How the court defended the lieutenant who said 'I do not respect Atatürk'

You may recall the events that took place at the Tuzla Infantry School during the 2023 November 10th Atatürk Commemoration Ceremony, when Lieutenant A.A., who was identified as being part of a "religious sect," refused to wear an Atatürk photograph on his lapel. Both the lieutenants who reacted to A.A. and A.A. himself, along with M.F.Ş. and F.A. who supported him, were dismissed from the Turkish Armed Forces (TSK).

In the time since, the lawsuits filed by the lieutenants who reacted to A.A. to cancel their dismissals have either been rejected or have not even been given a hearing date. In contrast, it has emerged that A.A. and M.F.Ş. won the lawsuits they filed and have returned to the TSK.

With these reinstatement decisions, the statements made by Lieutenants A.A. and M.F.Ş. regarding Atatürk have been brought back to light.

Let us recount what those lieutenants said, based on the investigation report, their defenses before the Land Forces Command High Disciplinary Board (YDK), and the YDK's reasoned decision.

Regarding M.F.Ş., who was alleged to have removed and crumpled the Atatürk photographs pasted on the door and inside the dormitory where three lieutenants identified as "sectarians" stayed following the November 10th incident, the following was reported:

"When Infantry Lieutenant R.A. asked, 'What is this state of the photograph? Do you have no respect for your Ata (Father)?', M.F.Ş. replied, 'Does it bother you because I don't idolize and worship him like you do?' The others in the room said, 'We don't idolize or worship anyone, but you have to respect the founder of this country.' M.F.Ş. replied, 'I can respect the Atatürk up until 1923, but I do not respect the Atatürk after 1923. I do not accept some of the things he did.' When asked what he did not accept, he said, 'He fought the War of Independence very well, but after 1923, he corrupted the religion and changed the language of the religion, which was Arabic, into Turkish. It was wrong to write the meaning of the Quran in Turkish.' These words caused the environment to become very tense, and a scuffle broke out between S.Ç. and A.A..."

Furthermore, during the disciplinary investigation phase, M.F.Ş. stated: "When I went to the dormitory, I saw 3 Atatürk photographs pasted on the door. There was a rumor that photographs would be pasted on our door. Knowing this, I was angry, so I took the photographs off, folded them, and put them in the right side pocket of my camouflage pants. When I went inside, I saw a photograph on the inside of the door as well; I folded it the same way and put it in my pocket. Then F.A. and A.A. came to the dormitory. I explained the situation to them... About 30-40 people gathered in front of our dormitory door. 6 of them entered the dormitory. As soon as they entered, they asked, 'Who took them out?' I said, 'I did.'... They asked me, 'Do you accept Atatürk?' I replied, 'I accept his military personality before 1923, but I do not accept everything after that.'"

However, in the defense he sent to the High Disciplinary Board, M.F.Ş. said: "The sentences I am alleged to have said consist only of the statements of some of the trainees who came to the dormitory. I definitely did not make such statements."

According to what was written in the High Disciplinary Board's reasoned decision; during the events, Lieutenant A.A. also said, "I can respect the Atatürk up until 1923, but I do not respect the Atatürk after 1923; I do not accept some of the things he did." When asked what he did not accept, he replied, "He fought the War of Independence very well, but after 1923, he corrupted the religion and changed the language of the religion, which was Arabic, into Turkish. It was wrong to write the meaning of the Quran in Turkish." Additionally, A.A. made "statements to the Regimental Commander Colonel E.Ç., who summoned him, that he did not approve of what Atatürk did after 1923, starting with having the call to prayer read in Turkish."

Ultimately, the High Disciplinary Board decided to dismiss the lieutenants from the TSK on the grounds that these statements "raised strong doubts regarding their commitment to Atatürk's Principles and Reforms and the Republic and Constitutional order," and that "these words provoked their friends and played a significant role in the occurrence of the events."

The Intervening Lieutenants Were Blamed

After this reminder, let us come to the remarkable findings in the decision made by an Administrative Court in Istanbul on behalf of the Turkish Nation regarding Lieutenant M.F.Ş.

In the decision, which was taken unanimously as a result of an examination of the file without holding a hearing despite the request—meaning without Lieutenant M.F.Ş. being heard in person—the following was emphasized first:

"In order for public officials to be punished with a disciplinary penalty; it must be revealed through an investigation conducted in accordance with the procedure whether their acts or actions contrary to discipline have been proven, all kinds of information and documents in favor of and against the public official must be collected during the investigation phase, and subsequently, the act determined to be a disciplinary offense must be proven beyond any doubt, and the disciplinary penalty article appropriate for this act must be determined and applied."

In short, the message was given that the investigation was not conducted in accordance with the procedure.

Subsequently, the following accusations were directed at the lieutenants who intervened against A.A. and his friends:

"As can be understood from the entire scope of the file and the transcripts of statements, it must be accepted that rather than an incident specific to the day of the event, this was a long-standing division, and that the plaintiff and some of his friends were subjected to criticism by some trainees that had become a habit, reaching the level of profanity and insults over their religious values, and that this situation triggered the developments on the day of the event... Throughout its ancient history, the Turkish nation has been known as a military nation, and the military barracks have also been known as the prophet's hearth. With this principle, our army is a whole with its national and spiritual values. It is indisputable that the fundamental principle and philosophy put forward by the founder of our state, Gazi Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, is in this direction. In this context, it is self-evident that insulting people's religious values and spirituality has no place within the scope of Atatürk's principles and reforms, and that doing this under the name of loyalty to Atatürk is an open disrespect to Atatürk's spiritual personality. Moreover, adopting a method such as casually pasting Atatürk posters on the doors of the places where people stay, and then threatening to beat them when these are removed, and measuring love for Atatürk in this way, cannot be in accordance with the defended fundamental principle and philosophy, and removing these pictures because they are not in a suitable environment would not be contrary to the principle of secularism and the fundamental qualities of the republic."

Statements Considered a "Legitimate Defense Reflex"

Following these, Lieutenant M.F.Ş. was defended against the grounds for dismissal, primarily his statements about Atatürk, in summary as follows:

- "When the process is considered as a whole; it is understood that the plaintiff was clearly bullied verbally and physically, and considering the threat messages in the WhatsApp group and the pressure in the room, there was a perception of a threat to his life and physical integrity, and considering the environment he was in, the statements in question were made in a state of pressure, excitement, and nervousness, for the purpose of self-defense, and were said spontaneously under the physical and psychological pressure of other trainees. Therefore, it is not possible to conclude that the plaintiff's actions carried a systematic opposition to Atatürk's principles and the principle of secularism. In this context; it should be accepted that the situation is not a lack of discipline, but a legitimate defense reflex."

- "Regarding the words 'I accept his military personality before 1923. However, I do not accept everything after that' about Atatürk, which he is stated to have said during the arguments that took place during the scuffle, as stated in the lawsuit petition and its annexes and as understood from the scope of the file; considering that he had a weakness in his commitment to Atatürk's principles due to some basic issues such as praying in the school mosque as a result of living his religious values, and that he was under constant pressure and subjected to bullying in this regard (and considering that the plaintiff has been in the military for years and there is no other finding or evaluation about him), and as he explained in his own words, it was concluded that the words he stated he said regarding some issues about Atatürk's private life in the environment of the scuffle were said as a reflex reaction under the pressure of other trainee officers, in a state of excitement and nervousness, that it is not possible to characterize it as disrespect to Atatürk's memory, that the expression does not contain a direct insult or humiliation to Atatürk's personality, that it reflects more of a personal opinion, and in this respect, it remains within the scope of freedom of expression, and that it cannot be evaluated as a crime of publicly insulting Atatürk's memory or an act requiring punishment in the context of disciplinary law."

- "It is seen that the allegations that the plaintiff was involved in grouping activities, provoked his friends, and engaged in words and behaviors that damaged the spirit of unity are based on the statements of some trainee officers who are understood to have hostility towards the plaintiff, but there is no camera recording, written document, screenshot, or independent witness statement confirming these allegations. In this case, it has been observed that the conviction that the acts forming the basis of the disciplinary penalty were proven is based only on subjective testimonies, and that there is no definitive, concrete, and convincing evidence beyond any doubt within the scope of the file."

And It Was Stated That He Was in a "Victim Position"

Finally, the court explained why M.F.Ş.'s dismissal from the TSK was unlawful with the following expressions:

"It has been concluded that punishing the plaintiff, who is at the beginning of his profession as a young officer, with the 'Separation from the Armed Forces' penalty, which is foreseen as the heaviest penalty, due to words uttered in a state of excitement and nervousness under unjust provocation, cannot be accepted as a proportionate measure, that considering the content, context, and manner of expression of the words uttered by the plaintiff, a systematic attitude against Atatürk's principles cannot be mentioned, that the allegations of grouping and provocation were not put forward with sufficient and convincing evidence, and that it is seen that the plaintiff was essentially in a victim position in the development of the events, and therefore there is no compliance with the law in the subject of the lawsuit."

Müyesser YILDIZ

October 18, 2025