His remarks had drawn backlash: New 'constitution' statement from İbrahim Kaboğlu

The remarks made by Prof. Dr. İbrahim Kaboğlu, who was elected President of the Istanbul Bar Association in October, regarding the first 4 articles of the Constitution of the Republic of Turkey had caused backlash.

Stating that "The unchangeable articles can be touched upon in a positive sense," Kaboğlu had used the expressions, "Just as it was done in 1995, just as it was done in 2001, the racist expressions in the preamble were removed in 1995. In the 2001 amendment, the concept of a secular and democratic republic based on Human Rights was added to Article 14, and its definition was made."

Kaboğlu broke his silence regarding his constitutional remarks after a period of 50 days had passed since the bar association elections.

Speaking to Gazete Duvar, Kaboğlu stated the following:

“There were three criticisms directed at me. They said I was not a lawyer, and it was said that I was a 'not enough but yes' supporter. I responded to these in my speech at the General Assembly. But I had not been able to respond to the claim that I wanted to change the unchangeable articles.

After the election, perhaps influenced by my subconscious, I wanted to respond to this claim. In 2001, the addition of a republic based on human rights was made to the 1982 constitution. I said that an addition can be made in a positive direction now as well, it can be touched upon in a positive sense.

This is the essence of what I said. But a lynching campaign was launched. Those who called it unfortunate also became a part of that lynching campaign.

The reason for this is constitutional ignorance. I did not think there was such shallowness regarding the constitution.”

'IT WAS A REFLEX CAUSED BY MY SUBCONSCIOUS'

Kaboğlu gave the following response to the question, “Did you ever say 'it would have been better if I had made this speech at another time' due to the reactions?”:

“There were those who said was it the time or the place. But there is no time or place for correct information. I questioned myself a lot. And I was addressing legal professionals. It was not something I planned. It was a reflex caused by my subconscious.

In a way, it was an expression of honesty. I did not feel regret. While there is so much shallowness, while there are prejudices, and while there is the comfort of leaving the agenda to the enemies of the constitution and watching what happens with them, I had to say these things even if I was battered.

During the campaign process, I witnessed low blows. Every dirty tool and smear tactic available was used. And 90 percent of this was done by lawyers. They wanted to turn that speech of mine into an opportunity.”