The penalty for calling someone a “fool” and for “treating people like fools” should be the same!

The question that the justice system has been pondering for a long time is this: “Who is the fool?”

While the courts continue to seek an answer to this question, another question comes to mind: “Or are we the ones being treated like fools?”

You are already familiar with the debate. On the day former Minister of Interior Süleyman Soylu said to Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality (İBB) Mayor Ekrem İmamoğlu, “I am speaking to the fool who complains about Turkey,” İmamoğlu replied, “Those who canceled the election on March 31 are the fools.”

This dialogue became the basis for the process that entered our political life as the “Fool Case.” Yet, the judiciary has managed to create a “political crisis” out of this incident, which has been ongoing for 5 years, or has at least paved the way for it.

In other words, when politics interferes with the functioning of the judiciary, the situation becomes inextricable.

If these were two ordinary people having this argument, or if at least one of the parties were not Ekrem İmamoğlu, this investigation would not have turned into a lawsuit, and no one would have taken the events seriously.

However, what has transpired during this process, which we can characterize as the “Law of the Powerful,” has revealed that this trial is a “project to design politics.”

We know that the political power objects to this characterization. Their assessment is that “the independent judiciary has made an impartial decision” and that “everyone must respect it”... just like the rhetoric they have adopted in many political cases in the past.

However, the events that took place during the trial pointed to the contrary:

For example, the investigation, which consisted solely of the “fool” rhetoric between two politicians, lasted 18 months. This was despite there being no evidence to collect and no procedural steps to take.

The case was opened in May 2021. The judge of the case was removed from office and sent to Samsun in June 2022, contrary to established customs. Although this appointment was challenged, the Council of Judges and Prosecutors (HSK) did not take it into account.

The President and some members of the Supreme Election Council (YSK), whom İmamoğlu was alleged to have called “fools,” did not file a complaint. They said, “We did not take it personally.”

In December 2022, the prosecutor announced their opinion on the merits and requested that İmamoğlu be punished. His lawyers requested time for defense. In an extraordinary move, the judge postponed the hearing to “the afternoon of the same day” and announced the conviction verdict.

İmamoğlu was given the maximum sentence, the “good conduct reduction” usually granted even to murder defendants was not applied, his sentence was not suspended, and it was not converted into a fine.

İmamoğlu’s lawyers initiated the appeal process in January 2023. The President and the member judge of the Criminal Chamber that was to conduct the review were again replaced, contrary to established customs.

On top of all this, it was discussed that former minister Süleyman Soylu had filed a criminal complaint against İmamoğlu, claiming “he called me a fool,” and that a decision of non-prosecution was issued in that investigation.

In short, all these developments, which are contrary to the Right to a Fair Trial, have manifested throughout the stages of the case. Any legal expert looking at the case with an impartial eye would unhesitatingly state that the nature of the events is “political,” not “legal.”

No one would even object if it were called a concrete example of the application of “Enemy Criminal Law.”

Setting aside the debate over whether calling someone a “fool” constitutes an insult or not, it must be noted for history that an extraordinary process, completely contrary to the ordinary judicial system, has taken place.

The effort to “make the events” in the case where İmamoğlu is being tried “appear normal” and the rhetoric that “justice has been served” amounts to “treating those who follow this case closely like fools.”

My suggestion is that the penalty for calling someone a “fool” and for “treating people like fools” should be the same. Let those who treat the nation like fools be tried, and let the same procedure and tariff be applied to them.

May justice be served for everyone!

Brief information: Attorney Dr. Rahşan Sertkaya Daniş shared a post on this subject on her X social media account. In the post, she shared the information that in 2018, the “fool” rhetoric came before the 18th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation in an insult case involving politicians, and the acquittal decision given by the Local Court was upheld. According to the decision, the High Court said there was “no crime” in this rhetoric. Yet, Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality Mayor Ekrem İmamoğlu has been on trial for 5 years for responding to being called a “fool.” This is what they call an “impartial and independent judiciary.” It’s foolish, but that’s how it is...