Which people did Ümit Özdağ incite to hatred and hostility?

Özdağ’s arrest, following his detention in Ankara after a speech in Antalya and his hasty transfer to Istanbul, is based on Article 216 of the Turkish Penal Code (TCK). While betting, money laundering, human trafficking, bribery, and drug gangs constantly threaten public safety, I suppose the authorities managed to protect the Turkish public from a terrible (!) crime by applying Article 216 to Ümit Özdağ at lightning speed.

 TCK Article 216 states: “Any person who publicly incites a segment of the public, which has different characteristics in terms of social class, race, religion, sect, or region, to hatred and hostility against another segment, in a manner that creates a clear and imminent danger to public safety, shall be sentenced to imprisonment for a term of one to three years.”

 Neither the rationale of the law nor the Turkish Penal Code defines the 'Public,' which is the passive subject of the crime. It has not been explained, nor has there been any felt need to explain, which public Ümit Özdağ has publicly incited to hatred and hostility.

 However, our Constitution contains a definition of 'Nation' (Millet). The word 'Nation' appears 250 times in the Constitution, including references to repealed texts, while the phrase 'Turkish Nation' appears in 9 separate sentences, considering the rationale and preamble of the Constitution. It is defined that all state institutions and their powers—legislative, executive, and judicial—can only be exercised in the name of the Turkish Nation. It is clear that the 'Turkish Nation' is the basis for every subject concerning the indivisible integrity of the state and the nation. This principle is the backbone of all regulations and rules.

 In addition to Article 66, which states, “Everyone bound to the Turkish State by the bond of citizenship is a Turk. The child of a Turkish father or a Turkish mother is a Turk,” the repeated emphasis on the 'indivisible integrity of the State and the Nation' in many other articles, as well as the mandatory provisions that sovereignty legally belongs only to the Turkish Nation, make it clear that the definition of the Turkish Nation is intended to be changed along with Öcalan in the Constitution we have. (Özdağ’s detention process occurred following a rally where he opposed the changing of this Constitution with the actors being put forward.)

 According to Article 1 of the Constitution, the community of people that establishes and operates the 'Republic of Turkey, which is an indivisible whole with its territory and nation' within the framework of legal rules is called the Turkish Nation! The definition of 'Public' (Halk) mentioned in the accusations does not exist in our Constitution. The word 'Public' appears in 14 places in the Constitution, and the terms 'referendum' and 'public vote' appear in 46 places, including references to repealed texts.

 In light of the constitutional provisions mentioning 'village public,' 'public participation in elections,' and 'public health,' it is understood that the word 'public' is subsumed within the definition of 'Nation' and is used to refer to the populace—the segment of the nation that has the capacity to vote in elections, or, depending on the context, the people living in a village or a specific locality where measures regarding their health need to be taken.

 Indeed, according to the TDK (Turkish Language Association) Great Turkish Dictionary, 'halk' (public) is defined from its primary meaning to its secondary and fifth meanings as follows:

“1. The community of people living in the same country, having the same cultural characteristics, and of the same nationality; the populace, folk:

      Turkish public.

2. The community of people of the same lineage living as citizens of different countries:

      Jewish people.

3. Each of the communities of people of different lineages living within a country: The peoples of the Commonwealth of Independent States.

4. The populace: ‘The whole village public was there.’ - Ömer Seyfettin

5. All the citizens in a country; the public:

      ‘They do not know that the public is one with the artist who speaks the language of the public’.”

 In accordance with TCK Article 2, the principle of legality of crimes and punishments is essential. It is a prerequisite for the existence of a crime that the material and moral elements of an act be examined and explained.

 Which public did Ümit Özdağ incite to hatred and hostility, for which TCK Article 216 is cited as the pretext for his detention? If the Turkish Public is being referred to, which segment of the Turkish Public, having 'different characteristics in terms of social class, race, religion, sect, or region,' did Özdağ influence, and in what way, within the scope of the alleged crime?

 Such a vague investigation and arrest cannot be made with an abstract term like 'public.' As in the example given by criminal lawyer Nizamettin Sağır, is saying “Americans committed genocide against the Native Americans, I am hostile to Americans” considered inciting the public to hatred and hostility under TCK Article 216? Or is what is prohibited under TCK Article 216 only inciting the Turkish public to hatred and hostility?

 Furthermore, there are many social media accounts that advocate for the slaughter of all Jews, ignoring the many members of the Turkish Jewish community who are loyal to their state and nation. There are many trolls who make enthusiastic calls for Kemalists to rot in dungeons. Has anyone among them been investigated or arrested without trial on charges of inciting the public to hatred and hostility?

 I am of the opinion that such a criminal accusation can only be made regarding a 'public' determined by the Palace government or someone else—a kind of phantom 'government public' whose qualities are unclear—and that those who arrested Özdağ by citing the law are not trying to protect the Turkish public.

 Article 216 is being resorted to in an arbitrary and vague scope, as a tool of oppression by those in power, which sounds contemporary but is empty inside, does not correspond to concrete actions, and on the contrary, is incompatible with the idea of contemporary law. The lightning-fast investigations and arrests that come through the supposed implementation of this article are distancing our country further from the rule of law.

 If the right to criticism and democracy of politicians and academics are suppressed by such instrumentalized and hollowed-out legal articles, our more than a century-old Republican experience will completely lose its character as a state of law. If practices reminiscent of a regime of fear and tyranny are carried out with the effort to ensure 'political order' by creating crimes where the victim is never concrete and the element of action is not defined, the end of this will result in the entire society distancing itself from the law and the country from democracy. It is inevitable that such a process will see neither the police, nor the courthouse, nor the government find peace, and that as the workload and preoccupations of all our citizens playing a role in public administration increase, developments that will wear down the citizen on much more important issues will occur in the country.