The Union of Intellectuals: Lynching vs. Plagiarism

Good news! Our intellectuals have united. I saw a list of 130 signatures. I couldn't believe my eyes. I said, 'Good for them!' This is it!

I was so excited that I forgot to read what they had united against. And what do you know? My internet cut out right at that moment. As you know... consumer rights don't work well enough in Turkey. I kept thinking about it until I reached a place where my phone had a signal: What could these beautiful intellectuals have united against? Against fascism? Or Russian expansionism? Or against the Nazis in Ukraine? Or the war in Yemen? Or did they sign for Can Atalay? But I told myself they wouldn't have done those things. After all, everyone thinks the same way there, no need for a signature. I wondered, had they realized the danger of Menzil's presence in the military? But they wouldn't do that. After all, there was freedom of thought. 

Are they against the expansion of NATO? After all, both our influence in NATO is decreasing and our neighbors are becoming a potential war zone. No, it shouldn't be that either; there were no nationalists among the names. I wondered, did a disaster occur that I was completely unaware of? Did the Adnan Oktar organization, FETÖ, the PKK, or some strange mixture of them stir up trouble? Or did they speak out against the nature massacre in İliç? Lake Salda? Was it mucilage again? Or is it about the broken promises after the earthquake? 

Suddenly it occurred to me. I thought of the tragicomic fees that publishing houses pay to their editors and translators. I said to myself, surely our writers must have touched upon this issue. I thought of the drugs spreading to the most remote corners of society. I thought that perhaps our intellectuals might have touched upon this as well. 

While I was lost in various thoughts, I suddenly connected to the internet. I read the news. I read it again. I couldn't believe my eyes. So many writers have come together to defend plagiarism. I wondered if someone pro-government had slandered one of our leftists and these writers were defending them. If so, I said, good for them. I scrolled down the news quickly. The author's name is 'Mine Kırıkkanat'. Nationalist, Atatürkist, Kemalist, statist... In other words, whatever is the worst in their eyes. Meanwhile, the fact that she has fought against Adnan Oktar, FETÖ, and the AKP does not save her. Because the fight is always at the wrong time. Mine Kırıkkanat opposed them when Adnan Oktar was charming, when FETÖ was reputable, and when the AKP was democratic. Ms. Mine is capable of explaining herself properly. I won't steal her thunder. 

Regardless of their political views, stance, or who they have supported or opposed in the past, one must defend the person whose idea has been stolen. I think that even if it is not necessary to 'condemn' the person who stole the idea, one should keep some distance. Perhaps they are a very reputable, very humane, very wonderful person. They might not know how to cite sources. But the person we are talking about is Elif Şafak, someone whose knowledge and skills cannot be doubted, given her speech and stance. 

I examined the details of the news. I tried to read the sources. I am not an expert. I don't want to judge anyone. But I don't think Mine Kırıkkanat has the means to unfairly convict her opponent. Whoever is right, it surprised me that our intellectuals, who do not come together with a signature on all the issues I listed above, have embarked on this futile and pathetic effort in favor of Elif Şafak and against Mine Kırıkkanat. It seems they don't care about their own names, fame, labor, and past struggles as much as we do. 

As far as I can see, the basis of such polarization lies in the desire to be one and united in the face of uncertainties and the lack of trust in justice and law in Turkey. It is seen that the expert report on the Elif Şafak case contains expressions that do not comply with literary standards. However, this situation alone does not invalidate the allegation of plagiarism. Similarly, the fact that there is a first-instance court decision in favor of plagiarism does not mean that plagiarism is certain. It is also certain that there is hostility toward Elif Şafak in a segment of society. Opposing a lynching against the spread of this hostility on social media is one thing, and saying 'there is no plagiarism' is another. The text written and signed by our intellectuals and the way this text is circulated seem to not only oppose the lynching but also take sides regarding the 'plagiarism' allegations.

Was it worth it for the intellectuals to defend plagiarism? You wrote: “Following the ruling of the first-instance court in the plagiarism lawsuit filed by Mine G. Kırıkkanat regarding Elif Şafak’s work titled Bit Palas, some circles launched a lynching campaign targeting Elif Şafak on social media. The content and tone of the posts suggest that their concern is not literature. We, as writers, are watching this lynching campaign with astonishment and concern.

We believe that the lynching culture, based on careless and superficial judgments and determined by a fanatical partisan mentality, creates new pressure on our already extremely limited freedom of thought and expression. Beyond this, we think that bringing issues related to literature to the agenda with non-literary criteria and judgments essentially targets the freedom of creation for all of us.

We Do Not Find It Right to Be Decided with Non-Literary Criteria

We believe that such disputes and lawsuits between writers should be examined on the basis of ethical and legal processes at international standards, with a serious and calm approach compatible with the values of literature. We do not find it right for discussions about literature to be decided with non-literary criteria. In the ongoing stages of the legal process, we demand that the subject of the dispute be handled by a committee of experts consisting of writers and that the evaluation to be made by this committee with literary criteria be taken as the basis at the decision stage.

Regardless of the content of the case, our call to all writers and our fellow authors is this: Let us not allow any writer to be lynched using these methods—which the government also frequently uses. Let us remain loyal to the fundamental values of literature.”

The lynching of any person, even a common criminal, is a human disgrace. However, taking a stand in legal disputes on the grounds of political polarization endangers both the law and the reputation of those who take this stand.