating some officers while intimidating those remaining free.
It is during this time frame between 2008 and 2010 that I served as the Commander of the Naval Academy which found itself at the center of this conspiracy.
I have been a journalist since my resignation. My writings have been published in Aydinlik newspaper as well as over 20 other papers and online sites in England, France, the USA, Sweden, Denmark, Germany and Turkey. During this period I have been a guest on many domestic and foreign radio and television programs.
During this period I travelled within Turkey and abroad to areas with large Turkish populations. I logged over 55,000 kilometers to participate in 270 conferences and panels. I spoke on subjects ranging from politics, security, maritime, strategy, geopolitics, the “SO-CALLED Armenian Genocide”, Ataturk and Turkish reforms. I will speak at my 271st conference in Izmit Turkish Center about “Where is Turkey Going” on Tuesday, May 5th 2015.
Aside from journalism I have also been actively involved in politics since 2010. When I gave a speech in Tekirdag on May 31, 2014 I was a member of the CHP political party. In summary, aside from being a common citizen and voter I have been an active journalist and politician.
I was invited to Tekirdag as a speaker at the anniversary of the “Silent Scream” events which have been ongoing across the country every Saturday afternoon at 13:00. These events are to bring public awareness to the conspiracy that resulted in the betrayal and injustice to the Turkish Military Forces. It also served as a support group for the numerous military professionals who were unlawfully imprisoned by this conspiracy.
During my speech at Tekirdag I did not insult the then Prime Minister, now President Erdogan. I simply made a political assessment of the current situation in the country. First of all, my education, training and sense of public decency would not allow it. I have been trained since I was 14 in military schools to be a servant of the country. I call my class elders “Sir” even if I have surpassed them and achieved a higher rank within the government hierarchy. I may criticize an elder statesmen and women in the most direct manner for administrative and managerial shortcomings but I would never insult them. I know my place and how I should act or speak as a public figure. My experience and record is evidence of that. I have represented my country at home and abroad with integrity and dignity.
In the speech I gave as a politician at the “Silent Scream” event in Tekirdag on May 31, 2014, I criticized then Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan and described him as a fascist and dictator.
That day was also the anniversary of the Gezi protests. The scenes I saw on my way from Istanbul to Tekirdag were in every way anti-democratic and the very image of a police state. There were police at every point holding long-barreled weapons. The ferries, Metro and Tramway were closed. It appeared as if martial law had been declared in the city. Police were swarming everywhere. This was not the image one would see in any democratic country!
Passing many scenes similar to these, I arrived in Tekirdag and made my speech. Erdogan was not just any person. He was a politician. As such, he has to be open to criticism and resilient. The terms “fascist” and “dictator” that I used in my speech were my assessment as a journalist and politician.
The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines the word fascist as “one who believes in organizing a society with a government ruled by a dictator who controls the lives of people and forces all to agree with the government.” Within this context I qualified and criticized the prime minister’s administrative shortcomings.
Often in his speeches Erdogan describes the judiciary as a problem for his activities and claims that if the “judiciary would not hinder us” he would serve us better. He also fiercely criticizes the separation of powers which is a must in a democracy. What politician or senior administrator of a democratic country would view the judiciary as an obstacle to their accomplishments and wish for the abolishment of the separation of powers?
Erdogan wants to be president and collect all power to himself. He does not want it to be like examples around the world. He wants them to be special to us. In true Democratic countries, the USA for example, the Presidential system has control and monitoring mechanisms. The most important of these are sharply separated powers, two legislative chambers and the judiciary. But Erdogan wants a presidential system without these. The name of this anywhere in the world whether you accept it or not is dictatorship. Due to these views and actions like this I called him a dictator. This was never intended to insult. But simply to place the correct definition to his actions and statements.
One of the world’s respected magazines “The Economist” published its democracy index based on assessments of specific criteria. It came to the conclusion that “Turkey is moving fast towards authoritarian regime” and listed Turkey in 98th place behind Kenya and Uganda. The magazine article states “The election of Erdogan as President in 2014 has put forth a new threat to the democratic establishments in Turkey”. You may blame and not like the views of “The Economist” but this is just one of many examples.
In 2013 the book titled “The Psychology of Dictatorship” was given as a gift to Emine Erdogan who was giving a speech at a conference at the Georgetown University in the USA. This means something. It is a warning about the movement toward authoritarianism and dictatorship in Turkey. An interview with the Iranian author of the book, Prof. Fathali Moghaddam, confirmed this.
Erdogan says “those who are not part will be disposed”, “Democracy is a train taking us to the station we want.” I don’t believe that these words match democratic traditions.
Prime Minister Erdogan at an AKP group meeting on June 25, 2013 stated, “They should look at the photo of the National Chief at their party headquarters. They should look at the architect of the Dersim massacres and their National Chief. There they will see a dictator.” I assume Erdogan, in this incident, is not insulting the War of Independence hero, Ataturk’s closest comrade in arms and the 2nd President of Turkey. Rather, he is politically criticizing him.
On November 23, 2013 during an Antalya-Demre speech MHP Chairman Devlet Bahceli used the term “dictator” referencing Erdogan and went on to say “Prohibitions have surrounded us everywhere. The person who came with prohibitions, is pushing democracy towards a dictatorship”
Then Erdogan on July 15, 2014 criticized the main opposition party (CHP) Chairman Kemal Kilicdaroglu by saying “There couldn’t be a better dictator than you.” I assume there is again no intention of insult here.
In the speech I gave in Tekirdag I used my right to criticize as a journalist and political figure. This is my constitutionally protected right of freedom of expression. Besides Erdogan, whom I criticized as a politician and journalist, has to accept and tolerate these criticisms. He is not a private citizen.
The Supreme Court and the European Court of Human Rights in their decisions have said that politicians differ from ordinary people and have to endure very harsh criticisms. In the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) 08.07.1986 9815/82 Lingens Decision says: “The acceptable limits of criticism of a politician are much wider than those of a private person. A politician, unlike a private person, opens his every word and action knowingly and inevitably to the close scrutiny of journalists and the public. It is therefore that he has to demonstrate a wider level of tolerance”
ECHR 13.11.2003 39394/98 Scharsch – Austria decision says: “We believe that using the term Nazi does not automatically make it right to automatically convict someone for defamation of character only because of the special stamp affixed to the term. The standards used in the evaluation of the moral aspects of a person’s political actions are not the same as the standards necessary to prove the existence of a crime under criminal law”
When we look at domestic law, the Izmir 7th Magistrate Court found the Yurt daily newspaper journalist Ahmet Cinar who tweeted “Dictators do not resign, they are overthrown” and “Europe’s new Hitler, Erdogan” not guilty. The court ruled that even though the defendant in this case said “dictator,” using this word does not constitute a crime.
Telling a leader that he is “leading badly” and a calling him a “tyrant” cannot be a matter for a trial. It is criticism.
In my Tekirdag speech, since we had just passed 24 April I spoke that we need to understand 24 April and that the next 24 April we would have to deal with the 100th anniversary of the so-called Armenian Genocide. I stated that such an accusation was an imperialist lie.
During my speech, when I said that our ancestors did not do such a dishonorable thing, and that I would not know about their ancestors. I was saying that our Turkish ancestors, including those of the Ottoman period, did not commit a crime such as this and that our ancestors needed to be defended. My point was that there is not enough effort on this subject. In this speech there was no reference to Erdogan or any other private person. My statements were referring to those supporting the genocide slander. In my statements on this subject again there is political criticism, but no insult.
In the 18th century a German peasant defied the German emperor Frederick the Great by not giving the emperor his land. He says without fear “He should go and build his palace somewhere else” because he trusts the German judicial system and says “There are judges in Berlin”. I, too, despite everything being said, want to say that there is Law and there are judges in Turkey.
From the Ancient Greeks to today there have been thinkers who have expressed their thoughts, intellectuals who criticized the rulers of a country who have been accused, convicted and sentenced to various penalties. Even Socrates was convicted and poisoned with hemlock because he did not believe in the gods of Athens and criticized them.
Of course I am not Socrates! But I also am one of many trying to say, before it is too late, that those who are leading our country today, especially President Erdogan are moving us towards catastrophe. I am criticizing him in the most straightforward manner because this is my responsibility to my country and my children.
However, even though today’s leaders may be lacking in understanding, tolerance and closed to different opinions as were the leaders of Socrates’s time, the laws today are not those of Socrates’s time nor are the judges peers of Socrates.
Therefore by pointing out my faith in your court and the judicial system, by taking into account the ECHR rulings as well as Turkish court rulings using similar language in the rulings of legal cases related to journalists and the precedents they set and by the fact that I am a politician and journalist, I maintain that my words were not intended as an insult. They were uttered within the limits of freedom of thought and expression. I ask for your evaluation of these matters as such and ask for my acquittal.
Respectfully,
Türker Ertürk
Rear Admiral, ret., Turkish Navy
30 April 2015
By Cory Bennett
