FORUM 18 NEWS SERVICE, Oslo, Norway
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
========================================== ======
Tuesday 10 July 2007
TURKEY: DANGEROUS CONSEQUENCES OF INTOLERANCE OF RELIGIOUS MINORITIES
The Turkish government has long failed to tackle deep-rooted
discrimination against religious minorities – by refusing to guarantee
their position in law or to crack down on intolerance from officials, the
media and in school curricula. This has left religious minorities
dangerously exposed, argues Otmar Oehring of the German Catholic charity
Missio
< /missio2/missio-ueber-sich/leitthemen/menschenrech te/index.html>.
For, as Dr Oehring observes in this personal commentary for Forum 18
<;, hostility to religious minorities is stoked by
widespread xenophobia. Following the brutal murder of three Protestants in
Malatya in April, attacks on and threats against religious minorities have
only increased. Official "protection" for religious minority leaders and
places of worship seems designed as much to control as to protect them.
TURKEY: DANGEROUS CONSEQUENCES OF INTOLERANCE OF RELIGIOUS MINORITIES
By Otmar Oehring, Head of the Human Rights Office of Missio
<;
A shadow still hangs over Turkey’s non-Muslim religious minorities,
following the brutal murder in April of three Protestants in the eastern
town of Malatya. The murders have not so far produced any serious effort by
the state to tackle the underlying causes of the murders. No effort has
been made to tackle the xenophobia and hostility to religious minorities,
which Turkish Protestants are convinced is a major factor in the murders.
This official Turkish indifference looks bad to the outside world, notably
to the European Union (EU).
Indeed, the situation for religious minorities is getting worse. Threats
by telephone and in writing against churches, religious minority (eg.
Armenian Apostolic) schools and individuals are mounting. Ethnic minorities
– especially the Kurds – are also seeing rising numbers of threats. Public
discussion is increasing over who should have the right to live in Turkey.
Should the country only be the home of ethnic Turks?
Whenever there is a bomb attack, journalists focus on the place of origin
of the suspects. When Istanbul airport became a target for bombers,
journalists eagerly pointed out that the suspects came from the Lazistan
region close to the border with Georgia. The suggestion is that they were
not real Turks.
A wider range of religious minority individuals and institutions –
including Catholic and Protestant churches and their clergy – are now being
directly threatened with physical attacks. In February 2006, Catholic
priest Fr Andrea Santoro was murdered in his church in the Black Sea port
of Trabzon (see F18News 9 February 2006
< e_id=724>).
Then in April this year came the murder of the three Protestants in
Malatya – two Turkish Christians, Necati Aydin and Ugur Yuksel, as well as
a German, Tilmann Geske. The publishing house, Zirve, where the three
Protestants were found, had been the target of protests in 2005, demanding
that it be closed down as its activities were "proselytism" of Muslims. But
as Turkish Protestants have pointed out with appreciation to Forum 18, the
Criminal Code has been changed to allow the sharing of beliefs if there are
no demonstrable political motives.
However, as Ertugrul Ozkok, editorial writer for Turkey’s largest
newspaper, Hurriyet, wrote the day after the murders: "While only a handful
of actual murderers is involved, there are many, many assistants." Ozkok
described the many newspapers who publish intolerant articles about
Christians and politicians making such statements as "agents of
provocation".
These politicians include government ministers, such as Minister of State
Mehmet Aydin – who controls the government’s Presidency of Religious
Affairs (Diyanet) (see F18News 12 October 2005
< e_id=670>). He claimed on 27
March 2007 that "the goal of missionary activity is to break up the
historical, religious, national and cultural unity of the people of
Turkey". Schools are also a source of what EU officials have privately
described to Forum 18 as "massive nationalistic indoctrination" (see
F18News 26 July 2006 < 817>).
Politicians repeatedly speak of "missionaries" (usually Christian) as a
threat to the country and a danger to its people. In a live programme on
NTV in May 2006, Professor Ali Bardakoglu, who heads the Presidency of
Religious Affairs, declared: "We are not only telling our people in Turkey
that Islam is the right (only) religion, but we also inform them about
missionaries’ activities threatening our people." The state-sanctioned
mufti in the eastern town of Erzincan held a panel discussion on missionary
activity, Satanism and "dangerous and destructive activity". In November
2006, one deputy Muharrem Kilic warned Parliament about missionaries who
have "attacked the Turkish people".
Even when reporting attacks on religious minorities, media coverage is
often hostile to the victims and their communities. Such coverage could be
seen as excusing the attacks – or at the very least sympathising with the
motives behind them.
Most recently, two Georgian Orthodox priests from neighbouring Georgia
were in late spring visiting Borcka in the remote north-east, close to the
border with Georgia, as part of a tourist group. Although in civilian
clothes, they were wearing crosses. Recognised as priests, they were set
upon by three local men in a brutal attack. Turkey’s coastal area in the
north-east is known for its fierce nationalism and xenophobia, routinely
stoked by the local press. Journalists regularly stir up fears over
Georgians seeking out fellow ethnic Georgians in local villages by asking
if visiting Georgians have come on missionary trips.
In this region, any non-locals attract hostile questions about what they
are doing. Questions are asked about whether they are ordinary missionaries
with a hidden agenda. Minister of State Aydin, quoted above, made the often
repeated claim that "a significant part of missionary activity is done in
secret".
The local ethnic Georgian and Laz minorities have long been converted to
Islam. Although they are now less wary of revealing their Georgian roots,
no-one would dare to openly admit that their people were originally
Christian. Turkish intellectuals and some media are prepared to accept that
they are ethnic minorities, but almost no-one is prepared to accept that
they can be anything other than Sunni Muslims.
Certain individuals and institutions have always been a target of attacks,
most notably the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Istanbul, the residence of the
most senior patriarch in the worldwide Orthodox Christian community. For
years it has been threatened with attack and it could be highly dangerous
for Patriarch Bartholomew or other senior bishops to walk the streets of
the city. The Armenian Patriarch Mesrop – the leader of Turkey’s largest
Christian community – is also under threat and is not as well protected as
the Ecumenical Patriarch.
Police officers assigned to protect religious minority leaders in the wake
of the murder of Fr Santoro are often unarmed. When Patriarch Mesrop
pointed out publicly in February 2007 the lack of security, the state
authorities told him he should hire a guard from a private security
company, which he has now done.
But religious minorities fear being "protected" by the police, an
institution known as a hotbed of nationalism. Such minorities sometimes ask
whether it is wise to be protected by their enemies.
Turkey’s National Intelligence Organisation (MIT) secret police had a flat
facing the Trabzon church where Fr Santoro was murdered. Presumably, MIT
has similar observation points close to other minority places of worship.
Are such observation points to protect the minorities or to control them,
as religious minorities argue privately? MIT officers also frequently turn
up at places of worship unannounced. When challenged, they do not deny they
are from the security apparatus but insist they are there to observe and
check up on security measures. Some minority places of worship have asked
such MIT officers to leave.
Some MIT officers do believe in protecting religious minorities, but
others are staunch nationalists and signed-up members of the "deep state",
the nationalist circles in state bodies which regard themselves as the
custodians of the Ataturkist legacy. Such nationalists are unlikely to
offer genuine protection. Even with such MIT observation there is no full
protection, as the murder of Fr Santoro demonstrated, so many doubt the
value of such observation. Indeed, when a grenade was thrown into the
Ecumenical Patriarchate in Istanbul in 2005 only police and security
officials were present outside. Mosques – as well as Cem Houses where Alevi
Muslim communities worship – do not have such MIT "protection".
Religious minorities need real protection because of growing nationalist
hostility and growing threats. But for religious minorities, this is a
dilemma as the "protection" the state offers is equally bound up with
control.
The Turkish authorities have not taken effective steps to either protect
non-Muslim minorities or address the mass media and education system’s
intolerance of them. As the example of Ertugrul Ozkok of Hurriyet shows,
there are some Turkish voices from outside the minorities calling for the
intolerance to be tackled.
One religious minority that does not appear to face increased pressure in
the current intolerant climate is the Alevi Muslim community. The
government continues to refuse to accept that they are a distinct Muslim
community – it insists either that they are Sunni Muslims or, as senior
officials of the Presidency of Religious Affairs assert, the question needs
further study. Alevi Cem Houses are not considered places of worship but
cultural centres (see F18News 26 July 2006
< e_id=817>). Indeed, the governing
AKP Party views the Alevis as a source of votes in Turkey’s forthcoming
parliamentary and presidential elections.
But religious minorities Forum 18 has spoken to do not think that the
elections will bring to power any political party willing to tackle the
dangerous media intolerance of religious minorities, or to take the
dramatic changes necessary to usher in genuine religious freedom (see
F18News 28 June 2007 < 983>).
No legal improvements are likely. The Foundations Law – which might have
resolved property problems for the foundations at least partly allowed to
some non-Muslim ethnic/religious communities – was vetoed in December 2006
by President Ahmet Necdet Sezer, a committed secularist but a staunch
nationalist (see F18News 18 January 2007
< e_id=901>).
After the veto, the Law was reintroduced to parliament in the same form
soon after. With the dissolution of Parliament the process has now come to
a halt. Any progress will depend on the composition of the new Parliament
to be elected on 22 July. Current signals do not look hopeful that the
positive elements of the Law will survive.
Turkey’s application to join the EU has stalled and the prospect of
Turkey’s entry seems as far away as ever. Tentative progress to improve
human rights and religious freedom has ground to a halt. Even on minor
issues to help religious minorities, where the Turkish authorities promised
to make progress several years ago, nothing has happened.
Indeed, it is becoming increasingly clear that fundamental reform of the
Turkish Constitution, not of individual laws or legal problems, is
essential for genuine progress (see F18News 13 December 2005
< e_id=704>). So it is not
surprising that minorities are increasingly turning to the European Court
of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg, not the Turkish authorities, to
protect their fundamental right to freedom of thought, conscience and
belief (see F18News 18 January 2007
< e_id=901>).
The Catholic Church was specifically promised that at least some of the
problems it faces would be resolved, when members of the Bishops’
Conference met Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan in 2005. During Pope
Benedict’s high-profile visit at the end of 2006 (see F18News 22 November
2006 < 875>), Turkish
officials agreed to establish joint working groups to resolve the
difficulties over legal status and property. But nothing has happened,
despite public prodding by the Vatican Secretary of State, Cardinal
Tarcisio Bertone, in January.
No progress has been made on legal rights for other non-Muslim minorities.
In a 1986 ruling, the Turkish Supreme Court in Ankara recognised that the
Jehovah’s Witness are a distinct religion. But the problem for the
Jehovah’s Witnesses – just like all the other religious communities – is
that they have no legal status whatsoever. All the Supreme Court did was to
recognise that Jehovah’s Witnesses exist – but without recognising that
they have any legal rights.
After the Jehovah’s Witnesses sought to register a religious association
in 2005 with the Istanbul Associations Directorate (Dernekler Mudurlugu),
two cases against them were lodged in the courts. The Jehovah’s Witnesses
were accused of violating the Constitution, though no concrete violations
were ever specified. The Jehovah’s Witnesses won both cases, but in 2006
the Associations Directorate lodged challenges against these rulings in the
Supreme Court.
This denial that Turkey’s non-Muslim religious communities have any legal
status has a very practical impact on the intolerance and physical attacks
they experience. For example, two young men, Yunus Ercep and Feti Demirtas,
are among the Jehovah’s Witnesses who have been maltreated and repeatedly
prosecuted in recent years for refusing compulsory military service on
grounds of religious conscience. One captain told Demirtas: "Pray not to be
assigned to my military base, since I will make you lead a dog’s life. I
will force you to perform military service." Another told him: "Leave
Turkey if you do not want to be in the military." In 2003, Ercep was even
incarcerated for 11 days in a psychiatric hospital for "religious
paranoia".
In 2004, Ercep lodged his case over repeated sentencing for conscientious
objection at the ECHR in Strasbourg (Application No. 43965/04), while
Demirtas lodged his case in January 2007 (Application No. 5260/07). Despite
their insistence that their decision to go to Strasbourg is not political,
taking their cases to an international body could lay Ercep and Demirtas
open to accusations that they are traitors to their country. The Army
General Staff called on the people in May 2007 to fight the enemy Kurds, so
Jehovah’s Witnesses who refuse military service are doubly seen as
traitors.
The ECHR issued a crucial judgment in January 2007 in favour of a Greek
Orthodox community foundation (Fener Rum Erkek Lisesi Vakfi) running a High
School in Istanbul’s Fener area (No. 34478/97). In what is a common
occurrence, the government had confiscated a building from it, but the
Strasbourg court upheld the community foundation’s rights and punished the
Turkish government with a large fine (see F18News 18 January 2007
< e_id=901>).
As neither side appealed against the Strasbourg judgment, it became final
on 9 April. This meant that the government had until 9 July to pay the
fine.
In earlier cases the state has simply paid the fine and taken no action to
change the legal situation to avoid similar violations from happening in
other cases, or to make restitution to those whose rights have already been
wronged. This signals to those who encourage intolerance that the rights of
people who belong to Turkey’s religious minorities do not really matter.
One test will come over the Yedikule Surp Pirgic Ermeni Hastanesi Vakfi, a
foundation recognised in law as managing Armenian religious property. The
ECHR struck out the case on 26 June 2007 after a "friendly settlement" with
the Turkish government (Nos. 50147/99 and 51207/99). The foundation
complained that its title to certain properties had been declared void. It
contended that Turkish legislation and its interpretation by the national
courts deprived foundations belonging to religious minorities within the
meaning of the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne of all capacity to acquire immovable
property. This incapacity, in its view, amounted to discrimination in
relation to other foundations.
Under the friendly settlement, the Turkish government has undertaken to
return the relevant properties in their current state to the foundation and
to pay it 15,000 Euros (26,435 Turkish Lira, 119,522 Norwegian Kroner or
20,490 US Dollars) for costs and expenses.
This settlement shows that the Turkish authorities have seen that they
must reach agreements with religious communities over their minority
foundations. However, the underlying restrictions on religious minorities’
foundations seem likely to remain. Still less will such settlements help
religious minorities achieve full rights to practise their faiths freely.
Intolerance of religious minorities is growing within Turkish society, and
– just as with the legal protection of the right to freedom of thought,
conscience and belief – Turkey’s main political parties and state
institutions show no interest in effectively dealing with the root causes
of this. Indeed, some within the state are encouraging this intolerance. I
fear that this will have increasingly dangerous consequences for Turkey’s
religious minorities, and for freedom of thought, conscience and belief for
all Turkish citizens. (END)
– Dr Otmar Oehring, head of the human rights office of Missio
< /missio-ueber-sich/leitthemen/menschenrechte/index .html>,
a Catholic charity based in Germany, contributed this comment to Forum 18
News Service. Commentaries are personal views and do not necessarily
represent the views of F18News or Forum 18.
More analyses and commentaries on religious freedom in Turkey can be found
at <; religion=all&country=68>
A printer-friendly map of Turkey is available at
< s/atlas/index.html?Parent=mideast&Rootmap=turk ey>
(END)
© Forum 18 News Service. All rights reserved. ISSN 1504-2855
You may reproduce or quote this article provided that credit is given to
F18News
Past and current Forum 18 information can be found at
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
