July 15 and insulting the President...

The first item on the Parliament's agenda after the holiday will be the 9th judicial package.

Regulations are being made package by package, but for some reason, justice never seems to come to the country.

Recently, Mustafa Bildircin from Birgün compiled a great report from Ministry of Justice data, revealing that in 2023, once again, “insulting the President” was used as grounds to bring thousands of people—the elderly, the young, and children—before a judge.

“Insulting the President” What kind of things and which people are not being sued under this pretext?!

Let us tell you about one that is very interesting.

WHEN REMINDING OF AKP-GÜLEN MOVEMENT RELATIONS

The year is 2020.

In one of the July 15 coup trials held in Sincan, a lawyer, while defending his client accused of being a "FETÖ" member, says the following:

"... Well, now, my client, you know those people in the press who later expressed regret for their former ties to the movement, you know, they walked the same paths, they got wet in the same rain, they went and kissed the hands, skirts, and feet of FETÖ; you look at my client, none of that is there. Now you will say, 'crypto FETÖ member.' I mean, every step you take is a crime because you have been unjustly arrested in some way and are imprisoned with the label of a coup plotter. That is your only crime. After that, whatever comes, it is just like the saying 'beat the one who is down.' Without adding anything of my own, without making any comments, I will read you a quote from Atatürk, although his bones must be aching in his grave right now. Mustafa Kemal Atatürk says in a speech on November 9, 1933; 'To be deceived is negligence. Especially to declare that one has been deceived is a clear loss of trust, it is foolishness. The only element that distinguishes sincerity from foolishness is dignity. Those who lack dignity will be forever condemned to err, to be deceived, and to deceive.'

At one point in his defense, the lawyer, "I wonder if it's because our President is busy, or if he has other thoughts on his mind, or perhaps due to old age; he cannot recall the exact times very well..." he also uses expressions such as these.

Following these remarks, the court, "publicly insulting the President" files a report with the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office regarding that lawyer.

Since the individual is a lawyer, the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office requests permission for investigation and prosecution from the Ministry of Justice.

Once the Ministry of Justice grants permission, an indictment is prepared in which the "victim" appears as Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, and the following accusations are directed at the lawyer:

"It is understood that the suspect was not engaged in defense, that by using the uttered words to attribute a concrete act and fact, he insulted the President's honor, dignity, and reputation, that the alleged words exceeded the boundaries of freedom of expression and the immunity of claim and defense, that they constituted an unlawful attribution of a concrete act and fact suggesting the President was linked to the FETÖ/PDY armed terrorist organization, that the alleged accusation was of a nature to offend the victim's honor, dignity, and reputation, that it carried the legal elements of the crime of insulting the President, that the condition of publicity was met because the suspect committed the alleged act during a hearing in a public place objectively perceivable by everyone, and thus the suspect committed the crime of publicly insulting the President..."

ACCUSATION VIA CUT-AND-PASTE

Following this indictment, a public lawsuit is filed against the lawyer in the high criminal court. Before the trial, the transcripts of the defense the lawyer made during the 2020 hearing are brought into the case file.

The first hearing of the case was held last December. In this session, Erdoğan's lawyer said, “We are complainants; we wish to join the public lawsuit.” After the court accepted the request to join, the defendant lawyer made a defense, summarized as follows:

“As a defense attorney, I made the statements subject to the crime during the 1-hour defense time granted by the presiding judge in my final defense. There was an allegation that my client was a coup plotter because he was a FETÖ member. After making my defenses regarding the coup, I tried to demonstrate why my client was not a FETÖ member through the documents I presented and the videos I played. My statements subject to the crime are entirely within the scope of defense. As will be seen when all the records sent to your court on CD are examined, I did not make any accusations against the President, other political leaders, or mayors in any of my statements or defenses at any stage. In the documents I presented and the videos I played in my defenses, the statements of political leaders praising Fethullah Gülen are clearly visible. My client, however, has no such similar action or statement. I read the statements I attributed to Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, which are subject to the crime, by quoting them exactly without making any comments. I did not mention any names either. The court panel was disturbed by our defenses during the trial process. Our defense was obstructed multiple times by having the microphone volume turned down or by being removed by the police. We had filed complaints with the HSK (Council of Judges and Prosecutors) regarding the panel. For this reason, I believe the panel and the presiding judge may have personal animosity.”

At the end of his defense, the defendant lawyer requested an acquittal, and in the event that the crime charged is proven, “the deferment of the announcement of the verdict.” while stating that they did not want it, their lawyer also pointed out the following:

"The statements subject to the crime were not quoted verbatim in the indictment or in the decision to open the final investigation; instead, the recordings were cut, copied, and pieced together. For example, although the client did not make any comments after reading Atatürk's words, the words stated in the President's declarations were added immediately after, creating a perception as if an accusation had been made against the President."

IS ERDOĞAN A VICTIM?

Following the defense statements, the Prosecutor, who presented their opinion on the merits, stated that the statements in question "defense immunity" fell within the scope of the law and requested the acquittal of the defendant.

The court, in this first hearing, of the 16th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation referencing its decisions regarding the crime of insult, “there is no statement by the defendant showing that they directly targeted the President of the Republic of Turkey; upon examination of the entire hearing transcript containing the defense in question, there is no direct or indirect discourse pointing to the President or their office, and the victim is not identifiable; the words alleged to be insulting were uttered by the defendant in their capacity as defense counsel during the trial for the purpose of defending their client; the words used in connection with the crime for which the perpetrator they represented was being tried fall within the scope of immunity of claim and defense; and the sharing of the words in question with the public or uttering them in another venue is not in question” and makes an assessment to acquit the lawyer.

Could one reason for the record-breaking number of “insulting the President” cases be those who “take it upon themselves” or are “more royalist than the king”?!